Delayed Justice

Ken Kolker is a tremendously talented reporter who moved from the print world of The Grand Rapids Press and has thrived with the transition to broadcast journalism at WOOD TV, channel 8.  Last night that station carried a half-hour special by Kolker of the investigation into the disappearance and presumed murder of Deanie Peters.  The piece was excellent and the result could be even better: someone may come forward…someone who knows what happened, who saw what happened.  The principal suspect in the case is dead, but there likely are others who had something to do with the case.  And as long as they had nothing to do with causing her death, Det. Sgt. Sally Wolter of the Michigan State Police and the Kent Metro Cold Case Team says they will NOT be prosecuted.  Deanie’s parents need to know.  The community wants to know.  And Ken has done something we do in this kind of work: he has reached out to a mass audience but aimed at one or two who can be the solution to this particular mystery, this particular crime.  At any rate, that’s the reason we try to tell these stories: we hope to reach the right ears and eyes.  For the rest…it’s really not entertainment or intended as such.  But it is a story and–because Deanie’s life has enduring meaning–the story has meaning for all of us.

On the eve of the new year Susan Samples at WOOD TV followed up on a story that should be familiar to readers of this site: the murder of Robin Wellso.

You can watch the story here. What’s really good about this is that Lt. Ralph Mason, now Grand Rapids Police Department’s Public Information Officer and Community Liaison, talks about the night 25 years ago when he was called to the crime scene. He remains committed to solving this case. That kind of bond augurs well for this and any other murder investigation where the investigator has a personal stake. Most do.

Ms. Samples had said that it was possible that investigators were trying to link this killing to the Heritage Hill Murders. And although Lamont Marshall–who is now serving a life sentence for one of those Heritage Hill murders–was out of prison and/or jail at that time, there is nothing to tie him to the case.

I had a question about the report and spoke with Ms. Samples. Was the spelling of the last name truly WELLSO? We had her listed at that time as Robin Welso…one L. That’s the way it’s listed on the Kent Metro Cold Case Team page. Ms. Samples indicated that ll the newspaper stories spelled it with two Ls, including in the obituary. A call to one of the former Cold Case Team members elicited the one L spelling of her name.

Both couldn’t be right, so I made a trip to the Kent County Clerk’s office and asked for a copy of her death certificate. i got it and it clearly shows two Ls: Robin Elaine Wellso. She was only 22.

At the same time I stopped at the local history division of the library and saw our friend Karolee Gillman. I scanned the newspaper accounts and we’ve posted them at the We Remember listing for Robin Wellso.

Jim and Glenna Chandler have said they will appeal the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Janet Neff. Certainly they will with the help of their attorney Rob Gaecke. I had heard from them earlier, but today’s story in The Grand Rapids Press makes it public. I’ve thought about this and wondered. I am not an attorney so there are causes and ramifications I don’t understand. But in the first place, I believe Judge Neff has a reputation as a good and fair judge. We will not likely know–ever–what she feels about a case, this case if particular. She may believe that Wackenhut is culpable or not, that she’d like the corporation held blameless or blameworthy. We don’t know. That was not her job. Her job was to decide on the basis of her research exactly what the law allowed or prohibited. If she’s a good judge, and we believe she is, her feelings don’t enter this work at all. Those of us outside the legal fraternity can say things like: “This doesn’t make sense.” “It’s not right.” “It’s not fair.” However human, we won’t be right to do so. Instead, we should take a look at precedent. In particular, she may have decided that the statue of limitation had run because of the work of the Michigan Supreme Court. In the Trentadue Case the state’s high court affirmed a three-year limit on the period to bring suit…even if the perpetrator of the crime was not known or identified. This is yet another legacy of the Taylor Court and Betty Weaver–a strong and reasonable voice on the court dissented. The result? According to Nacole M. Hurlbert, writing in the law review of the University of Detroit Mercy:

While the Trentadue court effectively precludes the common law discovery rule only with respect to wrongful death claims, it is likely that complete abrogation will follow. In coming to its conclusion, the court overruled decades of common law precedent. Although the court acknowledged that “the discovery rule does not create expectation or reliance interests,” its abrogation may have unforeseeable consequences in the future when a plaintiff’s cause of action is eliminated before it is discovered.

And that’s exactly what has happened.

In the Chandler case, it was 28 years after the crime that some of those responsible for the murder faced justice in a court of law. How could the Chandlers have sought civil relief any earlier? Against whom?

Justice Weaver descried it coming and lamented the High Court’s overturning of what had ben the common law until that point. You can read her dissenting opinion here. She was outvoted by what has come to be know as the Engler Court (for former Governor John Engler who appointed four of them to that bench).

In a case like this, Judge Neff may have decided that she has no choice but the follow the Trentadue decision and that it applies in this case. The appeal may bring the matter to other eyes and sensibilities, but it also might provide the grit for some traction to overturn what seems to us a betrayal of common sense by the Michigan Supreme Court in the Trentadue case.

Attorney Geacke is willing to take the case further. He certainly has the grit and resolve and he says he believes he’s right, particularly that that the law of equitable estoppel should hold sway, even in the face of the Trentadue case, because of the underlying fraud on the part of Carl Paiva in concealing his crime and the crimes of others.

We’ll see, we’ll see, we’ll see. Yes, let Justice roll down like the waters….

