People v. Turner

People v. Turner, formally People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), is a criminal case in which Stanford University student athlete Brock Allen Turner was convicted by jury trial of three counts of felony sexual assault. Turner sexually assaulted 22-year-old Chanel Miller (referred to in court documents as "Emily Doe") on January 18, 2015, while she was unconscious. Turner was caught by Peter Jonsson and Carl-Fredrik Arndt, who held him until police arrived. Turner was arrested and released the same day after posting $150,000 bail. Turner was indicted on five charges: two for rape, two for felony sexual assault, and one for attempted rape. On February 2, 2015, he pled not guilty to all five charges. The trial concluded on March 30, 2016, with Turner being convicted of three charges of felony sexual assault. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in jail followed by three years of probation. Additionally, Turner was obliged to be registered as a sex offender for life and to complete a rehabilitation program for sex offenders. Miller's victim impact statement to the court was widely disseminated by international media outlets. There was widespread criticism of Judge Persky and the legal system claiming "male and class privilege". Persky was recalled by county voters on June 5, 2018. On November 1, 2016, Glamour named "Emily Doe" a woman of the year for "changing the conversation about sexual assault forever", citing that her statement has been read over 11 million times. The case influenced the California legislature to require prison terms for rapists whose victims were unconscious, and to include digital penetration in the definition of rape. In September 2019, Miller relinquished her anonymity and released a book entitled Know My Name: A Memoir in which she discusses the assault, trial, and aftermath. Background: Brock Turner was born August 1, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio. He graduated from Oakwood High School in 2014, where he was a three-time All-American swimmer. At the time of his arrest, Turner was a 19-year-old freshman at Stanford University, enrolled on a swimming scholarship. Before sentencing, the prosecution filed a memo with the court describing Turner's drug and alcohol history at Stanford and earlier in high school. It recounted that police found photos and messages on Turner's cell phone that indicated extensive drug use, including LSD, ecstasy, marijuana extracts, and excessive alcohol. Turner was arrested in 2014 for possession of alcohol while under legal age. By the conventions of U.S. courts and media, the woman Turner was convicted of assaulting was called "V01" in the redacted police report on the incident, "Jane Doe" in the indictment, and "Emily Doe" and "Jane Doe 1" by local and regional newspapers, including the San Jose Mercury News, the Stanford Daily and the Palo Alto Weekly. At the time of her assault, Doe was a 22-year-old alumna of a different college. Her younger sister (referred to by the media as Tiffany Doe or Jane Doe 2), was a student at a distant California university. Incident details: Two Swedish graduate students, Peter Lars Jonsson and Carl-Fredrik Arndt, were cycling by the Kappa Alpha fraternity on the Stanford campus about 1:00 a.m., on January 18, 2015, when they spotted the assault taking place. According to Arndt and Jonsson, they surprised Turner behind a dumpster as he was on top of an unconscious woman. Jonsson testified that he confronted Turner, asking, "What the fuck are you doing? She's unconscious." According to Jonsson, Turner quickly rose and fled the scene. As Arndt briefly went to determine whether she was breathing, Jonsson chased Turner, tripped him and held him down around 75 feet (23 m) away from the dumpster, asking "What are you smiling for?" Later, responding to the assistant District Attorney's questions during the trial, Turner testified that he was laughing because he found the situation ridiculous. Arndt rapidly joined the chase, helping to pin Turner down when he was apprehended. A bystander at the dumpster called emergency services while two other passersby arrived to help Arndt and Jonsson keep Turner pinned on the ground. Campus police arrived moments later, questioned Turner, and then arrested him. According to a deputy sheriff who described the victim as unconscious at the scene, when she arrived at the hospital, she did not respond to shouting and being shaken by the shoulders. She regained consciousness at 4:15 am. She later testified at Turner's trial that at the time she regained consciousness, she had pine needles in her hair and on her body, and dried blood on her hands and elbows. In an interview with police, she said she did not recall being alone with a man during the night and stated she did not consent to any sexual activity. At the hospital, the victim was found to have abrasions and erythema (reddening) on her skin. One nurse who administered a sexual assault response team examination at the hospital determined that she had experienced significant trauma (physical injury, bruising, etc.) and penetrating trauma (piercing and cutting injuries). Turner and the victim had attended a party at Kappa Alpha fraternity earlier in the night. The victim's sister testified in the trial that Turner, a man previously unknown to her, had approached her twice and attempted to kiss her, but that she pulled away. She also testified that she never saw Turner and the victim interact at the party. According to a police report compiled in the morning after the incident, Turner at first told police that he met the victim outside the fraternity house and left with her. He also stated he did not know her name and "stated that he would not be able to recognize her if he saw her again." After his arrest, Turner told police that he met the victim at the Kappa Alpha house, they "drank beer together," "walked away from the house holding hands," and that he took off her clothes and fondled her while she rubbed his back. Turner then said he got nauseous and told her he needed to vomit. Turner said he got up and started to walk away to throw up, and heard another person saying something to him which he could not understand, then heard the same person talking to another person in a foreign language. He also denied running from the graduate students. During his trial testimony, Turner stated that he and the victim drank beer together, danced and kissed at the party and agreed to go back to his room. Turner stated that the victim slipped on a slope behind a wooden shed, then Turner got down to the ground and started kissing with the victim. Turner stated he then asked her if she wanted him to "finger" her, to which she said yes. He stated that he "fingered" her for a minute as they were kissing, then they started "dry humping." Turner testified that he stumbled down an incline where he was confronted by the graduate students saying things like "You're sick" and "Do you think that's OK?" Turner testified that he didn't know what they were talking about. They said they grabbed him, but Turner said that he broke away, but was quickly tackled. Both prosecuting Attorney Alaleh Kianerci and the victim alleged that Turner's narrative during trial testimony was fabricated. Kianerci argued to the jury that, "He's able to write the script because she has no memory. But just because he wrote the script doesn't mean that ... knowledgeable jurors have to believe it." The victim described Turner's testimony as presenting "a strange new story, that almost sounded like a poorly written young adult novel." Alcohol: In his statements Turner described initially drinking five Rolling Rock beers and two swigs of Fireball whiskey in a friend's room, and then having more beer later, reaching a total of nine drinks. Tested some time after his arrest, Turner's blood alcohol content was estimated to have been 0.171% at 1 a.m. He testified that he did remember what happened that night. Emily Doe's blood alcohol concentration was measured in a hospital several hours after the assault at 0.12%, and doctors estimated her intoxication level at 1 a.m., the estimated time of the assault, to have been around 0.22%, or 0.242-0.249%. She told the police that she did not remember the events from some point after her arrival at the party until she woke up more than three hours later in the hospital. Shortly before 1 a.m., Doe phoned her boyfriend and left a voicemail message, which would be later entered as evidence by the prosecution. The Palo Alto Weekly described it as "almost entirely incomprehensible"; a juror later cited it as particularly strong evidence that she was not in a fit state to give consent. The blood alcohol estimates for Turner and Doe for 1 a.m. were made by a supervising criminalist for Santa Clara County using nominally hypothetical situations. Turner admitted to only limited prior experience with alcohol, as a putative mitigating factor. However, evidence recovered from his cell phone texts recorded in the year before his 2015 arrest showed that he had extensively discussed his use of alcohol. His text messages also revealed use of illegal drugs. In 2014, Turner had been arrested on campus for underage drinking. Consciousness: Doe reported that her last memory was around midnight, and that she did not remember telephone calls to her sister and sister's friend made shortly after that. A responding paramedic said she did not respond to a "shake and shout" test, but that she opened her eyes when he pinched her nail beds. When Doe vomited on the scene before being taken away by ambulances, she was able to cough and spit out the vomit on her own without assistance. In a January 19 report, the paramedic rated her as 11 out of 15 on the Glasgow Coma Scale. DNA: Santa Clara County criminalist Craig Lee testified that the woman's DNA was found under the fingernails of Turner's left and right hands and on a portion of his right finger. Lee's test did not show when the DNA was deposited and could not tell if it was blood, but he said it did resemble blood. The woman testified that she woke up with dried blood on her hands and elbows. Official responses: Turner withdrew from Stanford shortly after the incident rather than face disciplinary proceedings. On January 20—two days after his arrest—Stanford announced Turner had been banned from campus. Stanford further announced within two weeks of the incident that it had banned Turner from ever setting foot on campus again—the harshest disciplinary sanction it can impose on a student. Turner had aspirations to swim for the U.S. National Team in the 2016 Olympics, but USA Swimming stated on June 6 that he would not be eligible for membership if he sought to reapply. On June 10, USA Swimming reiterated that Turner would never be welcome in its ranks again, under its zero-tolerance policy for sexual misconduct. That announcement effectively banned Turner from ever participating in a competitive swimming event for the United States. Sanctioned meets in the United States—including Olympic trials—are open only to members of USA Swimming. Indictment and charges- On January 28, 2015, Turner was indicted on five charges: -rape of an intoxicated person -rape of an unconscious person -sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an unconscious woman -sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an intoxicated woman -assault with intent to commit rape These were summarized as "two counts of rape, two counts of penetration and one count of assault with intent to rape". The two formal charges of rape under California state law were dropped at a preliminary hearing on October 7, 2015, after DNA testing revealed no genetic evidence of genital-to-genital contact. On March 7, 2016, The People filed Motions in Limine And Witness List, which outlined permissible Evidence guidelines for the trial. The trial began on March 14, 2016. Sentencing: On March 30, 2016, Turner was found guilty of three felonies: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. Prosecutors recommended that Turner be given a six-year prison sentence based on the purposefulness of the action, the effort to hide this activity and her intoxicated state. Santa Clara County probation officials, including his probation officer Monica Lassettre, recommended that Turner receive a "moderate" county jail sentence with formal probation based on Turner's lack of criminal history, youth and expression of remorse. The probation report did not mention another woman who said she had been upset by Turner's unwanted physical advances at a Kappa Alpha party, eight days before the charged offense. This report was present in the trial record. On June 2, 2016, the Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in the Santa Clara County jail followed by three years of probation. After three months in jail, Turner was released on September 2, 2016. He is permanently registered as a sex offender, and was made obligated to participate in a sex offender rehabilitation program. Reaction- Controversy over sentence: Prosecutors and victims' rights advocates criticized Persky's sentencing as lenient and biased. Persky himself had been a student and lacrosse team captain at Stanford University. Nancy Brewer, a retired Santa Clara County assistant public defender, described Persky as being respected by both prosecutors and defenders, stating that he was seen as a fair judge who is not soft on crime or a judge that would give lenient sentences. Brewer said that Persky had carefully evaluated the evidence and did what he thought was a fair and appropriate sentence in the case based on the Santa Clara County Probation Department's pre-sentence investigation report. Attorney and media legal analyst Danny Cevallos said: "the judge absolutely is obliged to consider very seriously the probation department report," and noted that the California penal code allows a judge to depart from the statutory minimum (two years) after considering the defendant's lack of criminal history and the effect of incarceration. Cevallos believed that while the sentence was lenient, Turner's prior clean record made him a candidate for minimum sentencing. Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan did not consider the sentence lenient as he noted "Turner will register as a sex offender for life, and if he violates his probation he could go to prison for 14 years." Khan further stated that "Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist", saying, "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him. We appreciated the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients." Similarly, other sitting judges (both state and federal) and legal commentators have defended Persky's decision, noted that the sentence may, in their opinion, be disproportionate due to the lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, and called on the bar to protect the independence of the judiciary. Turner's father protested the prison sentence requested by the prosecutor, saying "The sentence is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life." Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen criticized the letter from Turner's father to the court, saying it reduced a brutal sexual assault to "20 minutes of action." Repercussions to the judge- Persky recalled: Although he did not face any opposition in an election held five days after the sentencing, Persky faced a campaign to recall him. Online petitions calling for Persky to be removed attracted over a million signatures by June 10, 2016. Professor Michele Dauber, of the Stanford Law School and longtime advocate on campus sexual assault, who is also a family friend of the victim, led the Committee to Recall Judge Persky. The Committee planned to collect signatures in Santa Clara County to force a November 2017 recall vote. A request for an injunction by Persky delayed that initiative. The California Attorney General's office supported the propriety of the county registrar of voters approval of the petition allowing the recall to go forward. Persky's legal team argued that since he was a state officer, only the California Secretary of State had the authority to approve its acceptance. The recall vote required gathering 90,000 verified signatures. Persky paid $30,000 to the firm of Brian Seitchik, the manager of Donald Trump's presidential campaign in Arizona, to lead the opposition to the recall. A retired judge living in Santa Cruz heard Persky's request for injunction to prevent the recall election, and approved it. The demands for recall received support from Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas), who spoke in the United States House of Representatives to condemn Turner's sentence as too lenient and to call for Persky's removal. The move to recall Persky was opposed by the Santa Clara County public defender, who said she was "alarmed by the hysteria" about the Turner sentence. A group of 70 public defenders petitioned in support of Persky, warning against "mass incarceration" brought upon by state legislatures or indiscreet judges, and fearing that the backlash against Persky could hurt their clients (mostly poor African and Latino) by compelling judges to give out harsh sentences. Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan wrote "rather than using robotic, one size fits all punishment schemes, we want judges, like Judge Persky, to engage in thoughtful, case by case, individualized determinations of the appropriate sentence for a particular crime and particular offender". Santa Clara County district attorney Jeff Rosen, whose office prosecuted Turner and did not appeal the sentence, stated, "While I strongly disagree with the sentence that Judge Persky issued in the Brock Turner case, I do not believe he should be removed from his judgeship", adding, "Judicial independence is a critical part of the U.S. justice system. The immense power that comes with judicial independence also comes with accountability to the people we serve." Danny Cevallos stated that judges enjoy a modicum of independence from public pressure, and "there are no apparent grounds for impeachment or allegations of judicial misconduct, based on this sentence alone." Cevallos said that the recall movement "raises the question: is removing judges good for the spirit of the judiciary system, especially when the judge's sole transgression is a legal sentence" where he correctly applied the law. The Santa Clara County Bar Association released a statement saying that removing Persky would be a "threat to judicial independence" and weighs just one of his 13 years of decisions too heavily, saying they see "no credible assertions that in issuing the sentence, Judge Persky violated the law or his ethical obligations or acted in bad faith." Similarly, other sitting judges (both state and federal) and legal commentators defended Persky's decision, noted that the sentence might, in their opinion, be disproportionate due to the lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, and called on the bar to protect the independence of the judiciary. In June 2016, at least ten prospective jurors refused to serve in a misdemeanor trial for possession of stolen property where Persky was presiding, citing the judge's sentencing of Turner as a reason. The following week, Rosen filed a peremptory motion for recusal in a case where Persky was to preside over the criminal trial of a surgical nurse charged with sexual battery for allegedly touching the genitals of a patient under sedation. Rosen called his move to have the judge removed from the case, "a rare and carefully considered step for our office." As a result of the backlash in the wake of his sentencing, Persky asked not to hear any more criminal cases and was reassigned to the Civil Division of the California Court system. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, on January 24, 2018, confirmed that sufficient signatures had been verified to put the recall on the ballot. There were 94,539 signatures submitted, only a fraction of which were verified in order to reach the total needed to qualify. The recall issue was on the state elections ballot on June 5, 2018. The California Commission on Judicial Performance found that Persky had not abused his discretion. He was supported by dozens of law school professors, retired judges and the Santa Clara Bar Association. He stood by his sentencing, saying he's been unfairly targeted as the "face of rape" by recall advocates. At the same time he admitted, "There is an underlying deep frustration among actual victims of sexual assault and women in general about the criminal justice system not taking sexual assault and domestic violence seriously. It's a very genuine and important problem." "The passion is authentic, the end is justified, let's increase sexual assault reporting. Let's do criminal justice reform where it's smart to do so." In a press conference in May 2018, Persky compared his sentence handed down in the Turner case to that of Brown v. Board of Education. In a May 18, 2018 interview, Persky stated he had no regrets, and would rule exactly the same again on this case. Two women, Cindy Hendrickson, a Santa Clara County assistant district attorney and Angela Storey, a civil attorney, appeared on the ballot to take Persky's position in the event of his successful recall. Storey opposed the recall on principle. When the election results were being tabulated, and they indicated Persky would be recalled, Professor Dauber stated, "The vote today is a vote against impunity for high-status offenders of domestic violence and sexual violence." Hendrickson won the election to take Persky's place. Persky left the bench and Hendrickson was sworn in ten days after the election results were certified. In the June 5, 2018 primary election, nearly 200,000 Santa Clara County voters turned out, voting to remove Persky by 61.51% to 38.49%, a margin of over 23%. Persky was the first judge to be recalled by voters in California in 86 years, and the first in the United States since 1977. Persky ordered to pay legal fees: The county clerk had 28 days within which to certify the recall election results, ten days after which Hendrickson would take Persky's place on the bench. Persky was ordered to pay $161,000 in restitution for lawsuits he filed against the recall. He sought over $135,000 in donations from the public to cover attorney fees after the $840,000 previously raised had been exhausted. Revisit of previous civil case of alleged rape: In 2011, Persky presided over a civil lawsuit against multiple members of the De Anza College baseball team, who were accused by plaintiff "Jane Doe" of gang-raping the then-underaged girl while she was unconscious, until another party attendee who heard the commotion intervened. The civil trial came after the District Attorney had declined to prosecute a criminal case, as she thought evidence was lacking. During the civil trial, Persky decided that the jury should be allowed to view photographs of the plaintiff taken at another party she attended approximately a year after the alleged gang rape, as per the defense's claim that this evidence contradicted the plaintiff's claims of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The jury found the defendants not liable. Following Turner's sentencing in 2016, the plaintiff's attorneys in the De Anza case criticized Persky for allowing the photos into evidence. Attorneys for Doe said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. Four of the baseball players had invoked Fifth Amendment rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. According to a lawyer for Doe, that was a critical juncture: it prevented their legal team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could refuse to testify, but that meant that they would be prohibited from subsequently testifying in the case. That prohibition was lifted by Persky after he took over the trial in 2011, a move that Doe's attorneys say undermined her case. Statements- Defendant's statements: After the guilty verdict, Turner said to his probation officer that the encounter was consensual. He also gave an 11-page statement to the judge that said he received verbal consent from the woman before she passed out. According to Turner's statement, he and the woman drank, danced, and kissed at the party. Sometime around midnight, according to Turner, he asked her whether she would like to go back to his dorm and she said yes. He claimed that she had slipped behind a wooden shed, whereupon he sat down on the ground with her and engaged in consensual sexual activity, until he became nauseous and walked away to throw up. Turner stated, "It debilitates me to think that my actions have caused her (Emily Doe) emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair." Victim-impact statements- Publication by BuzzFeed: On June 2, 2016, Doe read a 7,138-word victim impact statement aloud in the sentencing phase of the trial. The New York Times described the statement as a "cri de coeur against the role of privilege in the trial and the way the legal system deals with sexual assault". On June 3, 2016, Palo Alto Online and BuzzFeed published Doe's full statement. BuzzFeed's publication rapidly went viral, achieving over 8 million views in three days, driven by widespread sharing on social media. In one statement, she detailed the negative effects Turner had on her life: "You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today." The statement also detailed the effect on Doe's ability to remain in her full-time job, which she left afterward "because continuing day to day was not possible." Doe's statement also described her experience at the hospital and learning she was being treated for sexual assault: "The next thing I remember I was in a gurney in a hallway. I had dried blood and bandages on the backs of my hands and elbow. My brain was talking my gut into not collapsing. Because my gut was saying, help me, help me." Doe expresses gratitude to "the intern who made me oatmeal when I woke up at the hospital that morning, to the deputy who waited beside me, to the nurses who calmed me, to the detective who listened to me and never judged me, to my advocates who stood unwaveringly beside me, to my therapist who taught me to find courage in vulnerability." The statement articulated that "social class" should not be factored into the sentence: "The fact that Brock was a star athlete at a prestigious university should not be seen as an entitlement to leniency, but as an opportunity to send a strong cultural message that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class." Doe also disagreed with the probation officer's assessment that Turner had shown remorse, stating that Turner had failed to show genuine remorse and this was a factor in her anger at the brief sentence. Released by Santa Clara County: The victim's statement was subsequently formally released by Santa Clara County and was picked up by national and international media including the Washington Post, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, Time, San Jose Mercury News, Cosmopolitan and the UK's Daily Mail and The Guardian. The letter went viral, shared over 11 million times in four days. CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield read most of the statement aloud during a 20-minute segment of CNN's Legal View. Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern has described the statement as an "extraordinarily powerful letter and glad so many millions have read and been moved by it. But it had absolutely no place in the courtroom", noting that victim impact statements are a "a liberal bête noire, and rightly so, because they seriously undermine the defendant's due process rights". Nicholas M. Wooldridge wrote that this and other "victim impact statements introduce a massive amount of emotion into the proceedings and inject arbitrariness into a sentencing process that should be a product of logical reflection". Read in U.S. Congress: On June 15, 2016, a bipartisan group of eighteen members of the House of Representatives took turns reading the statement on the House floor. Representative Jackie Speier organized the reading to raise awareness about sexual assault, and to promote her legislation on campus sexual assault. Paul Gosar said: "People need to learn from this, This should matter to everyone." Cheri Bustos claimed a need for more women in the house to bring the issue of sexual assault to the forefront. Vice President Joe Biden wrote Doe an open letter titled, "An Open Letter to a Courageous Young Woman", which read in part, "I am filled with furious anger — both that this happened to you and that our culture is still so broken that you were ever put in the position of defending your own worth." Prosecutor's statements: Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen stated that "The punishment does not fit the crime." Rosen described Turner as a "predatory offender" and stated he "has failed to take responsibility, failed to show remorse and failed to tell the truth." Rosen added, "Campus rape is no different than off-campus rape. Rape is rape. And I will prosecute it as such." Juror's statement: A juror calling himself "A Concerned Juror" said this was his first time as a juror since recently becoming a U.S. citizen, after residing in the country for three decades. He wrote a letter to the judge expressing dissatisfaction with the sentencing length. The juror said that "the fact that Turner ran away after two Stanford graduate students noticed him on top of an unmoving woman" was compelling evidence, along with the incoherence of the message that Doe left her boyfriend before meeting Brock. The juror believed this was very strong evidence "that Turner should have reasonably known she was not able to give consent." Statements by Turner's family and friends: On June 4, Michele Dauber posted a letter written by Dan Turner, Brock's father, asking for leniency for his son, arguing that punishment was a "steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life." The letter sparked outrage and was cited as an example of the prevalence of rape culture. Dauber also circulated, again via Twitter, a letter written by Leslie Rasmussen, a female childhood friend of Turner, that defended Turner and blamed alcohol consumption and universities for advertising themselves as "party schools". The letter was met with further criticism. The publication of her letter, in which she also said Brock came from "a respectable family," led to cancellations of her band (Good English)'s engagements. Rasmussen soon disavowed the letter, writing on Facebook, "I did not acknowledge strongly enough the severity of Brock's crime and the suffering and pain that his victim endured, and for that lack of acknowledgement, I am deeply sorry." Writing to the court and recommending against prison, Oakwood, Ohio Judge Margaret M. Quinn, a Turner family friend and retired federal prosecutor, also blamed the assault on alcohol, minimizing Turner's culpability. "He made a mistake in drinking excessively to the point where he could not fully appreciate that his female acquaintance was so intoxicated. I know Brock did not go to that party intending to hurt, or entice, or overpower anyone." Brock's character was defended by at least 39 people including his ex-girlfriend who said he never pressured her and that he was kind, loving and respectful. Doe's family's statements: Her sister (referred to by police as "Jane Doe 2") wrote a letter saying "an entire part of my heart has been permanently broken" by the assault, the lengthy prosecution, and Turner's failure to take responsibility for his actions. Police reports: The Stanford University Department of Public Safety provided the initial response and investigation. A felony complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on January 28, 2015. The story was first disclosed to the public by The Fountain Hopper, an anonymous campus newsletter, after a line from the police blotter caught the interest of its editors. Turner had a prior campus law enforcement encounter when he was found by Stanford University police to be a minor in possession of cans of beer on November 11, 2014. He was cited as well for possession of a counterfeit Ohio driver's license. In addition, after subsequent publicized reports of the January 18, 2015, sexual assault incident, another female reported that Turner had made similar unwelcome physical advances toward her at a Kappa Alpha party on January 9, 2015. Jail and aftermath: Turner was released from Santa Clara County jail on September 2, 2016, having served three months of his six-month sentence. The corrections officers who had kept him in protective custody handed Turner a package of hate mail, which had built up during his stay, as he exited prison. Under the terms of his release, Turner was mandated to live with his parents in Sugarcreek Township, Ohio, where he was to register as a sex offender. He was placed on three years probation with reciprocal supervision through the Greene County, Ohio, Sheriff's Office. Conditions of probation included abstention from drugs and alcohol during that period. The day of his release, Turner's parents contacted the police, expressing concern about protesters being a danger to their safety. The day after his release, protesters gathered on the sidewalk outside his family's Ohio home. One protester, while brandishing a gun in the open carry state, held a sign urging attendees to "shoot your local rapist". Appeal upheld conviction: At the time of his conviction, it was reported that Turner's legal appeal would be led by attorney Dennis Riordan, who represented former baseball player Barry Bonds in a perjury case. Riordan was present in court Thursday, June 2 with Turner's initial attorney Michael Armstrong. In December 2017, Turner requested that his conviction be overturned, that his lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender be canceled, and that he be given a new trial, on the grounds that the prosecutor claimed that the assault took place behind a trash bin, but the victim was found behind a garbage enclosure; as well, Turner argued that the jury should have been given the option to consider less serious charges, and that he should have been able to call character witnesses. Oral arguments were given on June 28, 2018 in San Jose. On August 8, 2018, Turner lost his appeal to overturn his conviction. He reportedly tried to argue that he'd intended to engage in outercourse, not intercourse, with his victim; the California Courts of Appeal were not persuaded and concluded that the appropriate course of action was to require Turner to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Legacy- California legislation: The public outrage at the sentence in the Turner case prompted the California State Legislature to pass two bills that would change California state law on sexual assault. Assembly Bill 701 would broaden California's definition of rape so that it would include digital as well as penile penetration. Assembly Bill 2888 (written by District Attorney Jeff Rosen) would provide for a mandatory minimum three-year prison sentence for sexual assault of an unconscious or intoxicated person. (Previously California law provided a mandatory minimum prison sentence when a defendant uses force, but had no mandatory minimum sentence when the victim is unconscious or incapacitated and unable to resist.) The final versions of A.B. 2888 and A.B. 701 were both unanimously approved by the California legislature. Both bills subsequently went to Governor Jerry Brown's desk. The bills were signed into law on September 30, 2016. After these laws were enacted, state law from before 2016 continued to provide that where imprisonment in the state prison is imposed for rape (when the victim is not a minor) or for the crime of sexual penetration when the victim is "prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance," the imprisonment is for a period of "three, six, or eight years." Textbook definition of rape: The second edition of the criminal justice textbook Introduction to Criminal Justice (ISBN 9781506347721), by University of Colorado, Denver Professors Callie Marie Rennison and Mary Dodge, uses Turner's mugshot as the accompanying photo in the entry that defines rape. According to the caption beneath Turner's photo, which appears on Page 20 at the top of the section in the book on "rape": Brock Turner, a Stanford student who raped and assaulted an unconscious female student behind a dumpster at a fraternity party, was recently released from jail after serving only three months. Some are shocked at how short the sentence is. Others who are more familiar with the way sexual violence has been handled in the criminal justice system are shocked that he was found guilty and served any time at all. What do you think? In September 2017, an image of the page was widely circulated on social media. The book was published in January 2017. Rennison, who was awarded the Bonnie S. Fisher Victimology Career Award in 2016, explained in reference to her acceptance of that award that the textbook is her attempt to change the dialogue about victims of crime and its perpetrators within the criminal justice community, saying: Existing criminal justice books have focused on three elements: cops, courts and corrections. They speak little about victims, reflecting how they have effectively been in the shadows of our criminal justice system. In our book, victims are front and center with equal emphasis as cops, courts and corrections. This is the way it should be. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: The eighteenth season of the television program Law & Order: Special Victims Unit highlighted the People v. Turner case, in its episode titled, "Rape Interrupted". The episode (which guest stars Anthony Edwards) was ripped from the headlines based on the trial. Edwards starred on the NBC medical drama ER as Dr. Mark Greene; in season four of the medical series, Mariska Hargitay guest starred as Greene's love interest, Desk Clerk Cynthia Hooper. Edwards portrayed Benson's very first partner out of the Academy, Sgt. Patrick Griffin in "Rape Interrupted". Griffin's son is the suspect in a rape investigation that puts Benson at odds with ADA Barba and Griffin. Executive producer Julie Martin told The Huffington Post, "It is a phenomenon. Unfortunately, there have been several cases like that over the spring and the summer." Mariska Hargitay pondered if a similar case were to happen on the show: "Like if I was the detective on that case? It could be healing to somebody to see what should happen. Seeing justice," Hargitay continued, "If a judge would do a different sentence. You know, that's healing for people to see the right thing, the just thing happen." Book by Chanel Miller: In September 2019, Chanel Miller revealed herself as being "Emily Doe" in the case and has released a book with the title, Know My Name: A Memoir, on September 4, 2019. She first began work on the book in 2017. The book was an attempt by Miller to reappropriate her narrative identity and describe the trauma she went through, after being referred to in the press as, "unconscious intoxicated woman". The author discusses her experience of the assault and the trial, as well as how she has coped since then. Through research for the work, Miller perused court transcripts and testimony of individuals involved in the court proceedings—materials she had been unable to view throughout the trial of Brock Turner itself. The book was initially published by Viking Books, through efforts by the publisher's editor-in-chief Andrea Schulz. Schulz took quick action after being contacted by Miller's literary agent, Philippa Brophy. Schulz worked to acquire the rights to the book because of Miller's writing skill and her compelling account. The same month as the book's publication, Miller was interviewed on CBS News program 60 Minutes, where she read from her original victim impact statement. U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who coordinated the June 2016 movement in Congress to openly read the text of Miller's victim statement into the United States House of Representatives, called the book, "a powerful example of how we can overcome adversity". Stanford law professor Michele Dauber commented "When people read her book, they will be impressed with her. They will be convinced that Judge Persky and Stanford University behaved very badly." After Miller made the decision to go public with her real name, Stanford University released a statement: "We applaud Ms. Miller's bravery in talking publicly about the ordeal she has experienced and the horrible act that she suffered on our campus. As a university, we are continuing our efforts to prevent and respond effectively to sexual violence, with the ultimate goal of eradicating it from our community."

