Bryan Stevens Mr. & Mrs. Bishop Re: Amy Bishop STATEMENT What happened in Huntsville, Alabama was and is a terrible, tragic event. My wife and I feel a deep, unremitting sorrow for the families involved. Lives are irrevocably broken and will never be the same. We understand the pain and the hurt from the loss of a loved family member and we offer our condolences. We cannot explain or even understand what happened in Alabama. However, we know that what happened 23 years ago to our son, Seth, was an accident. Despite all the finger pointing among local police, state police, and the District Attorney s Office, there is no evidence that Seth s death was not an accident On December 6, 1986, the Braintree Police Department questioned Seth s mother, Judith Bishop, at the house and Amy Bishop (Seth s sister) at the police station the afternoon of the accidental shooting. Their explanation of this accidental shooting has been consistent and has not varied. The authorities present that day included two Braintree Police Captains, a Lieutenant, and the Chief of Police, and they concluded, after discussions, that the shooting was an accident and that no charges were going to be brought against Amy Bishop at this time. With current information it would appear to be an accidental shooting. (See the testimonies of Chief of Police, John Polio, and Lt. Sullivan; and Lt. Sullivan s Police Report dated December 6, 1986.) On December 26, 1986, Sam, Judy and Amy Bishop were questioned by Captain Buker, Detective Carey of the Braintree Police, and Brian Howe of the State Police District Attorney s Investigation Unit. They were interviewed separately and a second decision was made by these three individuals that the killing of Seth Bishop was an accident. (See, Detective Carey s Report; Brian Howe s Report, cause of death listed as accidental discharge of a firearm (dated March 30, 1987); and testimony.) Mr. and Mrs. Bishop were not involved at all in the investigation except to provide testimony regarding the accident. The facts relating to whether Amy committed a crime occurred prior to the late afternoon of December 6, 1986; and thereafter, any discussions between the various Braintree Police Officers, the District Attorney s Office; and for that matter, the Alabama killings, are irrelevant. There is absolutely no evidence showing that Amy had any criminal intent to murder someone in 1986. District attorney Keating s reliance upon a National Enquirer article as credible evidence of Amy Bishop s state of mind in 1986 is absurd. The storyline that somehow there was a poor investigation or a cover up started with the irresponsible and libelous statement of the current Chief of Police, Paul Frazier who claimed that Mrs. Bishop had removed the investigation file from the police station. Mrs. Bishop was a town meeting member and was not in the position within the town to have any involvement whatsoever with the police department. Mrs. Bishop denies that she ever interfered in any way
with the investigation. In fact, it was subsequently discovered that the police department s file had apparently been misfiled or not filed at all for the past twenty years. The second statement that added to the story that something was wrong with the Town of Braintree s investigation was an irresponsible and false statement of Officer Solimini. His claim that Mrs. Bishop talked directly with Chief Polio is also false and there was no evidence to support such a conversation either on December 6, 1986 or thereafter. Mrs. Bishop, Chief Polio and Chief Polio s secretary all deny that any conversation ever took place. It is clear that some of the testimonies of the police officers, including Chief Paul Frazier, and Ronald Solimini are motivated by a desire to criticize former Chief John Polio. The Bishops story is the vehicle and the Bishop family members are simply pawns in this effort. This is not a case where a family victimized by a crime wishes to have answers and explanations. We know what happened on December 6, 1986. It is not a case where there was a community outrage of children being shot, drug activity, or a matter that poses any present danger to the public. There is no public outcry to reopen and investigate this case. The story is pressed forward by unrelenting media sensationalism and the talk show hosts need for something to talk about, and it began with Chief Paul Frazier s irresponsible statements. The inquest investigation and the Grand Jury have provided no new information of what occurred in the Bishops house on December 6, 1986. Nothing has changed since the telling of the story in 1986. The media s coverage of the accident in 1986 has not only been inaccurate in significant respects, but has been sensationalized. It has been painful for us to revisit the events of 1986 at this time as we try to understand the tragic killings in Alabama. We understand that the media event has little to do with us or Seth, or, Amy for that matter. We know that ultimately nothing will happen in Massachusetts and Amy will undoubtedly be spending the rest of her life in Alabama and will not be allowed to return to Massachusetts. This prejudicial, biased review of the 1986 facts is an enormous waste of public resources that does not in any way provide a benefit to the public and proceeds only for the purposes of assessing blame where no blame was involved, explaining conspiracy theories where there were none, and providing public entertainment. Notwithstanding our horrible memories of December 6, 1986, there were many people who where kind, understanding and caring. We remember, for example, several police officers from the Braintree Police Department coming back in the late afternoon to the house on December 6, 1986 dropping off Chinese food. We appreciate the kindness of the police officers for weeks thereafter who stopped by just to see how we were doing. We are grateful for the support and the kindness of our neighbors. In 1986, Braintree was a warm caring community and we continued to live there until 1996.
