Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    	Chris, interesting topic since this is a big discussion right
    	now and everyone has such different views.
    
    	I would not cover up.  As hard as it would be for me, I would
    	feel guilty for the rest of my life if I had information that
    	would prove a man innocent of a crime that he had convicted of.
    	I feel terribly guilty when telling little white lies!!  I would
    	not want to put anyone through what William Bennett and his 
    	family went through.  Granted he was a criminal of other things
    	but not of the murder of Carol Stuart.  I believe that for the
    	judicial system to work, we have to start off being honest
    	ourselves.
    
    	JJ
    

    I would go to the police.  When this incident happened, I was in
    Bedford training.  Since I live in DC now, I had no idea what was
    happening with the case after the initial press coverage.  I was
    in England when I heard Stuart committed suicide.  Boy, was I surprised
    to know he was the leading suspect.
    
    I can't believe his brothers would allow him to go through with
    the killing.  Blood may be thicker than water but that's ridiculous.
    Nothing in this world is worth taking another human's life.
    
    Tammi
    

    No doubt in my mind, if I knew *first* hand that the crime had been
    committed I'd report it to the police.
    
    If I knew *first* hand that the threat was being made I might seek
    other help than the police.
    

    If you know that a person committed a felony crime *AND* you do not go
    to the police with the information, can you be charged as an accessory
    to the crime????  
    
    				Nigel

    One could look at the Stuart case from all angles.  It appears that
    Stuart may have indicated to others that he was thinking of doing
    something to his wife.  There have been times in my life that I have
    thought that someone was thinking of doing something inappropriate.  I
    have expressed an opinion about the subject and hoped that all would be
    well.  And it has thank goodness.  As far as Matthew, the brother that
    met Charles in Roxbury and took the bag of 'stolen' goods his actions
    are dubious.  I know that some of my acquaintences have had cars stolen
    and torched.  I have not participated in that type of activity but in
    my eyes Matthews understanding of what was going to occur that evening
    was similar to car insurance fraud.
    
    I can understand Matthews dilemna when he was aware of what really
    happened.  He not only had justice to consider but his parents who were
    elderly and in poor health.  He *did* come forth before William Bennett
    was accused with the crime, and his action caused his brother to kill
    himself.
    
    The case is not over, it is my opinion that this crime had many holes
    in it.  Charles Stuart is not the clever person the press, Mayor Flynn
    and the police would have us think.  Somebody built an airtight case
    around Bennett.  Or he was involved.  We may never know.  How did
    Charles Stuart know what he was wearing, how did the story about not
    looking out the back window come from Charles and Bennetts nephew, and
    last but not least if in fact Stuart shot his wife how did he do this 
    so that she had no idea what was going on and how come there wasn't any
    evidence of a struggle.
    
    There are a lot of unanswered questions.  And we the public have been
    influenced heavily.  There has been so much energy placed on this one
    case and the problems and issues it has brought to the forefront are
    still there plus we have some new things to deal with.
    
    I live in the community where this happened.  My heart goes out to my
    neighbors, my heart goes out to the young men who know that every turn
    they take they are under suspicion.  AnMy neighbors have been and will
    continue to fight crime in their neighborhood, black and white.  But 
    something smells in this case...it was very easy to get hysterical and
    forget the search and seizure rights of some citizens.  
    
    So now we are going to change the blame...to a family who might have
    made some errors in judgement...but let us remember one thing.
    
    Matthew Stuart told the police who killed Carol Stuart.  The police did
    not find out, he told.  

    re. -.4:  It's my understanding from what the MEDIA has told me that
    blood relatives are exempt from having to come forward with what they
    know and are exempt from being charged with withholding evidence (I
    believe that's something Matthew checked out with the family lawyer
    before going to the police).
    
    Wouldn't you hate to have to come up with an impartial jury on this
    one?
    
    Karen

>It's my understanding from what the MEDIA has told me that
>    blood relatives are exempt from having to come forward with what they
>    know and are exempt from being charged with withholding evidence 

 In _Massachusetts_, it is not possible to charge a blood relative with being
"an accessory after the fact." This is NOT true in NH. This also brings into
question an issue. Say a married sibling of Chuck Stuart told his/her spouse.
Is the spouse now obligated to come forward or face criminal charges?

 The Doctah

    The following topic is from a noter who wishes to remain anonymous.  To
    contact the author by mail, please send your message to RAINBO::CANNOY
    specifying the conference name and note number. I will forward your
    message with your name attached  unless you request otherwise.
    
