|
Post by Charlene on Feb 3, 2005 6:28:54 GMT -6
From the article at the top of this thread: Ross, 45, is on death row for the murders of four young women in Connecticut in the early 1980s. His arrest in 1984 ended a three-year spree of attacks that stretched from Connecticut to New York, North Carolina, Illinois, and Ohio. He raped most of his victims, and killed eight of them, six in Connecticut. For more details and photos of his known victims, please see the Scheduled Executions button at the top of this page, and click on January 2005. may i ask who michael ross is?..and what did he do?
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jan 28, 2005 8:04:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jun 16, 2005 7:24:56 GMT -6
i recently wrote to efrain and i can assure you he is still there he said oh they are quick to bring you down here but not quick to take you out. I'm all in favour of them leaving DR quickly, provided it's in a wooden box. I'm in favor of them leaving death row quickly too. If they can't be executed, time to move them on to whatever awaits them in general population. I don't think it will be fun and games and good buddies.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Apr 5, 2005 11:57:40 GMT -6
While I completely agree with him and COULD have said this, I did not. This was posted by britfeld. From my point of view, in your mind you can call it forgiveness I guess, and maybe it is that, or acceptance, or apathy. But as I understand forgiveness, and I say this with utmost respect, you are not entitled to give it because you were not personally wronged by this person. If the victim lived but was permanently maimed, and came to this board and read that you had forgiven Wallace, they might rightfully be very angry to read that. It is not your place. Charlene said: Only the victims have the right to forgive their killers and unfortunately they are not in a position to do that. For anyone to forgive on their behalf is an insult to their memory and most disrespectfull. Charlene, If I allow another person's actions to cause me anger and bitterness -- regardless of whether I'm the victim or not -- the only way to heal from that is to forgive. That's how you heal from anger, resentment, and bitterness. If I'm not the victim, my act of forgiving the assailant is irrelevant to both the assailant and the victim. Still, the benefit to me is incredible. So, when I think of Donald Ray Wallace and how he, in a self described “act of utter madness,” killed a family of four, I’m able to accept that this guy committed an evil act and let go. That is forgiveness. He paid the debt he owed. Case closed. Contrast that against Benefiel. This guy raped and denigrated his victims before killing them for days and weeks in the most heinous manner imaginable. His actions were premeditated. When I think of his actions, I remain angry. Anger is toxic. It’s not healthy for me. It would benefit me to forgive him in my own heart. But, again, my forgiveness is only relevant to me – not Benefiel and certainly not the victim: Delores Wells and Alicia Elmore. In no manner do I mean to insult their memory in a disrespectful manner. Perhaps you now understand where I’m coming from. Sincerely,
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 15, 2005 22:39:31 GMT -6
Also Peeved, I do have to say that I would have to agree with you - this is one of the absolute worst murderers I have ever heard of, and I have heard a lot. I had not heard of this guy at all until this thread. Disgusting excuse for a human being.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 13, 2005 8:39:17 GMT -6
This is always an interesting point of view to me....people who say they are not fully supportive of the death penalty, except in one specific case, or in a few cases. This case deserves the death penalty in your mind because you know many details of the case. But each case has details that someone knows. Each case has details that convinced a jury, working on your behalf, that the appropriate punishment was execution. What we know about any specific murder is just the tip of the iceberg - the media does not report the horrible grisly details in most cases, but the jury hears them. The families and friends of the victims know the details. The police officers hear and see these details. The prosecution is not charged with PROVING its case to you or to me, but to the jury. I trust those people to determine punishment and believe that if the jury says the crime deserves death, I agree with them and I don't need to know all of the details in order to do so. As I indicated when I started this thread, I got into the DP discussion about 3-years ago now when I was just curious to see if "the super glue killer" (as Macklin calls him) had yet been put to death. I'll lay low on the DP issue after this most necessary execution takes place. While I don't rejoice in the death of anyone, I think it necessary in this case -- just as I think for other pure evil characters like Hitler. peeved
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Nov 4, 2004 8:49:53 GMT -6
The Penal Code for Texas was widely revised in 1993, the year Jenny and Elizabeth were murdered. It went into effect in September, for crimes committed after that date. The girls were raped and murdered in June. The guidelines below do not apply to the girls' murderers - they would be eligible for parole after serving 35 years, if their death sentences were commuted to life. Hopefully they would die in prison long before it became an issue. Being eligible for parole and receiving parole are two different things - I do not believe they would be paroled. However, there was also something called Mandatory Release, which allowed for a day and a half of good time credit for each day served, even for violent offenders. This meant that a convict had to be released after serving just 1/3 of their sentence. I am not sure but believe this law also was not changed until after these murders. Current sentencing guidelines for Texas: Capital murder — murder committed under one of eight specified circumstances listed in Penal Code sec. 19.03 — carries a penalty of death or life in prison. Offenders sentenced to death for capital murder never become eligible for parole. Those sentenced to life in prison are eligible for parole after serving 40 years, without consideration of good conduct time. However, the Board of Pardons and Paroles may grant parole to a capital felon given a life sentence only upon a two thirds vote of the entire 18-member board and only after receiving a report on the probability that the nmate would commit an offense after being paroled. I've had emails from several people who were pen pals of these guys....for awhile. Then they found the girls' memorial page that I created and discovered the details of why they were on death row, or realized from the contents of their letters that they were not very nice (go figure) and decided to stop writing to them. It is easy to romanticize someone who you can never see and only know through a few written words. But the reality of their true selves lies in the written words on the page at www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html, something they will never be able to escape or hide from. Hi Snowy, The current sentencing guidelines in Texas give only 2 sentencing options if found guilty of Capital Murder. "life" sentence where the murderer will be eligible to be considered for parole after a minimum of 40 years, or DP. No "good time", 2 for 1 or any of those kinds of extra credit for time served are allowed, either. But I don't know if Jenny and Elizabeths murderers were sentenced under the current guidelines or not. If they were sentenced under the previous guidelines, it might be less for them. I will try to find out.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 12, 2005 17:06:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 12, 2005 7:41:56 GMT -6
