And never see her again, p.23
And Never See Her Again, page 23
Lisa Callahan returned to the prosecution table, pleased that Colleen had given a reasonable explanation of why Spencer hadn't recognized Ricky Franks as the man he saw snatch Opal.
The defense's last witness was Billy Carl Strine. Strine had spoken in the first trial of seeing a little girl and her grandmother at the grocery store next to the pawnshop in Saginaw. Again he explained he had seen a man looking at the little girl-a girl he believed to be Opal-in an inappropriate way.
"Is my client the man you saw?"Jones asked.
"No."
After a few brief questions Leon Haley announced that the defense rested.
Judge Gill excused the jury for the night and requested they be back in the jury room at nine o'clock the following morning to begin another day.
Greg Miller would use the evening to prepare questions for his rebuttal witnesses. He intended to have his experts counter the defense's, and to come out with a guilty verdict.
CHAPTER 18
William Parker was a former police detective who had begun Parker/Jones, Inc., an investigations company, in 1985. His expertise was in interviewing and interrogations, in particular with crimes against children. Well known by both the defense and prosecution, Parker was respected by both.
Greg Miller made a point of having Parker tell the jury he had real-world experience, not just academic theory like Dr. Leo, who had testified earlier. Parker had not spoken to Franks personally, but had conferred with Eric Holden, who had obtained Franks's statement, and he had read the defendant's statement.
Placing a chart on an easel in front of the jury box, Miller pointed out the four types of false confessions introduced by Dr. Leo. One by one, Miller read each of the confession types and asked Parker if they fit Ricky Franks's statement. Parker stated they did not.
Parker-who had interviewed people such as Darlie Routier, a mother convicted of killing her two young sons-reported to jurors that Eric Holden had reached a critical point during his meeting with Franks. When Franks was given the false scenario and had angrily insisted he hadn't committed the crime, Parker explained that was a significant indicator that Franks had told the truth when he admitted taking Opal.
"If you have someone who will admit to anything to make you happy, then when given a false scenario, they will admit to that as well, to make you happy," Parker explained.
"Is it common to blame the victim?" Miller asked.
"Yes, it's common."
"Are they trying to minimize their actions?" Miller inquired.
"Absolutely," Parker responded.
Leon Haley rose to address Parker on crossexamination.
"When we talk academia and practical experience, academia is what teaches us," Haley stated, smiling.
"Yes, sometimes," Parker said.
"You went to classes to learn to be a detective," Haley said.
"Yes, of course," Parker concurred.
Haley's smile faded and his words turned biting. "Why should these people believe anything you say when you have a bias because you're a detective?"
"You're making an assumption. I have no bias here," Parker said calmly.
Audrey Sanderford, who was late for the beginning of the morning session, slipped into the back of the courtroom, hand in hand, with Amber Hagerman's mother, Donna. Donna hadn't had the opportunity to attend the trial of the man who had taken Amber, he had never been identified, but she wanted to be there for Audrey. Donna wanted to give her support to Audrey through yet another emotional time.
Audrey and Donna, along with others in the courtroom, heard Parker state that it was very rare for a person to confess to a crime he didn't commit, and then Parker admitted that under certain conditions there could come a breaking point where a false confession might be made.
"In my experience I've placed a tremendous amount of pressure on people who never confessed," Parker stated.
"You have to be careful. The weaker the mind, the easier the confession," Haley said.
"Not necessarily. I have interrogated lawyers and gotten confessions," Parker said, smiling.
"You haven't gotten one from me, have you?" Haley rebuked.
"Not yet," Parker said with a grin.
Laughter broke out in the courtroom.
The attorney and witness began to banter back and forth as speculative questions were answered with flip responses.
"You know how to mislead people, don't you?" Haley asked.
"Define 'mislead."'
"The law allows you to lie to people, to trick them, doesn't it?" Haley asked accusingly.
"I don't think so," Parker said calmly.
"They lied to him," Haley stated, pointing to Franks.
"It gets down to the definition of `lie."'
"Oh, now you're getting down to Clinton," Haley said as the courtroom again burst into laughter at the reference to the former president.
After a few more questions concerning the difference between interviews and interrogations, Haley asked, "Someone other than my client could have taken Opal; is that not right?"
"Not in my estimation," Parker replied.
When asked why a video or a tape recording hadn't been made of Franks's interview, Parker explained that they were seldom used because suspects were often reluctant to talk in front of the electronic devices. Parker reminded the court that a statement had been taken from Franks and signed by him.
With one last effort to impart to jurors that psychological abuse was rendered on his client during the time he spent with Eric Holden, Haley then passed Parker back to Miller for further questioning.
"Texas is the only state in the United States that requires a written confession," Miller stated.
"That's right," Parker agreed.
"When you told him you thought he had killed Opal Jennings, his reaction was to get up and move to the corner. Was that significant to you?" Miller asked.
"Yes, it was."
"Do you think Ricky Franks killed Opal Jennings?" Miller questioned.
"Yes, I do."
Parker left the stand and took his seat in the section of the courtroom reserved for law enforcement. There he waited, along with courtroom spectators, for the next witness.