U.S. District Court Judge Janet Neff (Grand Rapids) today delivered her ruling that the Chandler’s lawsuit against Wackenhut could not go forward. According to sources she argued that the clock long ago ran out on the case and did not accept the argument of equitable estoppel…that the statute of limitations would run from the time the murderers were proven, not from the time of the crime.

You can read the story by Nate Reems of The Grand Rapids Press here.

Wackenhut contends that it had no role in the crime. Based on testimony here by the late Glenn Johnson there is another train of thought. And, given that the leader of the murderous pack was the head of the entire strike detail–Carl Paiva– you’d think there might be some small responsibility that attaches to the corporation. But that’s the thought of a layman, not a lawyer.

It’s possible that Judge Neff’s decision might be appealed. We’ll see. There are 30 days remaining before that clocks ticks out.

Last Saturday was crystalline and cold, but the sun was plenty sufficient that I could stand outside with no coat, no discomfort, no chill. The little birds flocked to the hedgerow a half a block away from where I stood outside the Oakdale Park Christian Reformed Church and set up their spirited conversation. Even the sound travel more crisply in the sunshine and cold. I was outside squinting against the brilliant reflection of the snow and bright blue sky waiting to welcome John Kotre. Now, John is someone who really understands the idea of story, and he was sharing his time to drive to Grand Rapids to speak about that. Oh, sure, he’s also an author, a psychologist, a professor emeritus from the University of Michigan. Yeah, he’s the guy who was behind Seasons of Life (with David Hartman). It was he who wrote the book on generativity, Make It Count: How To Generate a Legacy That Gives Meaning to Your Life. His latest book is The Story of Everything: A Parable of Creation and evolution. You can read all about him and his work here. …A very interesting and mindful man.

As I waited for John I reflected on what I hoped we were about to do: helpfully speak with family members of those who have been murdered. The group called The Conquerors was gathering for its monthly support meeting. I have written about that organization before and we link to it from this site. President Carolyn Priester (her son, Lee Randolph Preister, was murdered July 28, 2007) had invited me to come again and speak to the group. The first and last time I had done so was this most recent spring, and I thought that perhaps even better than my speaking would be sharing the kind of work John does. I had met him when he came to St. Mark’s Episcopal in Grand Rapids to discuss The Story of Everything. We captured his presentation on film and went on to work with him to create clips that he could use to enhance his work. When the invitation came from Carolyn, I thought of him and what he might be able to offer. I asked and he agreed to come.

John and I had spoken about this meeting several times: what did we have that might be of benefit? I understand stories in one way and I come from the standpoint of the media practitioner. (In my last discussion with The Conquerors I had stressed the importance of keeping alive the story of the person who is no longer at the table. I talked about Facebook, YouTube, ways of recording the story so that it could be transmitted.)

John comes at the idea of story from a much broader and deeper cultural perspective…really the story of the story. He had prepared a series of questions that he hoped would stimulate the conversation. He arrived in good time; at the same time, in fact, Silent Observer’s Chris Cameron did, and we walked in together.

The meeting? For the next hour and a half we asked, listened, shared, cried and laughed. And there was reference to the nature of the divine. We were, after all, in a church. Did we believe that our “time” was known? We’ve been assured that the hairs on our heads are numbered. What about our days? And if that’s so, did God “Take” him or her? In that way…by murder? What kind of a God is that? These questions were not directed at John or me; they were floating in the room. And I do not have answers for them but they are questions that matter, questions we’ve asked for millennia. I did write this down though, and it seems to sum up the feeling in the room: “You say it was his time…but it’s not our time to let him go.”

I wondered during the discussion if the questions we shared would have any value for others who find themselves in just this situation (and there are many). If so use them with our blessing:

—————-

The Story, The Family: “How do you tell this story in the family?”
Sat Jan 9, 2010, Grand Rapids meeting of the Conquerors

1) What is __________’s story?

You see a movie, you tell a friend, “Well, it’s about _______________.” Or “it’s the story of someone who __________.” Finish the sentence. Add another sentence or two. What is your loved one’s story? (They take the time to actually write, then share.)

2) Did the media get the story right? What did they miss? What do you want to keep private?

3) If justice is eventually served, if the perpetrators are caught and convicted, how would the story change? (Or perhaps: when justice was served, how did the story change?)

4) Now let’s turn to your family, and just your family. Every family has its stories. Where does this one belong? How do you tell it in the family? What do you say?

5) Should your loved one’s story rest? Should it die with you? (Why or why not?)

6) If the answer to the above is “No,” let’s go a few generations down the road. Thirty or forty years from now there’s a 10-year old, and he or she wants to know about his great-aunt or his great-uncle.

What’s the story then?
What’s the moral of the story?
What do you want that 10-year-old to learn from it?
What do you want your loved one to be remembered for?

7) Finally, what can you do with the story NOW so it will have that effect down the road?

—————

None of this is mean to gloss over the reality of what’s happened. The intention is to provide tools for thinking about the murdered one, the missing one, and to help frame the story so that as much good as possible can be retained or drawn out from a very bad situation. It’s my observation that you take any comfort you can find in this situation.

After the meeting, John and I debriefed over a late lunch. The event of the murder is so present to these family members, he said, that it takes over everything else. That was number one. Number two was the huge degree of difference it made to families of whether or not the killer had been caught. Oh, it’s never easy and it never gets easy, but there is something different about the story when the killer is known. I wouldn’t call it closure, but it’s different; perhaps having the murderer called to account allows a different kind of grief to begin. But that’s just a thought, not a certainty.