The 400-page polemical attack against the conviction of these “innocent men” accuses the Green Bay police department, the Press-Gazette, and the district attorney’s office of sharing guilt in the gang rape of Lady Justice. But the book is riddled with one-sided language, oversimplified speculations and transparent biases, from brief biographies painting the convicted murderers as all-American men to describing their innocence as “painfully obvious.”
In fact, the co-author, John Gaie, used to be a son-in-law to one of the accused. Odd…I scribbled in the margin.
But the further I delved into the book – which at times felt like watching an episode of Matlock in slow motion – the more skeptical I became of my skepticism."
RYAN BENSON: SCENE;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "The Monfils Conspiracy: The Conviction of Six Innocent Men" by Dennis Gullickson and John Gaie", raises huge doubts about the conviction of six men (one since exonerated) convicted in the murder of a paper mill worker named Tom Monfils in 1992. The book, published by IUniverse in 1992, raises genuine concern over the autopsy and other forensic issues involved in the case. Prof. Larry Marshall of Stanford Law School (former Legal Director of the Northwestern University Centre on Wrongful Convictions) says, "The Monfils Conspiracy tells the story of a grave human tragedy. It is a story of a profound injustice which continues to destroy the lives of several wrongly convicted men and their families." This Blog will follow developments.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New to the area, I was surprised to hear that a death in a paper mill turned the charming city of Green Bay upside down in 1993. The mysterious death of Tom Monfils left six of his co-workers in prison, convicted of murder," the "Scene" story by Ryan Benson begins under the heading, "Beyond a reasonable doubt?: The Monfils Conspiracy."
"Yearning to know more, I did what any responsible journalist in pursuit of the solid facts would do: I asked a room full of naked men," the story continues.
"“The Monfils Six: They were big union guys,” scoffed a stocky man closing his locker. “Monfils ratted one of them out for stealin’ some electrical wire or something. Guilty as charged, I heard.”
“They tied a weight around his neck; dropped him in a fucking paper vat,” said a gentleman tying his swim trunks. “Bastards…”
“Those nuts are still fighting it, though; ain’t they?” asked another man, rinsing his razor.
Still fighting, indeed, and authors Denis Gullickson and John Gaie have thrown an ammo chest at their feet in The Monfils Conspiracy: The Conviction of Six Innocent Men.
Any book with “conspiracy” in the title instantly stiffens my skeptical spine, conjuring images of cryptozoologists and the grassy knoll. Nevertheless, I gave it a go. Besides, the authors were due to speak at the Titletown Brewing Company, and I wanted to dismantle their conspiracy so I could spike it back in their face in front of an audience.
The 400-page polemical attack against the conviction of these “innocent men” accuses the Green Bay police department, the Press-Gazette, and the district attorney’s office of sharing guilt in the gang rape of Lady Justice. But the book is riddled with one-sided language, oversimplified speculations and transparent biases, from brief biographies painting the convicted murderers as all-American men to describing their innocence as “painfully obvious.”
In fact, the co-author, John Gaie, used to be a son-in-law to one of the accused. Odd…I scribbled in the margin.
But the further I delved into the book – which at times felt like watching an episode of Matlock in slow motion – the more skeptical I became of my skepticism.
First, these six men were tried together, despite pretrial motions requesting separate trials. Why? To save taxpayer money and to prevent further stress for the Monfils family. This means one jury for all six of them, making it difficult for the defendants to build independent cases.
During the joint trial, the prosecution’s star witness was Brian Kellner, who testified to seeing one of the accused, Keith Kutska, role-playing a confrontation between Monfils and the six men, which supposedly happened by a water fountain at the paper mill. The role-play took place at a bar – the Fox Den – on a drunken 4th of July weekend; Kellner said Kutska used bar patrons to reenact the skirmish.
This clash by the fountain is where the six men are accused of beating up Monfils before throwing his body into the vat. Not only was Kellner’s testimony hearsay, but today he denies the role-play at the Fox Den ever took place; he claims to have been bullied into the testimony by the lead detective, Randy Winkler.
Without Kellner’s testimony (which, by the way, would not have been allowed in five of the six trials if the requests for separate trials had been granted), there is no evidence that the confrontation at the drinking fountain ever took place. All six men denied it during the trial, despite offers of immunity, and they continue to deny the “bubbler” incident to this day.
