Paul Ingram's Confession

60 views
Skip to first unread message

ka...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 13613-9-II
Respondent, Division Two
V. Unpublished Opinion
PAUL ROSS INGRAM,
Appellant.
Filed January 22, 1992

WORSWICK, J. -- Paul Ingram appeals the denial of his
motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to six counts of third degree
rape (RCW 9A.44.060), and the imposition of a 20-year exceptional
sentence. We affirm.
Ingram, former Thurston County chief civil deputy sheriff and
16-year law enforcement officer, was arrested November 28, 1988,
following allegations of sexual abuse made by his daughters, then
about 18 and 22 years old. Ingram waived his right to counsel and
made incriminating statements. After six months of further
investigation and interrogation, Ingram was charged by amended
information with six counts of rape in the third degree, three
counts per daughter covering July through October 1988.

At a hearing in May 1989, Ingram signed a statement of
defendant on plea of guilty, substantially in the form required by
CrR 4. 2. (g), acknowledging that he had sexually abused his
daughters. The statement included the following paragraph in
Ingram's own hand:

I have sexually abused victims one and two [the
daughters ] as stated in counts one through six and I
acknowledge that there have also been multiple incidents
over a prolonged period of time while the victims were
under the age of 18. By sexual abuse I mean the elements
set forth in the attached statement.

The trial court accepted the plea and noted on the agreement
that Ingram' s written statement was supplemented by oral statements
in court. At this May hearing, the trial court meticulously
questioned Ingram on each element of third degree rape for each of
the six counts charged. Ingram stated on the record that the plea
was voluntary and that he had had time to consider it with counsel,
who added that Ingram understood the plea.
The State recommended that Ingram spend no more than twenty
years in prison, noting that a sentence outside the standard range'
was possible because Ingram was stipulating that for sentencing
purposes, the court could consider facts and circumstances outside
the six counts charged. Ingram's sentencing date was left open
when the State requested a presentence investigation, which was
expected to take a long time.
Ingram then retained new counsel and in October moved to
withdraw his guilty plea. He claimed that the original plea was
the result of "a variety of influences including deception,
brainwashing, religious and familial coercion" at the hands of
police officers, counselors, his wife's divorce attorney, and his
own pastor. Ingram also alleged that he had not received effective
representation from his original attorney.
At the motion hearing, Ingram denied any abusive conduct and
denied committing the offenses to which he had pleaded guilty. He
testified that the sexual acts that he first reported were not the
products of conscious memory, but were "visualizations." Ingram
stated that suddenly, near the end of July 1989, he realized that
he had not committed the acts.
Various experts testified at length. John Zulauf, an
attorney, opined that Ingram had been prejudiced by ineffective
assistance of counsel that resulted in a guilty plea that should
not have been entered. Dr. Richard Ofshe, a sociologist, testified
for Ingram that he thought the plea had not been entered in a
knowing manner, but was the result of fantasies created from
intense coercion over the course of the interrogations.
The three psychologists who testified for the State generally
agreed that Ingram' s statements were real recollections and not the
products of any alleged trances or hypnosis. The psychologists
had examined Ingram after his November 28 statement to the police
but before he pleaded guilty on May 1. One of them, Bill Lennon,
was originally hired by the defense to evaluate Ingram especially
because he shared Ingram's religious beliefs. Lennon eventually
submitted a report that reflected statements by Ingram
acknowledging long-term abuse of his children and involvement in
"incest, sodomy, and homosexual activity."
The trial court denied Ingram' s motion and imposed an
exceptional sentence of 40 months on each of the six counts, to run
consecutively for a total sentence of 20 years. The trial court
justified the sentence by the following findings (with the trial
court's corresponding aggravating factors following in brackets):
(1) Ingram stipulated to an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse; (2)
the charged crimes took place in the defendant's home and in the
bedrooms of his two daughters (violation of zone of privacy); (3)
the defendant threatened to kill his victims if they told anyone
about the sexual abuse (deliberate cruelty); (4) Ingram was in a
position of authority as the father of his victims and as a high-
ranking police officer at the time of the offenses (abuse of
trust); (5) a therapist of defendant's own choosing concluded that
Ingram should not be treated on an outpatient basis, but needed
long-term inpatient treatment (future dangerousness); (6) Ingram's
daughters have been severely traumatized and "appear to need
longterm psychological and/or emotional counselling" (substantial
harm to victims).
Ingram contends that the court erred in refusing to allow him
to withdraw the plea, which he claims was the result of coercion
and inadequate legal counsel. He also contends that the
exceptional sentence must be reversed, asserting that the trial
court's reasons do not justify the sentence, that the trial court
should have held an evidentiary hearing at sentencing, and that the
sentence is clearly excessive. We conclude that the denial of the
motion to withdraw the plea was proper. We conclude also that
Ingram's exceptional sentence was justified.

CrR 4.2(f) states in pertinent part:

Withdrawal of Plea. The court shall allow a defendant
to withdraw [his] plea of guilty whenever it appears that
the withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. . . .

A "manifest injustice" is one that is "obvious, directly
observable, overt, not obscure." State v. Taylor, 83 Wn.2d 594,
596, 521 P. 2d 699 (1974). We use the same manifest injustice
standard in reviewing a trial court's decision. See State v.
Dixon, 38 Wn. App. 74, 76, 683 P. 2d 1144, review denied, 103 Wn. 2d
1003 (1984). A manifest injustice can be shown by, among other
things, denial of effective assistance of counsel or an involuntary
plea. Taylor, 83 Wn.2d at 597.

