[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MISS., OHIO, TENN., KAN., NEB., N.MEX., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 9



MISSISSIPPI:

Mississippi death penalty stalls as lawyers battle


With sprawling litigation over Mississippi's use of execution drugs now 
scheduled to stretch into 2017, the state could go 5 years without executing a 
death row inmate.

That would be the longest gap between executions in Mississippi in 15 years.

Mississippi has executed 21 people, all men, since the death penalty resumed. 
That includes a 13-year gap between the 1989 execution of Leo Edwards and the 
2002 execution of Tracy Edwards. During that time, executions stalled out over 
concerns about adequate legal representation for the condemned. That's also 
when Mississippi switched it execution method from the gas chamber to lethal 
injection.

Multiyear gaps remained even after 2002, but the state picked up the pace, 
executing 11 people in a 25-month span ending in 2002. Then, just as it became 
routine, the death penalty sputtered out.

That halt is in some ways a tribute to lawyer Jim Craig. He's tying state 
government in knots fighting Mississippi's plan to use a new drug to render 
prisoners unconscious before injecting additional drugs to paralyze them and 
stop their hearts.

Craig, of the MacArthur Justice Center, says the litigation isn't aimed at 
overturning the death penalty in Mississippi, only at seeking a better way of 
executing people. But he's doing a good job of keeping his clients alive.

On behalf of Richard Jordan, Ricky Chase and Charles Ray Crawford, Craig argues 
Mississippi can't use midazolam as a sedative because it doesn't meet state 
law's specification for an "ultra-short-acting barbiturate" Until 2012, the 
state used pentobarbital. But drug makers have choked off supplies of the drug 
for executions.

Midazolam doesn't render someone unconscious as quickly as a barbiturate. Craig 
argues midazolam leaves an inmate at risk of severe pain during execution, 
violating the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 upheld as constitutional Oklahoma's use of 
midazolam, but Craig's lawsuit is based in part on his claims about Mississippi 
state law. He's also trying to reopen other issues surrounding midazolam.

One part of Craig's legal offensive is a federal challenge to the drug's use. 
U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate had issued a preliminary injunction 
freezing executions, but executions didn't resume when appeals judges lifted 
the freeze in July. Last month, Craig and lawyers for Attorney General Jim Hood 
extended that lawsuit into next year, setting a trial for May. Craig rates it 
unlikely that the state Supreme Court will green-light executions with that 
case unresolved.

"They aren't stayed automatically," Craig said. "But I think the Mississippi 
Supreme Court will respect the federal process and thus will not set execution 
dates while the federal case is active."

To aid that case, Craig is also fighting Missouri, Georgia and Texas in court, 
arguing they must say who's still supplying them with pentobarbital, so he can 
argue Mississippi has alternatives to midazolam and could return to its old 
drug. Mississippi said it destroyed all its pentobarbital and can't get more.

There are also 3 cases before the Mississippi Supreme Court. Crawford is 
challenging the state's ability to execute him with a drug compounded from raw 
ingredients, how other states are likely getting pentobarbital. Meanwhile, 
Jordan and Gerald Loden are fighting use of midazolam based on the barbiturate 
requirement.

Hood says he's working to resume executions, but acknowledges Craig's efforts 
are gumming the works.

"The Mississippi Supreme Court's resolution of those pending petitions will 
determine when any executions will be re-set," Hood said in a statement. "Any 
delay in the federal lawsuit has been the result of the Jordan plaintiffs' 
strategic decisions."

As long as court dockets are full, Parchman's death chamber may stay empty.

(source: The Sentinel-Record)






OHIO:

Execution of murderer Danny Lee Hill overdue


Last week was a good one for Ohioans who believe that as long as the state has 
a death penalty - and as long as there are criminals willing and able to commit 
heinous crimes - the law should be enforced.

On a local level, attorneys pursuing a meritless appeal designed only to delay 
justice in the Danny Lee Hill case were handed a well-deserved defeat.

On the statewide level, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 
has located supplies of the drugs needed to resume execution by lethal 
injection.

There is no good reason why Hill was not executed years ago for the murder of 
12-year-old Raymond Fife. The 1985 torture, sexual assault and murder of 
Raymond was one of the most brutal crimes in Warren history.