Thanks for the informative links. It sounds to me as though neither of them is innocent and both are complicit in this horrible crime. Soules says he was "forced" to rape and sodomize Katie - give me a break. I am not a man but I cannot imagine how it would be possible to be FORCED to commit a sexual assault. Either you can get it up or you can't - if you are disgusted and terrified and repulsed by what is occurring, it seems to me that it would not be possible to commit such an act.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Sept 17, 2005 20:26:51 GMT -6
Names: Cathy Henderson, Cathy Alkire, Cathy Stone, Cathy Villines DOB: 12/27/1956 Prior criminal record that I could find: Court Status Entry ID No. 3368353 Date of Judicial Disposition Mar 4 1987 Disposed Offense THEFT Time on Probation 6M I have seen her criminal record, and she was never convicted of child abuse. Therefore, it is just heresay, and mostly the accusations of her ex-husband after a bitter divorce. Can you post a link to that criminal record? According to Henderson's husband at the time of the murder, Henderson lost custody of two children from a prior marriage due to allegations of abuse. The fact that a court took custody from her is, in essence, a conviction for child abuse. Essentially, it's a finding that there was evidence of abuse of these two children and that it was in their best interests to be placed with their father, or to become wards of the state. And the statement isn't clear as to whether custody of the children went to their father. As for the husband at the time of the murder, he, too, had made allegations of abuse against Henderson regarding the daughter they shared. The protective order was requested not long before Henderson committed murder and, perhaps, that situation was a trigger that led to the murder of Henderson's charge. Had this truly been an accident and had Henderson really tried to save Brandon, she would've called 911 and gotten him medical attention. That she didn't and the evidence of injury both demonstrate that she knew at the time that her explanation might be taken at face value initially, but that ultimately she would be charged with a crime. That's why she chose to bury the body and flee. It's called consciousness of guilt. There's no explanation that can justify violently striking the head of a 3-month old infant, or swinging that infant's head against some object, then burying the body and fleeing. That's why she was found guilty of capital murder and that's why she was sentenced to death. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Oct 4, 2005 6:07:07 GMT -6
Christa's game playing continues as she was allowed to resume her appeals on the 29th day of 30 days that she could have done so.... She just wanted the extra attention that comes with dropping appeals, she got it, and now we are back on track. I'm guessing from the language of the decision below that she had better not try this particular tactic again... This appeal presents two determinative issues: (1) whether post-conviction review of a death sentence should be mandatory and should proceed over the objection of a competent death-sentenced inmate; and if not, (2) whether, and under what circumstances, a competent death-sentenced inmate may revoke her waiver of post-conviction review. We conclude that post-conviction review is not mandatory and may be waived by a competent death-sentenced inmate. We also conclude that a competent death-sentenced inmate may revoke a waiver of post-conviction review so long as the revocation occurs within thirty days of the trial court's order permitting the inmate to waive postconviction review. Our holding is limited to death-sentenced inmates who seek to revoke an initial waiver of post-conviction relief. Our holding does not apply to death-sentenced inmates who attempt to manipulate and to delay the judicial process by repeatedly seeking to waive and thereafter to reinstate post-conviction review.
Applying this rule, we conclude that Christa Gail Pike may revoke her waiver and reinstate her post-conviction petition. Pike filed a motion seeking to revoke her waiver on the twenty-ninth day after the trial court filed its order permitting her to waive postconviction review.
Pike had not previously waived post-conviction review. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the petition for post-conviction relief and to schedule an evidentiary hearing.Oh, and then there is that nasty bit about her trying to kill another inmate in 2001.... Convicted killer Christa Pike tried to strangle another inmate during confusion caused by a fire set by a third inmate in 2001. Inmates and correctional officers told investigators that a friend of Pike's distracted 32-year-old Patricia Jones just before Pike attacked her from behind with a shoelace. A graphic and detailed case history is available in this appellate ruling: web.utk.edu/~scheb/pike.htmlPike wrote in a letter to a friend; "Ya see what I get for trying to be nice to the hoe? I went ahead and bashed her brains out so she'd die quickly instead of letting her bleed to death and suffer more, and they f uckin' FRY me!!! Ain't that some $hit?" which in part caused the appellate court to state: There is also no evidence that Pike has a capacity for rehabilitation. I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Aug 1, 2004 18:22:34 GMT -6
She does have severe personality problems. But killing her for that, is much too easy. She did not receive the death penalty because she has a bad personality. She received the death penalty because she brutally murdered an innocent young woman.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jul 20, 2004 18:25:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jun 14, 2004 19:42:16 GMT -6
Hi Edina. No one has been executed yet. Two of them had execution dates for this month and should have been executed in about ten days, however they received a stay while the Supreme Court considers the execution of those who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes.
