Chavis "Love Letter" To Alex King
vond...@hotmail.com
Ricky Chavis was up to his eyeballs in this, and that the kids were
operating under his control, nothing is
(note he directly states that he's still "with" Alex at least 5 times,
and out-and-out tells him not to change his testimony ar least 3 times,
as well as blatantly orders the kid to not trust the attorney his
grandparents hired). I've kept the spelling and sentence structure the
same as in the handwritten note.
Vonda.
-------------------------------------------
I'm always thinking about you. Hang in there it will work out if nothing
changes in the testimony. You know who not to trust, they are keeping us
apart until this is over (just say NO) [indecipherable]. Always and
forever. I think about you day and night. Please be careful I'm with you
and your thoughts. Our future depends on the outcome of us in court and
what happens to [us?me?] Just be strong and please don't change anything
and hang in there, you know what your lawyer did to me. And that is not
your fault but he is trying to break you down--Don't give in If a deal
has been promise to get you to say Yes about certain things that
[indeciperhable]
Be Bold and Be strong nothing has changed. I'm still here and watch out
you trust everything going alright so far. They want me bad you all
heard what was said and who said those things about me and now be smart
and sit back and listen. I'll still be waiting don't forget my address
and phone number. Whatever happen try to stay in touch with me or Mike,
he is watching the house right now.
We will be kept a part they are trying to make you'll talk and me 50
years in prison. remember what we talk about they will try to make you
believe that they already know and they really don't. Its a mind game.
Don't be played and don't change nothing even under oath only
[indecipherable] difference. So please they will not keep there
promises. They will lie to you to get you to talk. Please don't give in
I'm still with you.
ILU always and forever
You know who [indecipherable]
Alex
Derek
King Forever
[Indecipherable) ILU forever.
Be strong and be patient. I'm still with you. Watch who you talk, I will
always be here for you Nothing changed everything is still the same even
in court.
Lemonbleu
I transcribed this from Court TV's web page. If this isn't evidence
Ricky Chavis was up to his eyeballs in this, and that the kids were
operating under his control, >>
I agree....
Was this guy stupid enough to send that to the Jail? Was it dated? This is by
far one of the creepiest cases...it seems this guy is in love with Alex and
wanted Derek just to take the fall for the killing..and the result in his mind
..He and Alex together forever...
LB
Sped
>I agree....
>Was this guy stupid enough to send that to the Jail? Was it dated? This is by
>far one of the creepiest cases...it seems this guy is in love with Alex and
>wanted Derek just to take the fall for the killing..and the result in his mind
>..He and Alex together forever...
>LB
Good grief. Have you followed the case at all? There is zero evidence,
outside of the boys' perjured and completely unbelievable testimony that
Chavis did the killing. Zero evidence was presented that he put the boys
up to it.
Study the facts.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/083002/Local/ST001.shtml
is a good place to start.
The older boy is a cold blooded killer. Chavis may be a creep but as Derek
(the kid who swung the bat 10-15 times on his father's skull) barely knew
the man, it's hard to see how Chavis is responsible for putting him up to
it. In any event, the prosecution's case that encouraged them to commit
the murder was so non-existent that the judge dismissed it.
The boys' trial will be next week and hopefully will be televised better
than Chavis' trial was. You'll get a look at how cold, calculating and
remorseless the older boy is.
Try to look at the facts in the case and not be swayed by your emotions and
anti-pedophile prejudice.
Lemonbleu
From: Sped (Sped)
Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2002 4:04 AM
Message-id: <3d6f5bbd....@supernews.cablespeed.com>
On 30 Aug 2002 09:52:01 GMT, lemo...@aol.com (Lemonbleu) wrote:
>I agree....
>Was this guy stupid enough to send that to the Jail? Was it dated? This is by
>far one of the creepiest cases...it seems this guy is in love with Alex and
>wanted Derek just to take the fall for the killing..and the result in his mind
>..He and Alex together forever...
>LB
Good grief. Have you followed the case at all? There is zero evidence,
outside of the boys' perjured and completely unbelievable testimony that
Chavis did the killing. Zero evidence was presented that he put the boys
up to it.
