Fire Lover (29 page)

It may have been pride of authorship, but the defendant disagreed with his lawyer and wanted the jury to read his work as he wrote it, erections and all. The judge disagreed.

Pat Hanly eventually sat down with five task-force people. Each took thirty pages and highlighted sexual references. Every time the fictional arsonist looked at a fire, touched his member, and it got hard, somebody would redact "hard." On the following day, the jury spent its time reading about arsonist Aaron Stiles redacted, but not erected.

Finally, on Friday, July 31, 1992, after three days of deliberations, the jury returned with a verdict.

The courtroom was packed with media and spectators. Mike Matassa was not there, nor was Glen Lucero, two who had worked so long on the Pillow Pyro Task Force. Lucero had been missing his wife, Martha, and had been driven home by Matassa, who thought that deliberations might go through the weekend.

The verdict for the five counts was on two pages and in the hands of the jury foreman.

"Has the jury reached a verdict in this case?" Judge Wanger asked.

"Yes, sir, we have," the jury foreman replied.

"I'm going to ask that the clerk read the verdict," Judge Wanger said.

The clerk was a tall blonde named Candy. Pat Hanly saw her hands shaking when she took the two-page verdict form and began to read: "We the jury in the above-entitled case find, as to the defendant, John Leonard Orr, the following verdict: Count one, eighteen U. S. C. eight
-
four-four-i, arson, on or about January fifteenth, 1987, at Hancock Fabrics, five
-
one-seven-nine Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California . . .

Hanly heard her audible gasp as she read, "Not guilty."

The clerk continued to read, "Count two, eighteen U. S. C. eight-four-four-i, arson, on or about January thirteenth, 1987, and on or about January thirtieth, 1987, at House of Fabrics, five-two-six-five North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California . . . Not guilty."

That was the arson count where the incendiary device had not been found until two weeks after the first arson, accounting for the separate dates.

Both John Orr and Prosecutor Pat Hanly later reported to have had the same thoughts: that both sides had stipulated that all five arsons were committed by the same person. It looked like a clean sweep for the defense!

Pat Hanly hardly heard her read, "Count three, eighteen U. S. C. eight-four-four-i, arson, on or about January sixteenth, 1987 . . ."

Pat Hanly thought: My first huge trial! My career is over!

While the clerk continued: "Family Bargain Center . . ."

Hanly looked over at Douglas McCann and John Orr and he thought he saw them rising up in triumph, as the clerk read: "One-one-six-seven North Cherry Avenue, Tulare, California . . . Guilty."

There were more than courtroom murmurs when she got to count four, the CraftMart arson in Bakersfield where Marvin Casey had found and collected the famous latent fingerprint. She said: "Guilty." And "Guilty" again on count five, the Hancock Fabrics fire in Bakersfield.

And after the jury left the courtroom, and everyone caught their breath, Carl Faller rose and asked that the defendant be remanded into custody pending sentencing. He said, "This being a crime of violence providing for the potential of great injury and loss of life, potential damage to property, and damage to persons, pursuant to the section, the Court must remand the defendant."

Douglas McCann opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant had been under house arrest and electronic monitor since December, and he didn't believe there was a danger issue. Furthermore, he pointed out that since John Orr faced another trial in Los Angeles, it was critical that he not be in custody.

"The crime itself, as a matter of law, is one that is a crime of violence under the code section," Judge Wanger decided. "The government has made the motion pursuant to the law ... I must and do remand Mr. Orr to custody."

Monday, November 2, 1992, was the date of sentencing. But before sentencing began, Douglas McCann cited several instances of what he believed were examples of prosecutorial misconduct, and he made motions for a new trial. Then McCann asked that John Orr be allowed to read a prepared statement prior to the defense lawyer's plea for leniency, and the Court granted the request.

John Orr stood and addressed the Court: "Thank you. As the Court is aware, I have proclaimed my innocence of these charges since the day I was arrested, December fourth of 1991. This proclamation was immediate before I ever saw any information contained in the affidavit, or had any idea what the evidence was. I knew I was innocent of any wrongdoing, and told investigators of that unequivocally at that time.

"The U. S. Attorney's Office was repeatedly advised of that fact and were offered an open interview with me which they refused. The U. S. Attorney's Office was also offered a polygraphic and psychological exam, and all of these offers were refused as well. Your Honor, the U. S. Attorney's Office was listening, but they weren't hearing.

"To coin a phrase that the U. S. Attorneys proclaimed as my admission of guilt uttered by me at an interview: 'I won't close the door on that.' I didn't close the door then and even now I welcome any discussion with their investigators about this case.

"The Los Angeles U. S. Attorney's Office has taken a similar closed-door policy, and they would surely be surprised at irrefutable information they could have accessed months ago, which could have saved them thousands of hours of investigation. This information proves my innocence in Los Angeles, but was overlooked in haste after reading the manuscript.

"There was never any presumption of innocence. The presentation of my manuscript as a journal of my fire-setting activities is fictional, just as Points of Origin is fictional. In the manuscript there are twenty-nine fires described. Only three bear any resemblance to the actual series of fires that occurred in Fresno in 1987. Only three out of twenty-nine occurred in retail establishments. The rest are brush fires set in alleys and garages, the more common targets of the type of arsonist I portrayed in the book.

"The uncanny similarities that the U. S. attorneys portrayed as evidence against me are merely facts that were passed along among investigators in meetings in 1987 and subsequent to that date, and later inserted into my manuscript. Simple research. As I stated in solicitation letters I sent to publishers: Points of Origin is simply fact-based fiction.

