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 Neeley’s daughter when she was 12. Neeley turned himself in to police after the television appearance.

Neeley’s 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 victim’s 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 girl’s" accusations against Terrell. What father would not feel the same?

But Neeley’s 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, Neeley’s 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, Neeley’s 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 didn’t 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 2^nd degree murder and given a relatively light sentence of 10 years for which he will probably serve about half.