The trouble with certainty
By now many have probably have heard about the Mineola Swingers club prosecutions. Michael Hall at Texas Monthly recently helped educate us on the prosecution in his story Sex, Lies and Videotapes. The story was nothing short of bizarre - a swingers club in the litte town of Mineola, Texas, which included sex shows by young children. The fact that the story was so bizarre should generally set off alarms, and cause police to use extra care in investigating the charges. Too often it has the exact opposite effect; bizarre means newsworthy, which means publicity. To some officers, such a story is the ticket to a career advancement. They start off thinking how they are going to be the hero, who brings these despciable criminals to justice.
Generally, when big mistakes are made you can trace them back the very beginning. Without completing an investigation the police decide a person is guilty. Instead of looking at evidence to see if it fits their theory, they try to make it fit. If it doesn't fit, they ignore it, and assume it must not be truthful. In many of the recent exonerrations, officers had evidence pointing to the person who actually committed the crime. They chose to ignore it, because they were convinced they had the right person.
In the swinger club we now find out that Texas Ranger Phillip Kelm conducted several interviews of the children which contradict their later statements. Fortunately he was caught by a diligent lawyer, who somehow got ahold of his handwitten notes. Afer denying he interviewed the children on certain dates he was confronted with his notes,and had to admit he did. Of course he claimed to have no recollection of those interviews. That's probably true; he blocked it out because it didn't help his case. The case appears to be unraveling as more details of the investigation come out; unfortunately it is too late for those already convicted.
This case provides several lessons - none of which will be probably be learned. Unfortunately, there are always those who put their careers at the forefrong. I'm the first to admit that goes back ways, but there is more danger when it is someone involved with prosecution. While they have to investigate, and develop suspects, they also have to be willing to start over when the evidence doesn't support their theory.
The othe lesson is the need for full disclosure and discovery. I don't know how the lawyer got the notes; normally that is not something that would be disclosed in normal discovery. Unless that material is provided, the prosecution gets to mold the facts. Many times - especially in high profile cases - it eventually comes out. Why not get it out before someone's life is destroyed?
Maybe another lesson - and perhaps the most important is for those who look at a case as a way to make their career. Unless you do your job the right way, you may be ending that career you want so badly.