"Try to look at the facts in the case and not be swayed by your emotions and
anti-pedophile prejudice."
Anyone else wanna answer my questions regarding the letter..and not assume
like the fool who replied that I am not following the case...and yes btw I have
BIG anti-child molestor prejudice...don't you???? probably not...I am sure you
see child molesting as another harmless fetish* this guy is not just a
pedophile, he acted on his desire.. he is also a convicted child molestor...you
are right I don't care for him..I say your emotions are showing..
geez..
LB
Sped
> Anyone else wanna answer my questions regarding the letter..and not assume
> like the fool who replied that I am not following the case...and yes btw I have
> BIG anti-child molestor prejudice...don't you???? probably not...I am sure you
> see child molesting as another harmless fetish* this guy is not just a
> pedophile, he acted on his desire.. he is also a convicted child molestor...you
> are right I don't care for him..I say your emotions are showing..
It doesn't take a fool to assume that you are not following the
case. You said: "it seems this guy is in love with Alex and
wanted Derek just to take the fall for the killing"
Derek just "to take the fall" for the killing implies that someone other
than Derek bashed Terry's head in. Just who besides Derek did
the bashing? What tiny bit of evidence is there to support such
a theory? There is none. Nada. Nothing but the boys' clearly perjured
testimony.
Your statement about Chavis getting Derek to "take the fall" was
so foolish that I charitably assumed that you were not following
the case. My apologies.
> I am sure you see child molesting as another harmless fetish*
Based on what? Based on the fact that I don't want to see a man convicted
of a murder he didn't commit simply because he is child molester?
Anti-pedophile prejudice is a given in 99% of the population. I just
object to allowing that prejudice to subvert justice.
I also resent you implying that I'm a pervert simply because I have looked
at the facts in this case and have reached the obvious, inescapable
conclusion that Derek, not Chavis, killed Terry King.
I do apologize though for responding to a tangential part of your post and
ignoring the questions you asked. About the letter on CourtTV's website:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/king/docs/note1.html
"Jan. 19: Deputies catch Chavis scratching a note - "Alex don't trust -
into a cement floor in the jail recreation yard.
March 26: Deputies find a love note on a cell wall at the M.C. Blanchard
Judicial Building. They suspect it's from Chavis to Alex but can't prove
it. "
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/082502/Local/ST001.shtml
Also:
"While Alex was playing in the jail yard April 6, a jail official went into
his cell to clean out Alex's trash can. He found two wadded-up pieces of
paper.
One appeared to be a copy of a note from Chavis to Alex.
It read: "I L U forever. Be strong and be patient. I'm still with you.
Watch who you talk to. I will always be here for you, nothing changed,
everything is still the same, even in court."
Earlier in the year, jail officials caught Chavis, who is being monitored
to make sure he doesn't interact with the children, trying to carve a
message into the cement floor of the recreation yard. Chavis wrote, "Alex
don't trust," before officials stopped him."
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/080402/Local/ST004.shtml
If the August 4 story is correct, the note on CourtTV's website was found
in Alex's trash can on April 6. It appears to be a copy of a note from
Chavis to Alex. It's not clear to me who's handwriting it is. Chavis' ?
Alex's? or someone else's ? If I get better information on this I will
pass it along.
I believe (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that the letter was
ruled inadmissible. In any case, I don't see how the note implicates
Chavis in the murder, which is what he was on trial for.
Sped
vona...@hotmail.com
Sped wrote:
> On 01 Sep 2002 13:37:17 GMT, lemo...@aol.com (Lemonbleu) wrote:
>
> > Anyone else wanna answer my questions regarding the letter..and not assume
> > like the fool who replied that I am not following the case...and yes btw I have
> > BIG anti-child molestor prejudice...don't you???? probably not...I am sure you
> > see child molesting as another harmless fetish* this guy is not just a
> > pedophile, he acted on his desire.. he is also a convicted child molestor...you
> > are right I don't care for him..I say your emotions are showing..