Charlene
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jun 14, 2005 21:20:31 GMT -6
If Perez felt remorse for his part in Jenny and Elizabeth's murder, I don't think it would matter much to the Penas or Ertmans. Would it make a difference in his life? Probably so, don't you think? Believe me, there are better ways to spend your time and I hope you find them. Charlene i have written 2 letters and recieved two from efrain and i am debating on writing a third. i just can't seem to feel he has any kind of remorse for what he has done. then again if he did would that really make a differance in the lives of the families of jennifer and elizabeth.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jan 27, 2005 18:49:25 GMT -6
Michael, that was a very eloquent post. At the other discussion board (for murder victim survivors) we have sometimes talked about the huge ripple effect of each murder. Your post is one well-described example of just one of those ripples. Then there are the immediate family members, the extended family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, church family - all of the people who are directly involved with the life of the victims. Then there are the people who are directly involved with the crime - witnesses, police, emergency medical personnel, 911 operators, hospital staff, crime scene technicians, medical examiners, mortuary staff, crime scene clean-up crews, and those directly involved with the criminal justice system, prosecutors, jurors, judges, victim advocates, journalists, court reporters, bailiffs, defense attorneys, investigators....then there are people who have nothing to do with any of it, but hear about the crime via news articles or books or a personal relationship with one of the others and are affected. It is truly mind-boggling when you consider the magnitude of it. I am glad that you have come to understand that you should not feel guilty about something you did not cause and could not control. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion today. Charlene I'd like to direct this reply to Patti. I have kept up with the case over the years and I recall a few years ago I searched the Internet looking for information to find out whether or not the execution had taken place, and since I couldn't find anything at the time I contacted the DA's office and they told me about the June 2004 date. I remember feeling a sense of relief, that finally this would be put to rest, and let justice be done. Then the PI's came sniffing around where I live in Chicago without prior notice or explanation, and I flatly refused to discuss the case or even see them, though I spoke to them on the phone and told them I had nothing to add to the Defense's case, I felt confident of Alley's guilt, and basically, have a nice flight home. I contacted the DA's office again and they informed me that it was up to me if I wanted to talk to them or not, and so I left it at that. They tried to call back a couple of times but I was unavailable for comment. I was telling a friend about my experiences and decided to search again when I came across link after link and began reading, catching up on current events, and found myself getting angrier and angrier the more I read. The final straw was that bleeding-heart page at tcask that portrays Alley as the innocent victim of botched evidentiary methodology and a conspiracy by the Shelby County authorities. I fired off a somewhat derisive and chiding email to the site, and of course I have never received a reply. I told my mom about it and during the course of her search she came across this forum and told me about it, I've read the posts and though I am entering the discussion late in the day, I have a few things I'd like to relate, so bear with me! Patti, I share your feelings of guilt and though it has been nearly 20 years now since that awful night, I will carry the memory of it with me for the rest of my life. I was one of the two Marines jogging that night. I saw Suzanne run past me in the opposite direction; she was so beautiful! Mark and I crossed the street as she passed, and that's when Alley swerved on the wrong side of the road and nearly ran us down. Our immediate response was "f-ing squids!" Being on a Naval Air Base, you learn pretty quickly as a Marine how much of a rivalry exists between the two branches. So, we flipped the driver off, shook our heads, and kept on running. A few seconds later we heard Suzanne's screams. I won't detail what she said . . . it was horrible . . . and Mark and I sprinted back the way we had come as fast as we could to help her. I was panicked and the adrenaline was flowing and it must have been for Mark, too, because he was only a few steps behind me. We could see the car's taillights ahead as the screams abruptly stopped. We weren't very far away, just a few more seconds and we'd be there . . . when the car suddenly pulled off the side of the road and drove away. We reached the spot where we had seen it parked maybe 4 or 5 seconds later. 5 seconds! It was that fast, my God! We didn't find anything, and the rest of the story is pretty well documented in the records available to the public. Patti, when you talk about guilt, BELIEVE ME, I know how you feel. I am 38 years old now, and I had just turned 19 at the time, but I can still hear Suzanne's screams, and I have never been able to shake off the feelings that I somehow failed her in her hour of need. It is a terrible burden to carry, to have come so close and yet . . . we were too slow, too goddam slow! It's agonizing. The one saving grace has been knowing that just hours after that we stood face to face with Alley and his wife as she tried to lie for him and tell the MPs at the station that it had been SHE that had jogged past us and argued with him. This short, black-haired, tubby little WAVE! Suzanne had been wearing USMC gear, I believe, she was stately and blonde, there could be no mistake. I looked Alley in the eye, he was wearing these rose-colored glasses, and I KNEW, I could see the terrible hate in his eyes, the fear, and the triumph as he was released. As we were leaving, he and his wife got in their car and started it up and drove off. That's when I heard it, the loud and distinctive sound of the muffler that had gone by just seconds before Suzanne's pleas for help. I ran back in to the station and told the MPs that THAT was the car, no doubt, I mean I had already identified it by sight, but the sound . . . there could be no mistaking it. They calmly told me that since no one had been reported missing, there was nothing they could do and so we should go back to our barracks and they would contact us if anything turned up. Putting a man on Death Row is a burden for any citizen of this country. But even now, if I could trade my life for Suzanne's I wouldn't hesitate if it would save her. When he was sentenced I felt some sense that AT LEAST we got the bastard! He's going to fry for what he did. 20 years later, appeal after endless appeal, stay after frustrating stay, and the man is still breathing oxygen! It's ridiculous! If ever he were released, he and I would have a date with destiny, and I am not afraid to say that here. I feel that strongly about it. I didn't know Suzanne, but she was a fellow Marine, a comrade, and I remember her friends, the heart-wrenching weeping and crying of all those girls as I stood there feeling like it was my fault! Now, I realize I did all that I could do and I can live with that, but what I still wouldn't give to have those 5 extra seconds! I will close in saying that I haven't read the book everyone is referencing here, but I have talked with Suzanne's parents on the phone, years and years ago, and they are such amazing, wonderful people my heart goes out to them for the little girl they lost to that monster, may he rot in hell forever! I will celebrate the day his execution is carried out, but it will never be enough, and it can never bring Suzanne back, but it will be sweet, nevertheless. Semper Fi, Suzanne. You are missed. Michael www.geocities.com/mandrevancrown
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on May 16, 2004 8:53:26 GMT -6
