noircitynpcs (noircitynpcs) wrote in noircity, @ 2014-11-08 13:29:00 |
|
|||
Saturday November 8th, 1954 |
|
Not-Guilty Navarro Month of debate dead-ends as jury rules in favor of defense |
|
by Jeannie Gibbons Primary suspect Marty Navarro, 37, has been formally acquitted of two second-degree murder charges in the March slaying of Annie Navarro, 34, and Herbert Thomlinson, 35. The jury’s verdict came after fourteen hours of intense debate, during which a crowd of approximately three hundred people gathered and dispersed outside the courthouse to await the conclusion of the trial that began the first week of October. Annie Navarro, wife to Mr. Navarro and a Riverside soup kitchen worker of ten years, was known to devote her afternoons to serving beef and potatoes to the homeless population of Personville. “She was just the sweetest lady. The bee’s knees,” said Personville resident Millie, who claimed to have been attending the kitchen for five years. “She always had a smile on for you when you walked in. Everybody loved her.” Herbert Thomlinson had worked as a milkman’s assistant for four years. Neighbors described him as “gentle, but a little quiet.” “He’d come over to fix your plumbing if you asked, but he was a little shy about coming over for dinner,” clarified Janie Wilson, who lived next door to Thomlinson for three years. Thomlinson and Mrs. Navarro were discovered by Coleman Dock workers in the early morning hours of March 8. Mrs. Navarro had been shot twice, and Thomlinson four times. Both were pronounced dead at the scene by the coroner. It is estimated that the two had been dead for no more than ten hours. The arrest of Marty Navarro two days later spawned a flurry of discussion across Personville. Police and neighbors have attested that Mr. Navarro has no known connections to organized crime, and no prior criminal charges. Yet the acquittal is not without its doubters, with the majority of spectators outside the courthouse gathering to cry accusations. When the doors opened and Mr. Navarro was led down the steps, police hurried the man toward a waiting car as angry onlookers began to demand Mr. Navarro answer the charges for which he’d just been cleared. Defense attorney Ruby Lamont was undaunted by the response. “I’m sure many people won’t like me for it,” she said, “but it is my ethical obligation, as a member of the bar, to ensure Mr. Navarro is given a fair chance. And the jury understood: There just wasn’t enough evidence to really know what happened that night.” |
“It’s not justice if the conviction is the product of mob mentality,” she added. At least one witness from inside the courtroom, however, was stunned. “I thought it was a pretty cut-and-dry case, if you ask me,” declared one man, who asked not to be identified. “Going in, we thought: Some guy sees his wife with another man, snaps, and whacks them both. And I’m telling you right now, I’m far from the only guy who thinks he did it.” Five jurors commented that prosecuting attorney Roger Fitzgerald’s case was damning, and at several points, particularly when a witness admitted she could believe Navarro capable of murder, they had been convinced that the guilty man sat before them. “I’ll tell you what,” said one woman, who claimed to be one of the last members of the jury to acquiesce, “I think it still looks bad for him. I actually feel in my heart that something went wrong today, but the rules say we have to be absolutely certain.” But Lamont’s team compiled a case for reasonable doubt that, in the end, the jury deemed insurmountable. One juror, who asked to be identified only as Ralph, attested that Lamont argued in favor of the true culprit being a known homeless drunkard with a violent criminal record, whom two witnesses confirmed to be in the area on the night of the murders. “Everybody knows the bums are getting to be a problem,” said Sarah Moore, who declared herself to be a friend of Mr. Navarro’s. “They’re all over the place, wanting what we have. Somebody ought to tell them that here in America, we work for our keep.” However, all questioned agreed that there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime itself. Although a great many in Personville doubtless have their own opinions as regarding Mr. Navarro’s guilt or lack thereof, the public is advised to respect the jury’s decision. “When I met Mr. Navarro,” declared Lamont, “I knew this case wouldn’t be as open and shut as some might have wanted you to think.” “I think what happened in the courtroom today wasn’t just a win for me, but for Personville, for Illinois, and for America.” At the time of writing this article, Mayor Abernathy’s office could not be reached for comment. |