Toa Payoh ritual murders

The Toa Payoh ritual murders took place in Singapore in 1981. On 25 January, the body of a nine-year-old girl was found in a bag next to the lift of a block of flats in the town of Toa Payoh, and two weeks later, a ten-year-old boy was found dead nearby. The children had been killed, purportedly as blood sacrifices to the Hindu goddess Kali. The murders were masterminded by Adrian Lim, a self-styled medium, who had tricked scores of women into believing he had supernatural powers. His victims offered money and sexual services in exchange for cures, beauty, and good fortune. Two of the women became his loyal assistants; Tan Mui Choo married him, and Hoe Kah Hong became one of his "holy wives". When the police investigated a rape charge filed by one of Lim's targets, he became furious and decided to kill children to derail the investigations. On each occasion, Hoe lured a child to Lim's flat where he or she was drugged and killed by the trio. Lim also sexually assaulted the girl before her death. The trio were arrested after the police found a trail of blood that led to their flat. Although the case name suggested ritualistic murders, the defendants said they did not conduct prayers, burning of joss sticks, ringing of bells, or any other rituals during the killings. The 41-day trial was the second longest to have been held in the courts of Singapore at the time. None of the defendants denied their guilt. Their appointed counsels tried to spare their clients the death sentence by pleading diminished responsibility, arguing that the accused were mentally ill and could not be held entirely responsible for the killings. To support their case they brought in doctors and psychologists, who analysed the defendants and concluded that they had exhibited schizophrenia, and depressions of the psychotic and manic order. The prosecution's expert, however, refuted these testimonies and argued that they were in full control of their mental faculties when they planned and carried out the murders. The judges agreed with the prosecution's case and sentenced the trio to death. While on death row, the women appealed to the Privy Council in London and pleaded for clemency from the President of Singapore to no avail. Lim did not seek any pardons; instead, he accepted his fate and went smiling to the gallows. The three were hanged on 25 November 1988. The Toa Payoh ritual murders shocked the public in Singapore, who were surprised by such an act taking place in their society. Reports of the trio's deeds and the court proceedings were closely followed and remained prominent in the Singaporean consciousness for several years. Twice, movie companies tried to capitalise on the sensation generated by the murders by producing motion pictures based on the killings; however, critics panned both films for indulging in gratuitous sex and violence, and the movies performed poorly at the box office. The actions and behaviour of the three killers were studied by academics in the criminal psychology field, and the rulings set by the courts became local case studies for diminished responsibility. Singaporean society in the 1980s: Early in the nineteenth century, immigrants flooded into Peninsular Malaysia, colonising the Straits Settlements including the island city of Singapore. Migrants and natives held differing beliefs, but over time the boundaries between those belief systems blurred. Most of the population believed in spirits that inhabit the jungles, and in gods and devils that hover around, capable of benevolence and mischief. Certain people claimed that they could communicate with these supernatural beings. Through rituals in which they danced and chanted, these spirit mediums—tang-kees and bomohs—invited the beings to possess their bodies and dole out wisdoms, blessings, and curses to their believers. As time passed and the cities grew, the jungles gave way to concrete structures and the mediums' practices moved deeper into the heartland of communities. By 1980, 75% of the residents in Singapore were living in public housing. Government-built high-rise blocks of flats clustered in the population centres, of which Toa Payoh was typical. Although a high density of people lived in each block, the residents mostly kept to themselves, valuing their privacy and tending to ignore what was happening around their homes. During this time, Singapore was a relatively peaceful society—a stark contrast to the prevalence of secret societies, triads and gang warfare during the pre-independence days. The low crime rate, brought on by strict laws and tough enforcement, gave citizens a sense of security. Nonetheless, the government warned against complacency and lectured in its local campaigns, "Low crime doesn't mean no crime". Whoever says Singapore is boring and antiseptic ignores our hard-to-surpass crime spine tinglers starring inimitable rogues such as the very incarnation of Evil — Adrian Lim Sonny Yap, The Straits Times, 15 July 1995 The murders: For several years, a medium in Block 12, Toa Payoh Lorong 7, had been performing noisy rituals in the middle of the night. The residents complained several times to the authorities, but the rituals would always resume after a short time. On the afternoon of 24 January 1981, nine-year-old Agnes Ng Siew Heok disappeared after attending religious classes at her church in Toa Payoh. Hours later, her naked body was found stuffed in a bag outside a lift in Block 11, less than a kilometre (five-eighths of a mile) from the church. The girl had been smothered to death; the investigation revealed injuries to her genitals and semen in her rectum. Although the police launched an intensive investigation, questioning more than 250 people around the crime scene, they failed to obtain any leads. On 7 February ten-year-old Ghazali bin Marzuki was found dead under a tree between Blocks 10 and 11, naked. He had been missing since the previous day, after being seen boarding a taxi with an unknown woman. Forensic pathologists on the scene deemed the cause of death as drowning, and found on the boy suffocation marks similar to those on Ng. There were no signs of sexual assault, but burns were on the boy's back and a puncture on his arm. Traces of a sedative were later detected in his blood. The police found a scattered trail of blood that led to the seventh floor of Block 12. Stepping into the common corridor from the stairwell, Inspector Pereira noticed an eclectic mix of religious symbols (a cross, a mirror, and a knife-blade) on the entrance of the first flat (unit number 467F). The owner of the flat, Adrian Lim, approached the inspector and introduced himself, informing Pereira that he was living there with his wife, Tan Mui Choo, and a girlfriend, Hoe Kah Hong. Permitted by Lim to search his flat, the police found traces of blood. Lim initially tried to pass the stains off as candle wax, but when challenged claimed they were chicken blood. After the police found slips of paper written with the dead children's personal details, Lim tried to allay suspicions by claiming that Ghazali had come to his flat seeking treatment for a bleeding nose. He discreetly removed hair from under a carpet and tried to flush it down the toilet, but the police stopped him; forensics later determined the hair to be Ng's. Requesting a background check on Lim, Pereira received word from local officers that the medium was currently involved in a rape investigation. Lim overheard them and became agitated, raising his voice at the law enforcers. His ire was mimicked by Hoe as she gestured violently and shouted at the officers. Their actions further raised the investigators' suspicions that the trio were deeply involved in the murders. The police collected the evidence, sealed the flat as a crime scene, and took Lim and the two women in for questioning. Perpetrators- Adrian Lim: Born on 6 January 1942, Adrian Lim was the eldest son of a low-income family. Described at the trial by his sister as a hot-tempered boy, he dropped out of secondary school and worked a short stint as an informant for the Internal Security Department, joining the cable radio company Rediffusion Singapore in 1962. For three years, he installed and serviced Rediffusion sets as an electrician before being promoted to bill collector. In April 1967, Lim married his childhood sweetheart with whom he had two children. He converted to Catholicism for his marriage. Lim and his family lived in rented rooms until his 1970 purchase of a three-room flat—a seventh floor unit (unit number 467F) of Block 12, Toa Payoh. Lim started part-time practice as a spirit medium in 1973. He rented a room where he attended to the women—most of whom were bargirls, dance hostesses, and prostitutes—introduced to him by his landlord. Lim's customers also included superstitious men and elderly females, whom he cheated only of cash. He had learned the trade from a bomoh called "Uncle Willie" and prayed to gods of various religions despite his Catholic baptism. The Hindu goddess Kali and "Phragann", which Lim described as a Siamese sex god, were among the spiritual entities he called on in his rituals. Lim deceived his clients with several confidence tricks; his most effective gimmick, known as the "needles and egg" trick, duped many to believe that he had supernatural abilities. After blackening needles with soot from a burning candle, Lim carefully inserted them into a raw egg and sealed the hole with powder. In his rituals, he passed the egg several times over his client while chanting and asked her to crack open the egg. Unaware that the egg had been tampered with, the client would be convinced by the sight of the black needles that evil spirits were harassing her. Lim particularly preyed on gullible girls who had deep personal problems. He promised them that he could solve their woes and increase their beauty through a ritual massage. After Lim and his client had stripped, he would knead her body—including her genitals—with Phragann's idol and have sex with her. Lim's treatments also included an electro-shock therapy based on that used on mental patients. After placing his client's feet in a tub of water and attaching wires to her temples, Lim passed electricity through her. The shocks, he assured her, would cure headaches and drive away evil spirits. Tan Mui Choo: Catherine Tan Mui Choo was referred to Lim by a fellow bargirl, who claimed the spirit medium could cure ailments and depression. Tan, at that time, was grieving the death of her grandmother to whom she had been devoted. Furthermore, her estrangement from her parents weighed on her mind; having been sent away at the age of 13 to a vocational centre (a home mostly for juvenile delinquents), she felt unwanted by them. Tan's visits to Lim became regular, and their relationship grew intimate. In 1975 she moved into his flat on his insistence. To allay his wife's suspicions that he was having an affair with Tan, Lim swore an oath of denial before a picture of Jesus Christ. However, she discovered the truth and moved out with their children a few days later, divorcing Lim in 1976. Lim quit his Rediffusion job and became a full-time medium. He enjoyed brisk business, at one point receiving S$6,000–7,000 a month from a single client. In June 1977, Lim and Tan registered their marriage. Lim dominated Tan through beatings, threats, and lies. He persuaded her to prostitute herself to supplement their income. He also convinced her that he needed to fornicate with young women to stay healthy; thus, Tan assisted him in his business, preparing their clients for his pleasure. Lim's influence over Tan was strong; on his encouragement and promise that sex with a younger man would preserve her youth, Tan copulated with a Malay teenager and even with