On Sept. 10, 1985, Hill, then 18, and Timothy Combs, then 17, pounced on 
Raymond as he rode his bicycle through the woods behind a supermarket off 
Palmyra Road. Over the period of an hour, Raymond was beaten and kicked, his 
pleas for mercy were ignored, he was sexually assaulted multiple times, he was 
choked and brutalized with a stick. Hill was left alone with him while Combs 
went to the store for lighter fluid that was used to set the boy afire. 
Witnesses reported hearing cries of pain coming from the woods during that 
time.

Raymond was left for dead, but he was still breathing when his father, Isaac, 
found him. He died 2 days later of injuries so varied and severe that Trumbull 
County Coroner Dr. Joseph Sudimack Jr. could not pinpoint a single injury as 
the cause of death. He ruled the death a homicide caused by cardiorespiratory 
arrest, secondary to asphyxiation, subdural hematoma and multiple trauma.

At the time, it appeared justice was on track. Hill was found guilty of 
aggravated murder with 4 death specifications on Jan. 31, 1986, by a 3-judge 
panel - David F. McLain, Robert A. Nader and Mitchell F. Shaker. He was 
sentenced to death and an execution date of Feb. 28, 1987, was set.

Still alive

And yet, 3 decades later Hill is still alive, and lawyers who are opposed to 
the death penalty regardless of the laws of the state, the strength of the 
evidence or the egregiousness of the crime continue to pursue new and old legal 
theories to thwart the judicial system.

Which brings us to last week's victory for Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis 
Watkins, who argued that a motion filed by lawyers on Hill's behalf seeking a 
new trial was without merit.

Hill's lawyers seized on changes in how the science of bite-mark technology has 
changed over the past 30 years. They argued that Hill should be given a new 
trial because an expert testified during his trial that bite marks on Raymond's 
penis were likely made by Hill. The lawyers also attempted to claim that Hill's 
confession should be suppressed and that Hill should not be subject to the 
death penalty because, they claim, he is mentally retarded.

Visiting Judge Patricia Cosgrove bought none of it, but she took none of the 
claims lightly. She issued a 34-page opinion giving a detailed explanation of 
why she was rejecting the request for a new trial. To arrive at that opinion, 
she not only read the voluminous briefs submitted in the case, but she reviewed 
the entire 1,275-page transcript of the trial.

She properly rejected attempts to relitigate the confession and mental 
retardation issues. She then built an unimpeachable argument for why the 
evidence presented at the trial so strongly supported a guilty verdict that the 
existence or nonexistence of the bite-mark evidence would not have changed the 
judges' verdicts.

Any other outcome would have been a travesty of justice that would have 
required Raymond's family, including his mother, Miriam, to relive a trial that 
established Hill's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in 1986.

That said, it will still be years before Hill can be executed. The lawyers in 
this case may appeal. And other lawyers are pursuing a federal appeal on the 
retardation issue - the same issue that was argued unsuccessfully to the Ohio 
Supreme Court a decade ago.

Even so, Judge Cosgrove's ruling must be celebrated for its depth and its 
clarity.

Meanwhile, the state hopes to get U.S. District Court Chief Judge Edmund A. 
Sargus Jr. of Columbus to approve a new protocol that will allow the use of a 
combination of 3 drugs in carrying out executions.

(source: Youngstown Vindicator)

****************

Child killers deserve death


Not a week goes by that the news media doesn't report a case in which some 
piece of slime has caused the death of an innocent child by beating, shaking, 
suffocating, drowning or scalding.

Usually the perpetrator is the mother's "boyfriend," but in rare cases the 
murderer may have been the child's mother or some other person.

Then by the time the legal system has completed its work, rarely is the crime 
found to be murder, but rather homicide or some other piece of poppycock. And 
of course the defendant's attorney feels obligated to point out that because 
the defendant was abused as a child, he or she suffers diminished capacity to 
prevent their repeating the offense.

Now isn't that great?

Does every abused child automatically have an excuse for repeating the abuse? 
Where does it end?

And the smart people like to remind us time and again that the death penalty 
does not deter murder. Is this just another example to show that a competent 
and motivated statistician can come up with evidence to verify any proposition?

But even if the death penalty is "known" not to be a deterrent, what about 
justice? What about the innocent victims?