Requiring a defendant to prove a manifest injustice imposes
a demanding standard on him, but that standard is justified in the
face of the many safeguards that surround the defendant when he
pleads guilty. State v. Hystad, 36 Wn. App. 42, 671 P. 2d 793
(1983). The requirements of CrR 4. 2(d) (voluntariness), (e)
(nature and validity of agreements with prosecutors), and (g)
(requirement of written statement with plea, signed in court)
insure that defendant's rights have been fully protected before a
plea of guilty may be accepted. Taylor, 83 Wn.2d at 596.
Because of all these protections, trial courts should exercise
great caution in setting aside a guilty plea once the safeguards
have been employed. Taylor, 83 Wn.2d at 597.
Coercion can render a guilty plea involuntary, irrespective
of whether the State is involved in the coercion. State v.
Frederick, 100 Wn.2d 550, 674 P.2d 136 (1983). Statements denying
any improper influence that are made during plea proceedings,
however, are "highly persuasive;" to overcome them, defendant must
present more than a mere allegation of coercion. State v. Osborne,
102 Wn. 2d 87, 97, 684 P. 2d 683 (1984). Further, defendant's signed
statement acknowledging guilt plus the judge' s oral questioning of
a defendant, on the record, to satisfy the criteria of
voluntariness of the plea make the presumption of voluntariness
virtually irrefutable. State v. Perez, 33 Wn. App. 258, 262, 654
P.2d 708 (1982).
Ingram presented expert testimony that his own and the victims'
statements were the result of suggestive interrogations and
influences, possibly including hypnosis, and that the offenses to
which Ingram pleaded guilty had not happened. However, three other
experts, all psychologists, opined that Ingram's statements were
the result of direct recollections and that the events constituting
the charged offenses had, in fact, happened. One testified that
any trouble the victims had in making statements could have resulted
from possible posttraumatic stress syndrome. It was well within the
trial court's discretion to believe these three psychologists and
not Ingram' s expert. See State v. Casbeer, 48 Wn. App. 539, 542,
740 P.2d 335, review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1008 (1987) (witness
credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not
subject to review); Alpine Industries, Inc v. Gohl, 30 Wn. App.
750, 754, 637 P. 2d 968, 645 P. 2d 737 (1981), review denied.
97 Wn. 2d 1013 (1982) (trier of fact confronted with conflicting
expert testimony may accept the testimony of one and reject that
of the other).
Ingram also contends that his plea was the result of improper
pressure from his family and his pastor, but complains principally
about the tactics of his wife's divorce attorney, who told Ingram
that only by pleading guilty could he hope for any reconciliation
with the family.
A defendant who had weeks to retract his admission of voluntariness
by putting on evidence of coercion has a heavy burden, and that
task will be especially difficult "where there are other apparent
reasons for pleading guilty, such as a generous plea bargain or
virtually incontestable evidence of guilt." (emphasis added)
Frederick, 100 Wn. 2d at 558. Here, we have both. The State's
recommended sentence was ten years below the maximum, and the State
agreed to limit its charges to six counts of third degree rape.
In addition, Ingram's November 28 statement to officers, made
before any contact with psychologists, his wife's pastor, or his
wife's attorney, contains "virtually incontestable evidence of
guilt." In that statement Ingram told officers, among other
things, of sex practices used to prevent pregnancy with one of the
daughters, of that daughter's abortion in Shelton when she did
become pregnant by him, and of having anal intercourse with the
daughter during her menstrual period so that "the bed wouldn't get
messed up." In the face of a plea agreement that is favorable, if
not generous, and this evidence of guilt, Ingram failed to convince
the trial judge that the presumption of voluntariness of the plea
was overcome.
Ingram' s contention that the plea resulted from ineffective
assistance of counsel is quickly dispatched. The record shows
that, contrary to Ingram's assertions, counsel interviewed one of
the victims and attempted to interview other witness. {2} Ingram
consented to counsels absence from some of the investigatory
sessions with sheriff's officers. There were positive efforts by
counsel on Ingram' s behalf including a plea agreement that charged
third degree rape, not second, included a concession that the State
would not seek prosecution on other charges supported by the
record, and a recommended maximum sentence ten years below what
would have been possible. On these facts, Ingram's claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See State v. Visitacion
55 Wn. App. 166, 173, 776 P. 2d 986 (1989) (defendant must show
attorney failed to exercise customary skills and diligence of a
reasonable competent attorney and that, but for errors, the result
of the proceeding would have been different).
A trial court may impose a sentence outside the standard range
if it finds substantial and compelling reasons and sets forth those
reasons in written findings of fact and conclusions of law. {3}
RCW 9.94A.120 (2); (3). Consecutive sentences constitute an
exceptional sentence. RCW 9.94A.120(14). To reverse a sentence
outside the standard range, the reviewing court must find (a)
either that the record does not support the trial court's reasons
for the sentence or that the reasons do not justify an exceptional
sentence; or (b) that the sentence imposed was clearly excessive
or too lenient. RCW 9. 94A. 210 (4). The sufficiency of the
evidence, the sufficiency of the reasons, and the excessiveness or
insufficiency of the sentence are measured under the clearly
erroneous, matter of law, and abuse of discretion standards,
respectively. State v. Dunaway, 109 Wn. 2d 207, 218, 743 P. 2d 1237
(1987).
The court's principal reason for imposing an exceptional
sentence in the form of consecutive sentences for the charged
offenses was Ingram's stipulation to an-ongoing pattern of sexual
abuse while the victims were under the age of 18. Such a pattern
of abuse is a specifically enumerated sentence aggravating factor.
RCW 9.94A.390(2)(e).{4} Facts that establish additional crimes may
be used to go outside the standard sentencing range when defendant
stipulates to them, as Ingram did here. RCW 9.94A.370(2) {5} By
virtue of Ingram' s stipulation, an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse
is supported in the record, and that reason in turn justifies an
exceptional sentence as a matter of law. The SRA expressly permits
the imposition of consecutive sentences as punishment for an
ongoing pattern of sexual abuse. RCW 9.94A.400(l)(a){6} .
While this pattern of abuse alone would support the exceptional
sentence, we will briefly consider the trial court, other reasons
supporting the sentence.
The court found that Ingram had threatened to kill his victims
and concluded that these threats demonstrated deliberate cruelty,
a statutorily listed sentence aggravating factor. RCW 9. 94A. 390
(2) (a). Ingram admitted to officers that he had made such
threats, and threats to kill can constitute deliberate cruelty.
State v. Falling, 50 Wn. App. 47, 55, 747 P.2d 1119 (1987).
The trial court also relied on future dangerousness, a factor
that can support an exceptional sentence in the presence of both
a history of similar conduct and proof of lack of amenability to
treatment. State v. Pryor, 115 Wn. 2d 445, 799 P.2d 244 (1990).
The trial court noted Ingram' s stipulation to ongoing abuse and
also found that even the psychologist hired by Ingram commented
that Ingram was not a candidate for outpatient treatment, but
needed longterm inpatient treatment. The finding was further
supported by the psychologist' s report that Ingram' s prognosis for
accepting responsibility for the crimes, a must for successful
treatment, was only low to moderate even if he underwent three
years of an inpatient program with intensive individual therapy.
The record here demonstrates both history of similar conduct and
proof of lack of amenability to treatment. Cf. State v, Tunnell,
51 Wn. App. 274, 283, 753 P.2d 543, review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1036
(1988) (multiple incidents of sexual deviancy plus opinion of
mental health experts that defendant would be "very difficult to
treat" sufficient to uphold future dangerousness).
Ingram contends that the facts of this case do not demonstrate
an abuse of trust, but provides us with neither argument nor
citation to authority to support his contention. We will not
consider it. RAP 10. 3 (a) (5); State v. Monsonns, 113 Wn.2d 833,
847, 784 P.2d 485 (1989).
We conclude that the court erred in using invasion of a zone
of privacy as an aggravating factor in this case. Generally, that
factor is used when a victim is raped in her bedroom by an unknown
assailant from outside, not by a parent who lives in the same
residence. See, e.g., State v. Falling, supra; State v. Hicks, 61
Wn. App. 923, 812 P.2d 893 (1991). See also, State v. Campas, 59
Wn. App. 561, 568, 799 P.2d 744 (1990) (this court expressing
serious doubts about this factor because supreme court has not yet
recognized it and it is susceptible to "almost limitless
application."). We will not extend use of this factor to this
situation.
The record does not support the trial court's finding that the
victims have been severely traumatized. Even the trial court's
finding on this issue states only that the victims "appear to need
long-term psychological and/or emotional counselling." Without
adequate support in the record, such a finding is clearly
erroneous.
Even though we find invalid two of the trial court's reasons,
we uphold the sentence because we are confident that the trial
court would impose the same sentence on remand. See State v.
Farmer, 116 Wn.2d 414, 432, 805 P.2d 200 (1991).{7}
Finally, we disagree with Ingram's last contention, that we
must reverse this sentence as clearly excessive. For a sentence
to be clearly excessive, it must be shown to be an abuse of
discretion, "clearly unreasonable . . . exercised on untenable
grounds or for untenable reasons, or an action that no reasonable
person would have taken." State v. Oxborrow, 106 Wn.2d 525, 531,
723 P.2d 1123 (1986). In Ingram's case, the sentence of 40 months
on each count is within the standard range; the sentence is
exceptional because the terms run consecutively. Consecutive
sentences are permitted, however, for offenses that were part of
an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse. RCW 9.94A.400(l)(a). There
was no abuse of discretion in setting this sentence.

