Re: Authors On Dateline NBC Sunday Night Please Watch (I am out of office)

Posted July 2, 2004 · July 2, 2004

I am out of the office from 26 June to 1 August. I shall not be accessing my

email during this time and will respond to you when I come back.

Have a nice day.

>>> SSRI medications 07/03/04 13:05 >>>

This is from Medico and Mollye Barrows the authors of

A Perversion of Justice regarding the and King case that will be

on Dateline NBC Sunday night. I hope that you will

watch and write to Dateline in support of their efforts.

As one whose voice is to advocate on behalf of children I plan to write and

continue to express my concern for the lack

of understanding this prosecutor continues to demonstrate through his

comments of addressing pedophile behaviors.

His failure to recognize the pedophiles grooming technics continues and is

the only way one could expect or even make the statement that theses boys should

have been able to express normal reactions. The very essence of oppression

is to conceal and control.

Even to those untrained, reading even one of the letters Ricky Chavis had

written to the boys you can see the absolute control he sought and had gained

over them.

Truth is freedom, let it ring, for all of our children whose innocence was

stolen by ignorance.

email: dateline@...

A link to order this book is below.

Hi Folks.

The Dateline NBC segment on our book A Perversion of Justice will air on

Sunday July 4th. not tonight as was previously scheduled. (Don't know the exact

time yet.)

Sorry for the confusion,

& Mollye

<A

HREF= " http://g.msn.com/0MNBUS00/1?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5342389/ & & PS=70033\

& SU=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/ & HL=Case%20against%20%20and%20Ale\

x%20King & CM=Dateline%20NBCTSM & CE=StoryLink3 " >Click here: MSNBC - Case against

and King</A>

Harper Publishers

Case against and King

Two boys caught up in controversial murder case

Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET July 02, 2004

It hardly seemed possible. Two such young, sweet-faced boys were charged with

the murder of their own father. Their trial riveted the country and the

verdict sparked outrage. Although the case was highly controversial, there was

one

thing almost everybody agreed on, that and King had been failed by

almost every adult in their young lives. You can find a book excerpt about the

case, as well as responses from the parties involved, below:advertisement

document.write('

" A Perversion of Justice: A Southern Tragedy of Murder, Lies and Innocence

Betrayed "

By Medico and Mollye Barrows

<A

HREF= " http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/TVNews/Dateline%20NBC/A%20Perve\

rsion%20of%20Justice%20_%20Ch21.pdf " >Read an excerpt (pdf)</A>

Response from Mike Rollo, Rick Chavis's defense attorney

1) I wouldn't waste my time reading a fanciful fiction piece about a case

that I tried to a real jury, with real facts, and got a real acquittal, and

about

which I know more than either of the authors;2) It seems that the authors

can't face the reality that and King killed their father; they did it

without anyone's suggestion or assistance; and they almost got away with it by

committing perjury five times and by blaming an innocent man, Rick Chavis.

