Innocent on all counts!

So the jury spanked the "Special Prosecutor," recently retired B-I-G city District Attorney William M Bennet, by coming back ever-so-quickly with a slam dunk verdict of not guilty on all four counts in the God awful manslaughter trial of former Pelham police chief Ed Fleury accused (by Mr. Bennet) of negligence in the horrific death of an innocent 8-year-old child.

Not only the most serious charge of "manslaughter" but even the three lesser ones of furnishing a machine gun to minors. The DA got greedy: in trying to make a major statement and a legacy case he ended up looking like a heartless buffoon.

Mr. Fleury was indeed guilty of something--but certainly no more so than the innocent child's father who signed a waiver acknowledging the activity could lead to "death," ignored a repeated suggestion that his youngest son handling the micro-Uzi was not a good idea and then cheered while filming the disaster, until his son disappeared from the viewfinder.

Or the laconic DA himself, who ignored these highly publicized "machine gun shoots" for seven years, or the numerous cops who were at the shoot that day and said nothing, or the Westfield Sportsman’s Club that probably operates with a skeleton part-time staff made up mostly of volunteers. Or calling an "expert witness" who points the machine gun at the jury, while the judge denies Bennet's attempt at a repeat showing of the snuff video.

Indeed it's a cliche to say that someone like Ed has already "suffered enough". But in this "case" it most certainly applies. To all of us as well.

The Springfield Republican reports (and yes, the AP picked it up)

Story goes International

Gatekeepers hold back the horror

It's been almost a week since the deleterious death video was shown to a captive jury in the manslaughter trial of former Pelham police chief Ed Fleury--an accidental machine gun death where of an 8-year-child's head ended up on the wrong end of the gun.

And thus far not a single local, regional or national media outlet has shown the entire video. Thank God for small favors. In fact, yesterday Judge Velis did not even allow the prosecutor to replay it while a State Police "expert" was testifying about the micro Uzi.

One juror has already been dismissed and we will not know why until the trial is over, but it seems obvious since she was crying to the judge that the burden of having watched the video and hearing the heartrending testimony was simply too much for her.

As would the ghoulish video be for many people if released for mass distribution. Unfortunately something like that falls into the category of "know it when you see it"--but by then it's too late.

A hard to resist Siren Song, better left unseen.

No graphic videos here

So as I feared, when the judge in the involuntary manslaughter trial of former Police Chief Ed Fleury ruled the jury could see the horrific video (but not hear the sound track) of a little boy accidentally shooting himself in the head at point blank rage, that opened the door for the evidence to go public--and in this day and age that guarantees Internet viral video status.

Judge Peter Velis , over the objections of the prosecution and defense attorneys, has now ruled the digital video can be turned over to the media. Ugh!

And even if my friends at the Springfield Republican and Daily Hampshire Gazette decide they are a family newspaper and the content just too graphic and disturbing to disseminate, somebody will publish it, and once it gets out it will explode across the web like a photon torpedo.

According to the National Press Photographers Association code of ethics:

"Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see."

As Mr. Fleury's attorney pointed out a few months ago, there is no dispute about the fact that an Uzi is a deadly weapon. And no dispute that it caused the death of an 8-year-old child. Does the jury really need to see the blood and brain tissue to be convinced?

I have the right to not to watch it, which--like the gruesome beheading of Danny Pearl video--I will choose to invoke. Unfortunately the jury in this case has no such choice.

My original lament

Ch. 22 reports

When you play with fire

Pelham Police Chief Ed Fleury. Photo by Izzy Lyman (2003)

At my age, having seen and experienced a most traumatic moment or two, and still only an intermediate ranked father (green belt in karate terms) when it comes to child rearing, I simply cannot imagine anything even remotely worse than witnessing your child's head explode from the point blank impact impact of machine gun bullets gone awry.

So I wholeheartedly agree with former Pelham Police Chief Ed Fleury's lawyers attempt to quash the presentation at his manslaughter trial of video taken by the dead child's father at that most horrific moment. And I shudder to think the number of "hits" it would generate if it somehow was leaked to the Internet (WikiLeaks perhaps?)

But I don't disagree with Edward P. Ryan Jr., a defense lawyer and former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association who said the video would probably be allowed because "It depicts the gun in operation. It could help the jury make a determination as to whether or not allowing the boy to fire the weapon is wanton or reckless," he said. "They get to see the circumstances under which the gun was fired."

Fair enough. But even I--a lowly blogger using a $35 shareware digital editing program--could edit that video in a fair-and-balanced way, showing the gun in operation but stopping just short of "the horror...the horror."

As I said on this blog exactly two years ago:

Of course the DA is quoted saying that Machine Gun Shoots are "clearly a violation of the law.” Well gee Mr. DA, where the Hell were you over the past few years when these things having been routinely promoted—and I mean PROMOTED—in this state?

It’s not like they were secretly holding cock fighting in a basement somewhere. If you did your job and shut these events down a year ago that child would be alive today.

If you are going to indict somebody then how about the father who picked out the gun? Or your office for dereliction of duty.

The jury will never convict. But another life has been destroyed.


If, however, the judge allows that indescribable death video at trial--the jury will convict...the wrong man!

The AP reports