July 3 VIRGINIA----impending execution Questions plague July 11 execution of Robin Lovitt The scheduled execution of Robin Lovitt on July 11 spurs the latest dust-up in the states intensifying scrutiny of capital punishment. At issue is whether its proper to execute a man, one who proclaims his innocence, even though a clerk mistakenly destroyed evidence in the case. If the scissors believed to be the murder weapon and clothing belonging to Lovitt still existed, questions unanswered during his 1999 trial might be settled by more sophisticated DNA tests available today. Any possibility of that evaporated the day the items were thrown away. For Gov. Mark Warner, who -0 barring a U.S. Supreme Court reprieve - must weigh a clemency petition as the execution approaches, the clerk's error forces Solomonic judgments: How certain is Lovitt's guilt? What difference, if any, would it make if all of the unresolved questions about the DNA evidence were decided in Lovitts favor? Lovitt, 41, was convicted of the 1998 stabbing death of the night manager at an Arlington pool hall, during an early morning robbery. From the moment the longtime drug abuser and former convict turned himself in, several days after the event, he has insisted that he did not murder Clayton Dicks, a single father raising 2 boys. Lovitt acknowledges his presence at the pool hall, where he once worked, when the murder occurred. Coming out of the restroom, he says, he saw Dicks fighting with a man and ducked back out of the way. When Lovitt re-emerged, the man was gone. Needing money, Lovitt says he made a huge mistake. He grabbed the cash drawer and fled. The prosecutions take is far different. A relapsing drug addict, Lovitt came to the pool hall to steal money. Confronted by Dicks, Lovitt stabbed him six times with a pair of scissors that he and another employee had once used to pry open the cash drawer. Then he took the money and fled. The cash drawer was recovered at the home of Lovitts cousin where, everyone agrees, Lovitt took it. The convicted man had a motive, the opportunity to commit murder and the cash. For many a juror, that probably would suffice to establish guilt. >From that point on, however, the case becomes less airtight. Two witnesses who walked in while the attack was under way, and then left to call police, couldn't identify Lovitt. One said at trial that he was 80 percent sure Lovitt was the man. Closer to the actual event, the same man said he wasnt certain. No fingerprints from Lovitt were found on the alleged murder weapon or at the crime scene. None of the victims blood was found on Lovitts clothes. (More about that later.) The primary person linking Lovitt to the crime was a fellow inmate, who, it turned out, had testified in several other trials. The label "jailhouse snitch" comes to mind. Former federal judge and special presidential prosecutor Ken Starr, who has stirred national attention as one of Lovitts habeas attorneys, calls the evidence "circumstantial and weak." Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the 4th Circuit Court of appeals, which upheld Lovitts conviction, disagrees. Despite "a serious error in judgment in destroying the evidence," Wilkinson wrote, Lovitt benefited from a system that overall is "as fair and conscientious as human beings can make it." But is that so? How much difference might an updated DNA reading on the destroyed items have made? The answer depends in large measure on what the tests would have shown. It's fair to say that discussion of DNA occupied a relatively minor portion of the overall trial testimony. But related comments werent negligible either. Two issues emerged. First, a spot of blood on the scissors clearly belonged to the victim. A second stain, an unidentified substance, largely matched Dicks also. But one faint genetic marker, identified by the number "17," could not have come from him. The state analyst revealed that Lovitt had a "17" as 1 of 2 genetic markers at that point on the gene. Did the jury see the link as significant? No one outside the jury room knows. Could an updated test have ruled Lovitt out altogether as a contributor to the stain? Yes, potentially. At one point, the prosecutor called the 2nd stain "not a big deal." Later, however, she observed that it could have come from sweat and that "you know when the defendant arrived at [his cousins house] he was sweating." And further, "What was on there was just one little piece, and it told you that there was an allele No. 17. And what you know is that the defendant has an allele No. 17." Ditto for a discussion of blood found at the waistline of Lovitts jacket. The state lab report was marked "inconclusive" as to the source of the blood. But that didnt stop the prosecutor from intimating that it belonged to Dicks. "Certainly it [blood from the victim] could have gotten on his clothing, and certainly there is blood on the jacket in the stomach area," she noted in closing remarks. In fact, however, lab notes strongly suggest that the blood actually belonged to Lovitt. An updated