Blog

Is Justice Being Done in Virginia?

Twenty-eight years ago our community was shocked by a deer hunter’s discovery of the body of a pre-teen boy in a wooded area in Hanover County. His mother had reported him missing days before when she returned home from work and found his school backpack near the front door and the door key still in the lock. The boy’s hands and feet were bound, and he was clad only in his briefs and socks. That he had been abducted was clear, but the medical examiner’s report also indicated he had been sexually abused, and had been struck in the head. He died from exposure to the cold when he fell and could not get up after trying to hop for help nearby through the brush, branches and tree roots.

There were no leads, and therefore no immediate arrests. However, there were clues. Forensic tests revealed the presence of chemicals used in pesticides in the bindings on the child’s limbs. About 6 months later similar chemicals were found on ligatures used to bind two young sisters who were abducted, stripped, and left tied to trees. Fortunately, they managed to free themselves and escape from a wooded area near their home. The girls were able to identify their abductor, a then-19 year old man, who worked for his family business – an exterminating enterprise. The man confessed to the girls’ abduction. He was sentenced to a long prison term.

Due to some similarities in the two cases, the man became a suspect in the abduction and death of the little boy. But he was not charged then. Apparently, there was insufficient evidence linking him with that crime. This would change a quarter century later.

The man was indicted for the murder of the little boy by a circuit court grand jury shortly before he was to be released from prison on parole for the abduction of the two sisters.  He was held without bond. A trial for the boy’s murder ended in a hung jury (i.e., all jurors could not agree on his guilt or innocence). He was re-indicted and tried again before another jury, with the same result.  But this did not end the matter.

The man was tried a third time last week. New evidence was produced in this trial in the form of the testimony of a woman who had not been heard from before in the previous trials. She said that 28 years ago she overheard the man talking to another person about what may have been the boy’s restraint. She identified the man with whom the defendant had this conversation, but though available through subpoena, he did not testify. On cross-examination she said she did not know the defendant was being tried for the boy’s murder until she saw newspaper or television news reports on the case after the second trial, although she resided in the area the entire time. It is unknown whether or not she had come forward with information about the boy’s murder sooner – such as soon after the body was found.

Newspaper reports describe some jurors stating the presence of the pesticide chemicals in the two cases was important. Although jurors are not required to divulge what discussions were had in the jury room, it was the woman's testimony that was missing in the first two trials, and may well have been the determining factor in “un-hanging the jury.”

Certainly, this verdict is going to be a subject of discussion among our community for a long time. At least, it should be, because all of the evidence was circumstantial, and there was no identification of defendant as being seen with the victim, no confession by him of committing the crime (as he did in the case involving the two girls), and no forensic evidence of the kind normally associated with sexual assault cases such as hair, fibers, blood, or semen. Was the defendant responsible for the little boy’s death, or did someone else do it? 
 

Law enforcement officers and prosecutors in Virginia have come under public scrutiny recently. Just two weeks ago, a group of almost 20 former FBI agents publicly challenged the governor to pardon former Navy personnel now in prison for the rape and murder of a woman in the Tidewater area a few years ago. The former agents held a press conference in Richmond and signed a petition asking the governor for a reprieve of these men. After a review of the case record and the evidence, these former G-Men concluded these men could not have committed the crime, that their co-defendant (another Navy enlisted man who is serving a life sentence for the crime whose DNA was at the crime scene) did act alone as he has now admitted, and that their confessions were illegally coerced by the police.

Among the legal and forensic sciences communities across the country, questions in the Hanover case will be discussed, and these issues debated back and forth:

• Why wasn’t the defendant tried sooner, such as while he was still in prison on the conviction for abducting the little girls and the memory of witnesses was fresher?

• Was  the defendant tried and re-tried, and re-tried again, only because he was about to be released on parole?

• Were the chemicals found on the bindings in both cases only found in pesticides, or were they then common to other products?

• Why wasn’t the man to whom the defendant allegedly made the statements the woman testified about called to testify to corroborate her testimony – or to disprove it? Wouldn’t he be the best witness to tell the jury exactly what the defendant was talking about – and, if the conversation even occurred?

• Did the jury know that child molesters almost never choose victims of different gender, but select as victims either boys or girls; and if they did, what effect did this information have on their verdict?