her younger brother. The boy was not her only sibling to be influenced by Lim; the medium had earlier seduced Tan's younger sister and tricked her into selling her body and having sex with the two youths. Despite the abuses, Tan lived with Lim, enjoying the dresses, beauty products and slimming courses bought with their income. Hoe Kah Hong: Born on 10 September 1955, Hoe Kah Hong was eight years old when her father died; she was sent to live with her grandmother until she was fifteen. When she returned to her mother and siblings she was constantly required to give way to her elder sister Lai Ho. Under the perception that her mother favoured her sister, Hoe became disgruntled, showing her temper easily. In 1979 her mother brought Lai to Lim for treatment, and became convinced of Lim's powers by his "needles and egg" trick. Believing that Hoe's volatile temper could also be cured by Lim, the old woman brought her younger daughter to the medium. After witnessing the same trick, Hoe became Lim's loyal follower. Lim desired to make Hoe one of his "holy wives", even though she was already married to Benson Loh Ngak Hua. To achieve his goal, Lim sought to isolate Hoe from her family by feeding her lies. He claimed that her family were immoral people who practiced infidelity, and that Loh was an unfaithful man who would force her into prostitution. Hoe believed Lim's words, and after going through a rite with him she was declared by the medium as his "holy wife". She no longer trusted her husband and family, and became violent towards her mother. Three months after she had first met Lim, Hoe moved from her house and went to live with him. Loh sought his wife at Lim's flat and ended up staying to observe her treatment. He was persuaded by her to participate in the electro-shock therapies. In the early hours of 7 January 1980, Loh sat with Hoe, their arms locked together and their feet in separate tubs of water. Lim applied a large voltage to Loh, who was electrocuted, while Hoe was stunned into unconsciousness. When she woke, Lim requested her to lie to the police about Loh's death. Hoe repeated the story Lim had given her, saying that her husband had been electrocuted in their bedroom when he tried to switch on a faulty electric fan in the dark. The coroner recorded an open verdict, and the police made no further investigations. Despite her antipathy towards Loh, Hoe was affected by his death. Her sanity broke; she started hearing voices and hallucinating, seeing her dead husband. At the end of May she was admitted to the Woodbridge Hospital. There, psychologists diagnosed her condition as schizophrenia and started appropriate treatments. Hoe made a remarkably quick recovery; by the first week of July, she was discharged. She continued her treatment with the hospital; follow-up checks showed that she was in a state of remission. Hoe's attitude towards her mother and other family members began to improve after her stay in the hospital, although she continued to live with Lim and Tan. Rape and revenge: With Hoe and Tan as his assistants, Lim continued his trade, tricking more women into giving him money and sex. By the time of his arrest, he had 40 "holy wives". In late 1980 he was arrested and charged with rape. His accuser was Lucy Lau, a door-to-door cosmetic salesgirl, who had met Lim when she was promoting beauty products to Tan. On 19 October, Lim told Lau that a ghost was haunting her, but he could exorcise it with his sex rituals. She was unconvinced, but the medium persisted. He secretly mixed two capsules of Dalmadorm, a sedative, into a glass of milk and offered it to her, claiming it had holy properties. Lau became groggy after drinking it, which allowed Lim to take advantage of her. For the next few weeks, he continued to abuse her by using drugs or threats. In November, after Lim had given her parents a loan smaller than the amount they had requested, Lau made a police report about his treatment of her. Lim was arrested on charges of rape, and Tan for abetting him. Out on bail, Lim persuaded Hoe to lie that she was present at the alleged rape but saw no crime committed. This failed to stop the police enquiries; Lim and Tan had to extend their bail, in person, at the police station every fortnight. rustrated, Lim plotted to distract the police with a series of child murders. Moreover, he believed that sacrifices of children to Kali would persuade her supernaturally to draw the attention of the police away from him. Lim pretended to be possessed by Kali, and convinced Tan and Hoe that the goddess wanted them to kill children to wreak vengeance on Lau. He also told them Phragann demanded that he have sex with their female victims. On 24 January 1981, Hoe spotted Agnes at a nearby church and lured her to the flat. The trio plied her with food and drink that was laced with Dalmadorm. After Agnes became groggy and fell asleep, Lim sexually abused her. Near midnight, the trio smothered Agnes with a pillow and drew her blood, drinking and smearing it on a portrait of Kali. Following that, they drowned the girl by holding down her head in a pail of water. Finally, Lim used his electro-shock therapy device to "make doubly sure that she was dead". They stuffed her body in a bag and dumped it near the lift at Block 11. Ghazali suffered a similar fate when he was brought by Hoe to the flat on 6 February. He, however, proved resistant to the sedatives, taking a long time to fall asleep. Lim decided to tie up the boy as a precaution; however, the boy awoke and struggled. Panicking, the trio delivered karate chops to Ghazali's neck and stunned him. After drawing his blood, they proceeded to drown their victim. Ghazali struggled, vomiting and losing control of his bowels as he died. Blood kept streaming from his nose after his death. While Tan stayed behind to clean the flat, Lim and Hoe disposed of the body. Lim noticed that a trail of blood led to their flat, so he and his accomplices cleaned as much as they could of these stains before sunrise. When the trail of blood led the police to their flat, this resulted in their arrest. Trial: Two days after their arrest, Lim, Tan and Hoe were charged in the Subordinate Court for the murders of the two children. The trio were subjected to further interrogations by the police, and to medical examinations by prison doctors. On 16–17 September, their case was brought to the court for a committal procedure. To prove that there was a case against the accused, Deputy Public Prosecutor Glenn Knight called on 58 witnesses and arrayed 184 pieces of evidence before the magistrate. While Tan and Hoe denied the charges of murder, Lim pleaded guilty and claimed sole responsibility for the acts. The magistrate decided that the case against the accused was sufficiently strong to be heard at the High Court. Lim, Tan, and Hoe remained in custody while investigations continued. Judiciary, prosecution, and defence: The High Court was convened in the Supreme Court Building on 25 March 1983. Presiding over the case were two judges: Justice Thirugnana Sampanthar Sinnathuray, who would deliver judgment on serial murderer John Martin Scripps 13 years later, and Justice Frederick Arthur Chua, who was at the time the longest serving judge in Singapore. Knight continued to build his case on the evidence gathered by detective work. Photographs of the crime scenes, together with witness testimonies, would help the court to visualise the events that led to the crimes. Other evidence—the blood samples, religious objects, drugs, and the notes with Ng and Ghazali's names—conclusively proved the defendants' involvement. Knight had no eyewitnesses to the murders; his evidence was circumstantial, but he told the court in his opening statement, "What matters is that the accused did intentionally suffocate and drown these two innocent children, causing their deaths in circumstances which amount to murder. And this we will prove beyond all reasonable doubt." Tan, with Lim's and the police's permission, used $10,000 of the $159,340 seized from the trio's flat to engage J. B. Jeyaretnam for her defence. Hoe had to accept the court's offer of counsel, receiving Nathan Isaac as her defender. Since his arrest, Lim had refused legal representation. He defended himself at the Subordinate Court hearings, but could not continue to do so when the case was moved to the High Court; Singapore law requires that for capital crimes the accused must be defended by a legal professional. Thus Howard Cashin was appointed as Lim's lawyer, although his job was complicated by his client's refusal to cooperate. The three lawyers decided not to dispute that their clients had killed the children. Acting on a defence of diminished responsibility, they attempted to show that their clients were not sound of mind and could not be held responsible for the killings. Had this defence been successful, the defendants would have escaped the death penalty but be sentenced to either life imprisonment, or up to 10 years in jail. Proceedings: After Knight had presented the prosecution evidence the court heard testimonies on the personalities and character flaws of the accused, from their relatives and acquaintances. Details of their lives were revealed by one of Lim's "holy wives". Private medical practitioners Dr. Yeo Peng Ngee and Dr. Ang Yiau Hua admitted that they were Lim's sources for drugs, and had provided the trio sleeping pills and sedatives without question on each consultation. The police and forensics teams gave their accounts of their investigations; Inspector Suppiah, the investigating officer-in-charge, read out the statements the defendants had made during their remand. In these statements Lim stated that he had killed for revenge, and that he had sodomised Ng. The accused had also confirmed in their statements that each was an active participant in the murders. There were many contradictions among these statements and the confessions made in court by the accused, but Judge Sinnathuray declared that despite the conflicting evidence, "the essential facts of this case are not in dispute". Lim's involvement in the crimes was further evidenced by a witness who vouched that just after midnight on 7 February 1981, at the ground floor of Block 12, he saw Lim and a woman walk past him carrying a dark-skinned boy. On 13 April, Lim took the stand. He maintained that he was the sole perpetrator of the crimes. He denied that he raped Lucy Lau or Ng, claiming that he made the earlier statements only to satisfy his interrogators. Lim was selective in answering the questions the court threw at him; he verbosely answered those that agreed with his stance, and refused to comment on the others. When challenged on the veracity of his latest confession, he claimed that he was bound by religious and moral duty to tell the truth. Knight, however, countered that Lim was inherently a dishonest man who had no respect for oaths. Lim had lied to his wife, his clients, the police, and psychiatrists. Knight claimed Lim's stance in court was an open admission that he willingly lied in his earlier statements. Tan and Hoe were more cooperative, answering the questions posed by the court. They denied Lim's story, and vouched for the veracity of the statements they had given to the police. They told how they had lived in constant fear and awe of Lim; believing he had supernatural powers, they followed his every order and had no free will of their own. Under Knight's questioning, however, Tan admitted that Lim had been defrauding his customers, and that she had knowingly helped him to do so. Knight then got Hoe to agree that she was conscious of her actions at the time of the murders. Lim: No comment. Justice Sinnathuray: No, no, no, Adrian Lim, you can't keep saying that to me. (To