Irene May Injected with Battery Acid

[deanmine]

Jillian's side of the story

By Laura Pulfer - Cincinnati.com

April 4, 2002

I'd heard that she had an interesting story. A sad story. One she was eager to tell because she was still angry.

Jillian Hansert answered the door of her Colerain Township apartment with an exceptionally cute newborn baby tucked in the crook of one arm. Sarah, she says, born March 22. Jillian rubs her finger absently through the infant's abundant dark hair. The baby looks like her mother, she says.

Mothers and daughters. That's what Jillian wants to talk about.

A year ago, in a business law class at Colerain High School, Jillian was watching a taped TV show about women on California's death row. As Joan Lunden interviewed Kerry Lyn Dalton, Jillian realized she was listening to the woman who murdered her mother. “It made me feel kind of sick,” she says.

A perfectly understandable reaction.

Before she died in 1988, Irene Louise May was beaten, stabbed, injected with battery acid and tortured with electric shocks. Jillian knew these things, having read news accounts. But she had never seen the woman convicted of the murder.

“Then I had to listen to her talk about how tough it was for her to be in prison,” Jillian says. “She said her children don't come to see her. At least, that's their choice. I have no choice. She took that away from me.”

It made her angry, she says, that the woman had a national audience for her complaints. “They never asked me how I felt.”

Bad memories

Jillian was only 5 when her mother was killed. Her memories are not good. Addicted to drugs, Irene May often left Jillian and her two younger brothers to fend for themselves. “We'd be in the bedroom, kind of hiding, and I'd try to take care of them,” she says.

It's hard, she says, to separate “what I really remember from what I've been told over and over.” She believes she sometimes begged for food. But she knows that she did her best to take care of her little brothers.

“My mother loved us,” she says. “She was trying to stay clean.” She has seen records from San Diego social services. The children had been removed from their home, but their mother was trying to get them back. “She never got the chance to be a better person.”

Jillian was adopted two weeks before her seventh birthday. “They wouldn't let me be adopted with my brothers,” she says. “Because all I wanted to do was to take care of them. I thought that was my job.”

At age 5.

Now, here comes the good part. Her adoptive parents are Steve and Cinda Gorman, co-pastors of Westwood First Presbyterian Church. “I came with a lot of baggage,” Jillian says, “but I'm proud of who I became. And I love the family I have now.” This includes her husband, Charlie, a mechanic.

As we talk, Sarah fusses a little, and Jillian soothes her. Competently. Kindly. A good mom, I am thinking.

Child neglect, drugs, murder. A tiny girl hiding with her brothers, thinking they were her responsibility. Then taking on real responsibility as an adult.

Proud of who she became.

Writing her own ending to the story.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////
///////////



Kerry Lyn Dalton

Prison Pen Pal

I must admit upfront- I'm on death row. I'm sure that's gonna scare off a few folks. Perhaps if you continue to read this, I can capture just a bit of your interest. First though. "my crime"? I've been convicted of a murder without not only a body, but also without any weapons, nor a crime scene. Now that I've said that, I will add, this is pretty foreign to me, 'running an ad', fronting myself off--that my burden is 'being lonely'. I've lived a very strong free and of course wild life (which naturally landed me here). Now! I've grown in a much different style. Still of strength but also, I've learned a great deal of respect, respect for all things, and all people. I never take what isn't mine, and live my life with honesty and truthfulness. I am still searching for myself, though I'm not looking for anybody to make my path for me. I wanna smile and laugh and have fun. I'm smart and pretty decent with serious conversations as well. Physically? I'm in very good shape. I'm kinda tall 5'8", yet small, only 126lbs. Every night I exercise and secretly dance. I love music, it's my great escape. When I was free, my greatest addiction was being a thrill seeker and although this holds no danger for me, it's atill a risk. I'll end with something Axle Rose sang, "I'm still alright to smile."

