New Insanity: Why is Carol Moore Still Heaping Blame on The Norfolk Four and Now Blaming John Grisham?

"Let him walk in our shoes, let's see how he would feel," a sobbing Moore told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from her Pittsburgh home. "This is nothing but political and John Grisham."

The above statement, to me, is just as ludicrously false as saying that the earth is flat because Obama has decided it is. How can Carol Moore, mother of the victim in the Norfolk Four case, be so woefully ignorant of the facts? She reminds me of a deluded child talked into believing her nursery school teacher turned into a catlike demon and flew after her! Scary, very scary. And people like her even sit on juries. How do you think Paul Shanley landed in prison?

This poor dear blames the author John Grisham for getting the evil perps out of jail cause he's so stupid, you know, and just looking for attention, and he doesn't care if vicious killers go free.

According to Grisham, commenting on the Norfolk Four case to the Post:

It's the most egregious case of wrongful conviction I've seen, and I travel around the country listening to stories about these cases.

1. – John Grisham SOURCE: The Washington Post

I'm not saying Carol Moore is intentionally lying to get attention or a place on a talk show, or perhaps a book deal, but I am saying I totally and utterly repudiate her contentions that the innocent men of the Norfolk Four had anything to do with her daughter's murder. I'm sure she was lied to by the police and prosecutor, or at least misled.

Please, Carol, really look at the facts. Stop this public display.

__________

Last Three of Norfolk Four Finally Released - Attorney General Bill Mims Still Pretends Like They Are Guilty

In one of the most atrocious cases of police misconduct and prosecutorial arrogance, four men were wrongly convicted in 1997 of a murder rape in Norfolk, VA. Because they did not have wealthy parents (like the Duke lacross players), the public and the press have generally ignored them. Who cares, right? They probably had it coming? No way.

You can follow more details about the case out on Google and here. Basically, these guys were falsely accused and subjected to incredible police torture and deprivations until they confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Unfortunately for the VA Attorney General's office, the real culprit was caught, and not only confessed but proclaimed none of the Norfolk four were present. Also, only the real culprit's DNA was found on the scene.

The Norfolk Four were so incredibly innocent that two dozen ex-FBI agents in the Richmond area signed a petition and sent it to Governor Kaine asking for full pardons, because their own investigations proved the men were in no way responsible, but only railroaded by the cops then tortured into confessions. The shamefulness of the crime against them goes unpunished till this day.

In an act of cowardice, Governor Kaine "conditionally" pardoned the Norfolk Four only days ago, but this means they are still treated like ex-cons, made to answer to a Parole Board, and so forth. They will never have normal lives without a real pardon. Kaine has assured them a living death not much better than prison.

But since when does a politician these days have any real courage, I ask you? Well, I guess even a coward like Kaine has more stomach than Attorney General Bill Mims who said in response to the release:

The Office of the Attorney General has represented the interests of the commonwealth and sought justice, as we are bound to do by law, and vigorously defended the multiple convictions of these individuals.


I don't even think Nifong admitted he was wrong about the Duke lacross players. So what does it prove? That guys like Nifong and Mims, who preside over the unjust prosecution of innocent people, will never admit they are wrong. They can't admit it. They won't.

Martha Coakley of Middlesex Witch Hunt Fame, Now Attorney General of Massachusetts

Mulling over the Paul Shanley case and marveling at the ability of ambitious, corrupt prosecutors to place innocent people in jail no matter how ridiculous the charges are against them, I ran into this letter from 2001 involving Martha Coakley (now ATTORNEY GENERAL). You recall Martha from my prior post involving Paul Shanley.

This letter is eye opening. I'm just glad to see that at one time, in a galaxy far away, a few sane people existed, even in a witch-burning, Martha-loving state like Massachusetts. How wonderful that a human being, as loved as Martha Coakley, as full of integrity and sociopathological instincts, can rise from being a mere prosecutor to being Attorney General, and in such a progressive and educated state. How many bodies did she have to step over? How many innocent people did she have to jail? How many thousands did she have to fool?

