I read this report of Ros's in another discussion forum and asked Ros if she wasn't going to post it here, could I post it for her. I know so many of you are wanting to know more details of how the trial went and what was the JW responses or was there any JW show of support this time....lots of questions.
Ros gave me her permission to post her account of the trial proceedings so here it is folks.
Please note her mention of the Dateline date and the sound reasons for the delay. We all want the best possible coverage and whatever causes their scheduling delays, we can be sure it is for the best and to the benefit of presenting the whole true picture.
Had Enough
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hi, friends:
I thought you might be interested in some of the details about the trial in
Ritzville. Feel free to share this with others as you like.
As you may have heard, we who were there to support Erica had some worries
in the beginning. First, one of the regional newspapers had leaked a story
about the case, including some of the details from the previous trial.
Because this could prejudice a jury, there was concern that the defence had
grounds to call for a mistrial.
Some facts of interest:
· The guilty verdict of the first trial was revoked on a technicality. If I understand it, the defendant had been asked the question (words to this effect): "If you were asked in court whether you are guilty or innocent, what would be your answer?" To which the defendant had replied, "Guilty".
This was evidently offered into evidence in the first trial. However, the question had been asked AFTER the defendant was told that he did not have to answer any more questions. Since that was a particularly damaging piece of evidence in the first case, the guilty verdict was thrown out, which laid the basis for his appeal, in which he now insisted on pleading totally innocent of all charges except having touched the child "in a sexual way" outside of her clothing one time.
· For jury selection in this second trial, it was critical for anyone to be
considered to have no prior knowledge of details of the first case. As
mentioned, one of the local newspapers of a nearby town had published the
story of the up-coming trial, including some of the specifics of the first
trial including why the verdict was thrown out--if I understand it. For
having travelled so far, we were all worried for a while about it being
declared a "mistrial".
· In this second trial, it is noteworthy that not only were the two lawyers
for the prosecution and the defence the same as before, but it was also the
same judge as in the first trial.
· The judge called for a special hearing on Monday, the day before the
trial was scheduled to begin, to consider the complaints about the
newspaper leak. Also presented was the fact that someone had distributed
some flyers to homes around the neighborhood notifying people of a
pedophile living in their neighborhood. Evidently there was some concern
that exJWs (in particular Richard Rawe) may have done this, lending to
prejudice a potential jury.
· Rawe, who was very active in getting media attention for the trial, was
called in and questioned as to whether he knew anything about the
distribution of the fliers. He did not. It was determined that the fliers
had a very limited distribution in the man's neighborhood, and was probably
done in compliance with the law. All things considered, the judge ruled
that the trial would go forward as scheduled.
· A stipulation was placed on this trial that any issues about religion
would not be allowed into evidence. This stipulation also worried us, since
in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, that fact has direct bearing on why the
victim did not report the crime earlier. Also, as some of you may know, the
officer--the sheriff who first reported this crime to the secular
authorities--was a JW to whom the crime had been confessed, and he felt
compelled to honor his sworn duty to uphold the law", and so he reported
the matter to the authorities. Soon thereafter he was disfellowshipped for
unspecified reason. He was neither formally told about being DF'd nor was
he ever given any reason for being disfellowshipped. It is assumed that he
was DF'd for reporting the crime. This information also could not be
introduced by the prosecution in this trial because of the religion
implications. It could not even be pointed out that the defendant himself
had been 'disfellowshipped' for pedophilia for 6 months and then
reinstated. In other words, Jehovah's Witnesses could not be pointed to in
any way as having any responsibility in this case.
About 20 people showed up from various parts of the country to support
Erica. Several of us met for breakfast on Tuesday before the trial began.
Erica and her family and the young sheriff who had reported the matter, and
his wife, came in briefly as they were on their way to a pre-trial meeting
at the courthouse. They all seemed like warm and genuine people; a very
attractive, wholesome appearing and caring family.
A great part of the first day was spent in jury selection, even though the
judge said the trial was expected to last two days. When it was finally
selected, the jurors were instructed very specifically that they must
consider all the evidence and only the evidence, and in effect not vote
their conscience but follow the letter of the law to rule their decision,
whether they agreed with it or not. In the absence of evidence that proved
the charge beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, they must find the
defendant innocent. The judge's instructions were quite adamant.