Cashin) He is your witness. Cashin: You can see now, my Lord, how difficult it is with this witness. —Court transcript illustrating the court's frustration with Lim's behavior Battle of the psychiatrists: Of the fact that Lim, Tan, and Hoe had killed the children there was no doubt. Their defence was based on convincing the judges that medically, the accused were not in total control of themselves during the crimes. The bulk of the trial was therefore a battle between expert witnesses called by both sides. Dr Wong Yip Chong, a senior psychiatrist in private practice, believed that Lim was mentally ill at the time of the crimes. Claiming to be "judging by the big picture, and not fussing over contradictions", he said that Lim's voracious sexual appetite and deluded belief in Kali were characteristics of a mild manic depression. The doctor also proclaimed that only an unsound mind would dump the bodies close to his home when his plan was to distract the police. Countering this, the prosecution's expert witness, Dr Chee Kuan Tsee, a psychiatrist at Woodbridge Hospital, said that Lim was "purposeful in his pursuits, patient in his planning and persuasive in his performance for personal power and pleasure". In Dr Chee's opinion, Lim had indulged in sex because through his role as a medium he obtained a supply of women who were willing to go to bed with him. Furthermore, his belief in Kali was religious in nature, not delusional. Lim's use of religion for personal benefit indicated full self-control. Lastly, Lim had consulted doctors and freely taken sedatives to alleviate his insomnia, a condition which, according to Dr Chee, sufferers from manic depression fail to recognise. Dr R. Nagulendran, a consultant psychiatrist, testified that Tan was mentally impaired by reactive psychotic depression. According to him she was depressed before she met Lim, due to her family background. Physical abuse and threats from Lim deepened her depression; drug abuse led her to hallucinate and believe the medium's lies. Dr Chee disagreed; he said that Tan had admitted to being quite happy with the material lifestyle Lim gave to her, enjoying fine clothes and beauty salon treatments. A sufferer from reactive psychotic depression would not have paid such attention to her appearance. Also, Tan had earlier confessed to knowing Lim was a fraud, but changed her stance in court to claim she was acting completely under his influence. Although Dr Chee had neglected Lim's physical abuse of Tan in his judgment, he was firm in his opinion that Tan was mentally sound during the crimes. Both Dr Nagulendran and Dr Chee agreed that Hoe suffered from schizophrenia long before she met Lim, and that her stay in Woodbridge Hospital had helped her recovery. However, while Dr Nagulendran was convinced that Hoe suffered a relapse during the time of the child killings, Dr Chee pointed out that none of the Woodbridge doctors saw any signs of relapse during the six months of her follow-up checks (16 July 1980 – 31 January 1981). Were Hoe as severely impaired by her condition as Dr Nagulendran described, she would have become an invalid. Instead, she methodically abducted and helped kill a child on two occasions. Ending his testimony, Dr Chee stated that it was incredible that three people with different mental illnesses should share a common delusion of receiving a request to kill from a god. Closing statements: In their closing speeches, the defence tried to reinforce the portrayal of their clients as mentally unsound individuals. Cashin declared that Lim was a normal man until his initiation into the occult, and that he was clearly divorced from reality when he entered the "unreasonable world of atrociousness", acting on his delusions to kill children in Kali's name. Jeyaretnam relied on the fact that due to her depression and Lim's abuse, Tan was just "a robot", carrying out orders without thought. Isaac simply concluded, Hoe's schizophrenic mind accepted that if the children were killed, they would go to heaven and not grow up evil like her mother and others." The defence criticised Dr Chee for failing to recognise their clients' symptoms. The prosecution started its closing speech by drawing attention to the "cool and calculating" manner in which the children were killed. Knight also argued that the accused could not have shared the same delusion, and only brought it up during the trial. The "cunning and deliberation" displayed in the acts could not have been done by a deluded person. Tan helped Lim because "she loved him", and Hoe was simply misled into helping the crimes. Urging the judges to consider the ramifications of their verdict, Knight said: "My Lords, to say that Lim was less than a coward who preyed on little children because they could not fight back; killed them in the hope that he would gain power or wealth and therefore did not commit murder, is to make no sense of the law of murder. It would lend credence to the shroud of mystery and magic he has conjured up his practices and by which he managed to frighten, intimidate and persuade the superstitious, the weak and the gullible into participating in the most lewd and obscene acts." Judgment: On 25 May 1983, crowds massed outside the building, waiting for the outcome of the trial. Due to limited seating, only a few were allowed inside to hear Justice Sinnathuray's delivery of the verdict, which took 15 minutes. The two judges were not convinced that the accused were mentally volatile during the crimes. They found Lim to be "abominable and depraved" in carrying out his schemes. Viewing her interviews with the expert witnesses as admissions of guilt, Sinnathuray and Chua found Tan to be an "artful and wicked person", and a "willing party to Lim's loathsome and nefarious acts". The judges found Hoe to be "simple" and "easily influenced". Although she suffered from schizophrenia, they noted that she was in a state of remission during the murders; hence she should bear full responsibility for her actions. All three defendants were found guilty of murder and sentenced to be hanged. The two women did not react to their sentences. On the other hand, Lim beamed and cried, "Thank you, my Lords!", as he was led out. Lim accepted his fate; the women did not, and appealed against their sentences. Tan hired Francis Seow to appeal for her, and the court again assigned Isaac to Hoe. The lawyers asked the appeal court to reconsider the mental states of their clients during the murders, charging that the trial judges in their deliberations had failed to consider this point. The Court of Criminal Appeal reached their decision in August 1986. The appeal judges which consist of Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, Justice Lai Kew Chai and Justice L P Thean reaffirmed the decision of their trial counterparts, noting that as finders of facts, judges have the right to discount medical evidence in the light of evidence from other sources. Tan and Hoe's further appeals to London's Privy Council and Singapore President Wee Kim Wee met with similar failures. Having exhausted all their avenues for pardon, Tan and Hoe calmly faced their fates. While waiting on death row the trio were counselled by Catholic priests and nuns. In spite of the reputation that surrounded Lim, Father Brian Doro recalled the murderer as a "rather friendly person". When the day of execution loomed, Lim asked Father Doro for absolution and Holy Communion. Likewise, Tan and Hoe had Sister Gerard Fernandez as their spiritual counsellor. The nun converted the two female convicts to Catholicism, and they received forgiveness and Holy Communion during their final days. On 25 November 1988 the trio were given their last meal and led to the hangman's noose. Lim smiled throughout his last walk. After the sentences were carried out, the three murderers were given a short Catholic funeral mass by Father Doro, and cremated on the same day. Legacy: The trial on the Toa Payoh ritual murders was closely followed by the populace of Singapore. Throngs of people constantly packed the grounds of the courts, hoping to catch a glimpse of Adrian Lim and to hear the revelations first-hand. Reported by regional newspapers in detail, the gory and sexually explicit recounting of Lim's acts offended the sensibilities of some; Canon Frank Lomax, Vicar of St. Andrew's Anglican Church, complained to The Straits Times that the reports could have a corrupting effect on the young. His words received support from a few readers. Others, however, welcomed the open reporting, considering it helpful in raising public awareness of the need for vigilance even in a city with low crime rates. Books, which covered the murders and the trial, were quickly bought by the public on their release. The revelations from the trial cast Lim as evil incarnate in the minds of Singaporeans. Some citizens could not believe that anyone would willingly defend such a man. They called Cashin to voice their anger; a few even issued death threats against him.[68] On the other hand, Knight's name spread among Singaporeans as the man who brought Adrian Lim to justice, boosting his career. He handled more high-profile cases, and became the director of the Commercial Affairs Department in 1984. He would maintain his good reputation until his conviction for corruption seven years later. Even in prison, Lim was hated; his fellow prisoners abused and treated him as an outcast. In the years that followed the crime, memories remained fresh among those who followed the case. Journalists deemed it the most sensational trial of the 80s, being "the talk of a horrified city as gruesome accounts of sexual perversion, the drinking of human blood, spirit possession, exorcism and indiscriminate cruelty unfolded during the 41-day hearing". Fifteen years from the trial's conclusion, a poll conducted by The New Paper reported that 30 per cent of its respondents had picked the Toa Payoh ritual murders as the most horrible crime, despite the paper's request to vote only for crimes committed in 1998. Lim had become a benchmark for local criminals; in 2002 Subhas Anandan described his client, wife-killer Anthony Ler, as a "cooler, more handsome version of the notorious Toa Payoh medium-murderer". During the 1990s, the local film industry made two movies based on the murder case, the first of which was Medium Rare. The 1991 production had substantial foreign involvement; most of the cast and crew were American or British. The script was locally written and intended to explore the "psyche of the three main characters". The director, however, focused on sex and violence, and the resulting film was jeered by the audience at its midnight screening. Its 16-day run brought in $130,000, and a reporter called it "more bizarre than the tales of unnatural sex and occult practices associated with the Adrian Lim story". The second film, 1997's God or Dog, also had a dismal box-office performance despite a more positive critical reception. Both shows had difficulty in finding local actors for the lead role; Zhu Houren declined on the basis that Adrian Lim was too unique a personality for an actor to portray accurately, and Xie Shaoguang rejected the role for the lack of "redeeming factors" in the murderer. On the television, the murder case would have been the opening episode for True Files, a crime awareness programme in 2002. The public, however, complained that the trailers were too gruesome with the re-enactments of the rituals and murders, forcing the media company MediaCorp to reshuffle the schedule. The Toa Payoh ritual murders episode was replaced by a less sensational episode as the opener and pushed back into a later timeslot for more mature viewers, marking the horrific nature of the crimes committed by Lim, Tan, and Hoe.