"I believe the Court's and the U. S. attorney's perception of me is that I'm a reasonably intelligent man, respected in the fire service with an unblemished record until December of 1991. Certainly not the kind of person that would create havoc-by-fire in the San Joaquin Valley, and keep a journal of fire-setting experiences, write a manuscript chronicling the events, and then attempt to have it published. The National Enquirer couldn't have come up with a more ludicrous story. I'm not a fool.

"The fingerprint issue. Why was it that out of the charges against me, only in that one was the chain of custody a serious problem? Exculpatory evidence was discarded shortly after discovery, expert witnesses could not tell what they compared, and the print was clearly not mine in the 1989 comparison. Assuredly there is reasonable doubt as to its value in 1992.

"I was found not guilty of two counts, one of which was an attempted arson that occurred two weeks after the conference in Fresno. This certainly substantiated the fact that these fires were perpetrated by the same person, possibly someone local.

"Your Honor, my life has been dedicated to the fire service and law enforcement for over twenty-two years. I have personally been trapped by fire and smoke on three occasions. I know the panic, the terror, and the helplessness that even a well-equipped professional firefighter can experience as a fire advances uncontrolled.

"I know how those witnesses felt. My heart went out to them. I don't wish that kind of experience on anyone, and I feel helpless and frustrated because the person responsible remains at large. I have fought fires, performed rescues, and carried the bodies of men, women, and children who have died as a result of fire and smoke.

"I have been devastated by this misguided investigation. But beyond that, the fire service has suffered with the perception that they were betrayed by one of their own. Your Honor, they have not been betrayed. They and I have been victimized by a total lack of communication and over
-
zealous investigators. My personal reputation, my entire career speaks for itself and I stand by it. I truly hope that justice will ultimately prevail at least for the sake of the fire service.

"Your Honor, thank you for the opportunity to be heard. Whatever your decision is on my sentencing, I will continue to abide by the Court's orders as I have from the beginning of this personal nightmare, and continue to fight to prove my innocence."

When Douglas McCann had the opportunity to plea for his client, he said, "I saw a jury convict Mr. Orr. It's not surprising that they convicted him, because of the fingerprint evidence. That was the entire case. ... I don't know if I stand here next to a man who did not commit these fires. You have just heard from him telling you that he didn't start the fires. ... If John Orr was telling the Court that he was responsible for the fires, I could say he's accepting responsibility, showing remorse, should receive something other than the maximum. He has no prior record. . . . But I'm not in that situation right now.

"In terms of the psychiatric report, the doctor never really performed an evaluation, a psychiatric diagnostic study. He just basically said, 'If this man is guilty of these fires, given everything I know about the case, he's obviously troubled. He obviously has a mental problem. He obviously would benefit from some type of care.'

"I don't know how in the world this Court can overlook that. I think the position of the U. S. attorneys here in Fresno is to treat him like a common criminal. ... In sentencing we always need to consider motive. Here I am talking with an assumption that he did it, and I'm standing next to a man who told the Court he didn't do it. It's a difficult argument for me to make. I can simply say that he's got no prior record.

"Joe Lopez testified that he went out and bought food for John Orr's family. That's a reflection not so much on Joe Lopez, but a reflection on John Orr, that there are people who care about this man.

"In fact, there are fire investigators here to observe his sentence. It actually turns one's stomach. I don't know why they are enjoying it. When the jury came back with the verdict of guilty, was that a day of celebration? That was a very sad day for everybody involved."

Judge Wanger interrupted the defense lawyer's plea at this point to say, "It is a public forum. These proceedings are open to all."

"I have no objection to them being here," McCann continued. "I anticipate the U. S. attorney asking the Court to give John Orr the maximum sentence. To max him out for as long as possible with no inquiry as to why this happened. In fact, Mr. Faller said, 'We don't care why it happened. We got our guy.'

"Motive is a factor that should be considered if the Court is going to assume that he's guilty based on the jury's finding. We have to ask ourselves, why did these fires start? Did John Orr get any benefit out of these fires? If there's no motive then we have to look to the psychiatrist who said that if you make that assumption, then there's only one conclusion: that you have some type of pathology.

"One other small point: The probation officer indicated that John Orr has nothing redeemable about his life because he's been living a fraud all these years. Because he's an arsonist. As the Court is aware, he has been a well-respected arson investigator and instructor. At least on that level, there are people that benefited from knowing him." McCann suddenly looked to his client, then said to the court, "One second."

When John Orr and Douglas McCann finished conferring, McCann said, "I would submit it, Your Honor."

The defendant decided that his lawyer had said enough.

Patrick Hanly said to the court, "Your Honor, it is the government's position that the Court should follow the probation report's recommendation, and sentence Mr. Orr to the thirty-year maximum sentence, ten years on each count, which means that Mr. Orr will be eligible for parole in as little as ten years.

"All the Court has to do is remember Mr. Orr's own words about the panic, the terror, and the helplessness that is felt by the victims of arson fires. Who better than this man right here to know the danger that an arson fire creates, then come into this court after a jury has found him guilty, and proclaim his innocence. And proclaim that he has been set up by the government. It's ludicrous. He should get the maximum sentence, thirty years. He should be sentenced under four-two-oh-five-a, which requires him to spend a minimum of ten years, and the Court should order him to pay a fine.

"And it's the government's understanding that he has now sold the rights to his novel, I believe to HBO, and I would like the Court to order restitution to be paid by the defendant."

Hanly was referring to a sale for which John Orr was paid fifteen hundred dollars against fifteen thousand dollars if it was ever produced.

"And furthermore, Your Honor," Hanly continued, "this is somewhat of a day of celebration because a very dangerous man is no longer on the streets. And law enforcement does celebrate on the day when dangerous criminals are convicted and put away, as required by the law. Thank you."