Analysis
by Barbara Kirwin, Ph.D.
Mo.
v. Neeley
The
case of Missouri v. William Paul Neeley revolves around a dramatic,
calculated confession of a shooting. Neeley, in a grandstand play,
confessed directly on camera to TV reporters that he had "executed"
his longtime friend, Mike Terrell, because he believed Terrell
had raped Neeleys daughter when she was 12. Neeley turned
himself in to police after the television appearance.
Neeleys Avenger/Robin Hood Confession was
a masterwork of damage control and spin doctoring, all carefully
crafted to justify his vigilante actions under the primal notion
of a father protecting his child. The victims relatives
and supporters claim that the alleged rape never occurred and
that Neeley contrived it as an excuse to murder Terrell over a
different grievance. But Neeley easily connected with his neighbors
in the rural Missouri county where he would be tried and sentenced.
Neeley presented himself as a deeply religious and devoted father
who was moved to the point of desperation by his "baby girls"
accusations against Terrell. What father would not feel the same?
But
Neeleys matter-of-fact description of his merciless execution
of Terrell also reveals that he is less the over-controlled and
righteous man than he would prefer us to believe. He has an air
of psychopathic expedience about him the ability to let
nothing stand in his way. There is no indication that he was driven
into an emotional frenzy or killed in a fit of rage. Neeley became
a self-appointed avenger, a one-man judge, jury, and executioner.
He consciously and deliberately carried out a death sentence.
Although
psychological evidence was introduced at the trial, Neeleys
media statements precluded any successful application of the insanity
defense. He had calmly and lucidly stated that he knew what he
was doing and he knew it was wrong. At first this may seem self-defeating.
After all, the only viable defense Neeley had after his confession
and surrender was one based on psychological grounds. He justified
his decision to kill (and it clearly appeared to be a premeditated
decision) with reasoning that was perhaps convincing to jurors.
He explained that he wished to protect his daughter from being
treated as a perpetrator and not as a victim. This of course,
struck a chord with people who had been the victims of rapes or
sex crimes or who considered themselves powerless in the face
of the system.
On
the surface, Neeleys confession and surrender appear compelling.
Yet deeper analysis raises disturbing questions. If Neeley was
such an upstanding citizen and so willing to pay the penalty for
his admittedly wrongful actions, why didnt he quietly turn
himself in to the police? Does a simple man who is ashamed of
sinful actions hold a press conference? The answer is a resounding
"yes" if that is going to give him a beneficial edge
in the court of public opinion.
Prosecutors
were unable to indict Neeley for premeditated murder. His formal
defense was one of temporary insanity. He was convicted of 2nd
degree murder and given a relatively light sentence of 10 years
for which he will probably serve about half.