Like Parker, Dr. Randy Price, a Dallas clinical and forensic psychologist, was well known to both prosecution and defense attorneys. During his career he had testified for both defense attorneys and district attorneys alike.
The primary objective of Dr. Price's testimony was to present his analysis of Franks's confession. In forming his opinions, Price had read thousands of pages of documents, school files, defense documents, and psychological studies.
On a color-coded chart analyzing Franks's statement, Price pointed out the overwhelming majority of words used by Franks were one-syllable words, some twosyllable, 5 to 6 three-syllables, and none with more than three.
Dr. Price agreed with Dr. Lowrance's assessment and testing of Franks's IQ, but he noted that in Texas three factors must be present in determining mental retardation: the IQ must be below seventy; there must be evidence of defects in adaptive abilities or life skills; they both must have started in childhood. In Dr. Price's opinion Ricky Franks did not meet all three criteria.
"Is the content of the statement consistent with the statement of a person who would commit this type of crime?" Miller asked.
"Yes, the rationalization, blaming of the victim, minimization of his own culpability, raising the child to a pseudoadult status, and in some way being protective of her, are all similar characteristics," Dr. Price stated.
In discussion of Dr. Lowrance's estimated age of Ricky Franks being that of seven to ten, Dr. Price stated that the mental age idea is an outdated concept that was never intended to apply to adults, and shouldn't be used. Dr. Price insisted it was misleading to use a mental-age estimate.
"Can you give a true mental age?" Miller asked.
Using the chart Miller had setup, Dr. Price began his calculations determining that, in his opinion, Franks's mental age was nineteen years, two months.
"Different than ten or eleven, isn't it?" Miller asked.
"And certainly different than seven," Price responded.
Defense attorney Ed Jones attempted to reaffirm Dr. Lowrance's estimations of Franks's IQ and his inability to understand what was happening to him on the night he was arrested. But Dr. Price was confident in his own professional assessment. He remained convinced that Franks was aware of what he told investigators and that he comprehended the implications of his statement.
By 1:30 P.M., on the afternoon of day four of the second trial, both sides rested. All four attorneys were exhausted from the preparations and executions of two trials. None of them wanted to be back in court for a third. They all hoped, some prayed, for a conclusive verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Judge Robert Gill read the charge to the jury and counseled them not to consider all "possible" doubt but, rather, all "reasonable" doubt. As Judge Gill addressed the jury, Ricky Franks sat motionless, devoid of his often-present twitch. He stared straight ahead. Judge Gill then called for closing statements.
Lisa Callahan slowly walked to the center of the courtroom, placing the familiar confession on an easel before the jury.
"In all of the old Western movies, you see a group of men seated around a campfire," Callahan began. "They are seated in a circle of light and around them is nothing but darkness. And there are predators in the darkness. You hear them and you can see the shining of their eyes. You are that circle of light.
"You are people who go to work, who pay your taxes, who care for your children, who try to do what is right. But there are others in our community, others who stand outside, who wait for a moment of opportunity, for a second of lack of attention. Like foxes outside the henhouse, they wait for a moment to steal a chick. What are the odds that this defendant is just such a predator?"
Callahan pointed out the written confession she had set before them and the confessions Franks made in the county jail to four different people. She told the jury they could convict on the statements Franks made in jail alone. Even if they believed the written confession was improperly obtained, they had the evidence the prosecution had introduced.
The assistant district attorney pointed out that Spencer Williams had described events that were basically just like those contained in Franks's statement.
"What are the odds that a person who wasn't present, doesn't know anything about it, would be able to describe that series of events so completely, would be able to describe how many children were playing in a field?" Callahan asked.
Callahan continued with what she termed "incredible coincidence," including that Franks's statement indicated Opal lived in the house near the field. She asked the jury how the defendant would know that.
"There is no question about it. This is one and the same individual that committed the offense. Not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt," Callahan stated.
In closing, Callahan tugged on the jurors' emotions.
"Ladies, at the heart of who and what we are as women is the idea that we protect life-and not just all life, but particularly new life. And, gentlemen, at the heart and the core of what you are is the idea that you will protect those who cannot protect themselves.
"It is too late for this little one," Callahan said, tears filling her eyes, her voice cracking from emotion as she pointed to the photo of Opal Jennings. "It is too late for her, and we grieve for that as a community. But it's not too late for others. Convict this defendant because he is guilty. Because he committed the crime. Because he did it.
"The state of Texas, the people of Tarrant County, and the family of Opal Jennings will await your verdict."
Callahan's participation in the second trial was over. She could only sit back and hope that her words had touched the jury, had helped to convince them that Richard Lee Franks was responsible for the disappearance of Opal Jennings.
Edward Jones rose, momentarily placed a hand on the shoulder of his client, and then walked to the jury box. Jones told jurors he was tired, as were all the other attorneys whom they had seen in the past days, as he knew they were. "Everybody wants this over with," Jones said.
"It's a horror. It's a horror that this little girl is gone. It's a horror, but just like Ms. Sanderford said-if Ricky didn't do it, they need to let him go home," Jones remarked.