test almost certainly could have answered the question. Frankly, thats information an appeals court or the governor should have had. After reviewing various documents, heres one persons opinion: Could a jury reviewing the evidence against Lovitt have reasonably concluded that he committed the crime? Absolutely. Is the evidence against him foolproof? No. Might updated DNA testing have clarified the matter somewhat? Yes, potentially. Should he then be executed? For opponents of the death penalty, such as me, thats not a hard call. Certainty ought to be a given. The real challenge is to the majority of Virginians who favor capital punishment. For them, when it comes to taking a life, how much doubt is acceptable? How much error? Given all we have learned about the reality of wrongful convictions in seemingly airtight cases in recent years, is a "reasonable" execution still good enough? (source: Opinion, Margaret Edds, The Virginian-Pilot) VERMONT: Can Vermont really sentence a man to die? As a Burlington jury continues to hear reasons for and against putting convicted killer Donald Fell to death, we here in Vermont would do well to remember why a death penalty case is playing out in a state that outlawed it decades ago. More than 3 years ago, the native of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., agreed with federal prosecutors to plead guilty to kidnapping and killing Tressa King of North Clarendon in exchange for spending the rest of his life in jail with no chance of parole. The deal, struck between Fell's defense attorneys and the U.S. attorney's office in Vermont, would have achieved justice by any definition of the word: an admission of guilt and an appropriate relinquishment of Fell's personal liberty. It also was consistent with Vermont's anti-death penalty ethos and with the state's fundamental decency in tempering all acts of justice with a modicum of mercy. Alas, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft didn't see it that way. He rejected the plea deal, deciding that execution was the only appropriate ending to this case. (He did that, too, in the Washington-area sniper case a few years back, whisking the suspects to a Virginia courtroom before Maryland prosecutors could get a crack at them. Virginia juries are more prone to putting convicts to death than are their counterparts in Maryland, and Ashcroft couldn't take that chance - despite the fact that most of the snipers' victims were Marylanders.) It is a typical response from the current administration in Washington, the administration that seems to suggest that states' rights are paramount when it comes to issues involving "family values" but not so sacrosanct when it comes to issues like life or death. Look no further than the Republican-controlled Congress and President Bush in their ghastly attempt to intervene in the Terri Schiavo death-with-dignity case. Whether or not you agree with the death penalty - and I categorically do not - we should be alarmed at a federal government that takes a cavalier attitude toward a state's fundamental character. Vermont didn't get where it is today through a fluke. Its citizens and elected representatives have worked hard over the years debating an appropriate level of rights and responsibilities. It's no accident that we were the first state to outlaw slavery or to give same-sex couples rights approaching those of married couple, or that we are one of the few states left without a death penalty. In this case, it appears that Ashcroft and the Bush administration wanted to use Vermont as a petri dish, to sort of see what could foment in this tolerant place. The prospect of achieving a death sentence in one of the bluest of blue states must be very exciting for the federal government. Wouldn't that just show us how out of touch we all are? I don't envy the jurors in this case - they have a wrenching decision ahead of them. And I don't think any of us should judge them, regardless of where they ultimately come out. Of course, the family of the victim was against the plea deal and they, too, have legitimate reasons for seeking the ultimate punishment. They lost a wonderful mother, sister and friend who even tried to befriend Fell and his now dead co-defendant, Robert J. Lee, before they brutally ended her life. Unlike with the rejected plea deal, the jury's decision in this case will not be the last. If death is imposed - or, frankly, even if it isn't you can expect years of appeals, appeals that will be brutal for Tressa King's family to endure. That compassionate conservatism has turned out to be neither is hardly a surprise anymore from George Bush and his cabinet. But we should remember that without compassion, without mercy, we as a society are tacitly acknowledging that people can't ever change, and that some human life isn't worth a 2nd thought. A society that rejects mercy imperils its very survival. Somehow, I doubt the nice folks in Washington would agree. (source: Perspective, Darren Allen writes weekly about Vermont issues. people and events; The