>
> It doesn't take a fool to assume that you are not following the
> case. You said: "it seems this guy is in love with Alex and
> wanted Derek just to take the fall for the killing"
>
> Derek just "to take the fall" for the killing implies that someone other
> than Derek bashed Terry's head in. Just who besides Derek did
> the bashing?
No, it implies--if you are capable of thinking more sophiscated than that of Alex &
Derek themselves--that Chavis came up with the idea of murdering the father and
planted it in Derek's head, since he knew Derek was deeply disturbed child and easily
manipulated. Chavis no doubt told told Derek they were all going to live together at
his place after Mr. King was out of the way, when in reality all he (Chavis) wanted
was 100% unsupervised access to Alex. That is what "taking the fall" implies in this
situation. It's beyond me how anyone can look at this case and think these kids were
thinking like "adults". In fact, would the murder have occured if a child molester
was not manipualting the situation and driving a wedge between the kids and their dad
in order to get sex from the boys?
And if the King brothers can't be believed, then why the hell should we believe
anything a convicted child molester (who we know is blatantly lying about molesting
the kids) and his brother (who *knew* what his brother had been thrown in jail for
years before, and knew his brother was not supposed to be around underage children,
but said & did nothing regarding his brother's involvement with this kids) have to
say about that night? The sad thing is, nobody in any position of responsibility
concerning the well-being or upbringing of these children did their job--
ever--and now the boys are being held as responsible the adults in their lives
(perhaps morseso) for how fucked up their lives have become. The D.A. is too proud,
apparently, to admit that he charged these boys as adults before getting a real fix
on the emotional/mental aspect of this case.
Vonda
Sped
> No, it implies--if you are capable of thinking more sophiscated
> than that of Alex & Derek themselves--that Chavis came up with
> the idea of murdering the father and planted it in Derek's head,
> since he knew Derek was deeply disturbed child and easily
> manipulated.
It's all speculation. There was no evidence presented to
suggest that Chavis encouraged or manipulated either boy to
commit the murder. I would ask.. when is the last time you
heard of a pedo manipulating his boy(s) into killing thier
parent(s)? I've never heard of such a thing. And even if Alex
and Derek got away with the murder.. what is the chance that
they would be given to Chavis, a convicted child molester?
Chavis' best chance of being with Alex was by being a friend of
an overwhelmed Terry King.. not by having the man killed.
> Chavis no doubt told told Derek they were all going to live
> together at his place after Mr. King was out of the way, when
> in reality all he (Chavis) wanted was 100% unsupervised
> access to Alex. That is what "taking the fall" implies in this
> situation.
I have considerable doubt that it happened that way. I don't
think Derek cared about Chavis one way or the other, since he'd
only known him a few weeks. And as I said before, Chavis was
smart enough to know that killing Terry King was not the way to
get 100% unsupervised access to Alex.
> It's beyond me how anyone can look at this case and think
> these kids were thinking like "adults".
I don't believe they were thinking like "adults", but under
Florida law, they will be tried as adults.
> In fact, would the murder have occured if a child molester was
> not manipualting the situation and driving a wedge between the
> kids and their dad in order to get sex from the boys?
Probably not. But I believe the murder also never would have
happened if Derek hadn't suddenly come back home. Alex may
have wanted his father dead, but it took someone like Derek to
actually do the murder.
> And if the King brothers can't be believed, then why the hell
> should we believe anything a convicted child molester (who we
> know is blatantly lying about molesting the kids) and his
> brother (who *knew* what his brother had been thrown in jail for
> years before, and knew his brother was not supposed to be around
> underage children, but said & did nothing regarding his
> brother's involvement with this kids) have to say about that
> night?
What do you expect Chavis to say? "Alex and I have had a lot of
great sex together!" ?? I mean.. come on. As for the brother..
he seemed kind of slow to me. He probably would be homeless
without his brother's generosity.
> The sad thing is, nobody in any position of responsibility
> concerning the well-being or upbringing of these children did
> their job-- ever--and now the boys are being held as responsible
> the adults in their lives (perhaps morseso) for how fucked up
> their lives have become. The D.A. is too proud, apparently, to
> admit that he charged these boys as adults before getting a real
> fix on the emotional/mental aspect of this case.