///////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////
/////////

3 Arrested in Slaying Though Body Not Found

By Thom Mrozek - Los Angeles Times

October 28, 1992

Three people were arrested in a torture-murder case in which no body was found after they admitted--and in several instances bragged about--their roles in the crime, it was revealed in court Tuesday.

A preliminary hearing is being held to determine if the three should stand trial on murder charges for killing Irene (Melanie) May in June, 1988. In addition to attacking her with a knife, a screwdriver and a frying pan, they allegedly injected the victim with battery acid.

Richard L. Cooksey, a district attorney investigator with the Metropolitan Homicide Task Force, testified Tuesday that Mark Lee Thompkins, 29; Kerry Lyn Dalton, 39; and Sheryl Ann Baker, 28, implicated themselves in the murder in a mobile home in the isolated East County community of Live Oak Springs.

According to one of his acquaintances, Thompkins explained how the three planned to give May a fatal injection in retribution for stealing some items belonging to Dalton, Cooksey testified.

Thompkins said the victim was given electrical shocks and then a skillet was used to smash her knees, according to the statement given by Donald McNeely.

The body was cut up and the parts were buried on two Indian reservations to make it hard for police to obtain search warrants, Cooksey quoted McNeely as saying.

Dalton and Baker also allegedly admitted to other people their role in the killing, according to the evidence.

Municipal Judge Lawrence Stirling is expected to decide if the three should stand trial in Superior Court at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

DALTON v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY

KERRY LYN DALTON, Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

No. D057048.


BACKGROUND

On June 26, 1988, Dalton's ex-roommate, Irene Melanie May, was murdered at the Live Oaks Springs Trailer Park. At the time, May was tied to a chair in JoAnn Fedor's trailer. Fedor was not present. Dalton injected battery acid into May with a syringe. Co-defendant Sheryl Baker hit May with a cast iron frying pan. Baker and another co-defendant, Mark Tompkins, then stabbed May to death. Later, Tompkins and a fourth individual, who was only identified as "George," disposed of May's body, which was never found.

On November 13, 1992, the San Diego District Attorney filed an information charging Dalton, Tompkins and Baker with conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)) and murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). The information also alleged two special circumstances: (1) intentional killing while lying-in-wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)); and (2) intentional killing involving the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)).

In July 1993, the trials of the three codefendants were severed. In July 1994, Baker pled guilty to second degree murder, and Tompkins pled guilty to first degree murder. At Dalton's trial, which began in early 1995, Baker was a prosecution witness. Tompkins did not testify, but the prosecution presented statements by him through the testimony of one of his cell mates.

On February 24, 1995, the jury found Dalton guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and murder. The jury also found the two special circumstance allegations to be true. Following the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. On May 23, 1995, the trial court sentenced Dalton to death.

On June 25, 2009, Dalton filed her postconviction discovery motion under section 1054.9 in San Diego Superior Court.3

On March 8, 2010, the motion court granted the postconviction discovery motion in part and denied the motion in part.

On March 29, 2010, Dalton filed her petition for writ of mandate to order the motion court to fully grant 50 postconviction discovery requests that were denied in whole or part.

On May 21, 2010, we issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.


Dalton claims the La Mesa Police Department was a member of the prosecution team because it assisted investigators in this case by directing them to Jeanette Bench, who testified for the prosecution at trial about statements made by suspects and others connected to the case. Bench spoke to a La Mesa police officer about May's murder, and the officer contacted district attorney investigator Richard Cooksey, who interviewed Bench. During the Cooksey-Bench interview, Bench related that she had been interviewed by detectives of the La Mesa police force. Bench also said that she and Lacy Grote had heard Fedor "flippin[g] out" and saying that Dalton and Tompkins "killed that girl at [Fedor's] house." Bench told Cooksey: "[S]ome of the [La Mesa] detectives did go and talk to Lacy after I talked to the people in La Mesa."

