Lady Justice can be a little TOO blind....

BishounenStalker · Post by **BishounenStalker** » Thu May 01, 2003 7:37 pm

Just saw today's episode of "American Justice" on A&E (go ahead and laugh, I'm a political nerd-chick when I wanna be), and I don't think I've seen a case more apalling than this one.

The man: William Heirens, the alleged "Lipstick Killer" of Chicago in 1946.

The crime: Serial murder of two women and a 6-year-old girl. The women had been bathed after being killed, their numerous stab wounds taped shut. The little girl was dismembered, and various parts of her hidden in city sewers.

The problem: There's a more than excellent chance that Heirens has been doing 53 years of hard time for three heinous crimes he never committed. What little remains of the 1946 case files has been re-examined by modern experts, and the only three pieces of physical evidence used to convict him is deemed very questionable indeed, and makes the police incompetence in the O.J. case look like a textbook episode of "Law and Order".

One of those pieces is a full fingerprint recovered from the doorjamb of the apartment of one of the victims. But, according to numerous fingerprinting experts today who examined the report, the odds of getting a full, perfect fingerprint off a doorjamb are slim indeed. Not to mention the fingerprint discovered on the ransom note for the little girl is just as questionable. Originally, the only fingerprints discovered on the note were on the front. Yet Heirens' print is suddenly reported on the back.

The other piece of "evidence" was the handwriting on the ransom note, and of the message written in lipstick in the second victim's apartment (hence "Lipstick Killer") was deemed to match Heirens. But independent handwriting experts today discredit that assessment.

So how could Heirens have been convicted on such a paltry case? The answer: media pressure.

Chicago was one of the great press-war hotspots in the U.S. at the end of World War II, with 5 major newspapers competing in one city. And now that the war was over, the papers needed a big story to fight over. A serial murder long before the words "serial killer" would be used to describe such a criminal was the perfect one. The fabled "crime of the century."

The police were put under enormous pressure by public outrage at the heinous murders to charge a suspect, and charge him quickly. They found their scapegoat in William Heirens, then a 17-year-old small time burglar.

Miranda Rights had not been acknowledged (the ruling wasn't made until 1966), so there was nothing to stand in the way of the police torturing a confession out of Heirens for the sake of public opinion.

Which they did. He went a week without food and very little water, being badgered with constant questions about the murders from the Chicago P.D., and being paraded passed Old Sparky and told that would be his last seat before he even got to see a public defender was enough to make anyone crack.

Piecing together details from media accounts, he put together a convincing confession, telling the cops exactly what they wanted to hear. And when he did, he was advised by his rather incompetent council to plea to three consecutive life terms to avoid the electric chair (which he more than likely would've gotten had he gone for a trial, simply because of media pressure).

Again and again he's been denied parole simply because of public opinion, despite his outstanding prison record. He founded the prison library, and helped hundreds of inmates get schooling behind bars. He even held a position as secretary for the prison minister.

At 72 years old, he's the longest-serving inmate in Illinois history, all for crimes he more than likely did not commit. He's lost his entire life, simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Any thoughts? Or am I the only one outraged?

SnhKnives · Post by **SnhKnives** » Thu May 01, 2003 7:43 pm

hmmm yeah unfortunately that happens alot. It used to happen even more before DNA testing was created. This is why you dont get involved in crime, whatsoever...

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Thu May 01, 2003 7:43 pm

This is a case of Justice not being blind.

I do think it is an outrage, but I think the best thing for him is to stay in prison. More than likelly he is quite institutionalized and wouldn't be able to take "freedom". I bet he does want his name cleared, but I doubt whether or not he wants to be out of the prison system.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Thu May 01, 2003 7:51 pm

Thats completely fucked. This guys life has been ruined by a bunch of self obsessed beauracrats (sp?) wo were only interested in finding a scapegoat and pleasing the media. This is a perfect example of why I loathe authority, and why I laugh at it. The only reason I dont break the law on a regular and major basis is because its quite frankly too much effort for something that isn't going to help me out in any way. I obey the law, but I dont respect it.

BishounenStalker · Post by **BishounenStalker** » Thu May 01, 2003 7:54 pm

Good point. Stephen King made a really good assessment of that in Shawshank Redemption with Andy and Red's mutual friend (I forget his name). I'd say more, but I don't want to spoil it in case someone hasn't seen the movie.

Beefmaster10000 · Post by **Beefmaster10000** » Sun May 04, 2003 1:13 am

Yeah, that is sad indeed.

After I read that, I had a feeling this was something that Shawshank Redemption was based on. Good movie, by the way.

Amazing how it is the stupid people that can rule our society.

§_Akuma_§ · Post by **§_Akuma_§** » Sun May 04, 2003 3:20 am

Beefmaster10000 wrote:Yeah, that is sad indeed.
Amazing how it is the stupid people that can rule our society.

its not so much stupid people, its just those that have the ability to manipulate others and use it for there own selfish needs. i hear lots of stories about stuff like that, look at it this way: at least he is trying to build himself a new life in prison insted of just withering away. i respect him and his will to live, but either if he did the crime or not: this just proves exactly how focused the justice system is. if they dont have someone to take the blame directly, they will create one, even if they have to do the crime again to prove it just to show that "the system works".

theres my 2cents, sorry if some of this dont make alot of sence. just got back from work and ever since then i have been drinking and im just a little buzzed right now ^_^ night all