twitter.com

Robert Gebelhoff

Aug. 5, 2016

“Perhaps the virtue of these true-crime stories isn’t how they affect specific cases (indeed, without new and objective evidence that calls into question criminal convictions, it’s important – for the sake of the rule of law – to let decisions stand).

“Instead, series such as ‘Serial’ could have a positive impact on how ordinary Americans – the people who sit on juries and elect local prosecutors and judges – view criminal trials.

“Maybe we’ll be more willing to hold those running for local offices accountable for presenting fair cases and working to eliminate bias against the poor or minorities.

“Maybe we’ll be more appropriately skeptical of cases built on witness testimony alone, or question whether investigators used intimidation or unfair interrogation to get inaccurate information from witnesses….”

– From “How the ‘Serial’ podcast is challenging the criminal justice system” by Robert Gebelhoff in the Washington Post, July 6 (via the Denver Post)

Jan. 17, 2015

Q: Do you have a better understanding of why people act the way they do in certain situations?

A:   ….Whenever the safety of children is perceived to be in question, we run the risk of responding with emotion rather than reason. Certainly in Salem (where three of her ancestors were accused witches) that was the case. And look at the so-called “satanic ritual abuse” pre-school phenomenon in the early 1980s, which is now seen to have been a tremendous miscarriage of justice. Calls for moderation are dismissed with the assertion that the children have to come first — which, of course, they should.

“But it’s also tempting to read these experiences as expressive of a deeper anxiety about childrearing in an uncertain world, with no guarantees of a good outcome. I feel that it comes from a sense of powerlessness that can’t be expressed elsewhere….”

– From an interview with Katherine Howe, author of “Conversion,” a novel based on a mysterious 2012 outbreak of tics and seizures among teenage girls in upstate New York, in the Daily News of Batavia, New York (Aug. 23, 2014)

July 5, 2014

“The Burlington judge who has presided over the the Little Rascals Day Care Center case since 1990 resigned in disgust the day after the state Supreme Court refused to review (the overturning of) two convictions.

“D. Marsh McLelland, a retired Superior Court judge, said in a letter dated Sept. 8 that the court’s refusal to review the cases ‘is legally and morally reprehensible.’

“McLelland’s letter to Chief Justice Burley Mitchell said the refusal to review a Court of Appeals order for a new trial raised the term technicality to new heights….”

– From “Judge quits Little Rascals case” from the Associated Press (Sept. 22, 1995)

I imagine that the “technicality” comment was from a direct quote, although I haven’t been able to find either McLelland’s original letter or a more substantial account. It’s no wonder he felt humiliated – the Court of Appeals decision had laid bare his indifference to the rights of the defendants.

Regardless, McLelland’s resignation proved irrelevant, as prosecutors decided not to retry Bob Kelly and Dawn Wilson.

Jan. 18, 2012

“One way or another, justice has failed miserably in the agonizing case of the Little Rascals Day Care…. Last week, eight years after launching an investigation into possible sex abuse at the center, prosecutors announced they were dropping all charges against those who worked at the center.

“That means one of two things:

“(1) Either the defendants originally charged with hundreds of allegations of sex abuse in the 1980s are going to go virtually unpunished for their unspeakable deeds; or

“(2) Those same defendants have been badly treated by an overzealous prosecution team that broke all the rules of fairness in winning flawed guilty verdicts….”

– Editorial in The Charlotte Observer, May 29, 1997

So was that “overzealous prosecution team” simply blindered true believers, or did they realize early on their case was rotten to the core?

Defendant Scott Privott, who pled no contest and was released on probation after spending more than three years in prison, cuts through to the truth when he asks:

“Why did they offer me a plea? You know, if I’m supposed to be the monster that they said I was, if I did these crimes that they said I did, why would they offer me a plea?”

Why indeed, H.P. Williams?… Nancy Lamb?… Bill Hart?