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion
will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but will
be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so
ordered.

WE CONCUR:

Footnotes:
{1} The standard range sentence for third degree rape in
Ingram's situation is 33 to 43 months. RCW 9.94A.310 Table I.

{2}This information is contained in Ingram's own testimony: on
cross examination. When asked whether his attorney had talked to
family members concerning their accusations against him, Ingram
responded: "He told me that he had talked to Erika, that he was
not allowed to talk to Julie, that he was not allowed to talk to
my son Chad, and he had no way of getting ahold of my son Paul,
but he admitted he had talked to Erika on one occasion."

{3} In his opening brief, Ingram contends that his sentence
should be reversed because written findings and conclusions had
not been entered by the time his brief was due. We disapprove of
this practice of tardiness despite the general rule that findings
and conclusions can be entered even while an appeal is pending.
State v. McGary, 37 Wn. App. 856, 861, 683 P.2d 1125, review
denied. 102 Wn.2d 1024 (1984). Here, however, Ingram has demonstrated
no prejudice from the late findings and failed utterly to address
them even when he had an opportunity to do so in his reply brief.
If no prejudice results from a late entry of findings and conclusions,
there is no error. McGary, 37 Wn. App. at 861.

{4} This provision was so designated at the time of Ingram's sentencing.
It is now RCW 9.94A.390(2)(f). Laws of 1990, ch. 3, 603.

