It’s a tough assignment all around. Tough for the jurors; tough for the judge; tough for the attorneys; tough for the journalists covering the trial, and tough even for their readers. But it’s tough most of all for the families of Jonathan Sellers, 9, and Charlie Keever, 13, and others who loved them. The boys were tortured and “bound, gagged, molested and eventually strangled with ropes” more than a decade ago.
Jurors who heard the details of the case returned with a verdict Wednesday. Scott Thomas Erskine, 40, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the slaying of the boys. He now faces the possibility of the death sentence.
Erskine was charged eight years after the 1993 deaths of the boys when new genetic testing techniques enabled police to link him to DNA evidence found at the crime scene. His trial began Sept. 22; deliberations began Tuesday, and the guilty verdict was returned on Wednesday. The penalty phase of the trial, to determine whether Erskine should get life in prison without parole or be executed, is scheduled to begin Oct. 14.
Descriptions about the trial have been restrained even while trying to convey the horror of what happened to the boys. Veteran court reporter J. Harry Jones, who covered the trial, called it “one of the sickest crimes I’ve ever seen.” Just how tough the trial was for jurors and spectators was apparent in a story Sept. 24 that told of a television reporter who ran out of the courtroom, overcome with emotion after seeing photos of the bodies.
A reader who expressed concern for the families of the two boys wanted to know whether it was necessary to go into the horrible details of the case, saying the Union-Tribune might as well have drawn pictures. I was not surprised by the complaint. Readers who find details of a crime disturbing sometimes feel they must speak out for the victims’ families. They aren’t considering, however, that the families already know all too well what has happened to their loved ones; the newspaper is not the source of their information. Even so, what surprised me was that there were not more complaints.
As Jones pointed out, Charlie’s and Jonathan’s families knew how they were killed; they don’t want details kept from the public. “These mothers want the facts known,” Jones said. “They want people to know what Scott Erskine did to their boys.”
Bill Callahan, legal affairs editor, said the details of what happened to the boys are much more gruesome than has been reported. And even though reporting has been restrained, telling readers what was done to Charlie and Jonathan is especially important in a death penalty case, he said.
“It is our obligation to report without being unnecessarily explicit what happened to the boys, how the crime was solved and who Scott Erskine is,” he said.
“The public should be informed of the details that the District Attorney’s Office weighs and uses in deciding whether to seek a defendant’s execution,” Callahan said. “The district attorney is an elected official, and the decision on whether to seek or not seek the death penalty is perhaps the most important decision made by that office.”
Like Jones, Callahan is well aware of what the crime has done to Charlie’s and Jonathan’s families. “The boys’ families have been tortured by these horrible crimes for over a decade and have counted on us and other members of the press to keep this story alive so their boys’ killer could finally be brought to justice,” Callahan said. “They have been well aware of far more explicit facts than we have reported, they were informed about our story and quoted in it and have no objections to our coverage,” he said. “In addition, publishing the circumstances of how two innocent boys could be slain just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time informs the public of the unfortunate dangers that lurk out there in today’s world.”
Given the crime, I think the coverage has been appropriate. The information was not unduly emphasized; it was not sensationalized. As Callahan pointed out, it is sometimes necessary to go beyond the standard, numbing phrases, to say just how they were molested and what it means to say the boys were tortured. Disturbing as it is, it provides insight to what jurors, who are weighing the penalty, will be considering in making a recommendation.
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619) 293-1525. Send e-mail to: readers.rep@uniontrib.com.
Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
——————————————————————————–