In 1997, Detective Winkler was issued a 26-page letter from Police Chief James Lewis, suspending Winkler from active duty and demanding his resignation; the letter was not released to the public. Even District Attorney John Zakowski says, “Winkler became an issue during the course of the investigation in the trial. There was scuttlebutt in terms of Winkler’s methods.” The authors argue that there was more than mere “scuttlebutt,” depicting Winkler as a crooked cop to the core, hell-bent on catching his man, or in this case: men.
David Wiener, another key witness for the prosecution, shot and killed his brother 13 months after Monfils’ mysterious death. Wiener was accused of reckless homicide and released on a signature bond the morning after his arrest. Judge Bayorgeon did not allow this information to surface in the Monfils case; the jury was not to know that the incriminating witness was a convicted killer.
In 2001, Mike Piaskowski, one of the Monfils Six, won an appeal and he was granted a writ of habeas corpus by U.S. District Court Judge Myron Gordon. In the decision, Judge Gordon explained that, “The ultimate finding of guilt in this case required the jury to pile speculation on top of inferences drawn from other inferences. Each step along the way required the jury to eliminate one or more of the alternatives, thus multiplying the risk of error. Such a verdict is not rational.”
The eyebrow-raising information continues to come in bursts throughout the book, and this is but a sliver of it.
So I went to the Titletown Brewery Company on Feb. 17 to hear what the authors had to say in person, knowing there would be no conspiracy spiking on my part.
The talk took place in the party room on the top floor of the brewery; about 60 people were in attendance. As latecomers crowded in and the doors shut, I took a spot back in a corner, pint of stout in hand. With author Denis Gullickson running the show, the evening began.
The first speaker was Cal Monfils, Tom Monfils’ brother. Cal was humble and bashful, but he was sincere in describing his friendship with the authors and his support for their work. “If there are people that feel that by buying the book they’re giving money to a bad cause, then they can check one out for free from the library, or I’ll borrow them my copy.”
He admitted to taking heat for his position from some family members, who must view his support for The Monfils Conspiracy as either high treason or naive involvement with a brainwashing cult. Cal also contributed a brief forward in the book, in which he writes, “To me, Tom’s death is still a mystery….With the amount of questionable investigating, I would not object to a review of this case on both sides of justice.”
Next came Attorney Avram Berk, Dale Basten’s defense lawyer in the Monfils case. “Good evening,” began Berk, shifting back and forth behind the podium, searching for the appropriate words. “This is difficult. I have not spoken publicly about this case since the trial.”
For the next 40 minutes, the audience became Berk’s pillow to punch as he vented a scattered barrage of grievances. Although Berk is an experienced trial lawyer – likely to be skilled in the art of audience manipulation – I couldn’t help believing the emotion he displayed was genuine.
“This is the case that just – I’ve never been able to reconcile…” he said. “I think the justice system failed. I think it failed the Monfils family. I think it failed the family of those people serving time in prison. I think it failed the community.”
Then came a pep talk from Byron Lichstein, a staff attorney for the Wisconsin Innocence Project, an organization that aids inmates who may be wrongfully convicted. Lichstein explained why many of his exonerated clients were convicted in the first place, and how those cases were overturned after long, uphill battles. He currently represents Reynold Moore, another of the Monfils Six.
About the Monfils trial specifically, Lichstein said, “We live in a system that says we only send people to prison when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This case, to me, gives a lie to that idea of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t think there is really any way in a system that claims to live by that standard that you can say these defendants ought to be in prison for the rest of their lives.”
Lichstein emphasized that persistence is the key to success. After spending eight years and “the cost of a luxury car” on their book, Gullickson says, “We intend, as we move forward with this book and particularly this case, to continue doing what we are doing tonight.” They have sent books to national media outlets and lobbied activists to write letters for upcoming parole hearings. Persistence: check.
I am far from certain that the Monfils Six are completely innocent of wrongdoing, but The Monfils Conspiracy has given me plenty of reasons to doubt."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.scenenewspaper.com/news-views/19-news-view/355-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-the-monfils-conspiracy.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