Pearl High School shooting

The Pearl High School shooting was a school shooting that occurred on October 1, 1997 at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. The gunman, 16-year-old Luke Woodham (born February 5, 1981), killed two students and injured seven others at the school after killing his mother at their home earlier that morning. Details: The incident began on the morning of Wednesday, October 1, 1997, when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Ann Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother. Mary Ann Woodham died 20 minutes later from blood loss. Woodham then drove his mother's Toyota Tercel to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat to conceal the rifle he was carrying, Woodham entered the school and fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend, then went on to wound seven others. The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting Woodham attempting to flee the parking lot after the shooting, shouted for him to stop. Realizing what Woodham was doing, another student used his own vehicle to block Woodham's path, at which point Woodham attempted to get around the obstruction by driving his mother's car onto a grass verge, only to end up getting stuck in the grass. Seizing his opportunity, Myrick ordered Woodham out of the car at gunpoint and detained him until police arrived at the scene. Minutes before he started the shooting, Woodham had given the following message to his friend Justin Sledge: I am not insane, I am angry. I killed because people like me are mistreated every day. I did this to show society, push us and we will push back. All throughout my life, I was ridiculed, always beaten, always hated. Can you, society, truly blame me for what I do? Yes, you will. It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony saying that if you can't pry your eyes open, if I can't do it through pacifism, if I can't show you through the displaying of intelligence, then I will do it with a bullet. During the subsequent investigation, Woodham's journal was examined by police. In it, he detailed how he and a friend had tortured his dog Sparkle to death, several months prior to the shooting: I will never forget the howl she made. It sounded almost human. We laughed and hit her hard. Religious involvement: On October 8, 1997, Grant Boyette, Delbert Shaw, Donald Brooks, Wesley Brownell, Daniel Thompson and Justin Sledge were arrested in suspicion of conspiring with Woodham to commit the shooting. During his trial, Woodham claimed to have gotten ideas of committing the murders by being involved with a Satanic cult. Woodham admitted to being a Satanist, and claimed that his friend Grant Boyette invited Woodham to join a Satanic group known as "The Kroth." He claimed that Boyette told him that he had "potential to do something great." Woodham said that Boyette promised him that he could get his ex-girlfriend back through black magic. After his conviction Woodham converted to Christianity, and said the following in a letter written to evangelical minister David Wilkerson: David, I receive your sermons through the mail. I am one of the school shooters. I'm the one they blame for starting it all off. On October 1, 1997, I went into Pearl High School and killed two students and wounded seven. I also killed my mother before this. After I came to jail I got saved. If there is any way that I can help your ministry, I would love to. Maybe I could give you my testimony. I'll do anything to help. I look forward to your sermons each month. Trials and incarceration: There were separate trials for the murder of Woodham's mother and the school shooting. Woodham's lawyer argued at both trials that Woodham was insane at the time of the killings. Jurors rejected Woodham's insanity defense at his first trial for the murder of his mother, and he was sentenced to life in prison on June 5, 1998. His second trial took place on June 12, and he was found guilty of two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder, with the jurors once again rejecting the insanity defense. He was given two life sentences for the murders and seven 20-year sentences for his attempted murder convictions. He is currently serving three life terms plus an additional 140 years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in 2046, when he is 65 years old. Conspiracy charges were filed against Delbert Shaw, Donald Brooks, Wesley Brownell, Daniel Thompson, Grant Boyette and Justin Sledge, accusing them of taking part in a conspiracy to assist Woodham in the murders; however, the charges against Shaw, Brooks, and Brownell were dropped by Judge Robert Goza "at the request of District Attorney John Kitchens, who said Mississippi's conspiracy law would make proving the accusations difficult." The case of Daniel Thompson was transferred to youth court because he was 15 years old at the time. Less than three days after his last conviction, Woodham was removed from the Forrest County Jail in Hattiesburg. On June 15, 1998, Woodham entered the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) system in the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF) in Rankin County. While at CMCF Woodham underwent evaluation so he could be assigned to a permanent facility. Several weeks later, he was moved into the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) in Sunflower County. As of 2014 Woodham is incarcerated in Unit 29 of MSP as MDOC #R4682. His location last changed on October 15, 2014. Grant Boyette and Justin Sledge still faced two counts each of being an accessory to commit murder. Boyette was convicted and sentenced to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman boot camp for six months and five years of supervised probation. Aftermath: The State of Mississippi made it a capital crime if a murder is committed on the property of a school. In 2010, Woodham made a request to Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, asking for clemency; however, his request was rejected.

Michel Fourniret

Michel Paul Fourniret, also known as the Ogre of the Ardennes, is a French serial killer who confessed to killing eleven people in France and Belgium between 1987 and 2001. After he was arrested in June 2003 for the attempted kidnapping of a girl in Ciney, Fourniret confessed to killing nine people—eight females and one male—in 2004, having been informed on by his then-wife, Monique Pierrette Olivier. Fourniret was convicted of seven of these murders on 28 May 2008 and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, while Olivier was given life with a minimum term of 28 years for complicity. In February 2018, Fourniret confessed to killing two more women. On 16 November 2018, Fourniret and Olivier were convicted of the murder of Farida Hammiche, the last of the eight females that Fourniret confessed to killing in 2004. Fourniret was given a second life sentence and Olivier was sentenced to a further twenty years' imprisonment. History: Fourniret has been imprisoned numerous times since the age of 24. While in prison he met his future (third) wife Monique Olivier. They married on 28 July 1989. Olivier was aware of Fourniret's activities and became his accomplice. They divorced in prison on 2 July 2010. Fourniret was arrested at his home in Sart-Custinne, Belgium, on 26 June 2003 after a failed attempt to kidnap a 13-year-old girl. He and Olivier were interrogated extensively but to no avail. A year later, Olivier told the police that her husband had killed a number of people since 1987. Fourniret confessed to killing eight females—aged between 12 and 30—and a man who has never been identified. The bodies of four of the identified victims had been discovered in France and Belgium between 1988 and 2002. Olivier was arrested and she and Fourniret were extradited to France, where they helped police to find the bodies of three of the four missing victims over the next two years. The trial took place in Charleville-Mézières between 27 March and 28 May 2008. Fourniret was found guilty of the murders of all seven of the victims whose bodies had been found. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Olivier was sentenced to life with no possibility of parole for 28 years for complicity. Fourniret and Olivier were also ordered to pay 1.5 million euros in moral compensation to family members of the victims. Neither appealed their sentences. In February 2018, Fourniret confessed to killing two more women. On 16 November 2018, Fourniret and Olivier were convicted of the murder of Farida Hammiche, the last of the eight females that Fourniret had confessed to killing in 2004. Fourniret was given a second life sentence and Olivier was sentenced to a further twenty years' imprisonment. Confessed murders: Fourniret admitted to eight murders prior to his trial in 2008. He was convicted of seven of these and sentenced to life in prison. On 11 December 1987, Fourniret and Olivier drove, in separate vehicles, to Auxerre. Seeing 17-year-old Isabelle Laville – whom the couple had seen a day or two earlier and were targeting – walking home from school, Olivier stopped to ask Laville to join her in the car and give her directions, which Laville agreed to do. Driving down the road, Olivier reached the spot where Fourniret was standing with his car, pretending it had broken down. After Olivier, as planned, pretended to offer him a lift, he got into her car. Fourniret choked Laville with a piece of rope, before Olivier sedated her with Rohypnol. The couple brought the girl to their home in Saint-Cyr-les-Colons, where Fourniret raped and strangled her. Laville's body was thrown down a disused well in Bussy-en-Othe. Her remains were recovered from the well on 11 July 2006. In March 1988, Fourniret was contacted by 30-year-old Farida Hammiche—the wife of Jean-Pierre Hellegouarch, an imprisoned bank robber with whom Fourniret had shared a cell prior to the latter's release in October 1987—who asked Fourniret to help her unearth a haul from a cemetery in Fontenay-en-Parisis, which had been stolen by members of the Gang des postiches. After Fourniret and Hammiche managed to retrieve the loot, which consisted of gold ingots and coins, Hammiche gave Fourniret a share worth 500,000 francs for helping her dig it up and hiding it in her apartment in Vitry-sur-Seine. On 12 April, aiming to steal the rest of the loot, Fourniret and Olivier lured Hammiche out of her home and drove her to Clairefontaine-en-Yvelines, where she was strangled and her body buried, before the couple broke into her home and stole the loot. They used the money they made from it to buy a château called the Château du Sautou in Donchery. Hammiche's body was never found. By August, Olivier was heavily pregnant with Fourniret's baby. On 3 August, the couple drove to a supermarket in Châlons-sur-Marne (now Châlons-en-Champagne), and encountered 20-year-old Fabienne Leroy in the car park. With Olivier feigning illness, the couple asked Leroy to join them in their car and give them directions to a doctor's surgery. After Leroy got in, the couple drove to a forest near the military camp of Mourmelon-le-Grand. Fourniret ordered Olivier to look at Leroy's hymen to see if it was still intact, but Olivier refused. After raping Leroy, Fourniret shot her in the chest. In January 1989, Fourniret met 21-year-old Jeanne-Marie Desramault on the evening train to Charleville-Mézières. The two conversed before arriving in Charleville, where Desramault was staying at a convent. Desramault met Fourniret and Olivier, who had assumed false identities, at the train station again on Saturday, 18 March, and the couple invited Desramault to come to their house in Floing – an offer she accepted – and Fourniret promised he would drive her home afterwards. After they got to Floing, Fourniret asked Desramault if she was a virgin, and she told him she wasn't and that she had a boyfriend. Enraged, he attacked her. She fought back as he attempted to rape her, and as she attempted to escape, the couple gagged her with adhesive bandages before Fourniret strangled her. Fourniret and Olivier drove to Donchery and buried Desramault's body in the garden of the Château du Sautou. Fourniret and Olivier married in July 1989. On the afternoon of 20 December, they drove across the Franco-Belgian border to Saint-Servais, Namur, with their one-year-old son. Fourniret saw 12-year-old Elisabeth Brichet walk to a