Response from author Mollye Barrows

Our book was not an attempt to vilify the Sheriff's Department or the

prosecutor. It was an honest attempt to write the truth as it was revealed in

depositions, trial transcripts, personal interviews, and our perception of the

investigation and trying of this case... and I absolutely stand behind

the

truth of this book and I hope Mr. Rimmer will not allow his pride to overpower

his common sense.Response from Rimmer, Assistant State Attorney

Forasmuch as Mollye Barrows and Medico have taken it upon themselves

to write a book about the King case and what they perceive as a " perversion of

justice, " it seemed good to me also; having had perfect understanding of this

case from the very beginning, to respond to their book in order for people,

who did not attend the trials, to know the truth.After reading the book, I was

struck by some of the glaring omissions of facts and blatant errors that it

contained. It was as though they were writing about trials they wish they had

seen instead of the ones that actually took place. The book raises questions

about the personal motives of the authors. It should come as no surprise to

anyone that Medico and Barrows had developed a friendship with the King brothers

and bonded with them long before they and Ricky Chavis went to trial. Their

book is nothing more than an attempt to vindicate the King brothers and vilify

the Sheriff's Department and the Prosecutor.The book notes that most of the

family members believe and are innocent but fails to mention that

their grandfather, Wilbur King, stated to Connie Chung on national television

that he believed they were guilty.When the bond hearing was conducted, the tape

recorded confessions of and were presented to the Court as well as

the photographs of the crime scene, which I had mounted on a large piece of

foam board. During a recess of the proceedings, Stokes came over to me

and

asked if he could take a look at the pictures. He picked up the foam board

and walked over to where and were seated and propped it right up in

front of them. I watched carefully to see what their reactions would be. I

assumed that's why Stokes was showing the pictures to them. You would think

that if they loved their father and had not killed him, they would show some

kind

of shock or sadness when they saw the pictures of their brutally murdered

father. But noooo*they cocked their heads from side to side and demonstrated

all

the curiosity of two boys looking at a dead squirrel. And yet on p. 176 of

the book a reference is made to Chavis describing how he believes the murder

occurred. The book says, " How could he claim to be Terry King's best friend

and be so amused about the crushing of his skull? " I thought the same thing

about and as I watched them looking at the crime scene photos. Even

when they testified in the trials and later at depositions, they never showed

any emotion while describing the murder.The idea that Chavis committed the

murder and convinced the boys to confess in order to protect him is contradicted

by the evidence, reasonable inferences, logical conclusions, and simple common

sense. Consider the following:The boys admitted that when they ran away on

November 16

they called Chavis from a pay phone at the EZ Serve store ½

mile down the road from their house. He came and picked them

up and hid them for almost 10 days. The phone records

supplied by BellSouth and introduced in evidence show the call

on November 26 to 911 reporting the fire was made at 1:37 a.m.

At 1:39 a.m. a call was placed to Chavis's home from the same

EZ Serve store where the boys called him when they ran away

on November 16.The boys would later admit that after killing their father on

November 26, they ran down the road to the EZ Serve store and

called Chavis. Somehow, this information doesn't appear in the

book.

At trial claimed Chavis told him to leave the backdoor

unlocked and he would come by at midnight. After hearing

testify, you would have to believe Ricky Chavis arrived at the

house and parked right in front where the outside motion

detection light was located, sneaked inside without knowing

where Terry King was or what he was doing, removed both boys

and put them inside his car, went back inside with no weapon,

found a baseball bat, killed Terry, set the fire, and left. Then

after arriving at his home, Chavis told them every gruesome

detail and got them to agree to take the blame.Chavis and the boys may have

had a plan to meet that night but it was not going to be at the King house.

Since Terry had put new locks on the front door and stationed himself in the

front room, the only way the boys could sneak out and meet up with Chavis was to

wait until Terry was asleep, sneak out the backdoor, go to the EZ Serve store

and call Chavis. Chavis was expecting them to call around midnight and when

they had not done so he drove to the area two different times looking for them.

When they finally called at 1:39 a.m., he raced to the EZ Serve and picked

them up. After arriving at this home he had them take showers and he washed

their clothes. Why would the need to take showers at 2:00 o'clock in the

morning? Chavis then drove to the crime scene and made contact with law

enforcement

in an effort to determine if what the boys had told him was true.If Chavis had

killed Terry King as and would later claim, why should he tell

them? The best thing would have been to say some unknown intruder must have

entered the house after the boys ran away. In that case, no one gets arrested.

Not the boys, not Chavis. The finger of suspicion could have been pointed at

the s because, according to the book, they wanted custody of , and

Terry King had said Mr. had threatened to kill him.The book claims birth

certificates were missing from Terry King's house. Yet no birth certificates

were found when the police served a search warrant on Chavis's home.If Chavis

was worried about not sticking to the story of being in the woods after

the murder (p.316) why would he not also be worried that might not

stick to the story that he () committed the murder? had no problem with

committing perjury. During his testimony in the Chavis trial the following

exchange took place when I was questioning him:Q: Okay. Assume that you ran way

on November the 16th, did you call somebody to come and pick you up?

A: No, sir.

A: I didn't make a phone call.Here's what happened a few minutes later when

Mike Rollo, Chavis's attorney, was questioning him:Q: Now, you had said

earlier upon a question from Mr. Rimmer that you did not call Rick Chavis the

first

time you ran away. Did you say you did or didn't call him?

A: I said I didn't, but actually I did.

Q: Actually you did?