Rutland Herald) USA: Death penalty position evolved----O'Connor was a key swing vote on many key capital punishment cases, and her pending departure is viewed as a setback for death penalty opponents **** SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR AGE-BIRTH DATE - 75; March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas. EDUCATION - BA, Stanford University, 1950; LLB, Stanford University, 1952. EXPERIENCE - Appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1981, confirmed by the Senate 99-0; judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, 1979-81; judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, 1975-79; majority leader, Arizona Senate, 1973-74; Arizona state senator, 1969-75; assistant attorney general, Arizona, 1965-69; practiced law in Maryvale, Arizona, 1958-60; civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany, 1954-57; deputy county attorney, San Mateo County, Calif., 1952-53. FAMILY - Husband, John Jay O'Connor III; 3 sons, Scott, Brian and Jay. **** Although widely viewed as a conservative, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor distanced herself from the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty proponents over the years. "Serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country," she said in a controversial public speech in 2001. "If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed." O'Connor was a key swing vote on many key capital punishment cases, and her pending departure from the high court is viewed as a setback for death penalty opponents and death row inmates nationwide. "The next nominee is probably going to be more conservative than she is," said John Blume, a professor at the Cornell Law School in Ithaca, N.Y., who has argued 5 death penalty cases before O'Connor and the Supreme Court. O'Connor's skepticism about capital punishment swayed the court's 2002 vote prohibiting the execution of killers with mental retardation. She also repeatedly ruled in favor of defendants who claimed their constitutional rights had been violated because of incompetent court-appointed defense lawyers. She could be unpredictable, however, such as when she sided with fellow conservatives this year in dissenting against the decision barring capital punishment for crimes committed by people under age 18. In the coming years, the Supreme Court is likely to address issues including whether a state can execute people with severe mental illness and whether foreign nationals can be sentenced to death if they were deprived of their right to speak to the consul of their native country. FROM HER OPINIONS >From her majority opinion in 1984 Strickland v. Washington, setting a higher burden for death row inmates to successfully overturn their convictions based on mistakes by their attorneys - An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. ... Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy." O'Connor often espoused a flexible view of the Constitution, backing the notion of "evolving standards of decency" as an explanation for why the court upheld the execution of a person with mental retardation in 1989, then outlawed the practice in a virtually identical case in 2002. "That has frustrated the conservatives who have taken the strict constructionist view," said professor Paul McGreal of the South Texas College of Law. O'Connor was among the Supreme Court justices who criticized Texas courts and the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely viewed as the nation's most conservative federal bench. "She was sometimes appalled by the arguments that the Texas attorney general made, and the aggressive positions the state took," said George Kendall, a capital defense attorney from New York City who has worked on many cases before the Supreme Court. Last year, O'Connor criticized the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for upholding a death sentence despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the instructions given to jurors had been constitutionally flawed. O'Connor wrote that the Texas court ruling "has no foundation in the decisions of this court" and said the judges had relied on "precisely the same 'screening test' we held constitutionally inadequate" in a previous decision. Although she frequently has support the state in criminal matters, O'Connor's views on capital punishment continued evolving after her 1981 appointment to the Supreme Court. She once ruled that the high court court could not entertain the innocence claims of a Virginia death row inmate - who later was executed - because his lawyers had missed a state court filing deadline by a day. "This is a case about federalism," she wrote, explaining that it was not appropriate for the Supreme Court to interfere in a state court case. Over time, her views appeared to shift. "As time went on, she became less enamored with the death penalty," Kendall said. "She took a case-by-case approach. Her instincts were largely quite conservative, but like many people in the past 5 or 6 years, she began to