May 16, 2004, 1:59AM Hearing could end 29 years on death row Killer's fate hinges on retardation finding By MICHAEL GRACZYK Associated Press LIVINGSTON -- Walter Bell stands on his bunk and stretches his nearly 6-foot frame to peer through a slit of a window high on the concrete back wall of his tiny prison cell. When Bell is asked what he likes to watch through the narrow slice of glass, his slowly spoken words are flavored by the Cajun dialect of his native Louisiana, even though he's spent most of his life in Texas. "Cars, people riding motorcycles," he says. "Planes, helicopters ... the in-and-out gate." The gate he sees is an entrance to the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, home of Texas' death row. It's where Bell, 50, has served 29 years -- more time than any other condemned Texas inmate -- for the 1974 slayings of a Port Arthur couple. On Thursday, a court hearing is planned to determine whether Bell is mentally retarded. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling two years ago bars the execution of mentally retarded people, so the hearing could mean the difference between life or death for Bell. "What we're asking is for his sentence to be commuted from death to life," said William Christian III, an Austin-based lawyer handling Bell's case. "The records uniformly state he has retardation." Bell's case is the latest in Texas to cite the Supreme Court's ruling in a case known as Atkins, named after a Virginia convict. The scheduled executions of three Texas inmates were halted this year based on the high court's decision. Last month, Texas' highest criminal court for the first time commuted a death sentence because the convict was deemed retarded. State District Judge Charles Carver will consider evidence from Bell's hearing and send his conclusions to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which will decide whether to commute, overturn or affirm Bell's death sentence. Bell has been convicted and condemned in three separate trials for the murders of Ferd Chisum, an appliance dealer for whom Bell worked, and his wife, Irene. Prosecutors contended Bell, who had been fired by Chisum, showed up at the couple's home 90 miles east of Houston under the guise of seeking help for applying to a trade school. They say Bell attacked them, raped the woman, forced her to write him checks, then strangled her with a towel. Her body was dumped in a bathtub, joining the body of her husband, who had been beaten and stabbed. Bell was arrested the next day while shooting pool after trying to cash the checks. In 1974, Bell was convicted of killing Irene Chisum and given the death penalty. On appeal, the sentence was commuted to life. In 1982, he was convicted of Ferd Chisum's slaying. That conviction was overturned because jurors were not allowed to consider mental retardation as a mitigating factor in deciding his death sentence. In 1994, he was retried and condemned for Ferd Chisum's murder. It's that death sentence that his attorneys used to return to the state courts for a mental retardation hearing, citing the Atkins case. Rod Conerly, a prosecutor in Jefferson County, where Bell's hearing will be held, doesn't believe the Supreme Court decision applies to Bell. He contends Bell planned to kill the Chisums, assembling crime tools that included handcuffs and an extension cord to restrain them. "The nature of the crime itself, the sophistication with which he pulled off the crime, is I think indicative of someone who is not mentally retarded," Conerly said. Bell's school records indicate an IQ of 54 at age 9 -- 16 points below what is considered the threshold for retardation. He was in special education classes beginning in the second grade. At age 14, his IQ was 62, records show. He finished school with a special education diploma and joined the Marines, where he flunked boot camp twice and was determined to be "almost valueless," by a commanding officer. Bell says he didn't kill the Chisums and a confession was forced out of him by authorities. "I thought they were picking me up for those checks at the bank," he said, blaming friends for giving him the Chisums' stolen checks. In his 29 years on death row, prison records show he's been a good prisoner. He's never had to be disciplined with solitary confinement. He spends much of his time in his roughly 6-foot-by-10-foot cell. He has no TV, just a radio. He doesn't read or write well. Under the law when Bell first was convicted, a convict serving life became eligible for parole after 20 years. It's unclear whether parole is a possibility for him, should his sentence get commuted to life.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on May 6, 2004 7:49:39 GMT -6
Killer not retarded, state high court rules (Michael Wayne) HALL AUSTIN - The Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday rejected convicted killer Michael Wayne Hall's claim that he is mentally retarded, which could have spared him from execution for the 1998 slaying of an Arlington woman. Hall, 25, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die for the shooting death of Amy Robinson, a mentally challenged woman who was abducted while riding her bicycle to her job at a Kroger supermarket in Arlington. Texas' highest court ruled 7-2 that Hall is not mentally retarded based on evidence and testimony presented during his capital murder trial in Tarrant County in February 2000. Under Texas law, mental retardation can be considered by jurors as a "mitigating factor" when deliberating a death sentence. Jurors heard conflicting evidence about Hall's mental capacities, including testimony that his IQ was under 70, which is considered the threshold for retardation. "While there was significant evidence in favor of a finding of mental retardation, there was also significant evidence against such a finding," according to the ruling, written by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller. "Because the trial court's conclusion that appellant is not mentally retarded is supported by the record, we should and do defer to that conclusion." Hall can appeal the decision to a federal court. His attorney did not return a phone message left with a secretary. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Hall's case to Texas after justices, in a 6-3 decision in Atkins v. Virginia, ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. The nation's highest court left it to states to develop systems to enforce the ruling. However, the Texas Legislature did not pass new trial guidelines for capital murder cases involving defendants with mental retardation claims. Hall's attorney, Danny Burns, argued last June before the Court of Criminal Appeals that the courts need a special hearing or procedure in place to determine whether a capital murder defendant is mentally retarded. Two judges on the state's highest criminal court -- Cheryl Johnson and Charles R. Holcomb -- agreed with Burns in dissenting opinions. "It may very well be that a full hearing on appellant's claim of mental retardation, with the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and argue the significance of their testimony, would establish that appellant is not retarded," Johnson wrote. The court's ruling against Hall was on his direct appeal, which addresses the legal process of a trial. Writ of habeas corpus appeals may address any issues not regarding trial procedure. Wednesday's ruling is the first of its kind in Texas since the Supreme Court banned executions of the mentally retarded. Helena Faulkner, an appellate attorney for the Tarrant County district attorney, said the Hall case helps clarify the issue of mental retardation in death penalty cases. "The ruling will be very significant until the legislature has time to set standards for mental retardation in death penalty cases," she said. Robert James Neville Jr., 29, was also convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the killing of Robinson. He remains on Death Row. The two men took Robinson to a remote field in far east Fort Worth and shot her with a crossbow, a pellet gun and a .22-caliber rifle. Hall and Neville were arrested about two weeks later while attempting to flee to Mexico. They boasted to investigators and the news media about killing Robinson. Robinson's maternal grandmother, Carolyn Barker, was pleased with Wednesday's court ruling. "I know Michael Hall is not mentally retarded. He's just trying anything to avoid his death sentence," said Barker, 62. "They both have lived six years longer than Amy."