If every "boyfriend" that purposely tortures a child to death - as did Jaxxon 
Baker's murderer - knew that without the shadow of doubt he would pay for the 
crime with his life, we'll see if that doesn't prove to be at least somewhat of 
a deterrent.

I'm sick of this nonsense. Aren't you?

Jacob Little, Lima

(saource: Leltter to the Editor, limaohio.com)






TENNESSEE:

The death penalty is failing


The death penalty, another vestige of "tough on crime" mentality, is also 
failing.

It's troubling that nearly 40 % off Tennessee's death row comes from Shelby 
County.

I repeatedly see the devastating effects of our criminal justice policies as 
more people are locked up in prison and locked out of opportunity. The death 
penalty, another vestige of "tough on crime" mentality, is also failing.

After decades of attempted "fixes," the system remains broken beyond 
effectiveness.

Ndume Olatushani spent 28 years in prison (nearly 20 of those on death row) for 
the 1983 murder of Joe Belenchia in Memphis.

Originally offered a deal of 25 years to plead guilty, Olatushani refused, 
found himself convicted of murder, and then sentenced to death by an all-white 
jury.

In 2011, his conviction was overturned when the court found that some of the 
state's witnesses had close ties to other suspects, including 2 witnesses who 
were offered immunity in exchange for testifying against Olatushani.

He was finally awarded a new trial, and later offered an Alford plea, allowing 
him to maintain his innocence and securing an immediate release on June 1, 
2012, after 28 years of incarceration.

Many African-Americans have low or minimum income jobs that require them to be 
present or be fired, making service on juries difficult. Often potential black 
jurors are "strategically" omitted.

Just this May, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction and sentence of 
Georgia death row inmate Timothy Foster, when it was determined that 
prosecutors in his case intentionally excluded black jurors from service.

A 2010 Equal Justice Initiative report, focused on 8 Southern states, found 
evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection in each, including 
Tennessee. The report details counties where nearly 80 % of black residents, 
who qualified for jury service, were excluded as well as majority-black 
counties where defendants were tried by all-white juries.

It's troubling that nearly 40 % off Tennessee's death row comes from Shelby 
County while Davidson County (Nashville) is responsible for only 11 %.

A 2013 report by the Death Penalty information Center (DPIC) found that only 2 
% of counties in the U.S. are responsible for the majority of the nation's 
death sentences and executions. In the same study, Shelby County was listed 
13th nationwide for the number sent to death row by a single county.

DPIC also found the average cost of a death penalty case is $1.26 million, 
compared to $740,000 for a life-without-parole case.

Capital trials in Tennessee cost 48 % more than noncapital trials (2004 
Tennessee Comptroller Report), and death sentences are reversed on appeal at 
least 50 % of the, meaning the state spends twice as much to secure a death 
sentence only to have a lesser sentence imposed.

Though the impact is much greater than just economics, these are tax dollars 
that we are not spending on education, mental health care and to support 
surviving murder victims' family members with their trauma and financial 
burden.

Increasingly, victims' family members are speaking out. Cynthia Vaughn, whose 
stepfather is on Tennessee's death row for the 1984 murder of her mother, said 
the decades long process has added to her trauma.

She no longer supports the death penalty. A sentence of life without parole 
would have given her the legal finality she needed years ago.

LeMoyne-Owen College recently hosted a panel discussion where Ndume Olatushani 
and Cynthia Vaughn shared their death penalty experiences and reflections. 
Though the Tennessee Supreme Court is now considering the constitutionality of 
Tennessee's lethal injection protocol, the state's method of execution is only 
the tip of the iceberg.

To advance our "justice for all," goals, we need to repeal the death penalty in 
Tennessee. I urge you to join the conversation.

(source: Opinion; Reverend Sonia Walker is associate pastor for First 
Congregational Church in Memphis. She is a founding board member and former 
chair of Leadership Memphis----The Commercial Appeal)






KANSAS:

Revenge politics to undermine Supreme Court in Kansas ---- Members of the 
Kansas Supreme Court are the target of conservatives over rulings they have 
made on some cases.


Before there was the 1958 constitutional amendment that mandated how Supreme 
Court justices in Kansas were to be selected, 2 years earlier, there was the 
infamous "Kansas triple play," a shenanigan that boggles the mind.