have questions and to see that there are a lot of problems with the administration of the death penalty." (source: Houston Chronicle) ILLINOIS: A 2nd look 20 years ago a Tennessee man named Paul House was convicted of the rape, beating and murder of his neighbor, Carolyn Muncey. Circumstantial evidence raised questions about an alibi he provided, but the critical evidence was this: Semen found on Muncey's underwear and nightgown was consistent with House's blood type. Blood on his pants was consistent with Muncey's blood type. House was sentenced to death. Years later, though, more refined DNA tests produced a stunning result: The semen on Muncey's clothing didn't come from House. It came from her own husband. There were also questions about the validity of the blood evidence. House's jeans and vials of Muncey's blood were shipped together to the FBI for analysis. At some point, blood spilled from one of the vials. And years after the crime, 2 people contended that Muncey's husband had admitted to them that he was responsible. He had hit his wife, she had fallen and hit her head. So did House deserve a new trial? A U.S. appellate court said no, on an 8-7 vote. But the U.S. Supreme Court announced last week it will take up the case. Since 1973, 119 people in 25 states have been released from Death Row because of evidence that proved they were wrongfully convicted, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Hundreds more serving term sentences have been released as well. If this slew of overturned convictions teaches us anything, it's that the justice system must be open to new information when it turns up in seemingly closed cases. Not all new or changed evidence should automatically compel a new trial. But it insults the notion of justice when courts ignore compelling new developments. Paul House may be guilty. But certainly his case is worth revisiting, given that the DNA tests undermined the most convincing evidence that linked him to the crime. Illinois has a similarly frustrating case. Last month, Herb Whitlock was denied a new trial by a Downstate circuit judge despite a raft of new information that casts serious doubt on his guilt in a murder case. The Illinois State Police concluded it botched its own initial investigation into the case. Key witnesses changed their stories numerous times. No physical evidence linked Whitlock to the crime. The trial attorney who represented Whitlock in 1987 even testified that he provided inadequate counsel. The doubts surrounding the case were powerful enough to win Whitlock's co-defendant his release from prison more than a year ago. Prosecutors dropped charges against him. Whitlock seemed headed toward freedom. And yet Edgar County Judge H. Dean Andrews didn't think so. In a 72-page ruling, he denied that any of the arguments were compelling. And so Herb Whitlock continues to serve a life sentence while his co-defendant walks free. Tempting as it is to wrap up cases and be done with them forever, it's more important to get it right. Forensic technology has undergone a revolution in the last decade, and new advances continue. We've learned that sometimes we don't fully know the truth until new technology is able to reveal it. State and federal courts need to bear those advances in mind as they ponder the circumstances under which defendants merit a second chance to prove their innocence. (source: Opinion, Chicago Tribune) *********************** Cops to start taping interrogations Frank Runningshield was still wearing a stocking cap in a Minneapolis police interview room hours after he was arrested for kicking a man in the head and leaving him to die in a freezing alley on Feb. 17, 2000. Runningshield, alone in the room, kept looking under a table, apparently at his shoes. As a video camera rolled, he could be heard whispering to himself, "Man, there's blood on my shoes!" Detectives rushed into the room to remove his shoes and socks for testing. Runningshield was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Tests showed blood on his pants matched the victim's. Chicago Police officials, who will start digitally recording homicide interrogations July 18, have been playing the Runningshield tape to detectives to demonstrate the benefits of having a camera rolling while suspects are in the interview room. It's not optional: State law requires police to record interrogations, part of the reforms put in place after former Gov. George Ryan declared Illinois' capital punishment system to be "broken." Bigger than Miranda' Chicago Police have installed digital recording systems in 37 interview rooms at a cost of $2.9 million. They've spent about $1 million on training more than 670 investigators, including homicide detectives, major accidents investigators and others who handle death cases. By law, suspects don't need to be told they are being recorded. But police must seek approval from a suspect before turning off a camera. Michael Chasen, a deputy chief of detectives, said the system represents the most significant change in policing