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Apr 5, 2004 7:47:07 GMT -6
TV portrayal of death row inmate opens old wounds
Stanley "Tookie" Williams already was perhaps California's most unusual death row inmate, a convicted killer who has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Now he's Hollywood material.
As Williams, co-founder of the notorious Los Angeles Crips gang, draws closer to an execution date, cable channel FX is airing a movie next weekend that depicts his death row evolution from vicious gangbanger to advocate for street peace. The film is called "Redemption."
But underscoring the conflict that surrounds Williams' legacy, the families of his four victims and the prosecutor who put him on death row are appalled by the film. To them, the movie glorifies Williams while ignoring the violent shotgun deaths during two separate 1979 robberies.
"Outraged and indignant would be just a beginning of how I feel," said Lora Owens, the stepmother who raised Albert Owens, a 23-year-old store clerk slain more than 2 decades ago. "I'm outraged they'd even call it 'Redemption.'"
The makers of the movie, as well as Williams' supporters, say the film captures a dramatic story of a death row inmate who writes children's books and offers advice on the Internet to down-and-out youths across the country most prone to join gangs.
"What Stan hopes this accomplishes is that it further strengthens the message of his work," said East Bay journalist Barbara Becnel, the confidant who has helped Williams compile his anti-gang campaign in the past decade and who is a central figure in the movie. "He didn't want a movie that glorified gang violence. He wanted a movie that accurately and fairly depicted his redemption and his message for kids."
Death row turnaround
In today's made-for-TV culture, it is not surprising that Williams' story would be snapped up by Hollywood filmmakers. As a teenager, he co-founded the Crips, and was eventually convicted and sentenced to die for killing Owens during a 7-Eleven heist and gunning down the owners of a motel and their daughter in another robbery 2 weeks later.
On death row, Williams went from an inmate who spent most of his time in solitary confinement for his threatening behavior to a prisoner whose literary works earned him a nomination for the Nobel in 2000. The media coverage of the Nobel nomination triggered interest in making a movie.
Williams insists he is innocent. Prosecutors say the evidence against him was overwhelming. But the movie deals very little with the crimes that put Williams on death row, or even the formation of the Crips. Instead, to those who made the film, the story of Williams is not about guilt or innocence but atonement and rebirth on death row.
"Our original films tend to go after an issue or chew on a nerve," said Peter Liguori, president and chief executive of FX Networks. "But this movie, more than anything, defined for us an almost Greek-like version of drama and a dramatic question of: Can a man redeem himself? In this instance, can a man who's been convicted of the most heinous of human acts redeem himself?"
Lynn Whitfield, a stage and screen actress who plays Becnel, said, "people can be redeemed. It is a theme throughout our literature. I think the film might just help to pry open the consciousness of people to say, give them a chance."
Several of those involved with "Redemption" met with Williams in prison and came away impressed that he didn't seem concerned about pressing his legal case or making an argument against the death penalty.
Actor's impression
"He was really trying to reach out and put words in the script for me," said actor Jamie Foxx, who plays Williams in the film. Williams, he added, would say, "Put this in here, put that in there, because there's certain things we have to let the young kids know. That it's not the way. And eventually, they will end up dead, or they will end up here.'"
Foxx, better known as a comedian, has been praised for his depiction of the hulking, soft-spoken Williams, who in an interview with the Mercury News last year described his death row transformation as a sincere fight to repent for creating the Crips.
Even Robert Martin, the now-retired prosecutor who tried Williams, concedes that Foxx does a good job acting. But Martin dislikes everything else about the movie.
"The person who lives gets all the attention," Martin said. "The people who die get very little attention. They are in their graves."
The movie comes at a time when Williams' hopes for a reprieve in the courts are dwindling. He is 2nd in line of the state's more than 600 inmates awaiting execution.
A federal appeals court in 2002 rejected his legal arguments, although the judges took the extraordinary step of calling him "a worthy candidate for clemency" as a result of his death row work. Williams' lawyers are currently asking the court to reconsider the case, but if he loses again, his best chance may lie with a clemency request to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Opposing views
Becnel is hopeful that courts will take a closer look at Williams' arguments, which include allegations that his trial was tainted by racial bias. She is quick to point out that she understands the concerns of the victims' families, but that Williams cannot apologize for a crime he insists he didn't commit.
Lora Owens, however, is worried that the film's portrayal of Williams' redemption will skew public opinion and assist his efforts to gain clemency.
"I worry about it," she said. "I worry he's going to get through the red tape and get out or not have to pay a price. It's a nice movie if you don't know what it's based on and who is involved. It's a piece of fiction."
Whatever the outlook, the filmmakers express hope "Redemption" will prove to be an object lesson for those growing up on the same streets where Williams once ran the Crips. And they believe the movie is an evenhanded attempt to address concerns from all sides. They note it includes a dramatic scene in which someone comes up to Becnel's character, tosses what appears to be blood on her and asks whether she's "forgotten the four people who have been murdered?"