    _________________________________________________________________________
    
    Would I report a family member to the police for committing a murder??

    Maybe.  

    If my opinion was that the murder was justified because the victim
    deserved to die, then probably I would not report the family member to
    the police.

    If my opinion was that the murder was not justified, either because the
    crime was committed for personal gain or because the person murdered
    did not deserve to die, then probably I would report the family member
    to the police.

    Example 1: My brother shoots his wife so he can claim the insurance
    money and  start a business.  I would report the event to the police.

    Example 2: My brother shoots a prominent TV evangelist. I would keep
    quiet about the whole business. 			
    

    
    	re: -1  Example #2
    
    	Please take no offense but I think that's absurd!!  Granted
    	we can't hold much faith in the TV evangelists of today but
    	are you saying that they actually *deserve* to die??  I don't
    	think they do.  Jim Bakker was convicted of a crime and is paying
    	for it, but I don't think he deserves to die for what he did.
    
    

    Yes, using "tv evangelist" as an example is absurd, so let's use
    a more reasonable example. Suppose your sister-in-law was raped,
    and her husband (your brother) found out who the rapist was and
    killed the man for it. Would you report him?
    
    This is a hard question, and one that would test my principles
    to the max. I *think* what I'd do in such a case would be to not
    report him, but do my damnedest to convince him to report himself.
    
    If a family member of mine committed a felony that was clearly in
    the wrong, I would report it. First, though, I'd talk to said
    family member and again try to convince them to turn themselves
    in, and if they refused, *then* I'd report it.
    
    Blood is blood, but right is right. And, to my mind, right takes
    precedence over blood. Sure, in a case like the Stuart case, one
    can justify keeping quiet by telling yourself, "Well, Bennett is
    going to jail for other things, so what difference does it make?"
    But consider this: if he's falsely accused of *this* crime, how
    can we know that he's not falsely accused of the other(s)?  And
    can we say that it's OK for him to be in prison *longer* by adding
    yet another offense to his record that he shouldn't be held accountable
    for?
    
    As for the "accessory" laws, it's true that in Massachusetts, a
    member of the immediate family is exempt from being an accessory
    after the fact from withholding information (something akin to
    the law that a person does not have to testify in court against
    his or her spouse). But this only covers *knowledge* of the crime.
    If the family member receives physical evidence and actively helps
    keep it hidden or dispose of it, that *is* being an accessory. The
    family member exemption also applies only to parent/child,
    grandparent/grandchild, or sibling/sibling relationships --
    cousins, nephews, etc. are not exempt.
    
    --- jerry

    
    I think that in all honesty I would discuss with the before mentioned
    siblong to prevent it from happening but in the event that it did
    happen I believe I would 'narc'. If for nothing else than he didn't
    just take the life of his wiife but an unborn child... I don't know,
    nor does anybodyelse but the deceased, what state there marriage may
    have been in.. Yes we are told one thing , but with all thats gone on
    in this case it gets a little confusing as far as who is telling the
    truth... for all we know they could have been having trouble and if he 
    was as bad off as his brother said then his brother should have stopped
    him before he got to that point... I know I would have to think long
    and hard on this one , but in the end would more than likely turn my
    brother in..... 
    
    AK_

    I wouldn't lie about what I knew if I was asked, but I wouldn't
    take the initiative to go to the police unless the crime was
    clearly a serious wrong and I was very very sure.
    
    I would be too afraid of wrecking someone else's life by being
    mistaken.  I don't know about you, but I often jump to conclusions
    about why people are behaving the way they are, and unless I had
    some good grounds for being suspicious, I'd keep my mouth shut. If
    someone else was accused, and I was suspicious but not sure --
    well, I don't know.  
    
    --bonnie

   <<< Note 949.7 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "A glint of steel & a flash of light" >>>

>                   Say a married sibling of Chuck Stuart told his/her spouse.
>Is the spouse now obligated to come forward or face criminal charges?


	I doubt it.  The spouse's information is second-hand, making 
	it hearsay, which I believe is not considered evidence in a court
	of law.  And if it's not evidence, they can't be an accessory (or
	whatever).  Does anyone have any knowledge to the contrary?



	>>AL<<

    I would be reluctant to go to the police simply because I would have
    such a hard time believing that someone in my family actually committed
    a felony.

    It's so sad for Carol and her family that NO ONE di ANYTHING before
    SOMEONE killed her.  If Charles had been going around asking people 
    to help him kill his wife, it sickens me to think no one reported
    that so that maybe Carol and her baby could be alive today.   I
    believe, even if he didn't do the actual shooting, that he was involved
    and good ole Matthew is not above suspicion as far as I'm concerned.
    I think he might have been in on it too and they were both going to
    split the insurance money.  Also, I heard something very interesting
    last week.  Seems both families have mob ties.  Carol's mother's
    maiden name is Angelo or DeAngelo--well, anyways, a famous Boston crime
    family, so I've heard, and that is why Charles took a little dive off
    the bridge.  Food for thought!  
    
    To get back to the original question, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, I would go to
    the police, even if it were my own kid and then I would TRY to deal
    with the knowledge that someone in my family took another person's
    life.  I would have gone to the police if I had any information BEFORE
    the crime.  I wonder if we will ever know the whole story.  I guess we
    will have to wait for the movie!!!
    

If there is a movie, I will make a point NOT to see it.  I think that
this case has already been exploited far too much.

			Steve

   [ Murder is almost always an act of madness, some more clever than others,
     most simple butchery rooted in split-second passion.  The murder of Carol
     Stuart appears to be a bit different:  The work of a demon willing to
     extinguish two lives and place a third,...on the block ..]
                       M. Barnicle - a B/Globe columnist.

Other excerpts from various Globe articles -> (For those who are several...
hundred/thousand miles from the epi-center of all this rave.) 

From, Vol. 237  Jan. 7th of the Boston Globe.
[ Minutes before, a close friend said Micheal Stuart (bro. of the killer) had 
received a phone call on his job (as a Boston firefighter) from his wife 
informing him that Shelly (sister of killer) was going to tell Stuart's mother
what Chuck had done in October. Then Shelly was on the phone with Micheal at 
work to discuss a piece of family business that has been around since Oct.25, 
two days after the murder. Their conversation went roughly as follows:
                  RE.949.0
"We got to tell Ma" Shelly Yandoli said to Micheal Stuart over the phone.

"I don't think she can take it," the brother replied.

 "We have to tell her" said Shelly. "She's not ready for that"-> Micheal Staurt.

They could not have been thinking too clearly(due to panic?) becuase ALL CALLS 
to Boston's firehouses are RECORDED.   ( from page 71 by Mike Barnicle)

From this account it is quite clear that most members of the family knew that
the killer of Carol and Christopher was Chuck Stuart. Since this conversation 
was recorded at a publicly owned firehouse, why was Chuck Stuart not targetted
as the prime suspect ? If he had been arrested earlier a lot of the ugliness of
this case could have been eliminated. Chuck could have been on trial to answer
for his demonic behavior and perhaps he could have told the world something 
about what he did. This could have prevented the rumor mongers from using the
case to inflame hatred among the residents of the city of Boston.
 
  [Carol's baby - Christopher died 17 days after  c/birth at Bingham/Women's
Hospital. (L'hypocrisie Classique?->It is a measure of depth of one man - Chuck 
Stuart's icy, calculating, maniacal cruelty that, hours before the infant 
expired, Chuck Stuart asked to be wheeled alongside the child's incubator to say
goodbye. This was during the same period that he (Charles Stuart) was receiving
almost daily phone calls from his girlfriend. Stuart gave the woman his 
telephone credit card. The card was given to her BECUASE she lives with the 
parents and did not want to run 30 - 40 minute conversations on a home phone.
The woman's birthday was Wed. Jan. 3rd. For a gift Chuck Stuart purchased a 
$260.00 brooch. Twenty-four hours later, 7 a.m. ..this man a cunning demon 
capable of fooling nearly everyone around him..hurled himself off the bridge 
into the water below.]  ( M. Barnicle page. 71  Vol. 237 Jan.7th B/Globe) 
One magazine's report identified the "other woman" as a 22 year-old-tall-blonde.
Named Deborah Allen a graduate (or so) of Brown University who used to work at
Kakas Fur. And Carol was a short, brown haired, brown eyed beauty with a heart. 
             From -   Page 69
[ The initial tale was crushing, sickening, and it unleashed fear and fury.
But now the city is reeling from a second and infinitely more devastating jolt.
It was all a horrible hoax. Charles Stuart, far from being the average guy who
had the love of his life snuffed out in random act has emerged as a -
calculating and coldblooded killer of unimaginably evil cunning. Authorities 
said he killed his wife and shot himself to cover up. Stuart spent weeks 
plotting to murder the woman who unfailingly ended their conservation with
"I love you". Reportedly, he even conducted dress rehearsals of at least two
possible scenarios of killing her.  (Imagine !) 
"In 33 years in the criminal justice field, I have seen some cold and
calculated killers, but I have never seen anything like this" said Paul Leary
the first assistant district attorney. 

