Baby Be Mine

by Diane Fanning

  Becky insisted that she would always be responsible and age-appropriate with anything she told her granddaughter. “Later on, somebody is going to tell her. I hope it’s him,” she said referring to Zeb. “I hope he tells her before she goes to school.”

  The possibility of Zeb’s marriage was an incendiary element coursing beneath the surface of the interaction between Zeb and Becky. If Zeb did marry Terri and Terri adopted Tori Jo, Becky’s rights as a grandparent—as limited as they were—would instantly cease altogether, according to current law in Missouri. This fact sent chills up the spine of every loving grandparent who heard it.

  Cheryl Huston and Carla Wetzel planned a remembrance service on the one-year anniversary of Bobbie Jo’s death and Tori Jo’s birth—Friday, December 16, 2005. They wanted to gather everyone next to the brick memorial built to Bobbie Jo’s memory in the park in Skidmore. ‘The entire community watched Becky grow up and watched Bobbie Jo grow up. It’s good to gather together to support Becky and remember that Bobbie Jo lived,” Cheryl said.

  The press release for the event announced three reasons for the gathering:

  A primary purpose of the event is to remember Bobbie Jo Stinnett. It is being held by friends of the family and by caring members of her community. It is being held in support of her family, in an effort to let them know we care about them.

  A secondary purpose of the event is to raise awareness of legislation regarding Tori’s Loophole in the Amber Alert. A final purpose of this event is to bring further awareness to restrictions on grandparents’ rights of visitation in Missouri. The maternal grandmother is currently limited in visitation.

  “Limited visitation” was as officious and cold a phrase as could be imagined under these circumstances. Becky Harper’s grief was a harsh wound that went deep. She carried Bobbie Jo in her womb for nine months. She raised her, nurtured her, loved her for all 23 years of her life. Limiting her visitation seemed to be an act of heartlessness and insensitivity—if not downright cruelty. Two weeks before Tori Jo’s first birthday, Becky told reporter Kathryn Lister: “Victoria doesn’t take the place of my daughter, but she is a comfort. When she smiles it eases the pain.”

  The standing of grandparents’ rights in Missouri as well as in most other states seemed on the surface to be a denial of the bond between grandchild and grandparent. In reality, though, the issue was far more complex.

  In 1965, grandparents’ rights were a newly recognized legal concept. For the three decades after that year, the acknowledgment of these rights expanded as state legislators adopted laws to protect the visitation rights with grandchildren.

  Then the courts reversed the trend—finding these laws in many states to be unconstitutional because they limited the rights of the parents. Even the common standard of decisions based on “the best interests of the child” was overturned in four different states.

  The challenges to the law arose from the adversarial nature of divorce itself. Some grandparents used the children as pawns to get back at a former in-law. Their self-centered actions caused a backlash that created a hardship for every loving grandparent whose sole motivation was to maintain contact with their grandchildren.

  Cheryl and Carla realized that broadening the rights of all grandparents could open the door to future abuse. However, they advocated an amendment to protect the rights of a grandparent when a child’s parent was deceased. The importance of that family link in that situation should be recognized—the added dimension of that bond should be enhanced, not erased.

  The evening of the remembrance service was bitter cold—the temperature was 19 degrees and falling. A full moon smiled down on Skidmore and not a single cloud drifted by to obscure the stars. Red and white strands of Christmas icicle lights glittered on the gazebo. Flickering candles circled the memorial to Bobbie Jo, and one lone candle shone bright at the tree planted in memory of Wendy Gillenwater. As people approached the park, Carla and Cheryl offered lit candles to everyone who arrived.

  Carla emceed the service, introducing each speaker to the crowd of one hundred shivering souls gathered that night. At 7 P.M., the remembrance opened with a prayer. The first speaker to address the crowd was Cheryl Huston: “I spent hours trying to come up with just the right things to say tonight,” she said. Then she crinkled up the pages of her prepared statement and tossed them aside and spoke from her heart. “Nothing I say up here is going to do the one thing that would make Becky feel better, and that is to give her back Bobbie Jo.”

  Cheryl talked about the closeness between Bobbie Jo and Becky, shared her memories of the little girl who was so full of life, and voiced the hope that Bobbie Jo’s life would be remembered. “She didn’t just die tragically and her pictures flashed in the papers. She lived, loved horses, loved dogs, she adopted everything with a fuzzy face.”

  Then Cheryl turned the crowd’s focus to the crime itself. “One year ago, a woman from Kansas came here to our community and from that point on, all she did was take. She took Bobbie Jo’s life. She caused all of this heartache and destroyed so many lives to cover up the web of lies she had woven for months.”

  Cheryl wrapped up her comments by talking about the importance of grandparents to children, particularly in the case of a murdered parent, and urged everyone to write letters to their state representatives. She advocated for the passage of the proposed Tory Jo’s Loophole amendment to the Amber Alert law.

