Lock Up Your Daughters!
This is a rather belated act of justice. Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Paul House was "likely innocent" of killing Carolyn Muncey, the former death row inmate will be released from the Lois DeBerry Special Needs prison facility in Nashville this morning.
Even so, Paul Phillips, the backwoods prosecutor whose entire theory of the case has been gutted by DNA evidence, could not resist a parting shot. With characteristically impeccable logic, Phillips has restricted House from leaving his home for any reason except doctor’s appointments. Why? Phillips evidently considers House a flight risk—even though he is wheelchair-bound, broke and suffering from multiple sclerosis.
Check out the Scene’s extensive coverage of the whole saga, most recently former staff writer Sarah Kelley’s superb cover story from last week.
Comments
Where did Sarah Kelley go, and when did she leave?
Posted 07/02/2008 at 12:11:06 PMSarah took a job as news editor of the Louisville LEO, her hometown alt-weekly in KY. She will be missed, but we will continue to cover the Paul House story as closely as ever.
Posted 07/02/2008 at 02:25:51 PMCute title. I really like the way it makes light of the two women he raped at knifepoint in Utah before killing Carolyn Muncey.
For good measure they should put one of those illegal parking boots on his wheelchair and chemically castrate him.
But then his mother could sue the state for loss of commiseration.
Posted 07/02/2008 at 09:23:39 PMGosh, the cold hard truth of DNA evidence always brings out the best in the pro-death penalty crowd. Wow. That was unbelievably crass and juvenile--even by my standards.
Actually, the headline makes light of the fact that he's not exactly a threat to anyone since he's in a wheelchair and suffering from MS. We meant it more as a dig on the prosecutor, who kinda sorta lost his entire theory of what happened--and might need to explain how Muncey's blood ended up on House's jeans, um, after the murder.
Brian, you alluded on your blog to how happy you would be if you had a chance to kick the ass of a Scene writer. I can't throw a punch and have a glass jaw--but if you ever see me out, please introduce yourself.
Posted 07/03/2008 at 08:12:01 AMThere was more evidence in this case than just blood stains and you know this.
The night of the murder he told the police that he was at home all night and his girlfriend said that he left around 10:45, came back panting, exhausted, and missing his shirt and shoes.
The daughter hearing the deep voiced man call out to her mother from the road. Can we assume that it is safe to say that the daughter knew the sound of her own father's voice? Especially when the voice is asking about her father.
You can argue that the two witnesses seeing a man coming out of the ditch while he was wiping his hands on the rag didn't get a good look at him but they certainly got a good look at Donna Turner's car that he was driving. It's her testimony that is damning. Have you interviewed her?
There were numerous scratches and bruises on House's person that his girlfriend said were not there the day before.
Now you can call the prosecutor a backwater, podunk, cousinfucker all you want but House's alibi did not add up. If you read the *.pdf linked in my post you can see where House was well on his way from being a lazy sociopath to being a violent psycopath.
If Jeffrey Dahmer lived to get multiple sclerosis in prison should he have been let go? That seems to be an unusual standard The Scene is taking on this. His current physical condition has nothing to do with his serving his sentence, guilt, or innocence.
btw, that commiseration should have been consortium and I promise to introduce myself if I ever happen to be in the same circles drinking white wine and smoking pot with local elected officials.
Posted 07/03/2008 at 03:59:13 PMAt this point, there is not a shred of forensic evidence that puts him at the scene of the crime. Nothing. There's a lot more evidence against the husband--drunken confessions, the fact that he abused his wife, the testimony of her own brother that had her in fear of the hubby--than House.
Law school professors have a fun little exercise they like to pull on their students on the first day of the semester. They have a friend rush into the class, steal a few papers from the desk and walk out the door. Then the prof asks the students to describe what the stranger looked like. They almost never agree and few of them provide any type of description that's accurate.
All across the country, municipalities are releasing inmates wrongfully convicted off eyewitness testimony. It's extraordinarily unreliable. Unlike say, DNA.
Listen, I suppose I can kinda/sorta see the rationale for putting House on trial again. Not really but I'll give you that one. But given that the backwood's prosecutor's original theory of the case has been completely, absolutely, totally gutted--how can we let that stand? Doesn't he at least deserve a new day in court?
Posted 07/03/2008 at 06:33:09 PMThe characterization of the prosecutor as "backwoods" is a dumb and lazy one. As the Scene itself reported, the guy is a graduate of Vanderbilt law school. Given the circumstantial evidence described above, plus the blood evidence that the jurors were led to believe was House's, their original verdict was not all that unreasonable. The "backwoods" aspect to this case was the failure of local law enforcement to investigate thoroughly the likelihood that Carolyn Muncey was murdered by her husband.
But given all the evidence that has come out since the case was originally tried, you have to wonder how anybody with any decent notion of justice (including our governor) could have let this case move forward after the Supreme Court's ruling.
Here is my own suspicion: Prosecutor Phillips is smart enough to realize there is not enough evidence (except the alleged confession to a third party and the circumstantial history of abuse) to get a conviction against Muncey's husband. This case was too heinous in this county (which has not had a murder in the past five years) to simply drop. So Phillips still rates House as the most likely suspect, even if at this point he is very unlikely indeed to have been the actual killer. I think Phillips calculates that there is more than a small chance that, in spite of the lack of hard evidence (and motive!), he might still get a conviction on the retrial.
I think Phillips is the one I might nominate for lethal injection.
Bredesen, too, if moral cowardice were a capital offense.
Posted 07/03/2008 at 10:58:14 PMBoyd, just because the prosecutor went to Vanderbilt doesn't mean he's sophisticated and wise.
Both Eric Crafton and I graduated from Vanderbilt.
Case closed.
Posted 07/04/2008 at 02:49:12 AMHe is getting a new day in court but those hearsay confessions are just as, if not more, circumstantial than what was presented against House.
Donna Turner was the key to the original case. Where is she now?
Regarding the husband, with all of this going on, why is no one trying to interview the man whose wife's murderer was just let out of prison? Does he not have an opinion on the subject?
Obviously, if they have her fingernails then they should be tested. From the autopsy, they said that she had been potentially knocked unconscious and strangled. I would think you get an idea of someone's hand size if they had photos.
If you can concede any of that, would you concede that straight reporting takes a backseat to The Scene's anti-death penalty advocacy?
There are some fairly indefensible characters coming up for execution. Should I just expect rote tales of how momma didn't love him enough or that some heretofore little known officer/prosecutor was an overzealous devil out to frame Pervis Payne for a crime he didn't commit.
Posted 07/04/2008 at 08:42:40 AMMuncey's statements to the two women are far from "circumstantial" evidence. Given his history of physical abuse and his threatening statement earlier about doing away with his wife, looking to Muncey as the killer is a much more logical and compelling theory of the case. (Whether the evidence can be produced to prove that theory is another question.)
Posted 07/04/2008 at 09:19:48 AMSo House was convicted 23 years ago. Can anyone tell me what forensic evidence links him to the crime?
Posted 07/04/2008 at 04:02:10 PM