|
The prosecution in '99: What were they thinking?
In his interview, attached to the report, Terry Gilmore is asked about what he was up to during the long re-investigation of the Hettrick murder. He remembers being called and asked questions, chiefly relating to the 1992 Philadelphia trip. Otherwise, he doesn't remember much. No "major events," certainly.
Documents read out during the recent hearings reveal a more active role for the deputy DA. In late 1996, Broderick noted a meeting with Gilmore to discuss what they hoped Roy Hazelwood would do for them. In late 1997, Broderick's notes speak of telling Gilmore to expect a tape from Dr. Meloy. (He had only been retained days before, so this might have been, what, a sample of previous work?) The following month, Broderick, Gilmore, and Marsha Reed got together at the Holiday Inn to welcome Reid Meloy to town (apparently not a memorable "major event" in the life of Terry Gilmore. Sorry, Dr. Meloy.) They visited the scene where Peggy Hettrick's body was found, and the police evidence room. In June '98, there was a conference call between the same four participants, perhaps one of many.
But even all this hobnobbing with world-class experts on sexual homicide didn't ring any bells for Terry Gilmore, who never for a moment thought about Dr. Hammond. "I had absolutely no reason to believe he was involved in any way with Peggy Hettrick's murder," he says. "We had no inkling that [Hammond] was a possible suspect….it just never even occurred to us…."
And Jolene Blair says, "Dr. Hammond….wasn't even a blip on the screen. No one thought of him, no one talked about him." Maybe not around her, but Jack Taylor, another officer, testified at the hearings that in 1999, Hammond was pretty much common knowledge.
But Blair says, "...the crimes that he apparently perpetrated are so different than the Peggy Hettrick homicide…" Is she kidding with this? It's all about crotches, lady. This is the guy who had a camera zeroed in on the pubic area, who had a rating system for various individual components of the female genitalia, who painstakingly edited his productions. Dr. Hammond's hobby is way closer to the Peggy Hettrick homicide than anything Tim ever did. But they say there was no "pairing of sex and violence" in Hammond's productions. You know, the videotapes of which only a small percentage were watched before they were burned. Meanwhile, Tim's trial included such "pairings of sex and violence" as a sketch of a knife on the same school notebook page as a sketch of the cover of a men's magazine.
Alternate suspects? What alternate suspects?
Before charges were filed against Tim, there was a meeting in the DA's large conference room that included, Jolene Blair says, "all of the police officers that had been involved" in the Hettrick case - even some who had since retired from the force. She says, "Nobody voiced any reticence or reluctance or hesitancy or maybe we ought to look at this alternate suspect…" Gilmore was asked, "Did anybody indicate to you that they felt someone else may have done it or we should look into someone else before we file charges?" He said, "Not that I recall. I think we went around to everyone and I just asked them all and, everybody was comfortable…." How nice for them.
In another part of her interview, Blair says, "I think the PD tried very hard to consider all possibilities…" Here's something to wonder about: If nobody ever told this prosecutor anything, how could she measure their dedication to considering all possibilities? Especially when, according to everybody, there were no other possibilities? The most ridiculous thing we are asked to believe is: at the time of Tim's trial, absolutely no word of a possible Hammond-Hettrick connection had trickled through the grapevine to the ears of the prosecutors. Not a hint, not a smidgen of a clue.
Gilmore was specifically asked whether Hammond was mentioned at this meeting. He had "No recollection of any conversations where anyone proposed that he was a suspect in the Hettrick murder case." Blair says "…that investigation of Tim Masters was void of anything related to Dr. Hammond" If we must believe it, then we must. She goes on to say that because the video scandal had happened three or four years earlier, "Dr. Hammond wasn't fresh in our minds."