{5} Ingram's stipulation obviates the need for any evidentiary
hearing on this matter, contrary to the assertion in his opening
brief. RCW 9.94A.370(2).

{6} We note with some consternation that Ingram failed to address this
issue of ongoing pattern of abuse in either his opening or his reply
brief despite the trial court's statement at sentencing that it was
"the main aggravating circumstance" supporting the exceptional sentence.

{7} Ingram has not demonstrated any need for an evidentiary
hearing at sentencing. We will not consider this contention any
further.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

cc...@tir.com

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to
Paul Ingram is a sweet man who remains optimistic even while he serves his
sentence and despite the fact that he has lost his wife and children because
of this nightmare. He believes the truth will eventually prevail. His story
is what sent me to the library to research how false memories occur, since he
"recovered" memories of abuse episodes (complete with dialog and details)
that Richard Ofshe made up, in order to test whether Paul was recalling real
or imagined abuse. Unfortuanately, by then Paul was convinced of his guilt,
felt he should be punished, and confessed in court.

Donna


In article <6q5g4o$hig$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Michael Newton

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
cc...@tir.com wrote:
>
> Paul Ingram is a sweet man who remains optimistic even while he serves his
> sentence and despite the fact that he has lost his wife and children because
> of this nightmare.

Well, that's one take on a confessed serial rapist of his own
children. Some might suggest that the "nightmare" which cost him his
family was his own criminal behavior.

> He believes the truth will eventually prevail.

Ah, but _which_ story? Are we talking about the confessions and guilty
plea to which he steadfastly adhered for more than a year, well past
his sentencing, or the bizarre Ofshe tale of a veteran police officer
who suddenly, for reasons no one can explain, lapses into "spontaneous
trance" states every time his fellow officers ask him a question? One
version conforms to the statements from his family (including the
uncontested fact that he once threw an axe a at his son in a homicidal
fit of temper); the other smacks of something from the Twilight Zone.


> His story is what sent me to the library to research how false
> memories occur, since he "recovered" memories of abuse episodes
> (complete with dialog and details) that Richard Ofshe made up, in
> order to test whether Paul was recalling real or imagined abuse.

"Made up" is the operative phrase in any discussion of Ofshe, but I
note for those unfamiliar with this case that Ofshe was serving the
defense, not the prosecution--and even after Ingram's guilty plea,
there are tapes of telephone conversations with Paul telling Ofshe
that his "trance" story was false. In fact, Ingram didn't switch to
claiming innocence until he got a taste of the big house and began to
wish he was back on the street.

> Unfortuanately, by then Paul was convinced of his guilt, felt he
> should be punished, and confessed in court.

With all due respect to your obviously sincere feelings in this case,
sometimes people feel guilty and confess to crimes because they _are_
guilty...a self-evident fact that eternally eludes the propagandists
of the "new Salem witch hunt" scenario.

mn

carl...@wuchem.wustl.edu

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
Although Curio insists that this thread is relevant to alt.pagan,
it does not appear to be so to the regular readers of that
newsgroup. Snipping headers to those which appear to have
direct relevance.

Kiwi Carlisle
carl...@wuchem.wustl.edu

Heretic

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
Michael Newton wrote:

> cc...@tir.com wrote:

> > Paul Ingram is a sweet man who remains optimistic even while he serves his
> > sentence and despite the fact that he has lost his wife and children because
> > of this nightmare.

> Well, that's one take on a confessed serial rapist of his own
> children. Some might suggest that the "nightmare" which cost him his
> family was his own criminal behavior.

Indeed.
Denial is almost universal among child motlester, and
most toehr sexual offenders.
It wasn't rape, she consented, I was just
teaching her about sex, she led me on . ..etc etc etc.

John Clark

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to

Heretic wrote:

> Indeed.
> Denial is almost universal among child motlester, and
> most toehr sexual offenders.
> It wasn't rape, she consented, I was just
> teaching her about sex, she led me on . ..etc etc etc.

Boy have heretics sure changed in the last few years... Time was
that heretics would take rather untenable positions and burn at
the stake for them... well I guess that's asking to much for these
middle of the road days we live in.


DedNdogYrs

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
Many evil people have walked free because people didn't realize that many
people are entirely different behind closed doors and that what people see of
such people in public is only a public false face.
Dogs & children first.

ka...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/6/98
to
In article <6q7qia$ppi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
cc...@tir.com wrote:

D>Paul Ingram is a sweet man who remains optimistic even while he serves his


>sentence and despite the fact that he has lost his wife and children because
>of this nightmare. He believes the truth will eventually prevail.

His family already thinks the truth has prevailed, which is why they want
the guy to remain in prison -- and they're the ones who had to live with
the "nightmare." However, it's touching "Donna," as one of several FMSF
clowns in SPP trying to talk people out of their abuse memories, that you
continue to try and cover-up for grotesque offenders.

See the news article below. Richard Ofshe and Elizabeth Loftus of the
False Memory Syndrome Foundation tried to get Mr. Nightmare released back
onto the public. They failed to do so:
___________

Local News : Thursday, December 12, 1996

Felons hope for a parting gift from Lowry
by Susan Gilmore
Seattle Times staff reporter

In the waning weeks of Gov. Mike Lowry's term, now that he's freed
from such political constraints as appealing to voters or working with
Republicans, a handful of murderers, rapists and child molesters is hoping
he'll make one of his final official acts one of mercy.

The Clemency Board meets in Olympia tomorrow for the last time during
the Lowry administration. Six cases will be heard, weeded from some five
dozen requested appeals. Board Chairwoman Anita Peterson expects that
decisions on all the cases will be made Friday. The board makes
recommendations to Lowry, which he can follow or ignore. He has until the
end of his term to decide.