And now, the letter.

The Boston HeraldAugust 12, 2001 Sunday ; Pg. 026
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A scandal continues

The cynical manipulation by the Middlesex County prosecutor's office of the child witnesses against Gerald Amirault who are now young adults makes it depressingly clear that the office of prosecutor is intended by its occupants to serve their political ambitions and not the cause of justice ("Amirault victims come out of hiding to keep him jailed," Aug. 3). Martha Coakley and her cohorts and precursors know full well that children who were 3, 4 and 5 years old at the time of the Fells Acres trials some 15 years ago - 15 years filled with constant reassertions by prosecutors and parents of the validity of the original claims - do not, cannot and will not ever be able to have untainted memories of their experiences. Hauling these innocent young people out for a press conference was disgraceful.

These children were victims of politically ambitious and woefully ignorant prosecutors who chose to disregard the coercive interrogations by the inexperienced graduate student assigned to dig the "truth" out of the children, to ignore bizarre claims that defied all rationality (e.g. sodomy with lobsters and knives) and to close their eyes to the utter lack of substantiating physical evidence.

- Margaret A. Hagen, Department of Psychology Boston University.
_____

Margaret A. Hagen is the the author of Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony & the Rape of American Justice (1997); Regan Books-Imprint of Harper-Collins.
-
A great piece on Amirault here.
-

Paul Shanley Deserves a New Trial - When Will Prosecutor Martha Coakley and Judge Lynn Rooney Admit They Were Horribly Wrong?

Was Paul Shanley jailed by people who themselves should be in jail?

Before anyone goes berserk on me, let's agree that facts are facts. You can hate Catholic priests all you want, you can believe all the negative, biased press you want, you can point to the theatrics of sobbing accusers (remember the Salem witch trials?), you can quote Freudian nonsense till you verge on Oedipus Complex, but facts are facts, and only those should matter when it comes to deciding guilt or innocence.

Several years ago, a priest named Paul Shanley was accused by prosecutors Martha Coakley and Lynn Rooney of the Middlesex District Attorney's office (Rooney is now a district court judge who, like Coakley, made her reputation with "recovered memory" cases) of sexually molesting a boy in his parish 20 years earlier. Without a single witness to corroborate a single charge, Lynn Rooney put on a theatrical performance in the court room worthy of an Oscar. Why? Because she had no choice. All she and Martha Coakley had on the accused were the "recovered memories" of a solitary man, Paul Busa, who had a background of gambling and questionable ethics.

Other accusers seeking millions in compensation were shouting to be heard, also claiming the accused priest had fondled them, but apparently the honorable district attorney of Middlesex decided they were utterly unreliable (which they were), dropping three of them (buddies of Paul Busa-what a surprise!) before the trial. God, what I would give to have a video tape of the meeting between Martha Coakley and those guys!

Anyway, let's review the proper sequence of events involving Paul Busa, his recovered memories, and Lynn Rooney's crowning achievement--the prosecution of her victim in a kangaroo court:

- Paul Busa suddenly remembered the sexual abuse on the afternoon of Feb. 11, 2002, when his girlfriend told him about a newspaper article that reported someone he knew (Gregory Ford -- dropped as a credible witness by Martha Coakley because of his changing story and mental history) had alleged molestation by Father Shanley.

- The next day, brimming with recovered memories, Busa was talking to a personal-injury lawyer about pursuing a lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Church (according to testimony by his own psychologist, Dr. Drozd, and documents presented in the criminal trial).

- Busa and his personal-injury lawyer, Roderick MacLeish, make the outrageous public claim to the press that the accused was "a founding member of NAMBLA and openly advocated sex between men and little boys." (NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association -- It was later proven this charge was a total fabrication.)

- The honorable Lynn Rooney decides to prosecute. The public and the press are frothing and demanding justice! The window is open!

- Not a single juror in the case had not heard of the false NAMBLA charge (they had all been biased by the press).