The incumbent Gov. Fred Hall was defeated in the 1956 primary by Warren Shaw. 
Shaw then lost to George Docking in the general election. Then, on Dec. 31, 
Chief Justice William Smith resigned from the Supreme Court, allegedly because 
of poor health. Hall, who had his eyes on the chief justice's job, resigned as 
governor before Docking took office. Then, Lt. Gov. John McCuish, who became 
governor, immediately appointed Hall to the now vacated Supreme Court seat. 
Voila! The "triple play" was complete. It was not illegal. It was ethically a 
lousy way to pick a Supreme Court chief justice.

Kansans were disgusted. They passed a constitutional amendment 2 years later 
that described how Supreme Court justices were to be appointed. That method is 
still with us and has worked well for 58 years. 9 individuals - 5 attorneys 
selected by other attorneys and 4 non-attorneys appointed by the governor - 
nominate 3 individuals to the Supreme Court. The governor then picks from the 
3.

Gov. Sam Brownback and his allies in the Legislature hate this method for one 
reason: They do not have enough control over the selection process. They want a 
different kind of "triple play." The state would be run by a conservative 
governor, a conservative Legislature and a conservative Supreme Court. So much 
for checks and balance. The movement toward making that constitutional change 
lacks enough votes in the Legislature. Frustrated conservatives want voters to 
throw out 4 of the 5 Supreme Court justices up for retention election in 
November. They claim they are too liberal and, thus, should be replaced by 
conservatives.

Granted, 6 of 7 justices were picked by Democratic and moderate Republican 
governors. So, indeed, they are to the left of today's Legislature.

The court's record on death penalty cases is clear. It seems to find ways to 
reverse sentences, even the convictions in the gruesome murders by the Carr 
brothers in Wichita in 2000. But is that enough to throw out the justices who 
voted against the death penalty? Absolutely not.

The Kansas Supreme Court cannot be viewed as 1-dimensional. There is so much 
more to be considered. Take, for example, its courageous rulings on school 
funding.

The Supreme Court has come to the rescue of underfunded schools, facing down 
recalcitrant legislators who have little use for public education. The Supreme 
Court recently ruled that schools in Kansas were not being treated equitably. 
The justices even threatened to close schools if this were not fixed. It got 
fixed.

The court, likely in November, will rule all schools in Kansas are not being 
funded adequately. In an act of revenge for this "activism," conservative 
extremists have targeted 4 justices for ouster by voters. The Carr brothers is 
a decoy for the real motive, which is to neuter the Supreme Court.

Injecting politics into an independent judiciary could be dangerous. That 
certainly would have a chilling effect on future Supreme Court justices.

If Kansans want more conservative justices, keep electing conservative 
governors. That's the right way to do it.

(source: Opinion, Steve Rose; Kansas City Star)






NEBRASKA:

As voting begins, death penalty issue will be key question


There was a time during early efforts to undo the Legislature's repeal of 
capital punishment in 2015 that longtime death penalty opponent Sen. Ernie 
Chambers was confident.

He said he had no doubt Nebraska voters would uphold the decision of the 
Legislature to stop executions.

Now, because of the way the ballot referendum will appear to voters, he just 
doesn't know.

? "It's so confusing to people," he said.

He even gets confused trying to explain it to those who call him and ask.

The simplest way to think of it is to focus on what the Legislature did, and 
then to decide if you want to retain the law senators passed to eliminate the 
death penalty for first-degree murder and substitute it with a life sentence, 
or if you want to repeal that bill (LB268), keeping the death sentence intact.

Senators voted 32-15 in May 2015 to repeal the death penalty. The governor 
vetoed the repeal, saying it was an important safety tool and vital to good 
prison management.

"If the death penalty is not in place, then an inmate has no concern about 
receiving a more serious sanction," and would be fearless, Ricketts said.

He pointed to the killing of two inmates, presumably by other inmates, during a 
riot in May 2015 at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution. No one has been 
charged in those deaths.

Senators voted 30-19 to override Ricketts' veto.

But soon after the session ended, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty conducted a 
successful referendum campaign, funded in part with large donations from 
Ricketts and his father, Joe Ricketts. Enough people signed the petitions to 
put the repeal on hold.

Now, both sides have lined up their arguments for and against abolishing the 
death penalty.

Costs

Senators argued during debate on the bill the state was wasting millions of tax 
dollars on death penalty trials and appeals.