But any thinking that the outgoing governor will be inclined to
leniency is misguided, said Lowry's legal adviser, Kent Caputo,
acknowledging that many defense attorneys and advocates for those in prison
believe this is their best chance to win clemency for certain inmates.

The most dramatic case on tap is that of Paul Ingram, the former
Thurston County deputy sheriff who has been imprisoned for eight years for
rape - a crime he now says he didn't commit.

And while all the inmates on death row have filed clemency petitions
within the last month, Lowry is considering only one death-row appeal:
Patrick Jeffries.

Jeffries, a Canadian, is on death row in Walla Walla for a 1983 double
murder. He was convicted of robbing and murdering an elderly Port Angeles
couple who had taken him into their home after his release from a Canadian
prison. His case is on appeal in the federal courts system.

The Canadian minister of foreign affairs, asserting that Jeffries was
not informed of his rights under international laws, has written Lowry
seeking clemency. Canadian officials are asking that Jeffries be returned to
Canada, where there is no death penalty, to finish a life sentence in a
Canadian prison.

Caputo said he intends to talk to U.S. State Department officials to
see if death penalty cases have ever been sent back to Canada.

Even though Lowry opposes the death penalty, there will be no blanket
pardon of death-row inmates, Caputo said.

Still, the governor's office has been swamped with appeals, many of
them from murderers.

"There's more a feeling of desperation," said Caputo. "They want to
have Lowry hear them and figure now is their best shot. But the governor is
not concerned about the political ramifications. He's not more likely to
pardon someone because it's in the waning days of his term."

Lowry has granted few clemency petitions during his four years as
governor and relies heavily on the recommendations of his Clemency Board.

"Lowry is pretty hands-off," said Caputo. "He takes (the board's)
recommendations and doesn't intervene."

Clemency is a last resort when all legal channels have been
exhausted, and Lowry has granted it sparingly. Only 10 people have been
granted pardons or clemency by Lowry, and six of them were dying or
seriously ill.

Lowry granted nine conditional commutations - shortening the sentences
served - and pardoned one woman who was working as a police informant when
officials feared her life was in danger in prison.

<b>In the Ingram case, the Clemency Board took testimony in a lengthy
hearing last spring, but delayed a decision until tomorrow's meeting.

Ingram confessed to the ritual sexual abuse of his daughters, but in
recanting it he said he was brainwashed and forced to admit to crimes that
never happened.

Two psychologists testified in the hearing that they believed Ingram
was coerced by overzealous investigators and his confession influenced by
so-called "repressed memories."

But a surprise witness, Ingram's son Chad, appeared at the hearing and
urged the board not to set his father free. The son told board members he
was physically and sexually abused by his father. Ingram's former wife and
another son also have written to the board asking that clemency be denied.</b>

The other cases before the board tomorrow:

-- Diane Elaine Bowerman, who was convicted of aggravated murder for
hiring someone to kill her ex-boyfriend in 1987.

Bowerman was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole
after she was convicted of paying $5,000 to a Chehalis man to have her
former boyfriend, Matthew Nickell, killed.

Her attorneys say Bowerman was a battered woman who hasn't benefited
from a 1993 state law allowing the sentencing board to reconsider a sentence
when an inmate suffered physical and sexual abuse by the victim.

During her trial, Bowerman's attorneys argued she suffered from
battered women's syndrome, which inhibited her ability to form a deliberate
intent to kill. After she was convicted in 1988, she became the first woman
in King County to be sentenced for aggravated first-degree murder.

-- Neva Henning, a Whitman County librarian and Sunday school teacher
who was convicted in 1982 of hiring a man to shoot her husband. She was
sentenced to life in prison.

In her clemency petition, her attorney asserted that Henning was
wrongly convicted but nevertheless has been a model prisoner during her 10
years in prison. Included in the petition are dozens of letters from prison
officials, family and friends urging clemency.

Henning's petition for a Clemency Board hearing initially was rejected
by Peterson, the board chairwoman, but Lowry overruled her in asking the
board to consider it.

-- Lonnie Link, who was convicted of aggravated first-degree murder in
1984 for shooting a Spokane police officer during a police stake out of an
alleged extortion attempt. Link and another man were trying to sell a stolen
gun collection back to its owner when the police intervened.

Link was sentenced to life in prison. Since then he has testified
against others in the case and now is in a federal witness protection
program at an undisclosed prison. Link's attorneys argue that he was a
scapegoat in the shooting and his sentence was too severe. At earlier
clemency petition by Link was denied in 1992.

-- Joseph Mackay was convicted this year of two counts of child
molestation in Pierce County. In a plea-bargain agreement he was not
imprisoned, but sentenced to attend three years of therapy.

In his clemency appeal Mackay said the offense occurred in 1988 when he
was a child. "I did something wrong when I was 12 or 13 years old," he said.
"I do not think I deserve the adult conviction and punishment for something
I did when I was a kid."

-- Dawud Malik, who was convicted of murder, robbery and assault in
1966. Malik, who changed his name in prison from David Riggins, had been
sentenced to death for killing two people in 1964 and 1965. In 1972 Malik
was resentenced to life in prison after the death penalty was abolished.