The kids certainly have had a rough upbringing, but remember
that somebody tried very hard for six or seven years to give
Derek a good home. Lot's of kids have had worse upbringings, and
haven't commited a murder as brutal as this.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the
D.A. had no choice under Florida law but to charge them as
adults. Murder is an adult type of crime, after all.
I just hope that CourtTV will take a break from the extremely
boring sentencing phase of the neverending Westerfield trial
long enough to let us see some of the King brother's trial.
Sped
Lemonbleu
No, it implies--if you are capable of thinking more sophiscated than that of
Alex &
Derek themselves--that Chavis came up with the idea of murdering the father
and
planted it in Derek's head, since he knew Derek was deeply disturbed child and
easily
manipulated >>
Thanks Vonda...my thinking exactly..indeed Sped has a different take on this,
one that I just can't follow. I agree with your assesment of the case and
whether or not Derek actually bashed or not..I believe firmly that Chavis
planned it. Just because Sped has never heard of a *case* like this does not
make it, an impossiblity. That sort of thinking is short sighted and typical
when one is just seeing it from their view only. I can't imagine wanting sex
with a child, but I know that desire exists..so I am not surprised that a
person can plan a murder and in some crazy way think that this will give him
access if not, guardianship over his *love interest*. I can believe that not
because I have heard about it b4..but because people do wrong all the time, I
am never surprised.
LB
Luk
> It's beyond me how anyone can look at this case and think these kids were
> thinking like "adults". In fact, would the murder have occured if a child molester
> was not manipualting the situation and driving a wedge between the kids and their dad
> in order to get sex from the boys?
> And if the King brothers can't be believed, then why the hell should we believe
> anything a convicted child molester (who we know is blatantly lying about molesting
> the kids) and his brother (who *knew* what his brother had been thrown in jail for
> years before, and knew his brother was not supposed to be around underage children,
> but said & did nothing regarding his brother's involvement with this kids) have to
> say about that night?
Agreed.
The Court TV coverage of trials continues to worry me.
Court TV is continuing to insist Alex is lying because he's staring
into the microphone. Yet it's hard to imagine a child that age
boldly staring down anyone in a courtroom.
Luk
Robert S.
> I transcribed this from Court TV's web page. If this isn't evidence
> Ricky Chavis was up to his eyeballs in this, and that the kids were
> operating under his control
Perhaps you're right, but there is another theory:
Maybe these kids are really crafty murderers. If they knew that this
creepy Chavis guy next door was a chicken hawk (perhaps they've been
warned to stay away from him), what better way to introduce
uncertainty and doubt by claiming that Mr. Chavis was making sexual
advances at them, and there was some sort of bizarre love triangle
going on.
These kids may well have known that a jury would have little sympathy
for a person previously convicted of a sex crime against children, and
made up a story linking Chavis.
I'm certainly not trying to defend any of the parties involved here!
Chavis certainly wansn't acting as a reponsible adult by just
socializing with these kids given his past record. But I would take
the kids' testimony against Mr. Chavis with a great degree of
skepticism.
Robert Hart
: vond...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<3D6E8187...@hotmail.com>...
:> I transcribed this from Court TV's web page. If this isn't evidence
:> Ricky Chavis was up to his eyeballs in this, and that the kids were
:> operating under his control
: Perhaps you're right, but there is another theory:
: Maybe these kids are really crafty murderers. If they knew that this
: creepy Chavis guy next door was a chicken hawk (perhaps they've been
: warned to stay away from him), what better way to introduce
: uncertainty and doubt by claiming that Mr. Chavis was making sexual
: advances at them, and there was some sort of bizarre love triangle
: going on.
They weren't warned to stay away from him. Terry King put Ricky Chavis on
the list of people authorized to pick his sons up from school. Its when
King went to the school and had Chavis' name removed from that list that
the murder occured.
There really can't be much doubt that Chavis was still molesting kids. A
guy with a history of sexual abuse, who has a reputation for letting all
the neighborhood boys come into his heavily secured home (nobody can
approach unexpectedly), would need a ridiculous amount of self control to
keep his hands off the kiddies. And he had 3 years to groom Alex. A guy
who wants to quit molesting stays away from kids.
