Posted on 02/09/2006 5:31:44 AM PST by freepatriot32
William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years for having sex with his wife Linda. In 1986, he became the first man in Genesee County convicted of the new Michigan crime called spousal rape. Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage. Hetherington was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.
The sentencing guideline for this new offense was 12 months to 10 years but, without showing cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years (twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan). Twenty years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason "prisoner denies the offense."
Hetherington has, indeed, always maintained his innocence. It was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he said it was consensual sex, she said it was rape. The judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Apparently what persuaded the jury to convict was the testimony of two police officers that they had observed tape marks on Linda's face.
The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... his histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer.
For 12 years, the court refused to provide Hetherington with a transcript of the trial. Without funds, he was unable to buy one, so he was effectively denied his right of appeal, and no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.
At the sentencing, prosecutor Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and falsely accused him of beating Linda. Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists.
Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets.
Ten years after Hetherington's conviction, a volunteer attorney, Jeff Feldman, using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage, and the prosecution had never disclosed them to the defense.
The photographs were then examined by a forensic photographer in Miami, John Valor, using all modern techniques. Valor's four-page notarized report detailed his impressive expertise, including service as the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial-killer Ted Bundy.
Valor's sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 stated that the pictures of Linda showed absolutely no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, and that marks would have been clearly visible if there had been any. If a government witness gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but Hetherington didn't get it.
Years later, a completely unsolicited letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had been employed by Linda as a babysitter. Suchy's letter is hearsay, but it has the ring of authenticity.
Suchy wrote that Linda told her she made up the story about rape because she was then pregnant with the baby of her boyfriend, and he pushed her to press rape charges, saying that she would have to "get rid of Hetherington or he wouldn't take care of the baby."
Over the years, several pro bono lawyers and concerned citizens have tried to secure a pardon or a parole for Hetherington, but Michigan appears determined to make him serve 30 years because he won't admit guilt and because the bureaucracy won't admit it made a mistake.
Almost everyone who reads the record of what happened to William Hetherington concludes that he was unjustly accused, unjustly convicted, unjustly sentenced, unjustly denied his due process and appeal rights, unjustly denied a new trial based on physical evidence of inaccurate testimony by government witnesses, and unjustly denied parole.
A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty
Where in the Good Book does it tell the man to rape his wife? Chapter and verse, please.
I have never, never, never heard a lawyer speak in any way that was humble or self-effacing. Not once has a lawyer admitted that their profession (and our legal system) is entirely out of touch with the average American. Never once has a lawyer told me their are too many laws on the books, and that laws should reflect our culture, our morality, and of course, our Constitution. Why do you think this is true? I have a beloved sister and cousin who are lawyers, and though they are great people, they have yet to admit that "the system" is indeed rigged to BENEFIT LAWYERS first and foremost. Why? As a physician, I can tell you that doctors (the good ones) are the first to bemoan our broken system and scorn inappropriate physicians who order unnecessary tests, and generally have lost what qualities make medicine a noble profession. There is NONE OF THAT in the lawyer culture. Why? Because you are exactly like Islamists - unable/unwilling to police your own, kow towing to a false God (written words), unaware/indifferent to common decency and right vs. wrong in an ethical sense. Also, a large percentage of you are soul-less, vapid, gouls, who would make a hyaena blush and a $hit bird vomit.
So Hetherington was so drugged "out of his right mind" that he can't be sure that he did not commit the crime, but he still knows that he did commit the crime.
This sentence is false.
Notwithstanding any belief I have in the likely guilt of a defendant simply by virtue of their appearance in court, I'm a far less biased juror than most folks--who believe police are completely truthful because cops are generally good at maintaining eye contact with a jury. I've no problem looking at the evidence and considering it all fairly, instead of voting a defendant immediately to jailbait status. That doesn't mean I think the defendant is innocent--but I wouldn't vote guilty if a prosecutor didn't meet his burden of proof, either. That's why the verdict is "NOT GUILTY," not "INNOCENT."
However, if you think that I'm wrong about the 99% figure, you're either a criminal defense attorney who is so foolish he actually bought his own arguments, or you're completely addled. That there are occasionally innocents brought before factfinders does not mean remotely that most defendants deserve exoneration. Most defendants don't go to trial at all, either having the charges against them dropped (because the states' attorney/AG can't legally substantiate a claim, not because the defendant is not guilty), or due to diversionary programs or pleas made before trial. But you knew that because of your extensive background in the judicial process, I'm sure. You may believe the trial courts are rife with actual innocents, but those people are rarely a part of criminal procedure.
And FYI, smartass, the next voir dire I take part in won't involve me handing anything to the judge--besides a list of questions to ask the prospective jurors.
Perhaps it's time you took another look at what the Good Book REALLY says.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/marriage_family.shtml
A difference between "not guilty" and "can't legally substantiate a claim," may exist in the minds of Wyatt Earp Syndrome prosecutors, but fortunately neither jurors nor our legal system are interested in distinctions which make no difference. But thanks for betraying your fair mindedness--again.
As for what you hand judges, yawn, you'll excuse me but I think there's a thread going on over at the canteen about a dog that can bark the alphabet.