Malik is arguing that he has been a good prisoner and that he was
wrongly convicted. This clemency petition has been before the board for more
than a year to allow the full five-member board to vote on it. The board,
with only three voting, earlier voted to deny the petition.
--
Karen,
Curio...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/senate/6496
Wenatchee Sex Ring, Elizabeth Loftus, and Corruption

Michael Newton

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to

As confirmed by the 400+ Catholic priests and the near-equal number of
Protestant clergy charged with child molestation in the past 20 years
(not to mention sundry other crimes ranging from fraud and
embezzlement to multiple murder). Don't even get me started on
scoutmasters and the BSA "Confidential Files."

mn

Shez

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to
In article <35C9494D...@ucsd.edu>, John Clark <j1c...@ucsd.edu>
writes
Well I would rather be middle of the road than burned at the stake, but
I agree with the first poster, child molesters rarely admit to their
crimes, they always place the blame on the victim, its almost universal
they they simply can not accept that what they have done is wrong, and
even if its their own children they will blame them for leading them on,
or even say that their children crawled into their beds for sex.
now if a child crawles into my bed, then its for comfort and for
reasurance, unfortunatly these people simply can not accept that a child
would not want sex, its about power, and the abuse of power. the need to
have someone they can controle totaly in a world where they can not seem
to controle anything. their are threats, abuse, guilt, fear, and they
like a spider sit in the centre of this web of deceite and pull the
strings.


--
NOTICE: This e-mail address is being spoofed on USENET. Obvious trolls and
needlessly incendiary remarks should be ignored. All authentic
messages from this address will bear this disclaimer, although spoofed messages
may as well.
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------

ka...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
Here is the partial transcript of the clemency board hearing for Paul Ingram
dated June 7, 1996. Clemency was denied. Richard Ofshe was present (still
claiming he was a Pulitzer Prize Winner); Elizabeth Loftus was there, still
claiming that because a few children were led to believe they were lost in a
shopping mall that is supposed to make everyone doubt Paul Ingrams confession
that he hurt his children and his daughters and sons statements that they
were molested by him. I am not troubling to type in the ridiculous natterings
of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation members. If you want to get a good
sample, read my web page with Elizabeth Loftus's deposition on Wenatchee;
she's still pulling these same tricks in their "one size fits all" defense.
These people are busy trying to sue therapists (using their extremely
questionable "research" as a basis), and so they apparently don't like anyone
confessing to SRA or RA, which is what Paul Ingram did, although that's not
the crimes he was convicted for. These are the statements by the prosecutor
and sheriff who investigated the case: _____

Sheriff Edwards: I do take exception to one of the witneses statements. Mr.
Rabi said there was no report written by the Sheriff or the Undersheriff on
the initial interview. That is in your file, it is one of the first reports.
I think the shocking thing to me at that point was actually, Safe Place, an
organization here in Olympia brought this to the attention of the
prosecuctor's office. And they were quite hesitant on whether or not they
should come forward because they didn't know if we would look into it because
the accusations were made against members of the Sheriff's office, of a
member of the Sheriff's office at that point in time. But when it was brought
to my attention as I stated my initial reaction this was, this was really
wild stuff and just probably wasn't right but we needed to look into it.
After about a week of checking into some of the allegations and finding that
two girls were now stating that this had happened to them, Paul Ingram
returned to work after being gone during that week. I fully expected when I
asked Paul to come to my office one day when we got started on this. Actually
maybe, I sent you a cover letter and maybe I will read that letter. It is a
one page letter trying to keep this complicated case as brief as possible.

Basically, the facts of the case are, in November of 1988 it was brought to
my attention by Safe Place, a women's relief shelter, through the Thurston
County Prosecutors Office, that one of our high ranking officers later
indicated to be Mr. Ingram was involved in a case of sexual abuse against
his daughters. I must say that at this time, I found these allegations hard
to believe but felt that I must proceed in at least checking into the
allegations. The more we checked the more it seemed there were merit to the
allegations. One week later on November 28, 1988, I had Paul Ingram come to
my office at 8:15 a.m., at which time he was advised that there had been
some serious allegations, that it was a criminal matter rather than an
administrative matter and that I needed to read him his rights before I
questioned him. Mr. Ingram was advised of his rights by me which was
witnessed by the Undersheriff. And he acknowledged he understood him. I
would like to point out that he had probably read his rights, these rights,
same rights to criminals hundreds of times in his sixteen years as a police
officer. He waived those rights. I advised Mr. Ingram of the allegations
against him. Basically at that time, all we knew was sexual abuse of his
daughters. Within a few minutes, during which I explained that I was duty
bound to get to the bottom of this case and pointedly asked him, in fact,
if in fact these allegations were true, and he, in parentheses, he knew me
well enough that we were going to get to the bottom of this. He knew that
I was an investigator in the past and I would continue to look into it. I
asked, "Are these allegations true involving your daughters?" At that time,
he indicated that they were. But not only was it with his daughters, but
that his sons would be needing some help too. I can tell you I just about
fell out of my chair at that point, because I fully expected him to deny it.
Not to say that there were additional victims. This revelation came as a
complete shock as we had no indication at the time that this case involved
anyone other than his two daughters. Mr. Ingram was at that time taken back
to the detective division for further interviewing. I would ask the Board
to consider several things.

First, in reference to the allegations brought by Mr. Ingram's supporters,
that he was brainwashed, this total interview lasted about 20 minutes. I
fully expected him to deny the allegations, not to admit to it and say that
there were other victims. Second, I would ask you to consider why I would
want to accuse my own Chief Deputy who I had selected for the position, and
who was a community leader and county Republican party chairman. Further, I
would ask that you would read and pay particular atention to the decision by
Judge Robert Peterson on Paul Ingram's attempt to vacate his pleas which
basically gives all the facts of the case. And then, look at the
pre-sentence investigation that was done by Michael Tilton of Department of
Corrections.

