by Echols, Mike
Finishing his direct examination of Sean, McClure again brought Timmy into the courtroom, this time to identify Sean as the person who'd grabbed him and thrown him into Parnell's car. Again LeStrange objected, fearful of the sympathy the cute youngster's multiple appearances could engender with the jury. But Judge Sabraw again overruled his objection. Timmy entered and identified Sean.
With a transcript of the preliminary hearing in hand, LeStrange cross-examined the hunch-shouldered, sullen teenager using Sean's previous testimony to destroy the adolescent's contention that Parnell had made him kidnap Timmy by threatening him with a knife. All Parnell was doing, Sean finally admitted, "was cussing at me." With his meager success at spreading his client's guilt to include Sean, LeStrange forged ahead by pointing out additional discrepancies between Sean's preliminary hearing testimony and present testimony, but none was significant enough to further damage Sean's already limited credibility.
"I don't think there was any doubt at all that Sean knew more than what he was telling," McClure said later, "and I say that because at one point I had heard he was saying, 'Some other things happened, but I am not so mad at Parnell at this point that I want to go into it.' And I had some long conversations with Dick Finn about how much do we want to delve into this kid's life . . . it had been screwed up enough as it was. I think that things happened to Sean by Parnell and that Sean had observed what Parnell had done to other kids."
Joe Allen agreed. "Poorman, I think, was in a position of attempting to protect himself as much as possible. He was a suspicious, paranoid kid, and perhaps rightly so, considering the environment that he lived in . . . hanging out with kidnappers and child mo lesters . . . I don't think he had any vested interest in telling the truth. He wanted to tell enough of the truth to get himself off the hook, but maybe not enough of the truth to make himself look like the full, willing participant that I'm convinced he was. Poorman had no conscience about assisting Parnell with various matters. What they were we can speculate."
Sean testified most of the afternoon, and when he finally stepped down, his former best friend Steven Stayner took his place on the stand . . . but not before LeStrange again objected to testimony which he knew could damage his client. Countered George McClure, "As an offer of proof, I might mention to the Court [that] we expect Steven Stayner at some point to say that the reason he thought that Mr. Parnell had abducted Timmy White was based on the fact that he had previously had the same thing happen to him." After hearing both sides, Judge Sabraw agreed to allow Steve's testimony about his own kidnapping and the teen took the stand and was sworn in.
His testimony began with his giving his "other" name, and then picking up his life's tale as of February 1980. Then, after a few more questions, McClure had Timmy brought in so that Steve could identify him. This accomplished, Timmy left the courtroom.
A few minutes later, LeStrange objected yet again when McClure asked Steve if Parnell had ever asked for his help in kidnapping a boy, but Judge Sabraw allowed the question and Steve answered affirmatively. The sixteen-year-old made a very good witness for the State and capably held his own during LeStrange's cross and re-cross-examination before stepping down on the third day of trial testimony.
Next Ukiah police officers Bob Warner, Larry Maxon, and John Williams testified in succession, each telling about his part in the events of the night of March 1, 1980. Court adjourned that day after Finn's testimony about serving the search warrant at the cabin.
The following day Steve and Finn were recalled briefly to the stand before the State called its final witness, Sgt. Lunney. At no point did McClure ask Steve any questions about Parnell's sex assaults on him or on other boys.
When Lunney stepped down, LeStrange put Parnell on the stand, and after slowly spelling his name for the court clerk, the balding kidnapper faced his attorney as LeStrange elicited from him a very long, convoluted story about the events of November 1979 through March 1, 1980. And when LeStrange asked Parnell if anyone lived with him at the Mountain View Ranch in late 1979, he replied, "Yes, Steven Stayner. I called him Dennis."
Getting back to his story, Parnell said that he'd met "Hank" Mettier, Jr., in Elk in the fall of 1979 and that Mettier had told him that he knew he had kidnapped Dennis and asked for details about it. Parnell then vaguely related that Mettier threatened "the ones I care about. . . my mother and Dennis" should he not help Mettier kidnap a boy.