Now as far as being an easy fall guy for the actual murder, I hope the
evidence at the trial at least almost proves things one way or the other.
: These kids may well have known that a jury would have little sympathy
: for a person previously convicted of a sex crime against children, and
: made up a story linking Chavis.
: I'm certainly not trying to defend any of the parties involved here!
: Chavis certainly wansn't acting as a reponsible adult by just
: socializing with these kids given his past record. But I would take
: the kids' testimony against Mr. Chavis with a great degree of
: skepticism.
Alex's attorney's opening statement didn't sound as desperate as I
expected. It sounded like there might be evidence Chavis' stories are
full of shit, at least. If things he said are proven to be lies, and it
isn't clear that the reason for those lies is to avoid a sex abuse
conviction, I'm going to wonder why.
If court tv is going to continue to ignore the King trial in favor of
introducing us to everyone who ever met David Westerfield, I hope I can
read a transcript of the trial some day, and try to figure out what really
happened.
-Rob
vond...@hotmail.com
Luk wrote:
How could he *not* be staring into the microphone? He's so tiny he needs telphone books to
sit on.
Vonda
vond...@hotmail.com
"Robert S." wrote:
> vond...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<3D6E8187...@hotmail.com>...
>
> > I transcribed this from Court TV's web page. If this isn't evidence
> > Ricky Chavis was up to his eyeballs in this, and that the kids were
> > operating under his control
>
> Perhaps you're right, but there is another theory:
>
> Maybe these kids are really crafty murderers. If they knew that this
> creepy Chavis guy next door was a chicken hawk (perhaps they've been
> warned to stay away from him), what better way to introduce
> uncertainty and doubt by claiming that Mr. Chavis was making sexual
> advances at them, and there was some sort of bizarre love triangle
> going on.
>
> These kids may well have known that a jury would have little sympathy
> for a person previously convicted of a sex crime against children, and
> made up a story linking Chavis.
Yeah. Let's pity the poor picked-on pedophile.
If their own father didn't know about Chavis (or anyone else, according to the
news reports, since he was a big fan of letting neighborhood kids hang around
his house, all whom's parents were shocked to discover Chavis was a convicted
child molester), how the hell would the kids know? Neither one comes across as
Napoleons of Crime.
> I'm certainly not trying to defend any of the parties involved here!
> Chavis certainly wansn't acting as a reponsible adult by just
> socializing with these kids given his past record. But I would take
> the kids' testimony against Mr. Chavis with a great degree of
> skepticism.
Uh, did you read the letter from Chavis to Alex King? It throws that whole
scenario right out the window. He was molesting Alex for sure, and I'm betting he
was molesting Derek on the side. And the fact he keeps repeating "if you don't
change your testimony the plan will work and we'll be together", which strongly
suggests to me he was the mastermind behind this whole sick little plot. Chavis
is in this up to his eyeballs.
Vonda
Luk
> How could he *not* be staring into the microphone? He's so tiny he needs telphone books to
> sit on.
>
> Vonda
Incredibly sad.
Luk
Luk
"Robert S." wrote:
> what better way to introduce
> uncertainty and doubt by claiming that Mr. Chavis was making sexual
> advances at them, and there was some sort of bizarre love triangle
> going on.
>
> These kids may well have known that a jury would have little sympathy
> for a person previously convicted of a sex crime against children, and
> made up a story linking Chavis.
They seem awfully young to have done that much plotting
without a great deal of help. Particularly given that the
younger brother, who is little more than a baby, is testifying
at length.
> Chavis certainly wansn't acting as a reponsible adult by just
> socializing with these kids given his past record. But I would take
> the kids' testimony against Mr. Chavis with a great degree of
> skepticism.
Not me. Regardless of what the children were guilty of,
there was a controlling pedophile hard at work.
Luk
Robert S.
> "Robert S." wrote:
> Yeah. Let's pity the poor picked-on pedophile.
Exactly my point! I'm certainly not defending this guy (I called him
"creepy" in my post). But laywers and judges know that many people
(like-you) will be willing to convict any person with a record of
child-molestation (or even an accusation of it!) to death, regardless
of the circumstances of the case at hand.