Then in August, they introduced a study of the costs of Nebraska's death 
penalty by Ernest Goss, a Creighton University economics professor, who found 
the state spends $14.6 million per year to maintain its capital punishment 
system.

Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, Ricketts and Attorney General Doug Peterson, 
have denounced the study, saying there are no fiscal savings to eliminating the 
death penalty.

They say the Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy defends indigent people 
facing the death penalty at no additional cost to taxpayers.

While Goss cites excessive costs of appeals for death row inmates, advocates 
for the death penalty say eliminating the sentence will not reduce the number 
of appeals available to convicted murderers.

Death penalty drugs

Retain A Just Nebraska, which wants voters to retain the law that abolishes the 
death penalty and substitutes life in prison, has argued that Nebraska is 
unlikely to ever carry out an execution even if voters bring back the death 
penalty.

The state has been unable in recent years to get two of the three lethal 
injection drugs, sodium thiopental and pancuronium bromide.

Peterson said last week he is confident that if the death penalty is preserved, 
Nebraska will be able to "model a protocol" that will allow it to implement the 
death penalty.

But even if the protocol is changed to include different drugs, said University 
of Nebraska law professor Eric Berger, who opposes the death penalty, 
pharmaceutical companies are balking at allowing their drugs to be used for 
executions.

Some states have shrouded their death penalty protocol in secrecy or used 
smaller compounding pharmacies to supply the drugs.

Death penalty opponent and Lincoln Sen. Colby Coash said that to hide the 
protocol would take a change in state law. And the Legislature values 
transparency.

"The stakes on this are just too high," he said.

Deterrent to crime

The 2 sides disagree on whether studies show the death penalty is a deterrent 
to violent crime.

"It's important for Nebraskans to realize that they would be spending a lot of 
taxpayer money on a system that there is no evidence that it makes us any 
safer," said Berger, the Nebraska law professor.

Bob Evnen, one of the founders of Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, said he 
thinks there is good evidence it is a deterrent, that innocent lives are saved 
by the existence of the death penalty and that the state is morally compelled 
to have it in place.

Religious groups differ

Faith leaders and their followers have split on the death penalty.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference, priests, nuns and other leaders spoke out 
last month on their opposition to the death penalty and said they would urge 
375,000 Catholics in more than 350 parishes to vote to retain the Legislature's 
decision.

Catholic catechism teaches that if there are bloodless means to defend human 
lives against aggressors and protect public order and safety, the death penalty 
is not needed, said Nebraska Catholic Conference Executive Director Tom Venzor. 
The bishops stand firm in their opposition.

The conference is taking an active role in advocating for a vote Nov. 8 to 
retain the abolition of the death penalty with videos, a social media campaign, 
radio and TV ads and speaking events.

Meanwhile, Stu Kerns, pastor of Zion Church of Lincoln, supports the death 
penalty and repeal of the law.

If the death penalty is inappropriately applied, he said, then people ought not 
to do away with it but rather should argue for its reform.

"For me, as I read the Bible, the Bible indicates that all human persons are 
made in the image of God and therefore they are of incalculable worth," he 
said. "And when someone treats human life casually, the only response to that 
kind of brutality is to take their own life. There's no other cost that's 
appropriate."

That is the duty of the state, he said.

"My personal calling is to forgive and to exercise grace," he said. "The 
state's calling is to execute justice, whatever's just."

Hearings next week

Early voting begins Monday.

You can complete the early voting ballot application and ballot in person at 
your county clerk/election commission office.

The Nebraska Secretary of State's office will hold hearings on the death 
penalty beginning this week.

The 1st will be Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, 
Barbara Weitz Community Engagement Center, 6400 University Drive South.

The 2nd is Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at the University of Nebraska at Kearney, 
Nebraskan Student Union, 1013 W. 27th St.

The last hearing is Oct. 18, 6:30 p.m. in Room 1525 at the Nebraska State 
Capitol.

(source: Lincoln Journal Star)






NEW MEXICO:

Senate keeps NM from having tough talk on crime


How long does it take to deal with three pieces of legislation in the New 
Mexico Senate?

Not long, if the last day of any legislative session shows anything. Lawmakers 
can, and do, move efficiently and expeditiously when they have to.