In the meantime, we heard that Erica had become ill and visited the local
hospital. However, the trial proceedings continued without interruption.
After the jury instructions were given by the judge, the prosecuting
attorney gave his opening statement. The defence attorney opted to give his
opening statement later in the trial. Then the first witnesses were called.
The first was the local officer of the law who had first interviewed the
defendant when the crime was reported. Then Erica's mother was called, and
then her father. (The parents now reside in Mexico, and the state of
Washington paid the way for all family members who needed to testify in the
trial.) Erica's mother, when asked how she and her family had known the
defendant, said they were the same religion, Jehovah's Witnesses. She
mentioned it twice in her testimony. The defence lawyer cringed, but did
not object and the point was allowed. (I guess he could not challenge an
honest answer to an honest question.)
During further questioning, the mother explained how she first found out
about her daughter being molested, and subsequently raped, by this man who
had been a long-time close friend of the family. Also how she had then
talked to the defendant on the phone about it, accusing him to his face.
She told how he had apologized saying he had a problem that way.
A significant point that the defence lawyer focused on was that he never
ever admitted to anything beyond fondling. He only ever admitted to having
touched the child outside of her clothing in a sexual way. Even the parents
and the officer, under cross examination, had to admit that he never
admitted to having actual intercourse. In this trial, he claimed "touching"
the genital area had happened only once, and outside of her clothing.
The first day ended, and we were wondering how the trial could be completed
in just one more day.
The second day many of us who were lodging in Ritzville (some were staying
in Spokane) met again for breakfast and Erica and her family joined us. I
had heard that several people were planning to send flowers, so when I saw
a cute little stuffed lamb in a gift shop on the say to Ritzville, I bought
it. I gave it to her at breakfast. Flowers came to the courthouse later
that day. I can't describe how comforting all the support seemed to be for
Erica and her family. From all that I could observe, it made a tremendous
difference in their confidence and determination in facing this ordeal, and
they were all so appreciative. (Remember that in the first trial, the
observers were local JWs who supported the defendant and jeered Erica.
There were even treats to kill her. "I'll kill you" is in the actual
transcript more than once. (Richard obliged us all with a copy of that page
at the recess. :-) There had been no one on her side of the court in that
first trial.
This time, the Jehovah's Witnesses were most conspicuous by their absence.
It appeared there was not one JW observer in this little courtroom.
..On this second day, a couple of prosecution witnesses took the stand before
Erica herself was called to testified. When asked how she knew the
defendant, like her mother she said they were all Jehovah's Witnesses.
Again no objection was made. The defence even asked her if in their
religion they were discouraged from associating with others outside the
religion, to which Erica said, oh yes. During the questioning, the defence
lawyer asked her to relate the things that had happened and give dates. She
described the molesting that had occurred since she was four, beneath her
clothing. The rape had occurred when she was eleven, her age of
puberty--that is how she specifically remembered when it was. He had said:
"You're a young lady now."
The defence tried to find inconsistencies in her story, especially in the
times, and at one point said that she was telling different stories. She
stood her ground, often fighting tears, and insisted flatly that she had
been raped and that it had occurred in 1990. The judge was very observant
of her, and a couple of times even displayed a bit of kindly concern. He
handed her a face tissue at one point, and a cup of water another time.
Otherwise, generally speaking, he appeared objective and unbiased.
After Erica's testimony is the time the defence attorney chose to give his
"opening statement." Erica was not present, having left the courtroom. The
acoustics were terrible in the courtroom, and with the air-conditioners
going we often could not hear what was being said. Especially the
prosecuting attorney, which we JW/exJW observers were not impressed with.
It was our impression that the defence was for all appearances the more
personable attorney. It was also very apparent that both attorneys and the
judge and just about everyone associated with the court were all friends,
or at least knew one another quite well. There had even been some joking
during jury selection, between the prospective jurors and the attorneys, in
particular the defence attorney who was handling some escrows for some of
them. No secret was made of this fact. (Life in a small town.)
In his "opening statement" now, the defence lawyer said he intended to show
inconsistencies in Erica's story, in particular problems with the dates.