Charles Stuart wrote in a letter to his dead wife, read aloud by a friend at her
funeral. "I  Will Never Again Know The Feeling Of Your Hand In Mine, But I Will
          Always Feel You. I Miss You, And I Love You."

Can any of the experts help to explain this ?  Are  murderous villians
like Stuart capable of giving love ? Does it mean a deviously, hypocritical,
sadistic kind of love ? Are there several kinds of love ? If so how do you
determine which kind is around you?  What about the seemingly nice person 
who's doing good things out of love ?What if there is a hidden sinister motive?
    
RE:949.5 >> ..how come there wasn't any evidence of a struggle (theory) >>   
[ In retrospect, the 13-minute conversation between Charles Stuart and the 
police dispatcher, which transfixed listeners across the nation, now seems to
contain a glaring gap:  -------- Never once does Charles say her name, "Carol". 
Never once is he heard speaking to or trying to comfort his dying wife ]
Did anybody else notice that ?  Did anybody hear Carol's voice on the tape?

If there is a need for healing (in the Boston community) Let It Be !
Some sincerely concerned individuals and groups have already began exploring
the possibilities for reconciliation. Hopefully the hypocrites will stay out of
this so that the sincere ones can get it done !       Example -->
  
[In the aftermath of the bizarre twist of events involving Chuck Stuart, the 
Boston public schools will use the case to teach students about issues like 
unfair stereotyping of racial groups. "Public concern has generated 
extra-ordinary interest in this case and created forums. Issues have been 
questioned and reviewed.." - Joyce Grant deputy superintendent for carriculum,
wrote in a letter to Zone Superintendents, Principals and school administrators.
"The current high level of interest creates an instructional window which  
provides an opportunity to ensure that all Boston public students are 
challenged to be critical thinkers.."  Each school has been asked to develop a
carriculum that uses the Stuart case to address various topics, including racism
...and stereotyping. The schools also will examine the role of the news media 
in helping to perpetuate racial images.   
                                       (By Diego Ribadenneira, B/Globe Jan.13th)

Re:949.15  >> Carol's.... maiden name and ..things >> 

I PERSONALLY do not think there is a need to point out some irrelevent "facts"
pertaining to her parents ethnicity. Such take-it-for-granted-stereotype was
one of the main reasons why chuck stuart could convince all the Bostonians
about his alleged assailants. When objectively informed people think of Italy 
they think of the Roman Empire, Leonardo Da Vinci,.. or contemporary speaking
they think of Erno Fermi the great physicist who was a core member of the 
brilliant scientists who helped design the a-bomb that was used to end the war
against racist bigots of nazi iiird Reich and  Tojo's murderous bunch. Or think
Lee C. of Chrysler Co. the innovative chief executive.
&..
NO, I'am not an Italian defending "them" against "us". Is just that conscious
objectivity has forced me to be non-subjective about certain issues affecting 
human_relations on our planet earth. 
If the bigotted buffoons who handled the shooting of Carol and Christopher were
informed & relatively non-subjective thinkers, they could have seen thru' the
venomous concoction of chuck stuart. But they were so blinded by their own
deep seated stereotypical views of "them" they drank the last drop of spite that
chuck had concocted for all of us.  May WE keep drinking from the cup of 
degrading ethnic/gender/race stereotypes ! It's fun and it tastes great too !
  
Re: >> Apology to the  Hill community ? >>  It is unnecessary !
"It will be like plunging a knife in the back of a neighbor, pulling the bloody
knife and saying: "Did it hurt ? - If it did then I'am sorry.." 


FaZari.

    There were many holes in the plot to murder Carol Stuart.  The family
    of Charles Stuart weren't particularly devious with their knowledge of
    the crime.
    
    What was so different about this case is our willingness to believe
    that it was an urban crime.
    
    Very few people are willing to analyze this facet of the case.