A Reply from and an Open Response to Dan Rastatter

While I have not yet received a response from Dr. Alvin Goldstein, I did hear from Dan Rastatter this evening.  I was disappointed in the response on a variety of levels.  Not only did he give no indication that he intended to change the content of his abstract with regards to the Jerry Parker case, but he also accused me of desiring revenge, being callous and complacent with regards to police corruption.  Here is his replay in its entirety.

Dear Mr. Kimberlin,

I read your email in regards to my summary of the Jerry L. Parker molestation case.  You raise a few claims that conceivably chip away at Parker's defense.  However, the case against Parker is so weak that the points you make would have little effect in changing an evaluation of his case based on the information presented in Dr. Goldstein's account.  Parker may now be attending parole hearings, but innocent persons often feel coerced into doing so.

Because of the girls' youth, it is questionable whether they were old enough to give credible testimony.  Individuals that young are quite susceptible to believing and parroting opinions of adults rather than what they actually witnessed.  Secondly, the girls all failed to identify Parker in the first photo lineup they saw.  The case against Parker should have died there. Even if one ignores the girls' youth and their failure to initially identify Parker, there are many aspects to the case that are not very credible.

Your email suggests you allow emotion to enter into your evaluation of the case.  The severity or emotional impact of a crime does not logically affect what the evidence proves.  Apparently you are callously willing to subject a possibly innocent person to decades of imprisonment because it is "poor taste" to seriously question his accusers.

Judging from Dr. Goldstein's account, I am not at all sure the girls were molested, even if not by Parker.  It would be easy to believe that the girls got their stories from an actual event, but the details of their stories suggest that the molestation could not have happened in the way they describe.  If the girls were molested, they don't seem particularly upset about it, as they appear willing to cavalierly add to their account.

In your letter to Dr. Goldstein you dispute Parker's claims and write "I tend to desire a higher level of proof for claims of any kind in order to be swayed."  However, the burden of proof is on you or the prosecution to prove Parker guilty, not on him to prove his innocence.  I am not aware of any clear evidence that a crime was committed by anyone.

I am sorry that Parker murdered members of your family, if the evidence does indeed prove that.  Nevertheless, the fact that Parker may have murdered people does not mean he molested the girls.  It is unfortunate that Parker was less than polite to members of your family during his most recently trial, but few individuals take kindly to others who attempt to put them in jail.

In reading Goldstein's account, I wondered why police seemed to be framing Parker.  The evidence you relate suggests that police framed him because of his past murder convictions.  Police initially told the girls that they did not believe their stories; then they suddenly decided to focus on Parker as a suspect and kept pursuing him even after the girls failed to identify him.

I realize you want revenge on Parker, which he may deserve, but I would only seek such revenge in regard to provable crimes he committed.  If courts refuse to incarcerate him for these crimes, you just have to live with that. If you support police corruption in your desire for revenge, you are doing evil and are hurting people other than Parker.  Keep in mind that Parker's incarceration is never going to not provide you justice.  It is never going to bring back family members that were killed.

Sincerely,

Dan Rastatter

I felt it necessary to address his points and criticisms.  My response was as follows:

Mr. Rastatter,

I must admit that I am disappointed by your interpretation of my correspondence.  I would like to clarify the fact that I do not in any way desire revenge upon Jerry Parker.  While I would have loved to have known my grandmother and uncle, and while there is no doubt that he committed their murders, it would be completely antithetical to my own personal ethics to wish harm or hardship upon him.  Having never known my slain relatives, my sense of loss with regards to them is of more a theoretical nature than a personal or emotional one. Personally, I have nothing to gain by convincing you or Dr. Goldstein of Mr. Parker's guilt.  Furthermore, I have made no attempt to convince anyone of his guilt with regards to the molestation of the three young girls.  Quite the contrary, I explicitly stated that I would "not attempt to further argue Parker's guilt in this case".

You should be aware that Dr. Goldstein made his living as an expert witness.  He was paid to testify against the credibility of eyewitness testimony.  This in and of itself is reason to read his account with a skeptical eye.  Furthermore, the evidence presented on the page in question was provided by Mr. Parker.  Dr. Goldstein readily admits that he had nothing to do with the case.  His interest in the case is to make use of it as an example of why eyewitness testimony is imperfect.  My assertion is simply that the facts that are presented on his page are questionable and incomplete.  If Dr. Goldstein feels the need to relay the story of Mr. Parker, it should be the entire story.  Putting forth only those pieces of information which support the idea that one is trying to espouse while ignoring contrary and/or harmful information is a classic example of confirmation bias.  It is foolish to take the word and evidence of the convicted as truth and parrot it as fact without investigation.  The information surrounding the handling of the investigation comes from Mr. Parker.  Dr. Goldstein did not speak with the investigators.  He did not speak with the prosecutors.  He did not speak with the defense attorney, the judge, the witnesses or even the court clerk.  He spoke with no one with any relationship to the case whatsoever, with the exception of Mr. Parker.