in the 37 years he's been on the Chicago Police Department. "As far as I'm concerned, this is bigger than Miranda," Chasen said, referring to the 1966 Supreme Court decision that requires police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. Some detectives privately grumble that cameras will prevent them from convincing suspects they really don't want to talk to an attorney. Sheri Mecklenburg, general counsel for the Chicago Police Department, said they're right: Detectives must stand up and leave the room when a suspect asks for a lawyer. The interview is over. "That's the law," Mecklenburg said. "They should be doing that now. There are always people who are skeptical of any change in any profession. We will get better confessions, and we will be protected from false claims." In recent years, the Chicago Police Department already has been videotaping confessions in murder cases. Those tapes might last only 20 minutes. Interrogations, on the other hand, can last up to 48 hours. The camera is supposed to roll when the suspect is sleeping, when the suspect is talking or when the suspect is eating. Chasen said RMS Electronics designed Chicago's digital recording system to address specific concerns of the Police Department. Attorney can block recording For example, heat-sensing cameras will show a black-and-white image of the suspect and anyone else in the room when the lights are off. That protects the department from claims that detectives are abusing suspects under the cover of darkness, Chasen said. Also, an "attorney switch" in the steel control panel outside each interview room allows a client's lawyer to turn a key to block the system from recording their conversations. The recordings are transmitted to a control room where supervisors can view interrogations on video screens. A mainframe computer will store the digital recordings. Police from South Korea, Austria, Germany, Australia and Canada have visited Chicago to see the system. "We hope this will become the standard for other police departments," said Hiram Grau, deputy superintendent of investigative services. Chasen expects prosecutors will use the recordings to show jurors a suspect's demeanor -- ranging from anger to remorse to indifference. Often, suspects also physically demonstrate how they carried out a stabbing or strangulation, which is easier to translate to a jury on a recording than in words, he said. Mecklenburg said detectives are being told they can still engage in deception and can use foul language. They can't manufacture evidence, such as showing a suspect a fake DNA report. But they can tell a suspect they have collected his DNA from the crime scene, even when they haven't, she said. Public defenders raise concerns "I think the public will be very accepting of legitimate police tactics," she said. "They watch 'NYPD Blue,' and they think this is good police work. We are dealing with people who are not Boy Scouts. Juries will not be shocked by bad language or deception." Xavier Velasco, chief of operations for the Cook County public defender's office, said he is concerned that not every interrogation will be recorded. The law allows officers to interrogate a suspect in the squad car without recording the interview, for instance. The law says police don't have to record when it's "not feasible," Velasco added. "That could offer an opportunity for police to make threats or offers of leniency when it is not recorded." He pointed out that suspects have given false confessions even when they are being recorded. Corethian Bell confessed on videotape to the fatal stabbing of his mother in 2000, but DNA tests exonerated him of the crime in 2002. Still, Velasco said the use of cameras during interrogations is a step forward in the justice system. "It clearly removes some of the secrecy that surrounded the interrogation process at the police station," he said. Police officials bristled at the suggestion that cops will flip off the camera in order to coerce suspects. Police said they would never turn off the camera when a suspect is in the room. But if a suspect is taken out of the room for a lineup, the detective can choose to shut it off. "By law, all we needed to do was make audio recordings of the interrogations," Chasen said. "We could have circumvented the law by meeting the minimum standards." Chasen said he thinks many detectives will embrace the technology. "For the old salty dogs, this will be a difficult change," he said. "The young detectives are anticipating this." Ken McCabe, chief investigator for the Kankakee County sheriff's police, said interrogations in serious felony cases have been recorded by his department since 1995. McCabe said judges have never agreed to a defense motion to throw out tapes as evidence. And he said defense attorneys are more prone to reach a plea agreement with prosecutors after seeing the tapes. In one case, a burglar showed up for a voluntary interview wearing a golf shirt and a watch he stole from a home. The interrogation was taped. "The detectives said, 'You have