Contrary to the motion court's ruling, we find the record shows the La Mesa Police Department assisted the prosecution in this case and should be deemed part of the prosecution team. The prosecution learned of Bench's existence because of the La Mesa Police Department. Dalton also alleged the La Mesa Police Department provided reports to the prosecution. On remand, the motion court shall allow Dalton to make the requisite showing under Barnett, supra, 50 Cal.4th at page 894, that a La Mesa Police Department report about an interview with Bench exists. If Dalton can adequately show the report exists, the prosecution shall be ordered to turn it over to her.

Similarly, Dalton's claim that the El Cajon Police Department was part of the prosecution team has merit. El Cajon police officer Richard Naisith contacted sheriff investigator Terry Wisniewski after discussing May's murder with Chris Dalton, the former brother-in-law of Dalton. Wisniewski then interviewed Chris Dalton, who also provided information about Dalton; the prosecution at one point intended to present this information during the penalty phase.7 An El Cajon police sergeant also informed Wisniewski that Cathy Eckstein's son knew where a body was located. Wisniewski followed up by interviewing Eckstein, who testified at Dalton's trial on behalf of the prosecution.8 We conclude that by providing information on the government's case, the El Cajon Police Department was part of the prosecution team. On remand, the motion court shall allow Dalton to make the requisite showing under Barnett, supra, 50 Cal.4th at page 894, that an El Cajon Police Department report concerning Chris Dalton's interview exists. If Dalton makes an adequate showing, the motion court shall order the prosecution to turn over the report to Dalton.


The motion court denied the request for statements Judy Moran, who was on the prosecution's witness list for codefendant's Baker's trial, made to Baker's defense team to the extent the statements were shared with the prosecution. Dalton claimed that Baker told Moran that Tompkins killed May and made Baker watch, which contradicted Baker's testimony against Dalton and Tompkins's version of the events as testified to by a hearsay declarant. If Baker's defense team shared Moran's statements with the prosecution team, the statements would be discoverable because they were within the scope of the trial court's discovery order. (Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 697.) The motion court is to order the prosecution to produce the statements if they are in the possession of the prosecution team.

The motion court denied the request for statements of Roger Tavolazzi, who was not on any of the prosecution's witness lists. Dalton claimed Tavolazzi was a close associate of Dalton, and a district attorney investigator had expressed an interest in interviewing Tavolazzi. Additionally, Dalton claimed that Moran told the investigator that Tompkins had discussed the murder with Tavolazzi. This was an insufficient basis for ordering production of statements by a nonwitness who did not appear on any prosecution witness lists. (See § 1054.1, subd. (f).) The motion court properly denied Dalton's request.

With respect to Dalton's request for a statement by an unknown (confidential informant) white female jail inmate made to a sheriff's deputy, the motion court granted the request to the extent that the prosecution team has any documentation beyond a report prepared by the deputy years after the fact. Dalton has the deputy's belated report. This ruling was correct.

Dalton sought postconviction discovery of all rough or handwritten notes of interviews of "potential or actual witnesses, defendants or suspects by any law enforcement representative involved" in the case. The motion court ruled: "To the extent the witnesses were on the DA's witness list [for Dalton's trial], or actually testified at trial, the DA must provide all reports, including handwritten notes of the witnesses' statements that are in the possession of the prosecution team." We agree with Dalton that the motion court should have also included potential witnesses who were on the prosecution's witness list for Baker's and Tompkins's trials under Steele,

The motion court denied Dalton's request for an audio recording of an interview of James Wood, who was on the prosecution's witness list for Tompkins's trial. Wood, who at times was in custody with Tompkins, reported Tompkins made statements that were inconsistent with Tompkins's version of the crime that was presented at trial. We find this request similar to Dalton's request for Moran's statements and conclude the prosecution must turn over the audio recording of Wood's interview. (Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 697.) On remand, the motion court shall order the prosecution to produce the recording if it is in the possession of the prosecution team.