The young attorney recapped witnesses' testimony that Ricky Franks was not the man they saw on the afternoon of Opal's kidnapping, including that of young Spencer.
"The state is going to rely on sympathy and bias. And they are relying on that, not evidence. Is it so astronomical to believe that maybe he didn't do it? Where there is absolutely no evidence to show you that he did?"
Like Callahan, Ed Jones had completed his portion of the trial. It was Leon Haley's turn to talk to the jury, to convince them Ricky Franks should be sent home.
Haley began by asking the jury to hear him out, informing them he didn't have much time to speak to them.
"Ricky is on trial because the investigators for the state had a theory. They had a theory based upon information that they received. And you know what is unfortunate about the whole thing is that it all started out, not because Ricky did it, but because somebody said Ricky had a red hat on, a red cap that everybody runs around town wearing. My kids, your kids, people with young minds, have red caps," Haley stated.
The defense continued by admitting that Franks had made the written statement, but pointed out that just because his client had made the statement didn't make it true. Over and over again Haley implied that Ricky Franks was like a child, easily manipulated and confused.
"He didn't do it," Haley stated. "There is no evidence to support it. No physical evidence. No scientific evidence. Absolutely nothing. And you don't come in here and convict somebody because they said they did something and there is nothing to corroborate it, absolutely nothing."
After accusing investigators of conducing an improper arrest and interrogation, Haley walked to his client, stood behind him with his hands on Franks's shoulders, and continued to address the jury.
"I intend to take him home. Let's join hands and do it right. Let's make them go back out there; let's make them find Opal, which is what they say they want to do. I promise you, when they find Opal, wherever she is, they will be sick and looking really silly when they realize it wasn't him.
"When a system overreaches and puts one of our citizens on trial, only you, only you, can stand there and say stop it. You can do it. You told me during voir dire you had the courage to do it. Now do it. Tell me that I can take my client home."
Ricky Franks wiped tears from his cheeks while his brother Rodney brushed away his own tears.
Greg Miller stood, a fire burning within him. He began a spirited final statement, which had a cutting edge intended to pierce the defense's pleas for acquittal.
"Mr. Haley asked you to take a look at Ricky Franks. I'm counting on the fact that when Ms. Manning was reading Franks's statement, some of you were looking at Ricky Franks.
"All through the trial, Ricky Franks has sat over there, head up, held high, laughs when everybody laughs, smiles when everybody else smiles, shows the appropriate reaction. But when Kathy Manning read this statement to you," Miller said, pointing to the enlarged statement on the easel, "[you] didn't hold your head up so high, did you, Ricky? You had it down in shame because you knew you took her."
Without notes to assist him, Miller fervently ran through the witnesses and the evidence the defense rejected as valid.
"When you add it all up, there is only one conclusion that you can come to: Richard Franks is guilty of aggravated kidnapping.
"And there is a reason why Richard Franks hasn't told us where the body is. And it didn't come from any of the officers, any of the other witnesses. Andrew Bouyer (Tarrant County inmate) summed it up perfectly when he said to Richard Franks, `If they find her body, you will fry.'
"There is a world of difference between an aggravated kidnapping conviction and a capital murder conviction.
"When you add up all the evidence, you're going to come to the same conclusion that some of these people told you about, that Richard Franks is guilty of aggravated kidnapping.
"Mr. Haley says he wants to take him home. Well, I want him to go to a new home. I want him out of Tarrant County in another home, in the prison system. Don't turn Richard Franks loose for someone else's young child.
"Good luck with your deliberations."
As in the first trial, anyone in the courtroom waiting for a "smoking gun" to be presented in the final moments of the trial was disappointed. There would be no Perry Mason moment, when someone would come forward to convince jurors and spectators alike that without a doubt Ricky Franks kidnapped Opal Jennings. The state's case was strictly circumstantial. No blood evidence, no DNA evidence, no fingerprints. Just a strong case built on glaring circumstantial evidence and Franks's own vile statement.
At 2:25 P.M., deliberations began for the twelve jurors contemplating Franks's guilt or innocence.
Sometime later, the jury sent out a note asking for certain testimony. The first of the inquiries was Mike Adair's question to Franks regarding Saginaw and Ricky's response to Adair concerning his knowledge of the area.
By late evening, after deliberating for eight hours, the jury hadn't reached a decision. Judge Gill released them for the night, instructing them to return at nine o'clock the next morning to continue their discussions.
The court gallery had dwindled considerably the following morning. It was a Saturday and most of those not required to be present had gone about their normal routines.
Ricky Franks walked into the courtroom with his shoulders thrown back and a smile across his face. His eyes met his wife's and his smile broadened.
Judy Franks and Ricky's mother, Bessie, were dressed in identical T-shirts. Judy had donned her familiar heavy blue eye shadow and her hair was slicked back. One of her front teeth was missing.
Again the jury asked for testimony to be read to them for clarification. They wanted to know if Eric Holden had asked open-ended questions or closed questions during his interview with Franks. The third inquiry was about Dr. Leo's testimony regarding testing the validity of a statement. However, Judge Gill believed the inquiry too general and that the question should be more specific. The panel later wanted to hear the description of the person and the car seen by a number of people who had testified.