the watch and the shirt on. What are you doing?' And the guy confessed. We're making better cases. When we started this, I thought, 'Who's going to talk to you on tape?' They forget it's there. . . . I was a doubter at first. I was a naysayer. I was a fool." (source: Chicago Sun-Times) WYOMING: Mother writes book about daughter's murder Sheila Kimmell wasn't sure what to think when a Madison Avenue publishing executive said it would be cathartic for her to write a book about the horrifying death of her daughter. Kimmell wasn't looking for a catharsis 17 years after her daughter was abducted and murdered in Wyoming while driving home to Billings from Denver. Kimmell knew that putting the painful details of Lisa Marie Kimmell's final days on paper would not put an end to her own pain. "In the real world, for somebody who's experienced something like this, there is no closure," Kimmell said. Writing and publishing "The Murder of Lil Miss" wasn't about healing, Kimmell said. It was about sharing her family's journey through tragedy. And it was an attempt to say thank you, she said, to all the people who knew Lisa and still mourn her death and to those who never met Lisa but who showed kindness to the Kimmells in their loss. "They were the legion of angels that supported us through this tragic event," Kimmell said. Sheila's husband, Ron, said he hopes the book answers any lingering questions about their family and how they coped with their daughter's death. "We're not writers," he said. "We just happen to be a family that lived through a tragedy that people want to know about. The people who have followed this all these years deserve to know everything there is to know about it." After a year of writing and editing, Sheila Kimmell's book will be released this month. Kimmell self-published the 244-page paperback with help from The Floating Gallery, a New York City publishing company that specializes in independent projects. Writing the story of her daughter's murder and the long hunt to catch and convict her killer was a daunting job, Kimmell said. There were hours of telephone interviews with Kay Carpenter, a professional writer in North Carolina hired to assist with the book. The women had long discussions about the focus of the book, the details of the crime, the investigation that spanned more than a decade and the trial last year that resulted in a death sentence for Lisa's killer, Dale Wayne Eaton. At one point, Kimmell and Carpenter disagreed on how much information about Eaton's past should be included in the book. "When Kay felt that was an element, my 1st comment was, 'I don't give a damn about Dale Eaton,' " Kimmell said. There were long hours of rewrites and editing and moments where the only way to get the story right was to relive painful memories. She got through those times, Kimmell said, by allowing herself to step away from the project when she could no longer work through the tears. "There were times I could stand back and be objective and other times I just couldn't," she said. "There are still areas that I can go back and, as I review the book, I can't help it, I just cry. It's just there. I guess it would be a real sad commentary on my daughter's life if I didn't feel that way. Even though it's been time, a lot of years, it just doesn't really go away." Vanished Lisa Kimmell was raised in Billings and graduated from Senior High School in 1987. A few months later, she went to work with her mother in Colorado. Sheila Kimmell was a regional manager for Arby's, and Lisa also worked for the company. They shared an apartment. Lisa disappeared on March 25, 1988, while driving to Billings from Denver in her new sports car, a black Honda CRX with a customized license plate, "Lil Miss." The Kimmells launched a frantic search for their missing daughter. A week later, the 18-year-old woman's body was found in the North Platte River west of Casper, Wyo. She had been raped, bludgeoned and stabbed. Lisa's car, with its distinctive license, was not found despite a nationwide search. The media carried the story of Lisa's disappearance and murder across the country. When the investigation stalled and years passed without an arrest, the case was featured on the television series "Unsolved Mysteries" and later on "Cold Case Files." A year after Lisa's death, the Kimmell family moved from Billings to Colorado. Sheila Kimmell said she was always amazed at the attention and interest her daughter's case generated. Over the years, the family received letters, telephone calls and e-mails from people across the continent and from as far away as Germany. "Lil Miss has become such a wide-known moniker," she said. "People wanted to know more about this pretty little girl in the picture that everybody has seen." Many people also wanted to know how the Kimmell family coped with the loss. "We met a lot of people who have had similar situations who didn't get the publicity," Ron Kimmell said. Sheila Kimmell said she recalls the 1st suggestion someone made to her about writing a book. It came about 10 