- Busa testifies that Shanley pulled him out of Christian doctrine classes and molested him in the church bathroom, the pews, the church confessional and the rectory.

- Not a single witness of the prosecution confirmed any of Busa's "recovered memories" of Paul Shanley removing him from classes or doing anything else that Busa claimed had taken place over a SEVEN YEAR period in the 1980's. (Not a single teacher or classmate of Busa could be found to agree with him, not a single person who Busa had been in contact with for seven years, SEVEN WHOLE YEARS during which he alleged he was repeatedly sexually abused.)

- At the end of the trial, Paul Busa declares, "I want him [Paul Shanley] to die in prison, whether it's of natural causes or otherwise. However he dies, I hope it's slow and painful."

Wouldn't you say that Paul Shanley deserves a new trial with an unbiased jury?

A few useful links on this subject:

The Railroading of Paul Shanley (interesting facts about his accusers and their mental history)
http://www.ncrj.org/Shanley/JimShanley2.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02192005.html

http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2005/050218_1.html

http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x1878563848/Lawyer-for-ex-priest-questions-repressed-memory-science

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2004/feature_wypijewski_sepoct04.msp

The Comic Book Murder - Prosecutor Steve Kaplan Convicts Michael George After Miraculously Finding a Lost Note in The Cold Case File!

If it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man, can we therefore consider Steve Kaplan of the Macomb County Cold Case Unit to be one of the greats? I believe so. Indeed, it takes art, tenacity, and skill to generate the credible witness testimony necessary to convict an accused "wife killer" after a full 17 years of peace and silence--not to mention the incredible and lucky miracle of finding a crucial, pivotal, personal note concerning THE NEW key witness jotted down by the homicide detective 17 years ago and then mysteriously forgotten and neglected till our hero Steve Kaplan looked in the case file box and just saw it sitting there.

Now we got that wife killing bastard! he must have shouted.

Thank God that you found that overlooked and forgotten note that might have turned the case around 17 years ago, eh Steve? Thank God it was just sitting around, plain as day and waiting for you to find it, eh Steve? What luck! I mean, if not for that homicide detective being so inexplicably careless 17 years ago, you might not be such a big shot now, a real celeb after appearing on television and posturing for the camera, looking all righteous and wrathful! What a career-boosting miracle for you, Steve Kaplan. Will you be running for office any time soon?

Ahhhh, the mystery of fate!

Because of that note, that terrible wife killer, Michael George, is finally behind bars after 17 years of serving a peaceful and productive life as a businessman, father, husband, and pillar of his small community. The fact that he collapsed and wept at the verdict is only further vindication for you, isn't it? As well as for your bosses, the media, and the idiotic jury enthralled by the theater of court you directed like a true professional. Did you test juror IQs before they took their seats? Did they all score in the low 20 percentile? Whatever. At least they had enough collective brain power to take at face value the witnesses you coached before they took the stand a full 17 years later to accurately recall the wife killer and his wife arguing with each other before the murder. And it didn't matter that the defendant had no history of domestic violence, or any criminal history whatsoever. Because your "witness" recalled some "yelling" from 17 years ago, that was enough to help secure a conviction. After all, what did you term the defendant, "The husband from Hell?" Wasn't that it?

And rumors were started, whispers in the media. That husband from Hell, Michael George, had not even cried at the funeral, not wept a tear as he went about town looking cruel-eyed behind his sunglasses. Isn't that what your minions told everyone? Certainly, every juror knew Michael George had it coming! And now, every gullible spectator watching you perform on television knows he had it coming. It takes skill to manipulate the media into tainting a jury pool to help get a conviction. Is that what you did? Hmmmmm ...

And you claim Michael George, the Comic Book Murder guy, did it for the insurance, and oh, because he wanted a new wife? Well, then why wasn't the policy he took out years before well above the minimum? He only got $130K, Steve. That's a small pot for such grand plans. Why didn't Michael George take out $500K, or more? Isn't that what killers almost always do? Such a modest sum. And if he wanted a new wife, Steve, why didn't he just get a divorce? How does a guy with no mental history, zero criminal or domestic violence background, just wander into his own store one day and savagely shoot his wife in the head? Kinda strange. I mean, he doesn't fit the profile at all. Did the jury consider that?