If I were on a jury, asbsent any evidence whatsoever that a crime was committed other than the testimony of one party, especially an interested one, I would never, ever vote to convict the accused of a crime. Never.
That's more than I know.
If you're suggesting it's impossible to be so drugged that you don't remember stuff, I'd argue that drunks often experience blackouts.
Whether or not Hetherington ever took drugs I don't know, it's an allegation by someone who claims to be his daughter ... I just posted it for the sake of the discussion.
You come across as a typical idiot who likes to hear himself talk, regardless of looking at the other side of things. Lawyers have been bemoaned since the dawn of time.
As far as doctors being the pinnacle of morality, spare me. Medicaid fraud, overbilling, double billing, billing for services never performed, upcoding medical procedures, ordering nonsense diagnostic tests, are just as pervasive in the medical system as any other system.
Lawyers not policing themselves??? The last figure I heard, which I have yet to see refuted is that in upwards of 80-90 thousand people DIE in hospitals each year as a result of medical malpractice and negligence. So who is kidding who?
A lawyers job is to represent his client within the bounds of the law. If you were invesitgated for billing fraud by the State AG's office and you needed a lawyer, would you want the one who represented you zealously or the one who threw you to the wolves???? Oh, I forgot, you are a doctor, you are above reproach.
As far as too many laws on the books, knock on the legislatures doors, not mine.
As far as doctors being humble, give me another freaking break. People are people, lawyers and doctors included.
There are certain aspects of the legal system that people just don't get. For one, what would you do without a legal system if you had a dispute with someone? Some will go to the church, some will work it out with each other, and others, will kill each other. Our system is not perfect, it is far from perfect, but that does not make all its particpants evil.
You, and most others, do not realize that in most instances other than criminal law, that most law suits come as a result of people unable and unwilling to resolve their differences amongst each other like adults. Ego driven idiots, inflexible people, "principeled" people, are what what caused disputes to go to court.
Did you ever for a moment stop to think whether or not your "principles" were wrong??? I have clients all thew time get all worked up and want to take a "principled" stand while they themselves are wrong about the issue at hand. That is what you don't realize.
I do collection work for small businesses. Mostly for people in the trades who can't collect their money. However, in alot of the cases their is a reason they did not get paid. They either screwed up the job or performed crappy work. Yet, they still want to get paid 100%. Its the "principel" Oh what? Demanding 100% payment after performing crappy work???? That's the attitude I deal with and it is not the fault of the "system". Its peoples' inability to be somewhat objective of things.
So in these cases, where I can get them say 80% or 90% or something like that, they feel they got "screwed." HUH??????
I do not do criminal law because most of the people are guilty and I don't want my victory to be my sister's nightmare. So don't lump me in with that bunch alright????
I do not do divorce law because it is blood money.
I do not do PI because fighting with insurance companies is not my cup of tea.
So, I try to get people paid for services they performed who can't get payment for themselves. Tell me, does that make me a bad person?????
"You come across as a typical idiot..."
How humble of you to notice. I agree that despite 9 years of education post-college, I'm not the brightest bulb in the box.
"As far as doctors being the pinnacle of morality, spare me. Medicaid fraud, overbilling, double billing, billing for services never performed, upcoding medical procedures, ordering nonsense diagnostic tests, are just as pervasive in the medical system as any other system."
try re-reading my post.
"Lawyers not policing themselves??? The last figure I heard, which I have yet to see refuted is that in upwards of 80-90 thousand people DIE in hospitals each year as a result of medical malpractice and negligence. So who is kidding who?"
try reading my tagline.
"A lawyers job is to represent his client within the bounds of the law. If you were invesitgated for billing fraud by the State AG's office and you needed a lawyer, would you want the one who represented you zealously or the one who threw you to the wolves???? Oh, I forgot, you are a doctor, you are above reproach.
As far as too many laws on the books, knock on the legislatures doors, not mine."
try reading my tagline.
"Ego driven idiots, inflexible people, "principeled" people, are what what caused disputes to go to court."
and who sits there, licking their chops, rewarding bad behavior with hope of a blood meal?
"So in these cases, where I can get them say 80% or 90% or something like that, they feel they got "screwed." HUH??????"
And what percent do you make from this?
"I do not do criminal law because most of the people are guilty and I don't want my victory to be my sister's nightmare. So don't lump me in with that bunch alright????
I do not do divorce law because it is blood money.
I do not do PI because fighting with insurance companies is not my cup of tea."
...but still can't manage to say something negative about your brethren? You rule, but who are your subjects?
"So, I try to get people paid for services they performed who can't get payment for themselves. Tell me, does that make me a bad person?????"
That is between you and God.
I get paid only if I collect the money. Typically 25%-33 1/3.
However, its not like in PI where you get a ottery situation. Most cases are not that large - $500.00 to $5,000. The most I will make on a case is predetermined. Do I get paid from one call? Rarely. Does it take a ton of work getting paid on alot of cases, tes!
Why??? It depends. If my client screwed up the job, I have to first convince him or her that demanding and settling for 100% might not be realistic. Then, getting the guy who originally offers 0% to pay more than that is a task in itself. See where I am getting at???