"You really have two points of view. I don't know what the families of the victims would have to say but it's really Stan's story," said the film's director, Vondie Curtis Hall. "Everyone who views it will view it from their own perspective."
And if that sparks controversy and debate, he added, "Well, I think that's healthy."
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 3, 2005 13:51:05 GMT -6
I posted this in another thread but it is more appropriate here. News article from the Chronicle.
villareal and perez - new worries for those "boys" « Thread started on: Today at 11:36am » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What they better start worrying about, rather than the state executing them, is where they are going to end up once they are taken off of death row. Maybe one of their pen pals should ask them if they remember how they were treated in the Harris County Jail when they were first arrested for these murders.....
On death row, they are just scumbuckets like all of the other scumbuckets. In regular prison, they will be low-life scumbuckets, unlike the other people who might just be there for drug use or burglary or bad checks.....who have daughters and remember what these a$$holes did over eleven years ago. Hopefully they will be sorry they ever left Terrell.....celebrate for now, boys......
Ruling is a 'relief,' but inmates not celebrating Harris County killers spared by Supreme Court action ponder new sentences
RESOURCES • The decision: Read the Supreme Court's full ruling • Excerpts: From the court's opinion and dissent • Harris County: 11 juvenile offenders on death row here • Summaries of cases: A look at some of the nation's murders by juveniles • Major rulings: Other death penalty decisions by the Supreme Court TELL US WHAT YOU THINK • Give us your opinion on Tuesday's decision
LIVINGSTON - Locked away on Texas' death row for more than a decade, Raul Villarreal knew the meaning of good days and bad. The good days came when appeals were filed to free him from the death sentence he received for the 1993 rape and murder of two teenage Houston girls; the bad, when those appeals met rejection.
The worst day came not long ago when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down his most recent appeal, thereby clearing the way for him to be put to death. The best came Tuesday when the same court ruled the execution of murderers who were minors when they committed their crimes is unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, Villarreal, 29, still was struggling to digest the meaning of the ruling, which has spared him and 27 other Texas death row inmates from the executioner's needle. Eleven of those inmates are from Harris County.
"In a way," he said after a thoughtful sigh, "it's a big relief. But I didn't act like I was celebrating. It's bittersweet. There are still a lot of guys left behind facing execution."
Villarreal, who was 17 when he and a group of other youths fatally attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 16, said he has spent recent days coming to grips with the probability that he would be executed. The high court had stayed his scheduled June 24 execution pending a decision in the case resolved Tuesday.
NEWS POLL What do you think of the Supreme Court's ruling banning the execution of juvenile killers?
Good decision; they're too young to vote: 18% They went too far; it depends on the case: 31% Juveniles should answer for their crimes: 52%
Total Votes: 2501
"My main worries concerned my family," he said of his mother, Louisa Villarreal, and his four siblings. "They're the ones who would be left behind. I tried to take things one day at a time. I've worked at accepting my responsibilities for the actions that brought me here. It's helped me accept my fate."
Similar thoughts of life, death and the long prison sentences they now likely will have to serve have occupied other Harris County killers spared by the ruling.
Johnnie Bernal, 28, who claims he is innocent of the August 1994 killing of Lee Dilley at a Houston ice house, has been on death row since July 1995. He thinks Tuesday's ruling is "a step in the right direction."
Villarreal and Bernal were caught up in a spike in juvenile crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in an unprecedented number of young offenders on death row. And because those crimes were concentrated in gang-heavy urban centers, the bulk of those offenders were minorities.
Of the 28 "juvenile" offenders on Texas' death row, 21 were black, Hispanic or Asian; nine of 13 such offenders executed since 1982 were minorities.
Perry wants cases reviewed In the wake of Tuesday's ruling, Gov. Rick Perry has directed the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to review the 28 cases and recommend appropriate action. It is likely that many will receive life sentences, requiring that they serve 40 years in prison before becoming eligible for consideration for parole.
Bernal has appeals pending and is optimistic he ultimately will be cleared of the crime and freed from prison. But he acknowledged that a long sentence would be daunting.
"Watching your loved ones passing away and not being able to be there would be heartbreaking," he said. A long prison sentence would also be a continuation of a near-decade behind bars that he said has been filled with remorse.
"Every time I pray, I include the Dilley family," he said. "A life's been lost, lives have been destroyed and crushed. Every year I've been in here the depth of my feeling for his family has grown."
Life on death row, he said, has not been easy.
"I've seen friends almost every other day going to their last Mass," Bernal said. "I've been around. All you could do is prepare yourself mentally and spiritually. ... The more I've thought of the thing, the more at peace with God I've become. I'm not afraid, but I feel sorrow."
"They treat you like you are already dead," added Robert Acuna, 19, who has been on death row about six months for the 2003 killing of his Baytown neighbors, James Carroll, 75, and his wife, Joyce, 74. "They are as life-draining as they legally can be. They keep you out of society. There is no contact visitation, no watching the news on TV, no contact with other inmates. They don't go by names, you have a number. They make you feel unimportant."
Acuna said his trial and incarceration often have seemed unreal.
"I've seen all this stuff on TV," he said. "But then I realize there's no TV screen."
Only when Tyler murderer Donald Aldrich was executed shortly after Acuna's arrival last fall did the young killer recognize the seriousness of his situation.
"They took him away and I knew I wasn't going to see him again," Acuna said.
Acuna, too, insisted he is innocent, and expressed confidence he will be cleared.
"Forty years in prison is a long time," he said. "But if I'm alive, I can't complain."
Hoping to help others Acuna and Bernal said they would like to work to end the death penalty.
"I can't see myself in prison just wasting time," Villarreal said of his expected future. "I would like to use my experience to help others. Maybe in a youth program or something."