  After a few words from a spokesman from the office of United States Representative Sam Graves, Sheriff Ben Espey addressed the candlelit group. He thanked the media for the role they played in the recovery of Tori Jo and thanked the other members of law enforcement who were present at the service that night. “This shows respect for the family. This community has been labeled as a bad community, and it’s not. This murder was a freak thing that shouldn’t have happened. But the good news is that little baby survived and how everyone has pulled together.”

  When asked if he was permitted to visit Tori Jo, he said, “I pretty much have an open-door policy to see her whenever I want.”

  Many in the crowd were glad to see that Zeb acknowledged his debt of gratitude to Sheriff Espey by allowing him to see the little girl. At the same time, they could not understand why this same freedom was not granted to the mother of his wife, Bobbie Jo.

  Reverend Hamon followed Sheriff Espey and continued the theme of togetherness. He recalled how the country pulled together in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor and after the terrorist strike on September 11, 2001. He drew a parallel to those incidents and recent events. “And I saw the same thing a year ago. When tragedy strikes, you can fall apart, roll over and play dead, or you can rise to the occasion. I just thank God that we can share together as members of a community such as we have here. Tragedy comes, but we don’t have to be defeated by it.” He then closed the service by leading everyone in prayer.

  The gathering moved into the Newton Community Hall—former home of Mom’s Café” and the backdrop for Ken McElroy’s fatal drama—to share memories and get shelter from the cold and the wind. Some present expressed disappointment that Tori Jo was not there. Others responded to their complaints with common sense—it was just too cold a night to be taking a baby outside at all.

  But everyone agreed on one thing—Zeb Stinnett’s absence was conspicuous. Most of the folks there knew Zeb. They knew he was an introvert—but still his absence was unset-ding. In honor of his wife’s memory, they thought, he should have set aside his personal aversion to public appearances and attended her remembrance service. Some even wondered out loud if he really cared—if he really missed Bobbie Jo.

  The next day, Becky Harper rose happy and exuberant. Friday night was a bittersweet catharsis. Today was the one day per month that she was allowed to spend with her granddaughter Tori Jo. She’d be able to hold and play with her little granddaughter all day long. Then the phone rang. It was Zeb. He cancelled the scheduled visitation. He claimed Tori Jo was sick.

  Despair a
nd grief washed over Becky, drowning all the joy and anticipation she felt when she woke up that morning.

  36

  In the last week of 2005, Lisa Montgomery’s defense attorneys filed a motion in federal court on her behalf:

  Capital cases are difficult no matter what—we recognize the need to move forward but despite our best efforts to date, we cannot provide competent representation under the current scheduling order. The necessary investigation, motion practice, discovery and defense scientific testing simply cannot be accomplished without additional time.

  To assist the Court and government counsel in appreciating the critical need for this continuance and to demonstrate that this request is not the result of procrastination by defense counsel, this motion will outline numerous stumbling blocks to an April 2006 trial date and the general areas in which extensive work remains to be accomplished.

  They argued that

  capital cases are fundamentally different than any other criminal case not only in the severity of the potential penalty but in the nature of the evidence and the information which must be developed. Sensitive facts need to be disclosed to members of the defense team who are essential strangers to the defendant. This takes months. Then evaluation by relevant experts must follow. It is an incrementally slow process.

  Without adequate time to develop the relationship of trust required for effective representation in a capital case, counsel may never learn or be able to present the most crucial facts about the defendant, facts without which any possible understanding of her actions is impossible.

  The lawyers complained at length about the failure of the prosecution to provide all the required documents:

  While the government has provided and continues to provide, substantial discovery in this case, to date neither of the provisions of the scheduling Order have been completely complied with by the government. There are several items such as documents, film, computer disks and a tape of a recorded conversation of the defendant on January 10, 2005, that have not been produced. Government DNA testing is ongoing. The government has not yet produced a “bit by bit” image of the hard drives of computers seized by the government during investigation of this case, including a computer seized from Mrs. Montgomery.

  The attorneys also insisted that they needed more time to conduct their own DNA tests.

  What seemed to be their strongest argument for a delay of trial was the prosecution’s belated filing of the formal notice to seek the death penalty:

  The scheduling order, in envisioning trial in April 2006, mandated that any notice of intent to seek the death penalty be filed by September 16, 2005. The government did not file that notice until two months later on November 16, 2005. Essentially, the government took 11 months to make the decision as to whether or not to seek the death penalty in this case and expects the defendant to be prepared to meet that notice in 5 months. This is simply not enough time.

  The defense, however, was not requesting an additional sixty days to prepare to compensate for the two-month delay caused by the prosecution—nor were they reverting to their previous request for an August 2006 date. They wanted more—much more. They requested a commencement of trial in February 2007.

  The prosecution filed their response to the defense’s delay request on January 10, 2006:

  The United States opposes the request of the defendant to continue her trial to February 2007. The above case has been specially set for jury trial before this Court since February 2005. At that time, this Court advised counsel that the parties should prepare for trial to being on April 24, 2006. The United States stands ready to proceed on that date and further suggests there is more than adequate time remaining before trial for defense counsel to be prepared to meet their constitutional obligations to provide a sufficient defense for the defendant.