Parnell's recollection was that his next meeting with Mettier occurred in Ukiah at The Palace Hotel, when "he wanted to know how I came into possession of Dennis. And he reminded me that if I didn't cooperate, why, he would do either one of two things, and I don't remember what. . . "
After listening to this long tale, those in the courtroom finally heard this strange man tell his version of the events of February 13, 1980, the day before Timmy's kidnapping. He said that Hank phoned him: "He wanted me to go pick up Sean and bring him to Ukiah." Parnell went on to say that he did as he was told, picking up Sean in Elk before retrieving Dennis at the Point Arena school bus stop, the only portion of his testimony which matched Steve's.
But Parnell's account of the day of the kidnapping was the very antithesis of Sean's. Parnell's version had the teenager disappearing from The Palace Hotel before Parnell got off work that morning and himself going over to the Samoa Club for a beer and to shoot the bull for a spell. Next, he said, he went to the Salvation Army Thrift Store and bought a box spring, tied it to the roof of his Maverick, and—still without Sean—drove out of Ukiah, stopping at eleven for lunch at El Rebozzo Mexican Restaurant. Lunch finished, Parnell asserted he got back into his car and drove home alone.
Parnell matter-of-factly intoned that he arrived at his cabin about one-thirty, fixed himself a cup of coffee, smoked a couple of cigarettes, and was then startled when Sean burst into the cabin and said, " 'We kidnapped a kid.' "
Then LeStrange asked his client when he first saw Timmy. Parnell replied, "It was about the twentieth. Hank brought him up to the cabin with a couple of sacks. I still didn't want him to leave him there, and he said he would get him in the next day or two." In response to his attorney's question about why Mettier brought Timmy to the cabin, Parnell launched into a spirited yet confusing story about his paycheck being late, his driving to Ukiah to pick it up, his running into Mettier at The Palace Hotel on February 16, and Hank's telling him that he had Timmy and wanted Parnell to take care of "the boy until he could work something out." Finally, LeStrange had Parnell deal with the problem of Steve's testimony that he first saw Timmy in the Maverick on February 14. Weakly Parnell explained, "Dennis might have been confused. He is right. He did see the boy in the car, but he just doesn't know the day."
Then it was McClure's turn to cross-examine Parnell, and after a few stale questions and answers, Parnell bumbled into a most confusing scenario about Mettier's reasons for kidnapping Timmy, summing it up with: "I think he mentioned something that he had worked out some kind of deal for making some money or trading the kid for dope."
McClure's cross-examination of Parnell continued into a second day when he opened by trying to make some sense out of Parnell's 1979-1980 cash flow, the only clear information being Parnell's statement that he made $600 a month at The Palace Hotel.
All through the trial McClure had noticed Parnell taking extreme interest in the legal minutiae of the proceedings: "During the trial, Parnell would turn to Scott and I could hear him talking, and he would say, 'Does that protect my appeal right? Do you think I could appeal on that issue?' He was almost paranoid about whether or not [he had] an appeal right on everything [LeStrange] did. And that probably indicates to some degree that the guy is looking into law books beforehand. He's got an idea about what kind of things are appealable and what kind of things you have to watch out for."
And in fact, during the time Steven was living with Parnell, the kidnapper owned an old law book in which he penciled in defenses in the margins for four different crimes: kidnapping, rape, robbery, and m
urder. Parnell had been arrested, tried, and convicted for the first three, but never the fourth, and he angrily refuses to respond when questioned about this.*
After Parnell finished his testimony, LeStrange presented a series of defense witnesses to try and support Parnell's story about his whereabouts on Valentine's Day 1980, but Jim Bertain, who owned the Samoa Club, couldn't recall whether Parnell was at the bar the day of Timmy's kidnapping; the lady who managed El Rebozzo couldn't recall Parnell having lunch there that day; and the couple who operated the Salvation Army Thrift Store where Parnell claimed to have bought the box spring didn't remember him either.