There may well have been issues with the handling of the investigation.  There may have been serious flaws.  That does not change the fact that Dr. Goldstein's account of it is one sided and incomplete.  Anyone who reads the entirety of Dr. Goldstein's article can plainly see the bias that is displayed.  The article is peppered with unnecessary quotations used to convey sarcasm and skepticism. They are so prevalent that it detracts from the article.  Dr. Goldstein's desire to persuade the reader of the problems relating to eyewitness testimony is so strong that it colors the arguments and the text as a whole.

As for my being 'willing to subject a possibly innocent person to decades of imprisonment because it is "poor taste" to seriously question his accusers', I would suggest that you read my email to Dr. Goldstein again.  I have absolutely no desire to see any innocent person imprisoned.  My comment regarding Dr. Goldstein's "poor taste" was directed exclusively to his use of quotation marks around the words victim and crime.  Of the 23 jurists who heard the testimony and evidence in the case, 22 felt that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Neither you nor Dr. Goldstein were present for that testimony and I find it rather arrogant on the part of Dr. Goldstein to claim superiority of reasoning over all 22 of those men and women.  The simple facts of this matter are that Dr. Goldstein obtained his information from Mr. Parker and based his arguments on that information.  You obtained your information from Dr. Goldstein's account.  As such, you are working from a set of half-truths provided by a convicted murderer and pedophile and filtered by a man with a career interest in the argument that he is expressing.  You claim below that the girls "don't seem upset" about their victimization and that they "cavalierly add to their account".  I can tell you from having seen these young girls give testimony that they were upset beyond what I can describe.  The trial and testimony was clearly very difficult for them.  If you have children, as I do, you should know that it is difficult for a 10 and 11 year old to tell any story the same way twice...much less while under interrogation from a defense attorney.  So, the fact that there were differences and/or discrepancies in their testimony is not surprising.  I will agree that this makes their testimony less reliable.  However, your statement that they do not seem upset is unfounded and ill conceived.

You told me in your reply that "the burden of proof is on you or the prosecution to prove Parker guilty, not on him to prove his innocence".  I agree completely that the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove his guilt.  However, it is certainly not on me. I have nothing to do with Mr. Parker, his case or his guilt or innocence.  A jury of his peers concluded that the prosecution met that burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Therefore, he was convicted and jailed.  I do not ask you or anyone else to believe one way or the other with regards to Mr. Parker's guilt in this matter.  I only asked that the entire story be told accurately or that no story be told at all.  I cannot imagine that anyone would find this to be an unreasonable request.  Simply regurgitating information supplied by the accused is not only irresponsible, but also disrespectful to the victims of Mr. Parker's crimes and their families.

I am by no means a "callous" man.  I believe that we all make mistakes in our lives and that we all should be given the opportunity to atone for those mistakes.  Mr. Parker has at no point in his incarceration made any attempt to do so.  As for your insinuated skepticism of Mr. Parker's responsibility for the 1970 murders of my grandmother and uncle (as read from "if the evidence does indeed prove that" and "may have murdered"), I would direct you to the Missouri Supreme Court verdict on the matter.  It clearly elicits a variety of physical evidence, testimony and admissions on the part of Mr. Parker which led to his conviction.  I am confident that no one, even Dr. Goldstein, would question the merits of that case.  For your reference, that verdict can be found here:

http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CMO%5CMO2%5C1974%5C19740408_0017.MO.htm/qx

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to directly address the last paragraph of your email.  I wish for no revenge of any kind.  The penalties prescribed by the courts for Mr. Parker's convictions on the charges of murder and with regards to the molestation of the three young girls are more that sufficient for me.  Clearly the courts have not refused to incarcerate him, quite the contrary.  I have in no way supported, nor will I ever support, police corruption of any kind, in any form or for any purpose.  In fact, I find it abhorrent and take exception with any attempt to suggest otherwise.  Those who abuse the power that society grants them are even more despicable than the common criminals that they are tasked to attend.

It seems clear to me that you have dismissed my email as emotionally driven.  I can assure you that it was not.  I simply desired to express to both you and Dr. Goldstein that Mr. Parker is not the innocent victim that he is made out to be and to ask that either his entire story be told or that it be removed in its entirety.  An unwillingness to provide all of the information relating to Mr. Parker would only illustrate a desire to prop up an argument against the legal system over a desire to see the truth of his story told.  It is certainly your prerogative to maintain your site in whatever way you see fit.  However, I honestly hope that you are not so blinded by your desire to put forth a belief as to be unwilling to give a complete account of the stories that you use to support it.  I am sure that you can understand how detrimental that would be to the integrity of your site and your desire to see justice served.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
-Michael Kimberlin