Hold onto that thought, and fast-forward to late 2007, during the hearings, when this conversation took place between original trial lawyer Erik Fischer and Jolene Blair. These are her words: "We talked about the fact that the defense now was trying to raise Richard Hammond as an alternate suspect. And I told him how ridiculous that was...And I said, 'and the allegation that we somehow kept him a secret is also preposterous.'" She goes on to say the Hammond affair was "all over the media. I mean, everybody knew…what happened with Richard Hammond and his circumstances was no secret." She was scolding Fischer for not being aware of Hammond when preparing for the trial back in 1999. He was supposed to have known all about Hammond, and been equipped to offer him as an alternate suspect. Yet, at the same time, Blair and Gilmore maintain that in 1999, Hammond was a non-factor, such a total non-issue, he was totally off the prosecution's radar. But Judge Blair! Didn't you say the Hammond affair was all over the media? Everybody knew? Everybody, that is, except the prosecutors, who obstinately, mulishly refused to even let him onto their screen.
And what alternate suspect list?
There seems to be some confusion about this. Erik Fischer testified that he asked Terry Gilmore for whatever alternate suspects they might have, and was given a "weak list", which would have been the "List of 94." This is something the prosecution should have turned over, and did turn over; yet for some reason felt compelled to deny having done.
Tom Quammen asks: "Did you give to the defense alternate suspect evidence or information?" Gilmore's answer: "Not that I recall. You mean like a list or anything? No I don't recall ever being any request and I don't recall us ever having any such thing as an alternate suspect list or anything like that." Michael Goodbee asks if there was a specific request made by one the defense trial counsel for information relating to alternate suspects considered in this case. Gilmore's answer: "I have no recollection of that ever occurring." Frank Spottke asks: "You were never asked by the defense lawyers for any alternate suspects or if you had any alternate suspects?" Gilmore's answer: "No. Not that I remember."
If they truly didn't know certain things, why was that?
Who knew what, and when did they know it? That's the gist of all high-profile inquiries. But awareness is one of the most difficult things to prove. There are several different ways of not knowing. One is by causing it to be understood that there are things you don't want to know. By whatever means, you get the idea across to your support staff that plausible deniability will be maintained. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a time-honored and widely-used strategy for the maintenance of blissful ignorance, and there may have been some of that going on. Linda Wheeler-Holloway says not. But that could be because people of very high integrity often don't even realize the evil that goes on around them. They're just not tuned in to the wavelength.
Here's a troubling contradiction: Troy Krenning testified in the hearings that, before the Masters trial, he stated many times that they were going after the wrong guy. "I had plenty of conversations with Jolene Blair about it…It was the beginning of the end of a friendly relationship."
Let's revisit the four areas of non-discovered evidence that were stipulated: the Meloy extractions, the anniversary surveillance, the Tsoi statement, and the Roy Hazelwood material. It seems that out of the many things that weren't given to either side in discovery, it was particularly important for the prosecution to claim ignorance about these.
But surely, the prosecution did know about the overwhelmingly pervasive role played by Meloy. What about all those phone conferences and meetings? The prosecution knew that Meloy practically wrote the arrest warrant, and that he approved it in a later form. His deep involvement at that stage was inappropriate, and the prosecutors were well aware of it.
The prosecutors knew Tim had been under some kind of surveillance in1988, although they may not have been aware of the scale of the operation. But somebody was. It had been a whole year in the planning. Scores of police officers knew about it, as did Lt. Deryle O'Dell, police chief Bruce Glasscock, a vice president at American Federal Savings, and the FBI. If the surveillance/psychological experiment didn't produce results, the police had planned to close the books on the case. It's hard to believe the DA's office didn't know.
Another way to avoid knowing things, is to not ask the right questions. For instance, "What ever happened with that big surveillance?" Apparently neither of the prosecutors asked that one. "What about that Tsoi fellow, the plastic surgeon? Where's the damn report?" Nobody asked that one, either. Back in '92, the failed arrest warrant contained references to the "profile" that never existed. Gilmore reviewed that document. Why didn't he ask for the FBI profile which supposedly backed it up? Because if there never was a profile, it was really much better not to know. Gilmore had been in on the negotiations with Hazelwood. "Where's the Hazelwood report that we paid $2000 for?" he might have asked, but apparently didn't.