Steve's close friend from Comptche, Damon Carroll, then took the stand for the defense and gave a confusing recollection of the events of February and March 1980, rife with conflicts when compared to his sworn statements during the preliminary hearing.
McClure then offered a half-dozen State's witnesses in rebuttal, the shocker being Hank Mettier himself, who upon entering the courtroom looked about nervously. He was like a fish out of water. It was obvious that being there was not his preference.
McClure: Do you know Chris Poorman?
Mettier: Yeah.
McClure: And could you tell us what your relationship is to her?
Mettier: She and I have a son together.
McClure: Beyond that, have you lived together for some period of time?
Mettier: On and off, yes, for the last eight years.
As Mettier squirmed on the witness stand, McClure conducted a verbal block-and-parry with the conservatively dressed, convicted drug dealer as he went on to establish that Sean Poorman lived with him, called him "Dad," and referred to him as his "stepfather." Later, McClure asked the short, neatly bearded Mettier about his whereabouts from November 1979 through February 1980.
McClure: During that period of time, did you ever come up to Mendocino County?
Mettier: Yeah. I was living—in November I was probably living in Philo.
McClure: And would you tell us during the latter part of November, possibly around Thanksgiving, did you ever meet the defendant sitting here at the end of the table, Mr. Parnell?
Mettier: Never.
McClure: Did you ever meet him by the post office in Elk?
Mettier: I have never seen Mr. Parnell outside of this courtroom. The first time I ever saw him in my life was on Thursday afternoon in this courtroom.
McClure: You saw Timmy White in my office today, is that correct?
Mettier: Yes.
McClure: Before seeing him today in my office, had you ever seen him before?
Mettier: Only in this courtroom.
McClure: Could you tell us when was the first time you ever saw Steven Stayner?
Mettier: In this courtroom also. I think it was on Monday.
After attempting to discover an earlier possible first meeting with Parnell, McClure continued.
McClure: Did you ever go to the Palace Hotel on February 16, 1980, about eight or nine in the morning?
Mettier: No.
McClure: Do you remember where you were that day?
Mettier: No, I can't remember.
McClure: How about February twentieth? Do you remember where you were on February twentieth?
Mettier: I can't remember that either.
And still later, there was this:
McClure: On February 14, 1980, Valentine's Day of 1980, could you tell us between, let's say, eleven and two o'clock in the afternoon, do you recall where you were during that period of time?
Suddenly, and most disingenuously, Mettier was able to distinctly recall all his activities that particular day.
Mettier: Sure. I had a doctor's appointment in Mill Valley at the Holistic Health Institute at 9:30 in the morning. The doctor was very late. I remember waiting for at least forty-five minutes for the doctor to come in. Then I spent at least forty-five minutes with the doctor, and then after lunch, he prescribed some medicine for me, and I ordered that over the telephone around a quarter to two, I guess, from Mill Valley.
McClure: Have you done anything to check to see if your time frame is accurate on that?
Mettier: Yes. I looked over my phone records and that's what they indicated to me.
McClure: Did you do anything beyond that?
Mettier: Do what?
McClure: Well, did you check with the doctor's office?
Mettier: Oh, yeah. I called the doctor's office, and they told me exactly what time my appointment was.
McClure: They had some sort of a record?
Mettier: They had those records, right.
McClure: And that refreshed your memory about it?
Mettier: Oh, sure, yeah.*
Mettier's "convenient memory," illustrated by McClure's direct examination, was made more evident during LeStrange's cross-examination of the former drug dealer:
LeStrange: Mr. Mettier, you were living where at that time [late 1979 or early 1980]?
Mettier: I really can't remember, but I was probably in Elk. But I can't remember exactly what was going on at that time. I mean, I don't know, you know, where I was, specifically, at any point in November or December or anything like that. It's difficult for me to recall that.