Yet Senate Democrats under the leadership of Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, 
D-Belen, denied New Mexicans - especially New Mexicans who have been touched by 
horrific crime - the time it would have taken this special session to vote yes 
or no on three crime bills approved by the House of Representatives.

There is 1 obvious reason: Senate Democrats didn't want to have to cast a vote 
on these issues with an election just weeks away. This way, they can simply pay 
lip service to the issues.

That's especially disconcerting considering a new Journal Poll found 89 % of 
likely voters say crime is a serious problem, fully 62 % say it is a very 
serious problem, and that during this special session a cop-killer was 
sentenced to life in prison and before it started a 10-year-old was brutally 
murdered in her own home.

The 3 bills do not reinvent the wheel. They cover prior legislation that has 
been discussed, vetted and voted on before.

House Bill 7, Reinstate the Death Penalty - sponsored by Rep. Monica 
Youngblood, R-Albuquerque, and Rep. Andy Nu???ez, R-Hatch - made it through the 
House Judiciary and Appropriations and Finance committees, and passed on a 
36-30 vote. It would have reinstated the death penalty for 3 capital felonies: 
the murder of a peace officer, a child under the age of 18 and a corrections 
employee. It contained exceptions for minor and mentally disabled defendants, 
its final version did not contain objectionable language regarding exams of 
defendants who might be pregnant, and its 10-page fiscal impact report detailed 
the increased costs reinstating the death penalty would likely bring.

House Bill 6, Increase Certain Child Abuse Penalties, was sponsored by Reps. 
Conrad James, Sarah Maestas Barnes and Bill Rehm, all Albuquerque Republicans. 
It, too, made it through the House Judiciary Committee and passed the House 
with an almost unanimous, bipartisan 66-1 vote. It would have expanded Baby 
Brianna's Law so that life in prison applies to those convicted of child abuse 
resulting in the death of any child under age 18; the penalty now only applies 
to abuse resulting in death of children under age 12. Its 4-page fiscal impact 
report points out "current law punishes only based on age. This is hard to 
explain to a family whose 12-, or 13-, or 17-year-old died from intentionally 
inflicted abuse, that the child's perpetrator will serve a lesser term. This 
bill would address this most egregious of offenses in a manner that does not 
impose artificial distinctions between the murder of a child age 11 years, 11 
months, for example, and 1 age 12."

Finally, HB 5, Three Strikes Law, was sponsored by Reps. Paul Pacheco, 
R-Albuquerque, and John Zimmerman, R-Las Cruces. It also made it through House 
Judiciary and passed on a bipartisan 49-14 vote. It would have expanded the 
list of violent felonies eligible for mandatory life sentencing - a list 
currently so short (just 5) no defendant has been convicted under it. Its 
6-page fiscal impact report lists the 16 additional crimes - all violent - and 
estimates the potential costs involved with additional lifetime incarcerations, 
as well as explains the Public Defender's concern that "a life sentence should 
be retained only for those individuals whose actions truly warrant the 
sentence."

So why was the Senate determined not to discuss and vote on these bills? That's 
really rhetorical because the answer is fairly obvious: It's much better not to 
have to be accountable to the voters.

New Mexicans - again, especially New Mexicans who have been touched by horrific 
crime - deserve to know where their elected senators stand on these issues, as 
well as why.

(source: Editorial Board, Albuquerque Journal)






USA:

For Brad Whitney, another sentencing hearing for Gary Sampson means more pain


Brad Whitney, whose surname is both well known in Penacook and associated with 
tragedy there, wonders why Gary Sampson isn't dead yet.

Didn't Sampson kill Whitney's father, Robert "Eli" Whitney, and 2 Massachusetts 
men 15 years ago? And didn't Sampson, in fact, confess to all 3 murders? And, 
serving as a bottom line in Whitney's mind, didn't a jury already sentence 
Sampson to death, way back in 2003?

Well?

"The system is not good," Whitney told me last week. "That's a key thing. If I 
was on the other end of things and was accused of something, you hope the 
system works properly, but when it's a slam dunk case, when it's cut and dry, 
impose the sentence and be freaking done with it and move on."

Whitney's anger, while controlled during lunch at a restaurant in Laconia, was 
palpable. No matter your politics here, it's easy to feel his frustration as he 
searches for an ending to this nightmare. He thought he had it years ago, in 
2003.