  They objected to the defense allegation that they were slow to provide discovery. To date, they asserted that they had given 2,282 pages of documentation to their counterparts—all but 145 pages of which were provided before the end of May.

  The remaining few items of discovery were only recently requested by defense counsel and will be provided in the near future. It should be noted, however, that the items only recently requested by defense counsel on November 30 have been available to defense counsel for review since the spring of 2005 when government counsel invited defense counsel to review the evidence at the FBI at anytime.

  In the matter of the defense’s need for additional time for DNA testing, the prosecutor’s response was blunt:

  Although it has been a year since the murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett, defense counsel still have not requested to have independent testing performed by its own experts on any of the items seized in this investigation by law enforcement authorities. The United States suggests that because of the defendant’s confession and the overwhelming weight of the evidence found in the trunk of the defendant’s automobile, on her person, and in her home, it is obvious why defense counsel has not requested independent testing.

  They also placed the blame for the delay in providing computer evidence squarely on defense. They claimed Lisa’s attorneys created obstacles to the transmission of that material by insisting on specific formats for that delivery. On the matter of the late filing of the Notice to Seek the Death Penalty, the prosecution argued that the defense had known for more than a year that the prospect was likely.

  The state pointed yet another finger of blame at the defense. The legal team was given four possible days to meet with the Department of Justice’s Capital Review Committee in Washington, D.C. “Ms. Hunt and Mr. Owen chose the very last date available, that is September 26, 2005 to make their formal mitigation presentation,” despite knowing it would delay the death penalty filing.

  The prosecution’s position was clear:

  Defendant is represented by three very skilled and experienced defense attorneys and. also has revealed in her motion that she lias employed three mitigation experts to assist in her pre-trial investigation and defense at trial. It is simply not credible to suggest that these skilled and experienced attorneys cannot be prepared to defend the charges against the defendant when they have already had over a year to begin preparation for the defense of this case and have nearly five additional months before this case is scheduled for trial.

  Finally, the family members of the murder victim, Bobbie Jo Stinnett have painfully awaited for the trial of this case and justice dictates . . . that this Court enter an order denying the defendant’s motion.

  The judge did not give the defense a February 2007 date as they requested, but he did give them an additional six months. He scheduled a commencement date of October 23, 2006.

  Now the decision was in the hands of the judge. The trial was expected to last four weeks from selection of the jury to the delivery of Lisa Montgomery’s sentence.

  37

  As Tori Jo approached her first birthday and her second Christmas, she was an exuberant, chubby baby with the same big eyes her mother had when she was 1 year old. She crawled at high speed, but toddled awkwardly when she tried to walk.

  She jabbered away nonstop most of the time she was awake. Just like her mother at that age, the hair on her head was still very sparse.

  If only Bobbie Jo could see her now.

  AFTERWORD

  Acts of evil befall people every single day. Most of us, though, feel snug and secure in our common sense and our ability to judge the people around us. When we learn of great evil committed by history’s villains like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, we remain rooted in our personal sense of comfort and security. However, when it’s the guy next door or the woman who cleans your teeth at the dental office or the man who repairs your car, the full impact of the ordinariness of evil hits us hard. After the fact, we can look back on the tracks of that person’s life and see the warning signs with vivid clarity—but either no one saw them in real time or if they did, were not able or willing to divine their true meaning.

  To keep ours
elves covered in a mantle of security, we often blame those close to the perpetrator for being stupid or blind or in denial. Deep down, we should know, though, we are shirking from a truth too painful and frightening to face. We, too, would have been just as oblivious if that ordinary, insidious evil had invaded our lives.

  We have evolved in the past century from a society where involuntary commitment to mental institutions was an easy thing—and easily abused by those with a desire for revenge, a wish to hide away a family embarrassment or a need to ostracize someone who did not conform to society’s norms. Now, we have a society where commitment or any form of forced therapy or medication is not possible unless the individual harms another or himself. If Judy had been able to commit her daughter Lisa in 2004 when she tried, Bobbie Jo Stinnett might still be alive today.

  Is there a standard for commitment in between the two extremes? Is there some way we can act before the damage is done? Is there a way we can protect the most vulnerable members in our society—the children, the elderly, the pregnant women—without compromising the civil liberties of us all? There are no easy answers in the challenge of safety versus liberty—in the inevitability that freedom always implies risk.

  Every single week in this country, two pregnant women are murdered, making homicide one of the leading causes of death during pregnancy, according to the Center for Disease Control. For a long time, statistics on traumatic deaths as a pregnancy-related phenomenon were overlooked. Researchers had viewed only medical complications and existing health problems as being pregnancy-related.

  A fresh review of records, in a number of states, has opened the door to an alarming truth. Thirty-eight percent of pregnant women who died in Washington, D.C., were murdered. Twenty percent of pregnancy deaths in Maryland were caused by homicide. In North Carolina, thirteen percent of deaths were caused by intentional violence. In New York City and Chicago, the overwhelming majority of pregnant women who died of trauma were victims of homicide.