LeStrange: Were you employed in November of 1979?
Mettier: I can't remember that either. I have changed jobs a few times, and I can't—I can't remember. I don't know.
LeStrange: Have you ever been arrested on narcotics?
Mettier: As a juvenile I was arrested for a very small quantity of marijuana, but that was a juvenile matter. And that was a long time ago, too.
LeStrange: What year?
Mettier: Well, it was probably eleven years ago.
LeStrange: How old would you have been?
Mettier: I think I was about sixteen.
LeStrange: And where was that? In Marin County?
Mettier: Yeah, it was.
LeStrange: And are you sure you were a juvenile?
Mettier: Yeah, I'm sure.
On the last day of trial testimony, June 29, LeStrange effectively impeached Mettier's testimony by introducing the official record of the witness's 1973 Marin County felony arrest, conviction, and probation for possession of a commercial quantity of marijuana—as a nineteen-year-old adult.
Next McClure called Timmy to the stand, and as LeStrange watched the little boy's testimony, he was very concerned about its precise, organized manner, feeling that he had been coached by Finn when he'd attempted to hypnotize the child during his investigation. (Actually, McClure had coached him.) Then, when his turn came to cross-examine Timmy, LeStrange walked on eggs so as not to anger the jury, an approach which resulted in an uneventful and unproductive cross-examination.
Before the trial, in an effort to counter Finn's amateurish hypnosis of Timmy, LeStrange had had Dr. David Axelrad—the same psychiatrist he had hired to attempt to evaluate Parnell at the Alameda County Jail—assemble a forensic case panel of his peers to make a professional determination as to whether, after being hypnotized, Timmy could be expected to testify honestly about the events surrounding his kidnapping. Among the panel's findings was " . . . that the hypnotic process carried out by Richard Finn was not valid."
Therefore, LeStrange wanted to introduce Dr. Axelrad's statement in court by having him testify to it, but Judge Sabraw would not allow it. This point became the sole trial error which was later appealed by Parnell's court-appointed appeals attorney, Daniel Horowitz of Oakland . . . albeit unsuccessfully.
Finally, after the defense called several witnesses in subrebuttal to the State's case, it was time for McClure and LeStrange to make their closing arguments. LeStrange took forty-eight minutes before the lunch recess in a futile attempt to get Parnell acquitted; McClure began his closing argument immediately after lunch and took thirty-one minutes to sum up the State's exceptionally strong case.
On June 29 at 2:15 P.M. Judge Sabraw spent slightly more than thirty minutes patiently and carefully reciting detailed inst
ructions to the jury, and at 2:52 they retired to deliberate Parnell's fate. At 4:50 they filed back into the jury box and stated that they had found Kenneth Eugene Parnell guilty of kidnapping in the second degree.
Judge Sabraw thanked the twelve profusely for their patience, time, and thorough consideration of the evidence, and then dismissed them.
Since Parnell had two prior felony convictions and had served prison time for both, California law precluded the possibility of probation. Therefore, two months later, Judge Sabraw sentenced Kenneth Eugene Parnell to the maximum prison time allowed for second-degree kidnapping: seven years.
Thus, Parnell's trial, conviction, and sentencing for kidnapping ended, and even though Mendocino D.A. Joe Allen was happy with the verdict, he did not feel justice had been completely served, saying: "I always thought there was a possibility that Parnell was involved in undetected crimes. I still think so. There is a similarity in my mind between child molesters and serial murderers. Child molesters who kidnap and retain their victims, like Parnell, are by far the rarest type.
"If we caught Parnell three times, I don't know if that means he did it thirteen times or three hundred times, but I'll bet there are a whole lot of incidents that we don't know about where Parnell did one thing or another. If Parnell took a kid and the kid fought back, or tried to run away, or for some reason Parnell thought that the kid wasn't going to work out, or perhaps there was a danger of this being detected, I think Parnell is fully capable of killing a kid to protect himself."