Typicall scenario is this - plumber did work for 10,000 two years ago. Was paid paid 8 and is now owed 2. Could not collect for two years despite its best efforts. Sometimes the plumber is at fault, sometimes egos get in the way, etc etc. Gives me the file. Then assumes all I do is make a phone call to get paid and will make $700.00 on the deal. If making a phone call was all it took, he would not need me since he himself already made 1,000,000 phone calls. About a month later, sometimes more, after phone calls, letters, personal vistis, persuasion, etc etc, I get a deal at say $1,800.00. The plumber is pissed off at me since now he will net $1,200.00. That is $1,200 as found money in my eyes. The plumber sees it as he was always going to get paid one way or the other, which is wrong! He then tries to chew me down on my fee thinking all I did was make a few calls. Out of the $600.00 I pay rent, office staff, insurance, electrical bill, computer, etc etc. Am I making a killing working like this????
Most attorneys charge a retainer before doing anything, I do not.
Most attorneys charge for every phone call paper clip etc, I do not.
Most attorneys charge you by the hour, which I do not.
However, when I obtain payment for a client, I want to get paid since I performed my end of the bargain. Most of the risk is on me. If I don't obtain the result I dont get paid. Is that not fair??????
By the way, I detest litigators.
Sorry, but the hierarchical interpretation of Paul is nonsensical. It makes the masterful writer of Romans out to be a bumbling idiot in I Corinthians 7 through 11. Suddenly he is stumbling and bumbling and not really sure what to say on all the different subjects?
The hierarchical interpretation of the Bible falls apart in Genesis 3. One has to decide Paul is saying that women are subordinate to men and then read that back into Genesis 3 to come up with the idea that male rule is God's design. An unbiased reading of Genesis 3 makes it clear that men ruling women is a result of sin and The Fall. Christ redeems us from that to the original design of equality and mutual submission.
Doesn't it seem strange to you that the hierarchical Christian's view of the role of women shares so much in common with Islam and pagan societies? (You are seriously saying raping one's wife is OK with God. That is utterly chilling.) Such a view of women is one of the devastating results of The Fall.
On the other hand, throughout history the position of women has risen as Christianity has spread. I believe this is because the reality of redemption restoring equality and harmony between the sexes is so real that many who may say they believe that men should have authority over women don't truly practice it in daily life. They realize on some level that something about it is seriously flawed. At the least most Christian men who believe in it try to be benign dictators or patriarchs.
I pray for any women who have the misfortune to be "ruled" by you. On the other hand, since Christ said the "last shall be first" in the kingdom, you may be in for a rude surprise as to who is ruling whom in eternity.
If he was too drugged to know that he did not commit the crime, then he was also too drugged to know that he was guilty of the crime. Hetherington's supposed daughter claims otherwise, which makes no sense. A blackout does not cause a person to forget what he is innocent of, but remember what he is guilty of.
The daughter was apparently not a witness to the ostensible crime, so her statements are just opinions. She sure sounds confused. She seems to believe that her father's innocence or guilt of spousal rape has to do with matters unrelated to the crime, such as his drug abuse and his hairstyle.
There is a difference to the public between "in jail and guilty" and "out of jail and guilty", however, and you seem to think Joe Q. Juror and other members of the public besides yourself are not interested in that distinction at all. Why do you think Dirty Harry and myriad fictionalized old West lawmen are so popular? Because they put the guilty in jail or in a coffin, legal technicalities notwithstanding. Not even a majority of the American public shares your concern any more that all the systematic niceties are observed, because defense lawyers have so abused the system that the average member of the public has little faith in crooks going to jail even if they are caught. That sort of extreme legal observance in the pursuit of ultimate fairness--not justice, fairness--almost always results in the Johnny Cochran types postponing or denying justice, and almost never delivering it. It also results in even bigger government, because the fix proposed for bad government is always more bad government.
No, the public knows Miranda was a crook, and while they get a laugh out of the silly warnings read to criminals on TV now, they know that these days, the only people who benefit from Miranda are lawyers hoping to get their clients sprung. They also know that most of the 'Constitutional protections' imposed on the states by defense lawyers and a malleable SCOTUS were neither meant to be imposed on the states nor meant at all by the Framers, no matter what the NEA-led civics class teachers say. It's one thing to want lawmen to have to meet reasonable restrictions that prevent them from abuse of their authority, but it's quite another to force the public to pay for every crook's lawyer under the mistaken belief that the Constitution provides a right to one paid for by the state, and force the law to be recited at every arrest--in the face of the general notion that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You think I'm playing Wyatt Earp, but I KNOW you're channeling Alan Dershowitz! So go back and play with your alphabet-barking pooches at the kids' table, junior.
"If I were on a jury, asbsent any evidence whatsoever that a crime was committed other than the testimony of one party, especially an interested one, I would never, ever vote to convict the accused of a crime. Never."
I doubt that if a cop testified that a criminal shot his now-dead partner and he returned fire and wounded the criminal, you would be so bold as to acquit the criminal, regardless of the single witness..
Someone with connections needs to get this to Bill O'Reilly on the Fox channel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.