But 8 years after Sampson was sentenced to death, a judge overturned it, citing 
a lone juror's dishonesty during the selection process. Now, 5 years after 
that, here we were, eating grilled chicken salads and re-opening old wounds.

The final stage for jury selection this time will begin Tuesday in United 
States District Court in Boston. Sampson pleaded guilty here and was given life 
in prison.

"Still after so many years it's hurtful," Whitney said. "And there are real 
people at the end of all these headlines and victims that have to fit all this 
in and lead a regular normal life, all at the same time."

Whitney is a mechanical engineer who lives in Epsom with his wife and 2 
children. He's clean-cut, lean and serious. He grew up in Penacook, across from 
Morrill Farm, where Eli milked cows as a child and young man.

Eli's wife, Susan, and daughter, Jennifer Habel, still live in Penacook. Brad 
Whitney was the lone member of the family willing to speak. He pushed a nervous 
laugh out when I asked why, after so many years of privacy, he had agreed to 
talk.

"I'm not really sure," Whitney finally said.

Was it because he wanted to set the record straight in some fashion? "Yeah, I 
think that's part of it," Whitney said. He said press coverage only adds to the 
"whirlwind of emotion that is going on at the time."

Sampson made headlines during a week-long murder spree in July of 2001. A 
Boston-area drifter, he got a ride from a man named Philip McCloskey, a 
69-year-old retired pipe fitter who had stopped to buy flowers for a friend in 
Weymouth, Mass. Sampson tied McCloskey up with a belt and stabbed him to death.

Then Sampson was picked up hitchhiking in Plymouth, Mass., by a 19-year-old 
college student named Jonathan Rizzo, who had just left his job waiting tables 
at a seafood restaurant. Sampson tied Rizzo to a tree and stabbed him to death 
as well.

>From there, Sampson drove north to Meredith and broke into a lake house. The 
next day Eli came by to mow the lawn for a friend and was strangled to death by 
Sampson, who was later caught in Vermont after attacking a 4th man there.

That Meredith home held a story in its wood frame, one that created a picture 
of Eli as clear as the nearby lakes. Unlike most published reports, which have 
said and continued to say, Eli was not the "caretaker" of the house.

He was a friend of the owner, a radiologist whose year-round house was in 
Penacook. The man died and his widow needed help.

"He owned the cottage and he asked dad to turn it into a full-time home," 
Whitney said. "He was getting into a semi-retirement state and he didn't want 
to work on a Saturday morning, but he wanted to go and help somebody out. A lot 
of these people he did work for were his friends."

His name still resonates today in the area. Eli used his building skills to 
earn a living and extend a hand to neighbors who needed it. He was tough yet 
fair with his children.

Whitney said his father was a typical New England "Yankee." He was a city 
councilor who loved NASCAR and local driver Ricky Craven. He ran a tight ship, 
pulled no punches and never shied away from hard work. Susan was his partner, 
in both life and their building business. They were married for more than 30 
years.

"They were quite inseparable," Whitney said. "Weekend wise they did everything 
together, and at some point she joined the business and she was the person 
holding the 2-by-4 or helping put up the rafters, so they were around each 
other 24/7."

For Whitney, some memories were clear, while others have faded. "It's 
difficult, and when this type of event comes up, it's very difficult to 
remember certain instances," Whitney said. "I don't want to say that part of 
your mind gets blocked out, but if I lived in that moment every day, I???d be a 
wreck."

In the coming weeks, pain will resurface as the jury weighs more than 200 
mitigating factors that the defense hopes will illustrate why Sampson's life 
should be spared.

Whitney's not sure if he'll be asked to testify, along with members of the 2 
Massachusetts families. And even with his resentment toward the justice system 
and Sampson himself, he said he has no problem not taking the stand.

"I don't have a strong desire to get something off my chest or chastise 
Sampson," he said. "It would be more if the prosecution thought it was needed 
to get the job done, then I would do it."

His words say a lot. It's obvious that Whitney believes the Massachusetts 
families' testimony will express enough pain to get the job done. Or, Whitney 
knows, there might be more delays and appeals in a justice system that makes 
little sense to a lot of us.

Meanwhile, he said he'll probably attend the 1st day of the trial and perhaps 
the last, but that's it. It's expected to last about 10 weeks.

"People are still hurt," Whitney said. "They want what's due for Gary Sampson."

(source: Concord Monitor)