Also, that at no time had the defendant or any of Erica's witnesses been
able to testify that the defendant had admitted to rape, which he denied.
The only thing they had was Erica's word, and it was his contention her
story was not consistent.
After the opening statement, the defendant's daughter was called to
testify. Her testimony revealed that she and Erica had been best friends
for many years, even sharing a diary. Erica often stayed over at their
home, and vice-versa. The daughter expressed believing her father. Next,
the defendant's son was called, and he was questioned much the same way,
and also expressed belief of his father's innocence. After the son, a young
man who was a friend of the family who had been staying with the
defendant's family, presumably when the rape occurred.
Throughout all the time when Erica's witnesses were giving their testimony,
the defendant avoided looking at them. He was constantly writing on a
notepad, and only glanced up once in a while, usually to make a comment to
his attorney. However, when his children were on the stand, he watched
them. Also of interest, when they were asked how their family knew Erica's
family, they only said that it had been a life-long friendship. Pressed for
how they came to know them (and this was asked by their father's attorney),
they would not make any reference to the religion or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Both the son, the daughter and the friend would just shrug their shoulders
and merely say they had just always known them.
Since Erica and her mother had already revealed that their association was
through being JWs, and the defence attorney himself had questioned Erica
about being discouraged from association with anyone outside of the
"church", this avoidance of mentioning the religion by the defendant's
children was all the more obvious to everyone. Only when the lawyer asked
if they lived near each other would they even volunteer that much beyond
the fact of just always having known them.
Next and last, the defendant himself was called to the stand. During
questioning, he calmly denied everything except having touched the child
one time in a sexual way when she was very small sitting on his lap.
According to the officer's report he had admitted "touching her boobs".
During his testimony he avoided looking at the jury. When asked various
things, he would simply say, very calmly, "it did not happen." No
explanation, little more than just denial. On cross examination, the
prosecuting attorney (I could barely hear this) asked him if he denied what
was in the police report that he admitted he "touched her boobs". He hemmed
and hawed a little but finally admitted that. Then he was asked if he
denied what was in the report that he had said she exaggerated, that she
was not four but five when the molesting started. He would only admit to
touching the one time.
The man's family had been brought into the courtroom just prior to him
taking the stand, to hear his testimony. They were seated behind us in the
back of the room.
After his testimony, the two lawyers gave their summation. We could not
hear one word of the prosecuting attorney's summation--not a word. He was
VERY soft spoken, and showed almost no gestures or emotion. We--at least
I--could hear most of the defence attorney's summation.
When he finished, the jury was excused for deliberation, and all of us
except the defendant's family were asked to leave the courtroom. Outside,
we speculated about what the outcome might be considering all the things
that gone awry, and what might go in the defendant's favor. Some thought
that maybe he would be found guilty of the molesting, but not the rape.
Others were pretty sure he would be found guilty. Well, as you know now,
that is what happened. The jury returned the verdict, guilty on all four
counts.
I have to say, I was really impressed with the fact that the defendant was
given every consideration--even advantage I would call it--for being given
a chance to be declared innocent by any reasonable doubt. The jury was a
genuine mix of people; some young women, some young men, some older men and
women, and the nationality of one young man was Chicano, giving the
defendant at least one representative of nationality. A guilty verdict
required a unanimous jury. If there had been just one hold-out, they would
have let him go. With every consideration and presuming no foreknowledge of
the previous trial, it is to their credit they all saw through him, and it
didn't take long to return their decision.
..There were several reporters from several
newspapers of the region interviewing Bill and others, and DateLine was on
hand for almost every step. No filming or recording devices could be taken
into the courtroom, but DateLine was camped on the porch of the courthouse,
and caught people on camera as they came in and when they left,
including the defendant and his wife and attorney. They even filmed us
having some of our meals at breakfast and lunch. Its events like this that
keep cropping up that keep pushing the DateLine show back. Looks like its
going to be October or November now. The good news is, the show's going to
be all the better for content, and November is the time they save their
best shows for.
I should mention I went from memory on all this--I didn't take notes. If I
got something a little mixed up or out of sequence, I'm sure someone will
set it straight soon, but this will give you the gist for now.
Ros"
----------------------------------------------------------------------