Dalton sought postconviction discovery of records of telephone calls made from three telephones near or at the Live Oaks Springs Trailer Park. For one of the telephones, Dalton requested calls made for a five-day period surrounding the murder of May. For the other two telephones, Dalton sought records of calls made for a three-month period. The motion court denied the request on relevancy grounds. (See § 1054.1, subd. (c); see fn. 19, ante.) Dalton argues the telephone records are relevant because prosecution witness Fedor testified she telephoned from her trailer, the site of the murder, at least once before and after the crime, and this was a disputed issue at trial. We agree the phone records arguably would be relevant for impeachment of Fedor, who was a major prosecution witness. We also find that Dalton would be entitled to the records on this ground under Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83. The duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady includes impeachment evidence. (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 184.) At the postconviction discovery stage, Dalton is not required to show the materiality under the meaning of Brady. (Barnett, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 894.) On remand, the motion court shall give Dalton the opportunity to make a reasonable showing the requested phone records exist. If the showing is adequate, the motion court shall order the prosecution to turn the records over to Dalton if they are in possession of the prosecution team.

Dalton sought postconviction discovery of San Diego County jail records for 16 individuals. The motion court denied the request except for a record concerning visits on a specific date for an inmate whom Fedor claimed she visited. At oral argument, Dalton narrowed her request to the jail records of four women who testified at trial about aggravating events that they claimed took place in jail. Dalton claimed the jail records were relevant to prove or disprove the details of the women's testimony and to challenge their credibility. The requested jail records of the four women are arguably exculpatory evidence under Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83. The duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady includes impeachment evidence. (People v. Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 184.) At the postconviction discovery stage, Dalton is not required to show the materiality under the meaning of Brady. (Barnett, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 894.) We find that to the extent the prosecution is in possession of the requested jail records for the four women, the prosecution should turn over the records to Dalton.

Dalton unsuccessfully sought postconviction discovery of "any and all materials regarding any and all other individuals whom law enforcement at any time considered a suspect in the crimes charged other than Kerry Dalton, Mark Tompkins and Sheryl Baker." This request is overbroad, and was properly denied by the motion court with two exceptions. Section 1054.9 requires specific discovery requests "and not the proverbial `fishing expedition' for anything that might exist." (Barnett, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 894.) The two exception are Dalton's subrequests for information regarding credit card information for gas stations in three communities near the trailer park on the days surrounding the murder and information regarding guests registered at two nearby motels on the day of the murder and the following day. Codefendant Baker said a fourth suspect named "George" used a credit card to pay for gas at a station in the area and that she, Dalton, Tompkins and "George" rented a motel room after leaving Fedor's trailer. Information falling within these two exceptions, if it exists and is in the possession of the prosecution team, would be discoverable under Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83. On remand, the motion court shall give Dalton the opportunity to make a reasonable showing of the existence of this specific information. (Barnett, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 894.) Upon an adequate showing, the motion court shall order the prosecution to disclose the information if it is in the possession of the prosecution team.

Dalton sought postconviction discovery of the arrest records of Tompkins and Baker. The motion court properly denied these requests. The motion court had already ruled that Dalton was entitled to all prior felony convictions and any prior misdemeanor convictions involving moral turpitude for Tompkins and Baker, among others. Dalton argues she needs the arrest records of her codefendants for the penalty phase to present a "mitigation theme of diminished [relative] culpability" and to contest the prosecution's portrayal of her as the "moving force behind the crime." We disagree. The jury had the trial evidence to consider in evaluating the perpetrators' respective roles in the murder.

[deanmine]

her

[WHITEWIDOW]

Very interesting read!

[deanmine]

Originally Posted by WHITEWIDOW

Very interesting read!

i actually spoke to a lady that is a pen pal with this fuckin chick....

[DocTopher80]

She's fishing for any possible way to get the sentence reduced....