Finger, not a gun
As a UT graduate of 1992, I was profoundly moved by the murders of Jennifer Harbison, Sarah Harbison, Eliza Thomas and Amy Ayers ("Justice with a clause," June 7). I followed the case year after year as it went unsolved and was surprised when Robert Springsteen, Michael Scott, Maurice Pierce and Forrest Welborn were arrested in 1999 for the killing.
Six years after the boys' arrests, I released my third true crime book, "Murdered Innocents," about the case. It is an unbiased look at the case from the murders to the flaws in the police investigation to the trials and tribulations suffered by the families of both the girls and the boys. I interviewed hundreds of people involved in the case, poured over thousands of pages of court transcripts, conducted my own investigation and watched dozens of hours of videotaped confessions. It is with that background that I would like to set the record straight.
First, Robert Springsteen's confession in this case was not coerced. After you watch his three-hour interview, he is apparent, defiant, confident and in no way harmed, threatened or cajoled into speaking of his alleged participation in the murders. He is clearly in control of his actions in the interview room and is in no way in fear of retalation or physical or mental abuse from his interrogators.
Second, the myth of Michael Scott having a gun pointed directly at his head during his interrogation is propagated here incorrectly. Detective Robert Merrill never stuck a gun to Michael Scott's head. Merrill removed the gun from Scott's hand, held it upside down in his own hand and moved behind the young man. He quickly poked his right index finger into the back of Scott's head for a split second.
The videotaped confession clearly shows this to be the case. Furthermore, this occurred more than 24 hours after Scott had already confessed to the murders.
This myth has been perpetuated ever since Scott's defense team allegedly "accidentally" dropped an interrogation room photo at the courthouse that mysteriously landed in the hands of a local television news reporter. The photo was a blurry shot of Merrill poking Scott in the head. The defense supposedly claimed Merrill was holding a gun to Scott's head. The media bought it hook, line and sinker. The videotape unequivocally shows that it was his finger, not a gun.
The Daily Texan's statements about Springsteen and Scott's confessions are incorrect.
Corey Mitchell
UT alum
It was a gun, thank you
I'd like to applaud the Texan for its position in favor of the Court of Criminal Appeal's recent decision in the Yogurt Shop Case ("Justice with a clause," June 7). Austin-area activists, not least of all Michael Scott's brave wife, Jeannine, have long called attention to the shame case the city built against Mike and Robert. Not only did a detective quite literally hold a gun to Mike's head, but police used manipulative methods to lead both men to incriminate themselves.
Contrary to Judge Sharon Keller's naive dissent in this decision, false confessions do happen. Police departments have become quite skilled at using a variety of methods to secure the results they want, especially in a case such as the Yogurt Shop Murders, where the Austin police were under intense political pressure to make an arrest. All the more sinister is the fact that Mike Scott suffers from a learning disability, making him especially vulnerable to police manipulation.
This encouraging decision by the court is undoubtedly a major victory for the Scotts, Springsteens and their allies. Now, it is time to make sure that both men receive not only a speedy, but a fair trial.
Bryan McCann
Communication studies
graduate student
If I were Dr. Death
While I applaud your libertarian idealism of government staying out of its citizens lives ("Death worth fighting for," June 7), I can't help but think this will add more government into citizen's lives, predominately from a legal standpoint. If assisted suicide were legalized, consider these scenarios: If I were to stop a loved one from committing suicide, have I violated his or her rights, and could they then sue me? If I were a doctor who performs assisted suicide, and my patient doesn't die, could he sue me for malpractice? If I were a patient who suffers from depression that could be treated with any number of antidepressants but I go see a doctor that performs assisted suicide, how does this doctor handle whether to help me or send me to a psychiatrist? People will stop helping each other and malpractice insurance will rise, raising the price of all healthcare. It's practically not feasible. These issues will only lead to more laws telling me how to lead my life.
Jeff Marin
Online reader
Be the first to comment on this article!