All I'm saying is that you need to be skeptical about the kid's story.
They're either lying now, or they were lying before. There's no reason
to prefer one story over the other because we all happen to dislike
child molestors.
Lars Eighner
<c5511e32.02090...@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Robert S.
broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> All I'm saying is that you need to be skeptical about the kid's story.
> They're either lying now, or they were lying before. There's no reason
> to prefer one story over the other because we all happen to dislike
> child molestors.
I think it is very reasonable to presume that Chavis
probably did it or put the kids up to it. Unfortunately, we
now live in an age in which "presume" and "probably" seem to
be good enough to obtain a criminal conviction.
It seems very clear that the state doesn't know who
wielded the bat - or whether it was all of them taking
turns. This is the kind of situation that conspiracy law
was meant to deal with. Of course, in some places, you have
to have some evidence beyond the testimony of the
conspirators. Nonetheless, I can't help thinking the
prosecution has found the worst possible way of proceeding.
Isn't the state admitting that there is reasonable
doubt who beat the father to death? If not, then it must be
the case that at least one of the prosecutions is
unreasonable. Why not just keep trying people for the crime
until they find a jury that will convict one of them?
Defense attorneys have only one duty: to present the
best case for their client that the facts will allow (which
means of course that they should not present a case that
they know to be false). But prosecutors have a duty in
addition to presenting the state's best case, and that is to
do justice. How it can possibly be just to proceed on two
different theories, when it must be the case that at least
one of them is false, is beyond me.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
- President Elmer Bush
vond...@hotmail.com
"Robert S." wrote:
Even a convicted child molester we know is lying to us already about having
molested one of the kids? Puh-leeze. Trust, like respect, is not inherent. It
must be earned. Chavis has done nothing to earn either my trust or my respect.
Vonda
Robert S.
> "Robert S." wrote:
>
> They seem awfully young to have done that much plotting
> without a great deal of help. Particularly given that the
> younger brother, who is little more than a baby, is testifying
> at length.
Well, the trials over, and your theory seems to be wrong! The jury,
hearing much more evidence than any of us have, convicted the boys and
acquitted Chavis (though he may spend more time in jail for "accessory
charges" and child abuse charges than the boys will, which is OK by
me!)
Lars Eighner
<c5511e32.02090...@posting.google.com>, the lovely and
talented Robert S. broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> Luk <lukn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3D76195E...@bellsouth.net>...
The theory that kids are innocent until they are
corrupted by the world leaves much to be desired. So far as
I can see, they are born grasping, greedy, screaming little
monsters. They soon develope into sidewalk-shitting,
gum-chewing, Popsickle-dripping slightly larger little
monsters. They have no concept of truth or falsehood, but
say whatever suits their purpose at the time. No one has to
teach them to scheme and murder; all that is necessary is
that no one teaches them not to.
Really, does no one remember his school days? Weren't
their kids who would frame a classmate for a prank and tell
the most elaborate whoppers without batting an eye. Neither
Ken Lay no Dick Cheney at their scheming best can hold a
candle to the intrigues kids dream up. Hasn't anyone read
The Turn of the Screw? Didn't you see The Omen?
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
War on Terrorism: Bad News from the Sanity Front
"In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to ...
torture." --Jonathan Alter,_Newsweek_
Robert Hart
: Luk <lukn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3D76195E...@bellsouth.net>...
The jury foreperson states the jury did not think the boys plotted
anything. A separate jury acquitted Chavis, amazing the boys' jury.
She says the boys were convicted because they opened the door for Chavis,
who they think swung the bat. Then she says they were not convinced
there was any plan to kill Terry King, and were not convinced the boys
knew Chavis was going to kill Terry King.
According to their stated thoughts, they convicted the boys but had
reasonable doubt. Thats a bad jury.
Interesting that the boys were convicted for the exact reason they said
Chavis told them they would be convicted. "You opened the door for me.
You're guilty too." It sounded ridiculous to me at the time that anyone
would believe opening the door for him would result in conviction. Silly
me.
-Rob