friend's house, and waited outside for her until she left to walk the short distance home just before 7 pm. He asked her to give him directions to a doctor's surgery for his son. She agreed to do so, and the couple drove back to Floing with her. When Fourniret undressed the girl, he saw that she was on her period, so Olivier cleaned Brichet's genitals. The next day, the couple took Brichet to the château, where Fourniret strangled her after a failed attempted to suffocate her with a plastic bag. Her body was buried in the garden of the château, near to that of Jeanne-Marie Desramault. There were a number of reported sightings of Brichet, in Belgium and abroad, in the years following her disappearance, and a number of people were suspected by police of abducting her, including Marc Dutroux. After Dutroux's arrest in 1996, Brichet's mother Marie-Noëlle Bouzet helped to organise the White March in honour of Belgium's missing and murdered children. The remains of Brichet and Desramault were exhumed from the gardens of the Château du Sautou on 3 July 2004, after Fourniret and Olivier confessed to the killings. The final known murder Fourniret committed with Olivier's help took place on 21 November 1990 near France's western coast. The couple drove to a shopping centre in Rezé after leaving court in Nantes, where they had been convicted of burglary. They saw Natacha Danais, a 13-year-old local girl, walking through the car park towards her home, having been sent to fetch her mother's forgotten purse. The couple lured Danais into the van, asking her for directions. After driving to a secluded area near the coast, Fourniret stabbed Danais twice in the chest with a screwdriver and strangled her before leaving her body on the beach. Later investigation suggested that the girl's body was raped after the murder. Eight days later, Jean Groix, a neighbour of Danais's family, was arrested after a white van belonging to him matched the description of the van that Danais's sister had vaguely seen her get into from across the shopping centre's car park at the time she disappeared. Groix was found to be lodging suspected members of the ETA in his home; police suspected that Danais had found out about this and that he killed her for that reason. Two months later, Groix committed suicide in his prison cell. He was reported to have been unable to bear the burden of having been accused of murder. The Fourniret family moved to Sart-Custinne, Gedinne, Belgium, in the early 1990s. Michel Fourniret admitted that he committed two more murders in France between 2000 and 2001, after a nine-and-a-half-year break. He drove alone across the Franco-Belgian border to Charleville-Mézières on 16 May 2000 and accosted 18-year-old Céline Saison, who was on her way home from school, in the late afternoon. Driving with her back to Belgium, he blackmailed her into having sex with him before strangling her with a rope and dumping her body in a forest in Sugny, Vresse-sur-Semois. Saison's skeletal remains were discovered there by mushroom pickers on 22 July. On 5 May 2001, Fourniret drove back to France – this time to his birthplace of Sedan – and met Mananya Thumpong, a 13-year-old girl of Thai origin whom he had met and given a lift home a few weeks earlier, outside the local library. He invited her to come to his house and play with his son. Accepting this offer, Thumpong climbed into the car and was driven to Nollevaux, Paliseul, where Fourniret strangled her. Her body lay undiscovered for months in a nearby forest as it was devoured almost entirely by wild animals. Thumpong's remaining bones were found on 1 March 2002. In February 2018, Fourniret confessed to killing two more women in Auxerre: Marie-Angèle Domèce, an 18-year-old disabled woman, in July 1988, and Joanna Parrish, a 20-year-old British student, in May 1990. Other crimes: Two French journalists have suggested that Fourniret killed former Minister for Labour Robert Boulin (who was involved in a real estate scandal at the time), based on a letter Fourniret wrote to Olivier. Christian Ranucci was one of the last persons executed in France, having been convicted of the abduction and murder, committed on 3 June 1974, of Marie-Dolorès Rambla, aged eight. There are suspicions that Ranucci may not actually have been the killer (although he confessed, his confession was later retracted). It has been suggested that Fourniret may have been involved as Fourniret was in the area at the time and had practically the same car as Ranucci. Analysis of photographs, however, suggest that the man in photographs produced as evidence could not have been Fourniret. "Virgin hunter": Fourniret was also named the "Virgin hunter". Although it is unclear where this nickname came from, it is alleged that Olivier promised Fourniret to help hunt "virgins" for sport, in return for Fourniret helping Olivier to murder her first husband (which never took place). The rape of women assumed to be virgins, is a recurring theme in the way Fourniret operated, something which he considered "sport". Legacy: Rachida Dati, the then French Minister for Justice, who advocated legal reforms in France, wanted a more relaxed attitude to preventive custody and parole under supervision. She was heavily criticised by the judiciary. The question was asked how Fourniret, who was a known criminal, could have carried on for such a long time without being noticed and how the changes in the law would have a positive influence on cases like these.

1980s Franciscan priest murders

Between 1982 and 1984, two Roman Catholic priests of the Franciscan order were murdered or disappeared under mysterious circumstances in the western United States. On August 5, 1982, Father Reynaldo Rivera, a priest at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis in Santa Fe, New Mexico, was murdered in an unknown location, and his body found three days later. A year and a half later, Father John Kerrigan, of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Ronan, Montana, disappeared after leaving a bakery in downtown Ronan. Several days later, bloodied articles of clothing were found along Montana Highway 35, as well as a blood-stained coat hanger. Kerrigan's vehicle was discovered in Polson seven days later. His wallet, which contained $1,200, was left in the trunk of the car, along with a bloody shovel and pillowcase. Kerrigan's remains have never been recovered. Though a definitive connection between them has not been discovered, the murders of both Rivera and Kerrigan have been linked due to the fact that Kerrigan also had ties to New Mexico prior to being appointed at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena. Additional parallels were uncovered at the respective crime scenes. In 1988, their cases were profiled together on the documentary series Unsolved Mysteries. During this broadcast, it was revealed that Kerrigan had been subject of numerous sexual abuse allegations. In 2015, the Diocese of Helena published an extensive list of clergy and staff who had been implicated in sexual abuse of minors, in which Kerrigan was included. Subjects- Fr. Reynaldo Rivera: The Reverend Father Reynaldo John Rivera, a Catholic priest of the Franciscan order, served at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis in Santa Fe, New Mexico. On the evening of August 5, 1982, a phone call was placed to the rectory by a man who went by the name Michael Carmello; he claimed his grandfather was dying near a rest stop in Waldo, and that he had requested his last rites. Father Patrick Gerard, the priest who answered the call, told the man that his eyesight was too poor for him to safely drive, and asked that he call back momentarily. Rivera took the second call, and agreed to meet the man and perform his grandfather's last rites. The caller stated he would be waiting for Rivera in a blue pickup truck. Days later, Rivera's body was found several miles away from the rest stop lying in a muddy field near the Waldo exit on Interstate 25. He had been shot once in the stomach and strangled with wire, possibly a coat hanger. His brown 1974 Chevrolet Malibu sedan was discovered parked at a rest stop on Interstate 40 near Grants, its gas tank empty. Rivera's last rites kit was never found. The Federal Bureau of Investigation intervened in the investigation, and produced a psychological portrait of the person(s) responsible for Rivera's death; the forensic psychologist determined the motive for Rivera's murder was revenge. Law enforcement briefly considered a recent parolee a suspect, but he was ruled out due to his alibi, as well as his fingerprints not matching the unknown prints discovered on Rivera's vehicle. Another unnamed suspect, a former Santa Fe resident who later moved to New York, was considered a suspect. Fr. John Kerrigan: The Reverend Father John Patrick Kerrigan, had served as a priest in Plain, Montana, before being transferred to the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Ronan, on July 18, 1984. On the evening of July 20, two days after Kerrigan's arrival and appointment in the church, he left a bakery in downtown Ronan. This was the last time he was seen. Kerrigan failed to report for his 6:30 a.m. mass on July 21, and a missing person report was filed on July 23. On July 29, articles of bloody clothing were found lying alongside Montana Highway 35 on the shores of Flathead Lake near Polson, along with a bloodied coat hanger; these items were located roughly 5 miles (8.0 km) from Ronan. On July 30, Kerrigan's vehicle—also a brown Chevrolet Malibu—was discovered abandoned several miles away. In the trunk, Kerrigan's wallet, which contained US$1,200, was found, along with a blood-stained shovel and pillow case. Though Kerrigan's remains have never been recovered, he is believed to have been murdered. Investigation: Following Kerrigan's disappearance, New Mexico law enforcement were notified of the case due to the similarities to that of Rivera's. Similarities between the victims included their shared vehicles, as well as the manners in which they were murdered (or believed to have been murdered): In both incidents, the vehicles of the men were driven away from the scenes of their murders, and there was evidence that wire coat hangers had been used; Rivera's autopsy showed that he had been strangled with some form of metal cord, possibly a coat hanger, while in Kerrigan's disappearance, a tangled, bloody coat hanger was found along with his clothing. Both men were also priests who belonged to the Franciscan order, and both were approximately 58 years old at the time of their respective deaths and disappearances. Law enforcement attempted to uncover further connections between Kerrigan and Rivera, and determined that Kerrigan had spent time at the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico in 1983, prior to his appointment in the Helena Diocese in Montana. This congregation was used as a retreat for clergy suffering from personal difficulties, such as substance abuse, depression, and sexual misconduct. Though the Diocese of Helena admitted Kerrigan had spent nearly a year there, they did not disclose the reason. No evidence was uncovered that Kerrigan and Rivera ever knew one another personally. In November 1984, Lieutenant Gilbert Ulibarri, a police officer in Santa Fe, stated that he had "a gut feeling" that the two crimes were related, and were likely committed by "a drifter who has a psychological problem with priests." Despite the parallels in the crimes, Eric Lucero, a New Mexico State Police detective, insisted in 1992 that there was "no connection whatsoever" between the murder of Rivera and the disappearance of Kerrigan. Two days after Kerrigan disappeared, 31-year-old schoolteacher Curtis Holmen went missing from Missoula, and his vehicle was found abandoned approximately 40 miles (64 km) from where Kerrigan's was discovered. Though there was no evidence connecting the two disappearances, Holmen's brother publicly insisted that they may be linked due to the proximity in location and time frame. As of 2019, Holmen's whereabouts are also unknown. In 2015, after two groups of individuals brought a 2011 class action lawsuit against the Diocese of Helena for sexual abuse, the Diocese published a list of 80 clergy members who had been suspected or implicated in the sexual abuse of minors. Kerrigan was included among those on this list, which consisted largely of priests and nuns.