years ago, she said, from federal agent investigating the case after a frustrating meeting with local law-enforcement officials in Wyoming. Over the years, others familiar with the case also suggested that she should write a book about her family's story. Sheila Kimmell didn't give the idea serious thought until 3 years ago, when an unexpected breakthrough pushed case into the national news again. In 2002, investigators got a hit on foreign DNA that had been found with Lisa's body. The DNA was matched to Eaton, who was serving time in a federal prison in Colorado. Investigators soon were digging up Eaton's property in Moneta, Wyo., where they found Lisa's black sports car buried. A piece of the "Lil Miss" license plate was found with the car. Eaton was charged a few months later, and, after a trial last year, Eaton, a divorced drifter, was sentenced to death. The book became real about a year before the trial started, Sheila Kimmell said. She had retired and was preparing to face the trial. A few months before the trial started, she contacted The Floating Gallery and signed a contract. Interest in the case and the Kimmell family peaked during the trial, she said. "How did our family cope with all of the things we had to cope with, both on the emotional basis, but then also through the process of the twists and turns and the ironies of 14 years of investigations and some of the bureaucratic and jurisdictional red tape?" she asked. Sheila Kimmell said she knew she couldn't write the book until after Eaton's trial. And, although she had some writing experience as a corporate executive, she also knew she would need some help. The publishing company found Carpenter. Despite the distance between them, Kimmell and Carpenter worked well together, they said. Shortly before the trial, Sheila Kimmell sent a box full of newspaper clippings, her journal and other material to Carpenter in Asheville, N.C., where she lives. Carpenter was excited to be involved in the book project and flew to Wyoming to attend some of Eaton's trial. Not long after Eaton was convicted, work on the book started. As Carpenter and Kimmell talked by telephone, Carpenter recorded the conversations and turned them into material for the book. "Sheila did a lot of talking, and I did a lot of listening and a lot of writing," Carpenter said. As with Kimmell, Carpenter said there were times when writing Lisa's story was overwhelming. "We would be talking, and she would start crying and I would start crying and we would say, 'Let's take a break,' " Carpenter said. A serial killer? Fascinated by the speculation of some criminal experts that Eaton may be a serial killer, Carpenter said she lobbied Kimmell to include more information about the man in her book. Eaton has not been charged with any other murders, but at least one expert on serial crimes has said he fits the profile of a serial killer. The expert, former FBI profiler Greg Cooper, also wrote a chapter for Kimmell's book. The unsolved murders of four other women with possible links to Eaton are discussed. "What does a sociopath look like?" Carpenter said of Eaton. "This is what it looks like." Kimmell was reluctant at first to include much information at all about her daughter's killer, let alone devote chapters of her book to him. The debate eventually focused on whether to include letters Eaton wrote before his arrest for Lisa's murder. Another decision was whether to use a note found on Lisa's grave in Billings signed by someone who identified himself as "Stringfellow Hawke," a character from a 1980s television series. An Easter poem written by 2 Billings boys left at the Kimmells' door the year Lisa died also was debated by Kimmell and Carpenter. The issue was finally decided when five people who reviewed a draft of the book late last year agreed with Carpenter that the Eaton letters and the note left at Lisa's grave should be included. "I said, 'OK, you win, but I keep the Easter poem,' " Kimmell said. Kimmell said there have been other challenges to getting her book into print, most of it due to her own inexperience on such a project. Details such as the book cover, page design, marketing and distribution have all proved interesting, she said. In mid-June, Sheila Kimmell said she finally learned that her first order for 2,000 copies of the book would be off the printer the first week of July. She has scheduled a book signing at Borders Books in Billings on July 23. Similar signings are scheduled in Denver and Casper, she said. Kimmell said it is not her goal to profit from selling the story of her daughter's murder. She said she has invested about $30,000 into the book project and hopes to at least break even. The purpose of the book, she said, is to answer any questions about Lisa and how her family survived her slaying and to show that the man who killed Lisa could be responsible for several similar crimes. "I've always had to believe there has to be some kind of good, and we've had a lot of good, even out of this tragedy," Kimmell said. (source: Casper Star Tribune)
