Palmyra

[Pura Vida]

P. S. You know about the dark history of the island? The fellow who was convicted of the murders and theft of the yacht has just been released from prison.
JohnL

Skipr,
I had heard that Buck Walker was up for parol. So they let him out?
pv

[Islandmike]

Wasn't made into a movie with James Brolin. Does anybody remember the name?

[Pura Vida]

And the Sea Will Tell

[btrayfors]

Yeah, Brolin played the tightly-wound boat owner, Mac Graham. Richard Crenna played the almost-over-the-top lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi. But Rachel Ward was much more memorable :-)

[Pura Vida]

The book was much better than the movie... except the Rachel Ward part...

[SkiprJohn]

Yes,
Buck is out and walking, driving or sailing among us. He never admitted guilt and showed no remorse. Still one of the bodies out there.
JohnL

[GordMay]

Palmyra murder-case convict freed ~ Associated Press (Monday, September 3, 2007)
Palmyra murder-case convict freed - The Honolulu Advertiser - Hawaii's Newspaper

Wesley G. "Buck" Walker has been paroled from federal prison after serving 22 years of a life sentence for murder in a case that led to a best-selling novel [*1] and a TV miniseries.
Walker, 69, earned release from the U.S. Parole Commission in part because of advancing age and poor health. He was set free Tuesday from prison in Victorville, Calif., although he wasn't up for mandatory release until 2018 ...
... Walker denies that he killed the couple.
He said the Grahams died because of a love triangle gone wrong in his self-published 895-page book titled "Palmyra: the True Story of an Island Tragedy."

Palmyra: The True Story of an Island Tragedy ~ By Wesley Walker
Palmyra Mystery

[1] And the Sea Will Tell ~ by Vincent Bugliosi with Bruce B. Henderson

[Pura Vida]

I'm not sure I understand the 'life sentence' and the 'mandatory release' but then I won't lose any sleep over it either.

This was a fastenating story and sadly tragic. Stephanie Sterns did little to help Bugliosi defend her and, as I recall, the question became "could Buck kill and dismember two people in an area that small without Sterns knowledge'. I would like to know more from Walkers point of view but I won't wade through a 895 page book to find out.

[Fishspearit]

as I recall, the question became "could Buck kill and dismember two people in an area that small without Sterns knowledge'.
and then: believe they 'gave you their boat', change the name on the back while sailing to Hawaii, and then get there and pretend it's your boat for a week without going to the police. I got the impression from the book that they were both about as innocent as O.J. Like you PV, I'd be interested to hear his side of the story but not 900 pages. Maybe someone read it and can give us the cliff notes version?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Fishspearit

... I got the impression from the book that they were both about as innocent as O.J. L ...

Are you suggesting that O.J.’s not innocent?
BBC ON THIS DAY | 3 | 1995: OJ Simpson verdict: 'Not guilty'
Too bad our juries don’t have THREE verdicts to choose from:
Guilty, Innocent, and Not Proven

[Pura Vida]

Bugliosi wrote that O.J. went to him first for his defense. Bugliosi looked at the evidence and turned him down because he knew he was guilty.

Bugliosi never seemed to be sure about Sterns' guilt and went with his sympathies. There are so many possibilities... She did serve time for the theft of the boat. I really believe that she knew what Walker had done and was either complicit from the beginning or understood that if she took a position against him that she would end up in a metal box somewhere in the lagoon like Mac and Muff.

But to Gord's point, I served as the forman of a jury that acquited a guy. His father rushed up to me and said "Thanks for finding my son innocent." I thought, "we didn't find him innocent. They just didn't prove he was guilty." I like the Proven/Not Proven idea, it works better in all facits of life.

[SkiprJohn]

Why would anyone buy a 900 page book full of B.S. that pretends to be a true account?
I, many years ago, came across the boat (can't remember the name) on a private dock in Kaneohe Bay. I had a friend who owned a Cal 2-46 on the same pier.
J

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Bugliosi wrote that O.J. went to him first for his defense. Bugliosi looked at the evidence and turned him down because he knew he was guilty.

Bugliosi may indeed have turned OJ down on the basis you cite, pv, but, in my experience, most defense attorneys are much more interested in ability to pay than guilt or innocence.

As it turned out, OJ didn't pay his "Dream Team" for his defense - at least not all of them. When F. Lee Bailey presented his bill, Simpson told him to "get it from him," indicating (if memory serves) Robert Shapiro. Ironically, the check to Shapiro bounced, and he subsequently gave up trying to collect it. The last I heard, he "donated" his claim against Simpson to the Jewish Defense League.

Supposedly, OJ felt that representing him gave his attorneys priceless publicity (true enough), so being paid, as well, was excessive. I would be more inclined to believe that this is the reason Bugliosi chose not to represent OJ Simpson.

TaoJones

[palmyrafan]

So they let him out huh, so much for justice.

I wonder if they will ever find Mac's body or if that is what Wes (Buck) purports to talk about in his meandering diatribe. Never read it myself but I know that is one of the theory's brought up in the book: that Mac killed Muff. Rrrrriiiigggghhhhhtttttt. And he caught a ride with one of the sharks to another island?

Wesley "Buck" Walker ain't rowing with both oars in the water.

[Southern Star]

Since Vincent Bugliosi has left the prosecution service he has often made the self-serving claim that he only represents people who are 'innocent'. In my experience (having done criminal defence work for years before taking a substantail reduction in income to become a prosecutor), if that were true he would have a very limited client base indeed.

Parole for those convicted of murder (especially ones who are paroled when their victims would otherwise likely still be alive) is always troubling. Still, one can always hope that his health issues are indeed serious, and take some small comfort from the fact that he spent what will likely have been his last 22 decent years behind bars.

Guilty versus not guilty? Remember, even where a jury believes that an accused person was probably guilty they must find him 'not guilty' - only proof beyond a reasonable doubt suffices in a criminal case. While in common usage 'innocent' is the opposite of 'guilty', no one is ever found 'innocent' in a criminal trial. The terms guilty and not guilty are meant to be terms of art with definitions that reflect the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in our system of justice.

To add a third verdict, 'innocent', would likely require a shift of the burden of proof for that finding upon the accused and create a system that would ultimately compromise the right to remain silent. Things are fine as they are (at least, as regards the potential verdicts - as to parole, that is another issue).

Of more import to this site, the case still stands as a reminder that we often have as much (or more) to fear from our fellow cruisers as we do from the locals.

Brad