In case you may have forgotten, what with everything else that's gone on since, Gary Ridgway was the no-mark who confessed to the murder of 71 (at least) prostitutes in Washington State in the 1980s and 1990s. He was sent down for life in 2003 and is currently aged 65, serving out his nasty life in Washington State Pen. This book is by his main defence lawyer.
The defense lawyers in a big serial killer case must get a lot of stick - "how could you defend that creep?" - and you rarely hear them defend themselves - I believe that's called irony. In this book Mark Prothero speaks up for his line of business. He says that you have to make the prosecution prove it in court, make sure all the rules of fairness are followed, make sure it's a trial and not a lynching. He says it's far more likely for innocent people to be found guilty than the opposite. Hmm, why would that be, Mark ?
That’s just the way the system works, even with all the rights we theoretically afford the accused.
Wow - I would have liked a bit more detail there! He also says that if one guilty person does occasionally go free, that’s better than having our rights suppressed to the point where all the guilty would be convicted. That’s the path to dictatorship.
[So we wonder if the Nazis or Stalin had a fantastic clear-up rate for their crimes and we see that the cases of Dr Marcel Petiot and Andrei Chikatilo indicate otherwise. But I digress.]
Mark says that defense lawyers are the quality control for the criminal justice system, making sure it's operating under the rules.
In a significant way, our most important client is the constitution itself.
I like that, and I thought this was quite brilliant :
Politicians love to defend the constitution except when it comes to defending the constitution.
By which he means that in the Green River case, Washington State and local politicians were squawking loud and long about the $1.9 million which was requested by Gary Ridgway's defense team at a point where the county's finances were in deficit. It was a tough ask, but the defense had to sift through all the records on all the 49 murders he was charged with to check if maybe they themselves could discover if someone else had done them, a big job I'm sure you would agree.
AN UNEASY DIGRESSION
All well and good, but now dig this. When this mostrous Green River case dropped into his lap, Mark was finishing up a previous murder case, concerning a guy named Roy Webbe. Roy is found guilty of rape-murder, and Mark says this:
I was disappointed but hadn't gotten my hopes up too high, Roy's defense had strained credulity. Roy had insisted on taking the stand on his own behalf. He testified that he, a mentally deranged, drug-addicted transient with a head full of dirty dreadlocks, had consensual sex with the victim, a single mom whom he’d never met before. Then, later, someone else had come into her apartment and nearly decapitated her with a steak knife. So even though we had put up a good, hard fight, I wasn't completely surprised by the jury's verdict.
Well now - if the defense is quality control of the prosecution to prevent a lynching, how come it doesn't quality control itself? Why would Mark even allow such a ridiculous story to be told by his client? Okay maybe he couldn't prevent it because the client insisted. But then, why would he be DISAPPOINTED when the jury found Roy Webbe to be guilty even though he openly admits Roy's story was a crock of shit? The clear implication is that Mark really wanted Roy to be acquitted even though he himself thought Roy's story was unbelievable.
This is the charge we tend to lay against (some) defense lawyers, that they move heaven and earth to free the guilty for pay. This is the charge Mark ably refutes in his earlier defense of the defense and yet then convicts himself of, as you see. Any reasonable person would not have "gotten their hopes up too high" for the acquittal of his rape-murderer because in fact he'd have been hoping like hell for a conviction because he would have known at some point that his client was in fact a deranged rape-murderer.
BUT AS I WAS SAYING
The murders of prostitutes from 1982 to 1998 were not solved. They had to wait for science to introduce DNA profiling. The they were solved.
That's a lot of years for a guy with a low IQ to be able to go round picking up prostitutes, strangling them and dumping the bodies in or near one particular river. His pattern hardly varied.
So, after the DNA turned up positive in 2003 and Ridgway was arrested, there began a horrible "dance of the scorpions" as the authors call it. The defense lawyers have to make a dual assumption
1) he's innocent;
2) he's guilty
This is because they have to prepare immediately for the "mitigation" part of the trial, which is where the prosecution asks for the death penalty and the defence asks for a life sentence. So one lawyer scurries around asking family members if Gary ever bumped his head real bad, and investigates whether breathing paint fumes during his job could have made him kill approx 60 women (the number keeps going up as the book progresses). And another lawyer scurries around trying to re-investigate all the police investigations of all 49 murders to see if some other guy did it.
But then, the defense team realises that Gary was definately guilty of the (mere) 5 murders he's originally accused of. Then then have to wait for the "tipping point" - when their client will confess to them. After that comes possibly the weirdest aspect to the story - Gary confesses to the police and then HE has to prove his confessions aren't all lies!
He does this by taking detectives to sites they never knew about where he buried bodies. But the landscape has changed so much in 15-20 years that Gary gets it repeatedly wrong. Finally, after ten sites are searched, some bones are found - and everyone is elated! Leading to this exchange (get your sick bag ready):
Mark : Good job, Gary.
Gary: Thanks, thank goodness they found someone.
Mark : I hope you're feeling better about this now. What a huge relief!
Gary: Yeah, it is a huge relief... I knew I'd left her there.
He looked at me, nodding. I could see tears welling up in his eyes.
[note : Gary Ridgway was very sentimental, he cried a lot.] The stress he'd been keeping inside must have been nearly unbearable, especially after everyone had repeatedly condemned him for lying.... I told Gary "Have a good restful night's sleep. You've done something good. You should feel good about it."
The lawyers stroke and praise the slaughterer of 70 plus women not because they've lost their moral compasses, not because they're in awe of their famous client, but because they need Ridgway to keep co-operating. So it's like trout tickling, easy does it, no quick movements please. And it makes for very nauseating reading.
Finally : this is a great big book and whilst it's very true that many tedious details about Mark Prothero's other life as a swimming coach are included (to humanise him) and there are also a great many needless repetitions and stylistic infelicities, and in spite of the fact that Mark Prothero can be caned very harshly for some moral turpitude of his own, as you've seen, this is an instant true crime classic for true crime fans everywhere.