And why didn't the jury believe his mother and daughter who said he was home when the murder took place? Why? Because of the mysterious note you found! ... The note jotted down by the homicide detective, then immediately forgotten, the note that a witness claimed he called the store and spoke with Michael George when the defendant was supposed to be home sleeping on his couch, as his mother said. Then you wheeled out the witness to tell everyone that the note was true. He had told the homicide detective 17 years ago that he called Michael George and thereby placed the wife killer in the store, thus canceling the wife killer's alibi. Finally, the truth was out. The homicide detective had just forgotten all about it!


But wait ... Did you or Judge James Biernat inform jurors of the notorious unreliability of witnesses, especially when it comes to confirming times? No, don't think so. You wanted them to believe that the key witness, Michael Renaud, could accurately recall the time of a phone call (without any corroborating phone records whatsoever) after 17 years. And it was easy, you had the mysterious note to prove it. Police had jotted down Renaud's claim 17 years ago. The note was proof. It must be a fact. Time for a conviction. Besides, everyone knows that mothers and daughters lie!

A note to Judge Biernat: please explain why you didn't throw this incredible crap out of the court room. Did you actually believe a man should spend the rest of his life in prison based on such flimsy and easily corruptible testimony? Did you actually believe that no forensics were necessary in this case? Did you actually believe police overlooked or lost or forgot the presumably crucial testimony of Renaud written down on a note 17 years ago and then quite suddenly discovered it again just sitting there in the cold case file? Or is it more likely that the note never existed in the first place and was invented at the last minute to help bolster testimony in this flashy Comic Book Murder case destined for a two-hour special on the lynch-mob television channel?



Regardless, the networks reaped the rewards of advertising revenue. At least someone is getting rich due to Michael George's conviction.

Time To Begin Prosecuting The Prosecutors - James Woodard of Texas Still Not Free

James Woodard, a black man, was dishonestly convicted of raping and murdering his girlfriend in 1981 and sentenced to life in prison. He was released on April 29, the 17th Dallas County inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing. According to CNN: "The jury believed Woodard was the last person seen with the victim. But according to court records, there were two other men that were with her. Police never followed up on the lead and prosecutors never shared the information with defense attorneys, even though they were legally obligated to do so."

Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins has gone on record as saying that corrupt prosecutors ought to be punished. Watkins wants to make it a crime from now on for prosecutors to knowingly hide or suppress evidence that could help a defendant. Naturally, many in the legal community there are alarmed by his comments, and especially those who are guilty of crimes against innocents.

Woodward told CNN: ""I think he should pay a penalty. I paid 27 years. He took my life away from me. What's the difference if it's by a gun, by words or by lies?"

I could not agree more!

A Great Prosecutor to Convict an Innocent Man - Nifong, Fatty Arbuckle, and Nancy Grace

My passion for gross and obvious injustice is equaled only by my loathing of The Emperor's Children, however, I must call attention to these observations by Jonathan Turley following the Duke Rape Case:

What's most remarkable about the whole scene, though, is how rare it is. Nifong's misconduct was hardly unusual: Some of the most high-profile cases in history have involved strikingly similar acts of prosecutorial abuse. But instead of being punished, the worst violators are often lionized for their aggressive styles -- maybe even rewarded with a cable television show.

Nifong is a classic example of the corrosive effect of high-profile cases on a prosecutor's judgment and sense of decency. Even before the players were indicted, the district attorney had played to the passions surrounding a black stripper's allegations that she had been raped by affluent white college boys. Nifong called the Duke players "a bunch of hooligans'' and promised that he would not allow "Durham in the mind of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl in Durham."