A: Yes, sir.After testified in his own trial the following week, Judge

Bell expressed concerns about the possibility of perjury. The Judge called

the attorneys to the bench and said, " I wonder at this point if-if King

should not be advised outside of the presence of the jury, of course, that his

immunity does not protect him from perjury if you've got two sworn statements

that are in contradiction with one another. " The Judge was referring to

contradictions between King's grand jury testimony, where he had immunity,

and

his trial testimony. Somehow all of this got left out of the book.Another

concern is the book's unmistakable implication that Lay committed perjury

when she testified. Mrs. Lay testified in the King trial that after she and her

husband apprehended on November 24 they took him to their house and

talked to him for approximately one hour. Then they went by the police station

but found it closed and returned to their home with . They talked to him

for a while and called the police, who came to the house. She testified that

during their conversations with he said, " If you send us back, my brother

has a plan to kill him. " This is what she actually said at trial, yet the

book claims 's " innocuous statement " would be later " twisted " into " a

plan to kill Terry King. " (p.213) and Lay had taken into their

home and tried to help him for 6 ½ years. They both made it clear to me that

they did not want to hurt but they would tell the truth. They would

not even allow me to come to their home so I could see where had lived

because they thought it might hurt his case. The deputy who picked up

from

Mr. And Mrs. Lay did not hear 's comment because it occurred before he

got there. The deputy was not asked, in the King trial, whether or not he

heard 's statement. But he testified in the Chavis trial as follows:Q: (By

Mike Rollo) " where you present when King admitted to the Lays that he and

had plan to kill their father?

A: No, sir.

Q: That would have happened outside of your hearing; is that right?

A: Yes, Sir. " The book clearly misrepresents the testimony of Lay.The

book has a picture of Terry King's feet propped up on the couch as the crime

scene.The picture does not show the cup that was found next to him but the

caption at the bottom says " a full cup of coffee balanced on his hip. "

Balanced

on his hip? Really? There are several pictures of the cup and not a single

one shows it " balanced on his hip. " But Barrows and Medico don't include any

of those pictures. The reader must simply take their word for it. The photos

show a container leaning against the arm of the recliner next to Terry King's

right leg. It is not " balanced on his hip. " One of the biggest

inconsistencies in the book is the fact that Chavis considered a " loose

cannon " and

it was only a " matter of time before the capricious boy said the wrong thing

and sent the calvary charging to Fort Chavis. " (p.216). If that's the case,

why would Chavis trust him to take the blame for the murder and not " say the

wrong thing? " Chavis had only known for six weeks. Yet he's going to

trust this kid with his life?The book points out that the psychologist who

evaluated concluded that he didn't have the capacity to plan and use

forethought, as would be required to have carried out the " complicated " acts

involving murder. (p.228). How complicated is it to pick up a baseball bat and

hit a

sleeping man over the head with it? We're not talking about a plan to hijack

airplanes and attack the World Trade Center.The statement on p.245 that

testified in the Chavis trial about the details of his sexual relationship

with Chavis is simply not true. He merely acknowledged that a sexual

relationship existed. He was not asked about details.Much is made of the

various love

letters that wrote to Chavis, which I introduced in the trials. But no

mention is made of a letter that wrote to his father that was also

introduced. In this letter, addresses his father as " Terry " and refers to

their

home as a " prison " from which he and had planned to escape.When

started crying on the witness stand during cross-examination by Mike Rollo and

the court took a brief recess, the courtroom did not brake into " pandemonium "

as the book claims (p.258). I did hear someone sobbing hysterically and

looked up to see that it was Medico, the wannabe-mother of . I

didn't see or hear anyone else crying but I did see a lady rolling her eyes at

Medico's performance in disgust.Another error appears on page 244 regarding love

letters that had written about Chavis. was shown these letters at

trial and identified them. The book says, " This process continued for well over

a dozen letters. " This is simply not true. There were a total of 7 such

letters, not " over a dozen. " This error is inexcusable because Barrows and

Medico were present when these letters were shown to and entered into

evidence.The book criticizes the fact that the courtroom was not cleared of

unnecessary spectators when testified in the kidnapping and molestation

case

against Chavis. (p.368). Contrary to the book, Judge Bell did conduct a

hearing

even though Stokes, who was 's lawyer, never filed a motion on his

behalf. Mike Rollo objected to a closure of the courtroom. The Judge was

provided with case law that says the Court cannot order closure unless it makes

required findings to justify it. To do so without making such finding is

reversible error. An attorney who represented the mother of , asked the

Court for

closure and said that Stokes was supposed to have filed something but failed

to do so. After hearing testify that it would bother him " somewhat " to

testify in open court and after carefully considering the relevant case law,

Judge Bell ruled that the courtroom would not be closed when testified.

