Ten Other Factual Errors and Material Misstatements
Note: the list below does not include varous trivial errors in Ms. Manning's writings even though precisely those kinds of arguments constitute the greater part of Ms. Manning's "response" to "The Legend of Robert Halsey."
1. Factual error about the general visibility of the crime scene. Ms. Manning claimed that when the bus was parked on the causeway, it could easily be seen by passersby on Route 8 and from Whitney's Farm. This is not true. The view from Route 8 right where Nobody's Road leads off is entirely obscured by trees. One cannot see beyond the edge of the dense woods that extend all the way to the lake, much further away. This photo captures the view of a car on Route 8 just as it approaches the sign for Nobody's Road. (The photo was taken at Whitney's Farm).
2. Factual error about the amount of time from initial disclosure until the all-important first interview at the Lanesboro Police Department. Ms. Manning claims that the initial police interview of the twins was "three days" after the initial disclosure. [8.2] Actually, it was less than two. The first disclosure was during evening visiting hours on Saturday [8.3]. The chief was contacted the next day. The boys were interviewed at the Lanesboro police at 9AM the next day (Monday). The total elapsed time from the Saturday visiting hours to their Monday morning statements was less than 40 hours, not more than 70, as Ms. Manning claims. These facts are all contained in the police reports that Ms. Manning chastised me for not citing - reports that were not introduced at trial or made part of the public record.
3. Material misrepresentation
of arguments about behavioral symptoms. Ms. Manning significantly understates
the evidence. Compare the actual argument from Cheit (2001) with Manning's
inaccurate version:
| The
precise statement: |
Ms. Manning's version: |
| "However, the 'unusual behavior' was not nearly as normal and innocuous as Harris asserts. The kind of behavior that mother observed (and wondered about, going so far as to discuss the matter with the boys' doctor) included obscene outbursts (e.g., the boys started yelling 'freaking asshole bait' that year) and anal compulsive behavior in the bathtub (e.g., they also spread their cheeks and said things like "see my butt hole")(tr.6:1112-1120)." [Cheit, 2001, p. 49] | "He thinks, for example, that it's 'unusual' for school age boys to add swear words to their vocabulary." |
4. Material misrepresentation of the context in which Dr. Fishman’s professional relationship to the twins was kept from the jury. Ms. Manning turns this into some dark secret that the jury should have heard. What she does not reveal is that the defense fought to keep it out. This is classic defense lawyer journalism: make a mountain out of the "omission" of some molehill that the defense actually kept out of evidence in the first instance.
5. Ms. Manning makes the absurd claim that Robert Halsey could have been an asset to his case—if only he had taken the stand. What Ms. Manning overlooks is how hard the defense fought to keep out "prior bad acts" in this case. She also overlooks the fact that in front of a jury, Halsey would have been confronted with all the lies he told the night he was arrested. Without taking the stand, the statement he gave that night never came into evidence. The jury was spared hearing of the dishonesty that Ms. Manning readily overlooks. It wasn’t some rookie defense lawyer unduly afraid of putting his client on the stand. Halsey was represented by a seasoned public defender who knew how it would look if Halsey had to answer questions about: calling a five-year-old girl a bitch, calling the twins "freaking asshole bait," not to mention his arsenal of weapons: knives, guns, rope, and bats. Not wanting to have to answer questions about all those matters is why Mr. Halsey did not take the stand.
6. Factual error in measurement: Ms. Manning inflated the size of the concrete blocks by more than one-third. She asserted that the three concrete blocks were "over four feet tall." That is not true. All three blocks are three-by-three. (Measured on July 15, 2002).
7. Ms. Manning thinks that the testimony about crawfish was fantastic and unbelievable. But that is not what the man who lived on Nobody’s Road said. He verifies the children’s testimony. Ms. Manning finds it incredulous that no "sane adult" came forward to question a story that involved crayfish. Perhaps Ms. Manning missed the testimony where an adult who lived on Nobody’s Road verifies that there were crayfish on his property (tr. 1128).
8. Further, mischaracterizations of arguments in "The Legend of Robert Halsey." Ms. Manning summarizes the physical evidence corroborating the twin’s testimony as if the shopping cart was the only item that Mr. Brenner verified seeing in the area. Ms. Manning sums this up as the shopping cart "spells guilt." But she leaves out the much more incriminating evidence that the boys also described: pornography. They did not disclose this in the first interview, though, so their corroborated statement on this matter never made it to the jury. But see, Mr. Brenner's’ testimony corroborating their testimony (tr. 1229-31)—testimony that the defense successfully kept out of the trial.
9. Ms. Manning levied at least one more false accusation about alleged errors in "The Legend of Robert Halsey." She claims that Halsey was 64, not 60 as "the Legend of Robert Halsey" allegedly claimed. But the reference to 60 was a reference to when he was driving the bus, not when he was in trial. He was 60 when he was driving the bus, as Ms. Manning well knows.
10. Ms. Manning provides inadequate documentation to assess one aspect of her argument. She claims to know what Robert Halsey’s defense lawyer "felt" about the merits of putting him on the stand. But Ms. Manning does not provide any indication that she interviewed the defense lawyer, who would have been unlikely to waive attorney-client privilege for a free-lancejournalist. But if he did waive this confidentiality, this is certainly noteworthy and Ms. Manning should provide full documentation of the details so that others can examine any interview evidence that provides the basis for this otherwise-unsubstantiated claim.