As the Bible tells us, those who have ears will hear, and those who have eyes will see. Conversely, those who don't have ears or eyes will neither hear nor see.
Implications
Once again: The Special Prosecutor's Report tells us, "Neither Jolene Blair nor Terry Gilmore contemplated Hammond as a possible suspect in the Hettrick homicide during their time as prosecutors on the Hettrick case." Okay, suppose we take their word for it. For the sake of argument, let's say they never, ever had Hammond in mind. What does this tell us?
Maybe it tells us that Hammond is just one more of the things that should have been turned over to the lawyers on both sides. Another count of misbehavior against the police department. Fine, but just because, like all the other things that weren't turned over, this wasn't turned over, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists as much as those already-stipulated items exist.
Hammond should always have been a factor, by their own standards. Here's why. The first time around, when the brand-new murder was investigated in 1987, who was looked at? All known sex offenders in south Fort Collins. The "List of 94" started out with fewer than 94 names. The first version of it was a handwritten roster of known sex offenders in the geographical area, compiled by sex crimes investigator Linda Wheeler-Holloway from the information in her cabinet full of known sex offender files. Granted, Hammond was not then known as a member of that species.
But after he blossomed, when the scandal occurred in 1995, it is unconscionable that his artifacts were not examined for a connection with Peggy, and unforgivable that they were destroyed. That he didn't stick around to be tried and convicted is irrelevant. He was a known sex offender in south Fort Collins. Why, during that whole period of 1995 through 1999, didn't the police or prosecutors look at him? Not a man who doodled little drawings like Tim Masters, but one who had an elaborate studio setup, and who videotaped the genitals of hundreds of women? Why didn't anybody look at this pervert who lived right across the street from where Peggy's body was found - the most notorious sex offender ever to dwell in south Fort Collins? How could they not have? It adds up to more than willful ignorance. It looks very much like a decision was made and adhered to.
A day late and a dollar short, the buck stops here
There's an interesting line in the Special Prosecutor's Report. Even if the trial prosecutors actually never got the things they say they never got, they still "were responsible for discovery of this information because it was in the possession of the investigating agency." And that's as it should be. That means the District Attorney's office is in charge of keeping the cops honest, which it failed to do. The DA is supposed to keep the police in a position where, whether through fear of consequences or respect for the law, they wouldn't dream of withholding evidence.
On learning that the prosecutors are responsible for knowing about all evidence, and for turning over everything to the defense in the discovery process, even if they themselves don't have it, some have cried "Unfair!" Is it right that the prosecutors should be held accountable for not revealing things they themselves didn't know? Let's take a closer look at this.
There's a well-established principle of citizens being held responsible for what they didn't know. If you give someone a ride, and are stopped at a checkpoint, and your passenger's backpack is found to be full of cocaine, you can bet that your car will be seized and you will be charged. People are currently serving time for less. If the principle of responsibility for things they didn't know can be used against citizens, it can damn well apply to the authorities too, who are being paid hefty salaries to know everything.
The principle of people being responsible for the subordinates they control, is well established. If a dog bites someone, the owner is responsible. If a minor commits vandalism, the parents are made to pay. The investigative agency is presumed to be under the control of the DA's office just as surely as your dog is presumed to be under your control. No way should the trial prosecutors be let off easy.
The Special Prosecutor's Report concludes thusly: "Our office has provided information to each of [the three other ongoing investigations.] It would be inappropriate for us to comment on our conclusions until each of these investigations have been completed." So, what was all that stuff in the report, if not commentary? It certainly set the tone. Don't be surprised when the other three investigations all fall into line. Watch for the trial prosecutors to not be disciplined for anything. Watch for Lt. Broderick to be completely let off. As for the investigation of Peggy Hettrick's murder, it's too little, too late. Watch for it to fizzle into oblivion.
Page Previous 1 2 3 4
___________________________________
Pat Hartman published 25 issues of the zine Salon: A Journal of Aesthetics and currently is webslave at Virtual Venice.
|