Although Florida Law does allow the use of video taped testimony of a child

under the age of 16, the motion to do so can be filed by the victim or his

attorney, or his parent, or even the Judge, as well as the prosecutor.

Interestingly, Stokes never filed such a motion. In any event, the Judge

still has

to find that certain facts exist to justify such a procedure. It is not

automatic. If Barrows and Medico and the numerous other fans of were so

worried about him having to testify in open court, why didn't they show their

solidarity and support for him by walking out of the courtroom when he

testified?

Instead, Barrows and Medico remained crouched in their seats salivating like

two dogs waiting for a treat.The most telling moment of all came not during any

of the trials, but during a deposition of that was taken on 1-15-03 at

the Juvenile Detention Facility by Mike Rollo. Stokes announced before it

began that he had to leave in order to catch a flight and Dennis Corder would

remain on his behalf. There came a point during the deposition when was

asked about what, if anything, did Chavis tell him about the idea of killing

his father. Before answering, asked to speak to Stokes in private and the

two held a private conversation outside our presence. When the deposition

resumed, Stokes stated on the record that he would be leaving shortly and Corder

would sit in for him. Corder made it clear that he didn't claim to have any

attorney/client privilege with . The deposition continued with Rollo

asking about the circumstances of his father's death. Eventually Stokes

left.

admitted that he did not tell the truth when he tried to blame Chavis

for the murder. When Mr. Rollo asked him whose idea was it to try to blame Mr.

Chavis, Mr. Corder immediately objected on grounds that the question may

violate attorney/client privileges! He argued that he didn't know if it had been

Stokes' idea or not but he didn't want to answer that question. That was

absolutely amazing! At no time had Mr. Rollo asked any questions about

his conversations with Stokes and the questions itself had nothing to do with

conversations between and Stokes. And yet Corder objected. It was clear

that Corder was concerned that was about to say that the idea to blame

Chavis had come from Stokes. I wonder why none of this was ever mentioned in

the book entitled " A Perversion of Justice? " Instead the book is full of so

much melodrama that it reads like an over-the-top self-parody as seen on the

" The Daily Show " with Jon .There will always be people who believe

and are innocent. Just like there will always be people who believe that

is innocent no matter what happens with his case; or that the

cops tried to frame O.J. I could have taken the easy way out on this case

and simply dropped the charges on the King brothers after Chavis was indicted

and just gone after him. The supporters of the King brothers would have loved

me. I would not have received all those hateful e-mails, and the molester

from Missouri would not have filed a complaint against me and the Florida Bar.

But the truth is not always easy to find and not always easy to accept.

Sometimes Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light and wolves, even

young

ones, come to us in sheep's clothing. Sometimes judgment is turned away

backward, justice stands far off, and truth is fallen in the street. For people

like Mollye Barrows and Medico, that's something they may never

understand. Rimmer/FBN:348953

Assistant State Attorney

Special Prosecutions

<A

HREF= " http://g.msn.com/0MNBUS00/1?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5342389/ & & PS=70033\

& SU=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/ & HL=Case%20against%20%20and%20Ale\

x%20King & CM=Dateline%20NBCTSM & CE=StoryLink3 " >http://g.msn.com/0MNBUS00/1?http://\

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5342389/ & & PS=70033 &

SU=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/ &

HL=Case%20against%20%20and%20%20King & CM=Dateline%20NBCTSM & CE=StoryLink3\

</A>

::ORDER BOOK HERE::

<A

HREF= " http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/order_xml.asp?isbn=0060549297 " >Click

here: A Perversion of Justice, Medico - Harper</A>or

<A

HREF= " http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/order_xml.asp?isbn=0060549297 " >http:/\

/www.harpercollins.com/catalog/order_xml.asp?isbn=0060549297</A>

Marhoefer

Miracles Of Hope Network®

New York City~Chicago~Los Angeles~Paris

<A HREF= " www.miracles-of-hope.com " >www.miracles-of-hope.com</A>

The Defense Foundation for children USA

~Changing The Destiny Of A Child ~

Obstruction-Of-Injustice Radio~Media & Bring It Productions®

Touch the Thunder Publishing & Recording Company

<A HREF= " www.on-air-live-radio.tv " >www.on-air-live-radio.tv</A>

::justice in media::

" Sometimes instead of leveling the playing field, you just have to buy the

field " DM2004®

Posted July 2, 2004 · July 2, 2004