Villarreal said he is deeply remorseful for his crime, and he is aware that the Supreme Court ruling sparing his life angers his victims' families.
"If the shoe were on the other foot," he said. "If my children were dead ... I would feel the same way."
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Feb 25, 2005 13:47:01 GMT -6
"each letter was a bigger pity party...." That sounds to me like there was more than one letter. I have never had one letter from him yet I know more than enough about him. I have been in the same room with him more times than I cared to, and I have seen his remorseless reaction when he was face-to-face with Jenny's dad in the prison. I have heard his own words on his confession. Yes, I know more than enough about him and I know the truth. You think that someone who has nothing else to do with his days than blow smoke in your direction is telling you exactly what kind of person he is? Good grief, get a clue.....he KILLED people, yet we should believe he couldn't possibly be a liar too.... Wow.... you wrote him one letter and got a reply and now you know everything about him, what he feels and all. By the way... who is "him", which one did you write? Gotta do more than one letter to get to know someone, or even the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jun 28, 2004 16:10:24 GMT -6
I've been in the same room as all of them, which I expect is more knowledge of them than you have. I have heard all of their confessions in these murders, which I expect you have not. I know how brutally they treated these girls before they strangled and stomped them and I expect that you do not know these details. What is happening with them is nothing near to the "same horrible thing" I assure you. It's ludicrous that you would claim as much. I can´t believe that you all speak of rights and justice - don´t you know that international right don´t allow to sentence to death ? That´s what makes me upset. What these men did is more than horrible, but what is going on with them is the same horrible thing. And someone needs to stop it. I would like to know what makes you feel right and sure that to execute them is right. It´s just hate you have. I guess it will make no difference when I tell you what I think of all that. Does anyone of you know Raul, Efrain or the others ? Do you know anything about their lives, circumstances of life...NO Do you know their families ? NO That´s why I think you have no right to judge. You use the victims to speak your opinion right.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jun 25, 2004 4:31:52 GMT -6
It has been eleven years since Jenny & Elizabeth were murdered. It is appropriately pouring down rain here in Houston. I wish we had been able to go to Huntsville yesterday and Wednesday, but that will have to wait. I hope the Supreme Court does not decide that those under 18 at the time of the crime cannot be executed. They are about to finish their term for the year so the arguments will not be heard until this fall at the earliest with a decision likely next spring. I'd like all of my friends here to take a minute to think about Jenny & Elizabeth, perhaps visit their memorial page, regardless of what you think should happen to their five murderers. I can't believe that these two critters got stays. Their crimes were horrendous. Charlene, what are your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 26, 2004 8:52:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Dec 22, 2003 5:47:32 GMT -6
Judge delays trial for murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion In Santa Ana, an Orange County judge on Friday delayed the trial of the man charged with sexually assaulting and murdering 5-year-old Samantha Runnion last year. Alejandro Avila, 28, could face the death penalty if convicted of Samantha's murder. His trial was supposed to start Jan 12, but defense attorneys asked for the delay, saying they needed more time to review new DNA evidence and procedures. Superior Court Judge William R. Froeberg scheduled an April 12 pretrial hearing on defense motions to question the validity of 2 DNA tests that allegedly link Avila to the murder. The judge said he will select a new trial date sometime during that hearing. Defense attorneys have asked the trial be delayed until next fall, when they say their DNA experts will be available to testify. "What the defense is asking for is ludicrous," Samantha's mother, Erin Runnion, said after the hearing. Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said he will urge the judge to set a trial immediately after he rules on the DNA evidence. "The length of time we have already had to wait for trial has been too long," Rackauckas said. "I am confident we will get this case before a jury in the spring." Avila has pleaded innocent to killing Samantha after kidnapping her as she played outside her home on July 15, 2002. According to prosecutors, Avila lured Samantha close by asking for help in searching for his lost puppy, then grabbed her and carried her kicking and screaming to his car. They say he drove off with her in his 1994 Ford Thunderbird and later sexually assaulted and strangled her before dumping her body along a highway between Orange County and the Riverside County community of Lake Elsinore, where he was living.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Dec 22, 2003 6:36:03 GMT -6
Does anyone have any info about him and his case that is recent? Even the anti DP people can't keep his sites updated.. You can do a search with his last name at the Abolish archives: maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=abolishI think he pretty regularly writes a whine.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Dec 3, 2003 19:11:33 GMT -6
Death Sentence Rejected by Court By Jordan Rau ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF, Albany bureau researcher Andrea Baker contributed to this story.
November 26, 2003
In sparing the life of a man who fatally poisoned his wife as she lay in a hospital bed recuperating from a beating he gave her with a baseball bat, the state's highest court signaled yesterday that New York's death penalty must be reserved for cases more heinous than straightforward murder.
The decision is the second since New York reinstituted the death penalty in 1995. Like last year's ruling in the case of Darrel Harris, the new Court of Appeals decision upheld the conviction but overturned the punishment, without addressing the national debate about whether the death penalty ever can be imposed without regard to race and with assurance that innocent defendants are not killed.
Five men remain on death row. Another 120 inmates are serving life without parole, an alternative sentence to death under the 1995 capital punishment statute.
By a 4-2 vote the court ordered that James Cahill III, convicted of first-degree murder, be resentenced by a Syracuse-area court for second-degree murder, which carries a minimum prison term of 15 years to life.
Cahill's fate revolved around the portion of the state's death penalty statute that restricts executions to murders committed with any one of 13 aggravating circumstances, including killing someone to interfere with the justice system and murdering during the course of carrying out another serious crime.
Prosecutors convinced a jury that Cahill qualified for execution because he had broken into his wife Jill's hospital room in 1998 to kill her, thus committing burglary. The jury also agreed that Cahill had wanted to silence her from testifying against him in the upcoming assault trial.