Both of these documents I submitted yesterday. Now I know you received a lot
of material on this case and you proably have those in the complete case file
anyway. But I just felt they were very pertinent, they were unbiased
individuals involved in this and we continue to hear how this is such a
travesty of justice. But nobody talks about the fact that there was complete
judicial review on all steps of this case, including up to the Ninth Circuit
Court. And I can tell you as a pretty liberal court, in other law enforcement
matters, that them having reviewed that and stating that, yes this case was
not perfect, and I will give you that.

This was a new case, a complicated case, and very bizarre case. But it has
had total judicial review and I have no problem shaving every morning, I can
look at myself every day in the mirror and although I didn't like the case I
feel that it proceeded the way it had to proceed. As the issue of repressed
memory being brought to your attention by Mr. Ingram's supporters, I do not
claim to have any expertise in that field whatsoever. However, although I do
not know for a fact, I believe that as other allegations, accusations, and
recantations of victims, recanting their statement developed as this case went
on. It seemd that some of these were intended to confuse the issues. Because
I believe they are awful bizarre and none of these were tried in court
or brought for review. We were talking simply about molesting daughters. That
happens every day, unfortunately, every day in our society. The bottom line
is that Paul Ingram did commit these crimes, confessed to them and plead
guilty and every issue that will be brought to you today, has already been
addressed during the original court hearing and the Appellate court, all the
way to the Ninth Circuit. And I will let Gary Tabor talk about this a little
bit. He knows more about the case actually than I do.

Gary Tabor: Madam Chairperson, members of the Board, we're not here today to
try this case. Yet that is what some would suggest that you do. There is a
proper forum and that is a court, and this matter has been litigated. I'm
sure some will say, well there was never a trial. However, there was an
extensive hearing lasting five or six days in which all the information that
you are now hearing, in general terms at least, was presented and considered.
A court made a decision based upon that hearing which allowed for the orderly
presentation of evidence, enough time to consider all that evidence, the
cross examination of witneses both on behalf of Mr. Ingram and the State, and
a decision was rendered. I recognize that this court has recevied voluminous
material, I am not privy to the materials that you have been given by
supporters of Mr. Ingram. I know that I added to that voluminous amount of
material by providing to you fourteen documents and there is a cover sheet
that describes briefly what those documents are all about.

Document Number 1 does deal with Mr. Ingram's initial contact by Sheriff
Edwards, and Undersheriff McClanahan. Mr. Ingram did not deny, at that time,
that he had abused his daughters. He did at one point say he didn't remember
but he left the impression that there was certainly something there because
he said my daughters don't lie. He then want on to say that both his daughters
and his sons would need help. Mr. Ingram, a couple of days later, I believe
it was the next day, he indicated there had been sexual abuse of his sons on
his part. And that was before any of the other family members had ever made
such indications, and it was never suggested by investigators.

Number 2 is the statement of Paul Ingram given on November 28th, 1988. Paul
Ingram was a law enforcement officer with over fourteen years of experience.
Paul Ingram was being interviewed by two detectives that had formerly worked
under him. Paul Ingram acknowledged sexually abusing his daughers, he
admitted to vaginal, oral and anal sex with them, he admitted to impregnating
his youngest daughter Julie, and to taking her to a location in Shelton and
having an abortion performed because the child could not be born, as he put
it.

Number 3 a trancript of the change of plea hearing. Judge Robert Peterson
took great pains at that hearing which occurred on May the 1st of 1989, to
make sure that Mr. Ingram was pleading guilty voluntarily. Mr. Ingram
stated that he was, that he had committed the acts that he was accused of.
It was not until after Mr. Ingram attempted to have that guilty plea
withdrawn that the State was ever aware that Mr. Ingram had undergone a
psychological evaluation at the request of his own attorney. And that that
evaluation was not disclosed to the State but Dr. Lennon had evaluated
Mr. Ingram, that report is Number 4 in your packet and it states some very
disturbing things. As Judge Peterson later said, if he had been an attorney
in the position of Mr. Ingram's attorney and had received that report, he to
would have understood it very important to cut the loses and to see that
Mr. Ingram got the best deal possible in pleading guilty. Dr. Lennon,
Mr. Ingram's own retained psychological expert indicated the Mr. Ingram was
a pedophile and he was badly in need of treatment. And he also went on to
say that the potential for his sucessful treatment was marginal, because he
would have to admit instead of talking around things.

Number 5 is the decision of Judge Peterson refusing to set aside Ingram's
guilty plea, and as Sheriff Edwards had indicated I urge you to read that
because Judge Peterson sets forth his consideratins in choosing to disbelieve
the theroy that was set forth by Professor Ofshe who testifed at that
hearing. Judge Peterson said that he did not find Professor Ofshe's testimony
to be as creditable as the testimony provided by the States' experts. He
disregarded that and found that the plea was freely and voluntarily given and
was not subject to coercion. Moreover, on April the 5th of 1990, document
number 6, when finding the Facts and Conclusions of law were handed down at
the time of the sentencing, Judge Peterson indicated not only that Mr. Ingram
was guilty of the crimes charged but that he was also a danger to society.
And I certainly encourage this Board to look at those Findings and
Conclusions because to rule today that Mr. Ingram should be given a pardon
would be disregarding what has been found in a judicial context. And that is,
that the defendant is a danger to the community unless and until he receives
sexual treatment. Someone has said well he's received an awfully long
sentence, most sex offenders receive shorter sentences. Most sex offenders
that receive those shorter sentences agree to treatment. Mr. Ingram is not
amendable to treatment according to the facts because he will not acknowledge
that he has a problem, even though he previously acknowledged that.