There is an enormous difference between 1986 and today. In 1986 there no television trucks camped out in front of the house for days, broadcasting the news each night. When in fact, there was no news. We were grateful for the sound 1986 leadership of Braintree and the District Attorney s Office who had the courage and the intelligence to make responsible decisions. The death of Seth Bishop was an accident. The 2010 revisiting of the event demonstrates the loss of quality, stability, and civility over the past 24 years. Good judgment has been replaced by sensationalism, conspiracy theories and fear by public officials of making substantive decisions. The investigation in 1986 by the authorities was appropriate for the accidental shooting and the related apprehension of the traumatized ( frightened, disoriented and confused according to Officer Solimini s Police Report of December 6, 1986), Amy Bishop shortly thereafter. Bryan J. Stevens Mr. & Mrs. Bishop Re: Amy Bishop STATEMENT PROCESS The judicial process followed in reviewing the 1986 events did not comply with fundamental due process rights. 1. The 1986 police reports all consistently, without exception, concluded that the shooting was accidental, but the present Police Chief and the present District Attorney chose to ignore this record. 2. The decision to ignore the 1986 decisions was based on the irresponsible and factually incorrect claim by Chief Paul Frazier that the investigation was not handled properly by his predecessor. Chief Frazier, who was on administrative leave in 1986, was not involved in the 1986 Bishop investigation, and did not testify in the 2010 proceedings. 3. The Bishop family had fully cooperated in the 1986 investigation, but the District Attorney, William Keating, chose to request an Inquest allegedly because they were not cooperative. 4. The Inquest was properly conducted without media presence. Amy Bishop, who is incarcerated, was understandably not present, and, although cited as the target of the inquest, did not have an attorney representing her interest because there are no provisions in the statutes allowing for an appointment of an attorney to represent her at an inquest.
5. There was testimony by Mr. and Mrs. Bishop and a number of police officers. The Bishops were not allowed to cross-examine or question the prosecution s witnesses and they were not even allowed to offer independent evidence. They were restricted to answering only the questions as posed by the Assistant District Attorney. 6. The report of the inquest was impounded and was not made available to anyone and yet was the basis for a subsequent convening of the Grand Jury. Interested parties, such as the Bishops, could only speculate as to what the basis was for the Grand Jury proceeding. The Grand Jury process was a repeat of the Inquest with some of the same witnesses, same questions, and same Assistant District Attorney. The Bishops were summonsed to testify, but were again not able to provide any independent statement, and they were not able to hear other witnesses testimony, cross-examine or comment on the testimony against Amy. They didn t even know who the witnesses were much less had access to their testimony to question them or to respond by providing independent statements as to the events in 1986. 7. It is not surprising the Grand Jury voted in favor of an indictment, particularly given the one sidedness of the presentation. This is in keeping with the common understanding of lawyers that a district attorney is usually able to get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. The standard of evidence before the Grand Jury is the preponderance of the evidence, rather than the usual standard in a criminal case of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 8. And what is most galling and patently unfair was the Dateline screening, ONE WEEK BEFORE THE GRAND JURY HEARING. The Braintree Police, the State Police, and the District Attorney -- without ever raising the issue of "due process" responsibilities, the judicial standards of "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt", or anything that might provide the balance of fairness that "due process requires"-- presented irresponsible speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, and outright factual inaccuracies. They might as well have displayed Amy in prison stripes behind them as they spoke, because they had in effect convicted her on national TV without a trial. The date of the Dateline screening, set well in advance of its screening, would have been communicated to the participants, including the District Attorney who consented to having his press conference included. The one-hour Dateline screening, may very well have affected one or more Grand Jurors judgment and "impaired the presumption of innocence, which is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice." 9. There were six important witnesses involved in 1986 events that would have provided critical evidence that are not available 23 years later. 10. In addition, the District Attorney s determination to indict simply means that this decision will be filed in Alabama and Amy will never have an opportunity to realistically and effectively challenge the determination that she is allegedly guilty of murder. Her only choice is to try to get a trial to prove her innocence. All the judicial principles that we talk about and think are important: an opportunity to be heard, a fair trial, the right to challenge the testimony of witnesses, the presumption of innocence, proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, prior notice of the charges, and an opportunity to prepare for a hearing, simply did not exist in this case. The situation in Alabama is very different from the event in Massachusetts in 1986 and the people of Massachusetts should be embarrassed at the government s handling of this matter. Those that care about justice and fairness should be outraged.