But the decision, written by Judge Albert Rosenblatt, disagreed. "The better part of the evidence reveals that defendant was motivated to poison his wife because their marriage and family life were being destroyed," he wrote. "There is scant basis to believe that defendant thought he could avoid an assault conviction by murdering Jill."
The majority decision also rejected the notion that Cahill had been committing the separate crime of burglary, saying that his only intent in breaking into the room was to kill his wife.
"This has to be a message to prosecutors to pick those cases very carefully," said James Acker, a criminal justice professor at SUNY Albany. "The majority really seemed to me to epitomize the sentiment that death penalty cases are different and do demand special scrutiny."
Judges Victoria Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read issued forceful dissents chastising the majority for having "vigorously second-guessed" what Read called "legitimate choices" made by the State Legislature and the trial judge and the "measured, reasoned verdict" of the jury.
In Albany, Gov. George Pataki said, "One thing that's certain is that it doesn't affect the constitutionality of the death penalty, and I think that's important."
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Dec 3, 2003 19:08:07 GMT -6
Text of Green River killer's confession November 5, 2003
From statement of Green River killer Gary Ridgway, read in court on Nov. 5 by prosecutor Jeff Baird:
I killed the 48 women listed in the state's second amended information. In most cases when I killed these women I did not know their names. Most of the time I killed them the first time I met them and I do not have a good memory of their faces. I killed so many women I have a hard time keeping them straight.
I have reviewed information and discovery about each of the murders with my attorneys and I am positive that I killed each one of the women charged in the second information. I killed them all in King County. I killed most of them in my house near Military Road, and I killed a lot of them in my truck not far from where I picked them up.
I killed some of them outside. I remember leaving each woman's body in the place where she was found.
I have discussed with my attorneys the common scheme or plan, aggravating circumstance charged in all of these murders. I agree that each of the murders I committed was part of a common scheme or plan. The plan was I wanted to kill as many women I thought were prostitutes as I possibly could.
I picked prostitutes as my victims because I hate most prostitutes and I did not want to pay them for sex. I also picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught.
Another part of my plan was where I put the bodies of these women. Most of the time I took the women's jewelry and their clothes to get rid of any evidence and make them harder to identify. I placed most of the bodies in groups which I call clusters. I did this because I wanted to keep track of all the women I killed.
I liked to drive by the clusters around the county and think about the women I placed there. I usually used a landmark to remember a cluster and the women I placed there. Sometimes I killed and dumped a woman intending to start a new cluster and never returned because I thought I might get caught putting more women there.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Dec 3, 2003 19:07:02 GMT -6
Doctor: John Hinckley Poses No Dangers November 26, 2003, 10:47 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- The man who shot President Reagan is ready to leave a psychiatric hospital for unsupervised visits with his parents, a hospital psychiatrist said Wednesday, testifying John Hinckley Jr. no longer poses a danger to himself or others.
But Sarah Brady, wife of Reagan press secretary James Brady, wrote an emotional letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman urging him to deny Hinckley's request. James Brady was shot in the head during the assassination attempt and has not fully recovered.
"We do fear for our safety," Mrs. Brady wrote. "He ruined Jim Brady's life once. We don't want him to do so again -- either physically or emotionally."
She added that, "In the past he has lied to and fooled his parents, his doctors and law enforcement."
Friedman indicated during a hearing last week that he was prepared to let Hinckley make the trips with certain restrictions, but he first wanted to hear testimony from officials at Washington's St. Elizabeths Hospital, where Hinckley has been for the past 22 years.
Dr. Paul Montalbano, a senior forensic psychiatrist at St. Elizabeths, said unsupervised visits will aid Hinckley's treatment and should be allowed with strict conditions.
"I believe that successful visits can actually make him less dangerous," Montalbano said.
Late Tuesday, the hospital filed with the court new guidelines for unsupervised visits. They require Hinckley's parents to stay with their son at all times, call the hospital periodically to check in with doctors and make sure he takes his medication and stays away from weapons.
Hinckley and his parents also are prohibited from contacting or speaking to the media, and his parents must return him to the hospital immediately if there are behavior problems.
Hinckley, 48, has been a patient at St. Elizabeths since he was acquitted by reason of insanity in the shootings of Reagan, Brady and two law enforcement officers outside a Washington hotel in March 1981. Reagan nearly died. Hinckley said he shot the president to impress actress Jodie Foster.
Montalbano said the new guidelines are not ordinarily required of a patient considered a low-risk threat, like Hinckley, but would be followed out of caution given his high profile.
The only concern Montalbano expressed was that Hinckley was still "guarded" about sharing his emotions with physicians and often presented himself in an overly positive light. But he said the visits may get Hinckley to open up more.
Hinckley sat quietly near his attorneys during the hearing and did not testify. His parents sat in a section reserved for the public.
On cross examination, government attorneys asked about instances in which Hinckley has misled his treating physicians. In 2000, for example, Hinckley did not immediately disclose that his former girlfriend, Leslie deVeau, a former patient at St. Elizabeths, had purchased a biography of Jodie Foster. The incident led the hospital to move Hinckley from minimum to medium security for several months.
Under a 1999 federal appeals court ruling, Hinckley has been able to take supervised day trips off hospital grounds. Secret Service officers have kept watch, and that surveillance would continue during the unsupervised outings.
Friedman said closing arguments in the case would be scheduled within two weeks, with a ruling soon after.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on May 8, 2004 22:35:28 GMT -6
Is this with the state Supreme Court? I wish they would switch to LI and get it over with - gets much more attention than it's worth with electrocution. HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HAD ON THE ELECTROCTION (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL ) ARGUMENT I WILL LET YOU KNOW HOW THEY TURN OUT
|
|