Judge Peterson's decision has been reviewed by the Court of Appeals. They
not only upheld his decision that the guilty plea should stand, they also
upheld the sentence, and found that was appropriate. That matter has also
been reviewed by the federal courts. And you have in your materials a report
by a federal magistrate recommending that the habeas corpus petition brought
by Mr. Ingram be dismissed. Speaking of the weighing of the creditability
of witneses by the trial court, you then have material indicating that
federal Judge Franklin Burgess agreed that the habeas corpus petition should
be dismissed. That decision was reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and they also agreed that the petition should be dismissed. When we were
last here, there was an attempt to have this Board consider the matter while
the matter was still pending appeal. That's now been completed and it is a
decision adverse to Mr. Ingram. I wish to call the courts attention to
Professor Ofshe's letter, dated April 2, 1989, and that's number 11 in the
materials that I provided.

Professor Ofshe's letter, which I guess is his report, makes this statement,
the final paragraph of page one, and it is something that Mr. Ofshe perhaps
wishes he had not said, he not only admitted that he had said this at the
hearing before Judge Peterson he also stated that was still his position.
That is not what I heard him saying here today. I quote:

"Certain factual questions are beyond the scope of my professional expertise.
I do not know nor do I have any opinion as to whether or not Paul Ingram
committed one or more sexual assaults on his daughters."

He goes on to say he has no such opinion as to Mr. Rabi and Mr. (Rische(sp)
as well. We're not here to talk about Mr. Rabi and Mr. Rische because neither
of them was convicted and they are innocent unless and until proven guilty.
So they stand innocent at this time and certainly it is not appropriate for
the State to go into any detail about their case although we're often asked
to debate that in a public forum. We are not going to do that. But we are
here to talk about Mr. Ingram. We're not here to talk abouit repressed
memory or brainwashing or satanic cults because those issues do not apply
to the particular crimes that Mr. Ingram has plead guilty to. The very crimes
he confessed and the first day that he was confonted. Professor Ofshe
acknowledges that he can't speak to that. Professor Ofshe, as I heard him
speak today, perhaps would feel that there need not be juries in our country
any longer. That we can simply hire experts like Professor Ofshe to come in,
and listen to the evidence and render a decision, because he knows better
than a court or a finder of fact. I don't believe that's the system that
exists or should exist in this country.

I recognize that Eliabeth Loftus has come into this case late and has
expressed some personal feelings. She has previously indicated in other
writings that people can forget extremely traumatic situations. Whether or
not something that one remembers after counseling or treatment is accurate
or not is not the issue in this particular case because Mr. Ingram had not
seen a doctor or a psychologist or a minister prior to the time he confessed
the first day that he was interviewed. His daughter Julie, there is no
indication that she had any contact with any such treatment provider. And I
question whether or not the incident with Erica at the Bible camp can be
described as a treatment provider. At any event, we're before the court
today. I am sorry we're before this Board today, they are asking you to act
as a court and I am suggesting that that is not the function of this board.

You have not heard today reasons why Mr. Ingram should be granted a pardon
or clemency other than to say he is not guilty. A court has found him guilty.
A court, a number of courts have reviewed that and upheld that. You know
there are many many factors that one could discuss in this case and it is
not my purpose to digress into specific facts because we really don't have
a proper forum here to get into a debate. One of the things that I found
troubling about Mr. Ingram is, while he was remembering in the jail cell,
the things that he recounted to investigators he was also keeping a diary.
And that diary was made available to the State at a later time after his
conviction. In that diary, Mr. Ingram talks about recalling incidents in
which his daughters and his sons were sexually abused by himself and others.
And he states that one of his problems in making these recollections or
engaging in these recollections is that it stimulated or turned him on
sexually. I think that is an important consideration for this board as to
whether or not this person should be released. I urge that this body, this
Board, deny the request or pardon or clemency. Is there any questions I will
be glad to try to answer those.
______________

Chad Ingram then had the courage to come forward and state that his father
abused him both physically and sexually from the time he was 4 yrs. old
and asked the Board not to release his father. "Prof" Richard Ofshe then
told the Board that Chad was just blaming his father for his "dysfunctional"
life.

These are the types of monsters that are on the board of the False Memory
Syndrome Foundation. They continue to lie about these cases, the media
simply repeats these lies, and some members of the gullible public swallow
the lies.


--
Karen,
Curio...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/senate/6496
Wenatchee Sex Ring, Elizabeth Loftus, and Corruption

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

John Clark

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to

Shez schrieb:

> now if a child crawles into my bed, then its for comfort and for
> reasurance, unfortunatly these people simply can not accept that a child
> would not want sex,

> its about power, and the abuse of power.

No, but why bother quesitoning this belief.


> the need to
> have someone they can controle totaly in a world where they can not seem
> to controle anything. their are threats, abuse, guilt, fear, and they
> like a spider sit in the centre of this web of deceite and pull the
> strings.

Never been to parochials school then. Never been told about all the tortures
that await those who don't behave as the religious teachers demand?

But, heck, since it doesn't involve sex, must be for the child's own good. I
can still see the scars on my fingers from the ruler treatment for effecting
bible memory verse recitation.

The point is, 'control' happens in all aspects of the child's life, it's just
that in this particular case, you don't like the behavior, hence you trump up
'control' as an issue, and appear to ignore all other controled aspects of
any child's life.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages