6-1-2009 New Hampshire:
He's refused sex offender program
Robert Breest, convicted of murdering an 18-year-old Pembroke woman 38 years ago, is seeking parole through a federal lawsuit filed last week.
In his suit, Breest claims he convinced the Department of Correction in Massachusetts, where he's serving 40 years to life, that he should be reclassified from medium to minimum security, leaving him eligible for a work release program and, eventually, a hearing before the parole board.
But the New Hampshire Adult Parole Board, which oversees Breest's potential parole, says that Breest has not satisfied one requirement for work release duty - completion of a sex offender program.
Breest refuses to participate in the program.
Breest was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of Susie Randall, whose body, naked from the waist down, was found on the frozen Merrimack River, under Interstate 93 in East Concord, on March 2, 1971. Breest's crime fell under the now-repealed psychosexual statute, which at the time replaced life without parole.
"We told him years ago he's not going to get another parole hearing until he does the sex offender program because of his conviction for psychosexual murder," said John Eckert, executive assistant for the state's Adult Parole Board. "He's steadfastly through the years denied his guilt for this, and we said that's up to you, but we're not going to release you until you do a sex offender program."
Either this guy doesn't comprehend English, or, there is some pre-condition of sex offender therapy causing him a problem with his background.
Breest has not served prison time quietly since his sentence was handed down in 1973. He's petitioned for and received four additional DNA tests since 2000 through state and federal appeals courts.
The final test, conducted using the latest forensic technology last spring, was the clearest evidence to date that Breest, 71, committed the crime. The results excluded 99.9 percent of the population, prompting Senior Assistant Attorney General Will Delker to say at the time, "This hopefully will end his relentless litigation. . . . There isn't any room for any more doubt about this verdict, not that there ever was."
Randall, the victim, lived in an apartment in Manchester, working two jobs while waiting to attend fashion design school in Boston in the fall of 1971. She was with a friend near Manchester's Granite Square the night of Feb. 27 when the two decided to split up. Randall tried to hitch a ride home at about 11 p.m.
Her body was found three days later. Witnesses placed Breest in the area where Randall was last seen. Forensic investigation matched paint chips from Breest's car with those on Randall's coat, and fibers from her coat - a unique, vintage fur - were found in his car.
Also, blood was found on Breest's dashboard and boots, but DNA testing back then did not narrow a suspect's identity to the extent it does today.
Still, the jury convicted Breest of first-degree murder. Life without parole was off the books in the early 1970s, so Breest was sentenced to 18 years to life in prison.
The sentence was soon increased to 40 years to life because the murder was deemed to be psychosexual in nature, meaning it was committed during a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault.
The Legislature has since repealed the psychosexual murder statute and re-instituted life without parole. Breest remains the only person ever to be sentenced under the psychosexual provision, according to Delker.
Also at the time, convicted criminals received time off their sentences for good behavior. That ruling has also since been changed, in 1983, to something called truth in sentencing.
"Each state has its own version," Eckert said. "The purpose is to make sure a prisoner serves time that he's actually sentenced to serve. Truth in sentencing is probably the most significant change to the sentencing statutes in the last 30 years."
But with good behavior still a part of Breest's sentencing equation, he was eligible for parole in 1995, after serving 22 years in prison; his last parole hearing was in June of 1996.
Breest satisfied most conditions for his parole. He had no convictions in prison over a seven-year period; no escape attempts; no incidents of violence over seven years; and no disciplinary reports during a 12-month span.
But Breest refused to enter a sex offender program, claiming, according to officials, that there was no need for it, since he hadn't committed the crime against Randall.
"We come across prisoners on a regular basis who say, 'I'm not doing this program; I don't need it,' " Eckert said. "We tell them, 'We'll make a contract with you; if you do this program you can almost guarantee you're going to get a favorable vote in the next parole hearing.' But nope. He is quite the litigator. He's filed a lot of lawsuits. He's always denied the offense."
His latest lawsuit seeks to have his crime viewed as second-degree murder because, Breest writes, he has a parole date and has been interviewed by the parole board in New Hampshire. Breest claims the Massachusetts Department of Correction agreed with his assessment, and this should allow him to bypass a sex offender program, his goal all along.
"That Robert Breest, should be considered as serving a second degree murder conviction for the purpose of classification to minimum security for parole purposes . . ." Breest wrote in his lawsuit, "the New Hampshire Department of Corrections has blocked the parole board's intent by denying minimum security and work release placement. This action ultimately prevents Robert Breest from attaining lower security and thwarts the determination of the parole board."
Delker and John Vinson, also of the attorney general's office, said they haven't seen the civil complaint yet. They said the federal court screens these kinds of pleadings before their office reads them.
"I don't know the basis, and hopefully the federal court will just reject it without requiring our office to even respond," Delker said via e-mail. "He has been raising the same issue for 36 years." ..Source.. by RAY DUCKLER, Monitor staff
No comments:
Post a Comment