But he had a problem. The accuser kept changing her story, and there was no evidence of a gang rape. In addition to his prejudicial comments, Nifong was accused of withholding test results showing that DNA found on the woman's body and underwear came from at least four unknown males -- but none of the 46 lacrosse team members.

Nifong isn't the first prosecutor who, in his words, "got carried away" in the glare of television lights. In 1921, the silent-film star Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle was tried for the alleged rape and murder of a 30-year-old showgirl named Virginia Rappe during a party in a hotel suite. The San Francisco district attorney, Matthew Brady, faced a situation almost identical to Nifong's: His chief witness was less than credible.

Rappe's friend Maude Delmont dramatically described how Arbuckle had dragged Rappe into the bedroom, gleefully proclaiming, "I've waited five years to get you." She insisted that she spoke with Rappe three days later, just before the young woman died (of peritonitis caused by a ruptured bladder), and related the too perfect account of how Rappe yelled, "I'm hurt, I'm dying. He did it, Maude." In reality, rather than staying by her dying friend's bedside, Delmont had run to send a telegram to friends that read: "We have Roscoe Arbuckle in a hole here. Chance to make some money out of him."

It didn't matter. Brady was hooked. Like Nifong's conflicting DNA report, the coroner's report in the Arbuckle case found "no marks of violence . . . and absolutely no evidence of a criminal assault, no signs that the girl had been attacked in any way." Just as Nifong insisted that he had clear evidence against the lacrosse players, Brady released a statement (soon after receiving the coroner's report) saying that the evidence "shows conclusively that either a rape or an attempt to rape was perpetrated." Notably, when Arbuckle was finally acquitted in a third trial, the jury issued a written apology for the "great injustice . . . done him."

and further:

History is rife with such "great prosecutors" convicting the innocent to satisfy the public. In the 1913 Leo Frank trial, Atlanta chief prosecutor Hugh Dorsey pursued a Jewish factory owner for the rape and murder of 13-year-old factory worker Mary Phagan. It was a period of intense anti-Semitism, with crowds chanting "Kill the Jew" outside the courtroom. Prosecutors ignored the fact that all the evidence pointed to a janitor, Jim Conley, as the killer. Instead, they repeatedly rewrote Conley's conflicting statements to help him manufacture a coherent account for trial. Conley was identified years later as the killer by a witness, but it was too late for Frank. He was kidnapped from prison by vigilantes (including many leading lawyers) and hanged near Mary's grave.

When told that he had secured the death penalty against an innocent man, a Texas prosecutor once reportedly boasted that "any prosecutor can convict a guilty man; it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man."

and on to my favorite bad-TV personality who gets five stars for creative man-hating:

Consider the career of Nancy Grace. Before becoming a CNN and Court TV anchor, she was a notorious prosecutor in Alabama. In a blistering 2005 federal appeals opinion, Judge William H. Pryor Jr., a conservative former Alabama attorney general, found that Grace had "played fast and loose" with core ethical rules in a 1990 triple-murder case. Like Nifong, Grace was accused of not disclosing critical evidence (the existence of other suspects) as well as knowingly permitting a detective to testify falsely under oath. The Georgia Supreme Court also reprimanded her for withholding evidence and for making improper statements in a 1997 arson and murder case. The court overturned the conviction in that case and found that Grace's behavior "demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness and was inexcusable." She faced similar claims in other cases.

You might have expected Grace to suffer the same fate as Nifong. Instead, she has her own show on CNN, and the network celebrates her as "one of television's most respected legal analysts." On TV, she displays the same style she had in the courtroom. (In the Duke case, her presumed-guilty approach was evident early on, when she declared: "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape.")

The Grace effect is not lost on aspiring young prosecutors who struggle to outdo one another as camera-ready, take-no-prisoners avengers of justice. Grace's controversial career also shows how prosecutors can routinely push the envelope without fear of any professional consequences. Often this does not mean violating an ethics rule, but using legally valid charges toward unjust ends.

One of my favorite topics, and one largely ignored by Americans everywhere.