 |
 |
|
This news release has been expired
|
|
Tim Masters is Free! Is Jim Broderick Another Mike Nifong?
Southlake, TX
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Chuck Gallagher Ethics Speaker
Tim Masters is free after serving 8 + years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Now 36, Masters was released yesterday from a Colorado prison when DNA evidence pointed the fickle finger of guilt to someone else. But the saga is not over. Masters will find out next month is he will be required to stand trial again or if the charges will be dismissed.
Pursued for twelve years before he was charged with murder, Masters is relieved to be out of prison, but still unsure of his freedom as the saga is not over. Jim Broderick was the investigator involved in the Masters case and a man that Masters hold anger and resentment toward.
According to a CNN article Masters was quoted saying:
"My opinion is that Jim Broderick, the guy in charge of it, has a very big ego and would not allow anything or anyone to convince him that he was wrong," Masters said.
"He made up his mind in the beginning, from day one when he walked into my bedroom and saw my horror drawings and war stories, that I was guilty. Nothing would change his mind."
Masters was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence -- a collection of gory sketches and narratives, a few knives and a forensic psychologist's testimony that Masters' stories and artwork indicated he fantasized about sexual homicides.broderick.jpg
In the Defense request for a new trial (which got Masters released) the following was stated: "Although Det. Broderick (pictured above) was the prosecution's advisory witness and the moving force behind Dr. Meloy being enlisted to provide evidence against Tim Masters, Meloy was allowed to testify that such a profile existed and to base his opinions on it. It appears indisputable, at least, that the profile about which Meloy testified either did not exist or was fake. Certainly Broderick knew what was going on, and it is difficult to imagine that the trial prosecutors did not."
Now...this rings true to another case which could have had a similar outcome. The wrongly accused Duke University lacrosse students - charged with rape - by, now disbarred, Mike Nifong. Had Nifong been able to move forward and get the conviction he sought, three students could have been where Tim Masters has been.
The question is - what would motivate an investigator or district attorney to pursue with such veracity a conviction without truly looking at all the evidence - remembering that one is guilty till proven innocent. In Masters case all the evidence was circumstantial. Other than finding the body and having a dark side with drawings and stories of violence - Tim Masters could have been any kid. And now, after losing a portion of his life - and being changed forever - Tim Masters is free.
Jim Broderick too is free. Is he guilty of a crime? He may be guilty of being an overzealous detective. But did he cross the line like Mike Nifong. Nifong went too far - mostly it seems to promote his political ambition. The price he has paid is huge. Disbarred, lost his job, convicted and now having filed for bankruptcy, Nifong's consequence happened relatively quickly.
According to the Denver Post: "Today, Broderick says he's 100 percent certain Masters is guilty.
He calls it a high point in his career, and he still talks about the things that gave him pause: Masters' statement about the difficulty of pulling a serrated knife from a body, the newspaper on his dresser next to his knife collection."
Every choice has a consequence. That is a reality that cannot be avoided. The Duke students have been exonerated and Nifong has paid a dear price. But what about Broderick - what if anything will he pay for pushing the limits and taking the freedom of Masters for so long? Did Broderick cross the ethical boundary in his pursuit of Masters? And, if so, what price should he pay?
From this vantage point, it looks like Broderick was a Nifong in action - only Nifong got caught since the Duke students had the funds and education to fight for their rights. Masters didn't. He had a father who allowed his son to be interrogated without an attorney cause he thought the law was on their side. He was wrong and didn't live to see his son a free man.
What, if anything, should happen to Jim Broderick?
Chuck Gallagher is a business ethics speaker and Senior Sales Executive. On a crisp October day in 1995, Chuck Gallagher took 23 physical steps… opened a door… and began a new experience that was life-changing. In a style that is far more vulnerable than most motivational keynote speakers, Chuck shares the painful lessons of his life with his audience and touches them forever. For information on Chuck's Motivational Ethics Presentations visit www.chuckgallagher.com.
Pursued for twelve years before he was charged with murder, Masters is relieved to be out of prison, but still unsure of his freedom as the saga is not over. Jim Broderick was the investigator involved in the Masters case and a man that Masters hold anger and resentment toward.
According to a CNN article Masters was quoted saying:
"My opinion is that Jim Broderick, the guy in charge of it, has a very big ego and would not allow anything or anyone to convince him that he was wrong," Masters said.
"He made up his mind in the beginning, from day one when he walked into my bedroom and saw my horror drawings and war stories, that I was guilty. Nothing would change his mind."
Masters was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence -- a collection of gory sketches and narratives, a few knives and a forensic psychologist's testimony that Masters' stories and artwork indicated he fantasized about sexual homicides.broderick.jpg
In the Defense request for a new trial (which got Masters released) the following was stated: "Although Det. Broderick (pictured above) was the prosecution's advisory witness and the moving force behind Dr. Meloy being enlisted to provide evidence against Tim Masters, Meloy was allowed to testify that such a profile existed and to base his opinions on it. It appears indisputable, at least, that the profile about which Meloy testified either did not exist or was fake. Certainly Broderick knew what was going on, and it is difficult to imagine that the trial prosecutors did not."
Now...this rings true to another case which could have had a similar outcome. The wrongly accused Duke University lacrosse students - charged with rape - by, now disbarred, Mike Nifong. Had Nifong been able to move forward and get the conviction he sought, three students could have been where Tim Masters has been.
The question is - what would motivate an investigator or district attorney to pursue with such veracity a conviction without truly looking at all the evidence - remembering that one is guilty till proven innocent. In Masters case all the evidence was circumstantial. Other than finding the body and having a dark side with drawings and stories of violence - Tim Masters could have been any kid. And now, after losing a portion of his life - and being changed forever - Tim Masters is free.
Jim Broderick too is free. Is he guilty of a crime? He may be guilty of being an overzealous detective. But did he cross the line like Mike Nifong. Nifong went too far - mostly it seems to promote his political ambition. The price he has paid is huge. Disbarred, lost his job, convicted and now having filed for bankruptcy, Nifong's consequence happened relatively quickly.
According to the Denver Post: "Today, Broderick says he's 100 percent certain Masters is guilty.
He calls it a high point in his career, and he still talks about the things that gave him pause: Masters' statement about the difficulty of pulling a serrated knife from a body, the newspaper on his dresser next to his knife collection."
Every choice has a consequence. That is a reality that cannot be avoided. The Duke students have been exonerated and Nifong has paid a dear price. But what about Broderick - what if anything will he pay for pushing the limits and taking the freedom of Masters for so long? Did Broderick cross the ethical boundary in his pursuit of Masters? And, if so, what price should he pay?
From this vantage point, it looks like Broderick was a Nifong in action - only Nifong got caught since the Duke students had the funds and education to fight for their rights. Masters didn't. He had a father who allowed his son to be interrogated without an attorney cause he thought the law was on their side. He was wrong and didn't live to see his son a free man.
What, if anything, should happen to Jim Broderick?
Chuck Gallagher is a business ethics speaker and Senior Sales Executive. On a crisp October day in 1995, Chuck Gallagher took 23 physical steps… opened a door… and began a new experience that was life-changing. In a style that is far more vulnerable than most motivational keynote speakers, Chuck shares the painful lessons of his life with his audience and touches them forever. For information on Chuck's Motivational Ethics Presentations visit www.chuckgallagher.com.
Chuck Gallagher
Chuck Gallagher, LLC
Southlake, TX
828-244-1400
360.283.1400
