Murder in Boston (25 page)

Scoring each day’s coverage as a judge would tally rounds in a prizefight, Jurkowitz decided that at the end of the first week the
Globe
had edged the
Herald
three rounds to two, with one round as a tie. “But,” he concluded, “because the
Globe
’s big rounds were bigger than the
Herald
’s big rounds, I’d score it 58–55
Globe.”

In his February 2 column Jurkowitz took after Barnicle in full force, reminding
Phoenix
readers how, three years previously, the columnist had created a minicrisis by writing about a prostitute allegedly infected with AIDS who was deliberately spreading the disease among her clients. When authorities found the woman, Jurkowitz said, she tested negative for the disease.

Two years before that, he added, Barnicle had seriously garbled the facts when he wrote a column allegedly detailing how a woman riding on the subway had overheard a man bragging about shooting a young woman, who was the subway rider’s daughter. That incident, he added, caused the
Globe
considerable embarrassment.

And there was one more dig. “There are plenty of folks,” Jurkowitz wrote, “who feel Barnicle has basically functioned as a shill for the beleaguered Boston cops on the Stuart story.”

The closest to self-criticism performed by either of the two dailies came from the
Globe
in a column by ombudsman Robert L. Kierstead. Although the column appeared primarily to be a venue for
Globe
higher-ups to excuse away their lapses, Kierstead, in his conclusion, gave the paper the mildest of taps on the wrist. The same person who had been writing the headlines for the main stories must have been doing heads for the op-ed page that day as well because the title over the column supported earlier contentions that Chuck was a narcissist and/ or a sociopath,
A STORY WEAVED BY
“
A WORLD-CLASS CON MAN
,” it read.

In the article Kierstead related how the
Globe
’s Sunday managing editor, Al Larkin, claimed he knew on October 24, the morning after the shooting, that Chuck was the perpetrator. His reasons for suspecting Chuck, he told the ombudsman, were the route Chuck decided to take to leave the city, the fact that the intersection where Chuck said he was accosted was too busy to make such an abduction plausible, and Chuck’s apparent lack of concern for Carol, as evidenced by his conversation with Gary McLaughlin.

The column also stressed the claims by
Globe
editors that they tried hard to shoot down Chuck’s story. “When we heard rumors, we checked them out,” said Assistant Managing Editor Greg Moore, the man in charge of coordinating the Stuart coverage. “They continued virtually unabated, but every one led to a dead end.”

In the weeks before January 4, Larkin said, reporters investigated Chuck’s background as well as they could. “We checked his status on drugs, on money, possible marital difficulties, insurance policies, whether he had a gun, a gun permit, was he familiar with the Mission Hill area, was he flirting with the BCH nurses.” But, added Editor Driscoll, the more reporters checked, the better Chuck looked. “Our thinking of Stuart as the killer began diminishing as each day went by. This was due partly to his reputation and partly because the rumors, one after the other, were found to be erroneous. But mostly [not much was discovered] because we were being conned by a world-class con man.”

Peter Mancusi, the
Globe
’s city editor, also beat his breast. “We were all skeptical of Stuart’s story,” he said. “For months we chased all the rumors out there. We talked to dozens who knew Chuck or might have information about him. We couldn’t put a dent in his story. You can’t print rumors, so we couldn’t get anything in the paper to shoot down his story.”

After listening to these arguments (and printing them for posterity), Kierstead decided that his colleagues, despite what they had said, perhaps did not check quite hard enough. But his criticism did not ring sufficiently sincere, especially not after he added, in his colleagues’ defense, that they had been dealing with a “diabolically clever” man, who, “regardless of his very serious wound, could so totally elude the probes of both law enforcement officials and the media for more than ten weeks.”

Kierstead seemed to regard the Willie Bennett incident as a separate issue, and although he did not elaborate upon the reasons for his conclusions, he wrote: “The
Globe
should have dug harder on its own into the Willie Bennett part of the story, despite what the police believed was a seemingly good case against him.”

The electronic media got by easier than their print colleagues, at least as far as volume of criticism. That is because media criticism in Boston is the exclusive purview of the newspapers. But the Boston broadcasters took their lumps, too. Terry Ann Knopf, TV editor for the Quincy
Patriot Ledger
, delivered a stinging column on January 19 that attacked both print and broadcast reporters, but especially the broadcasters.

“The rush to piece together the story has resulted in some of the shoddiest newspaper and TV reporting in memory,” she wrote, specifically citing WCBV’s Jack Harper (for using an unsubstantiated figure on the amount of insurance Chuck had on his wife, which preceded Barnicle’s apparent error by a week) and WBZ anchor Jack Williams (who bragged prematurely that results of the FBI tests would be available the next day).

A WBZ special on the Stuart case on January 17 (the day after the
People Are Talking
show and eight days before the Columbia University program, which she called “ho-hum”) came in for special attention. “The first half was a tired rehash,” Knopf wrote, and in the second half anchors Williams and Liz Walker “missed a golden opportunity to grill Richard Clayman,” who called a news conference some twelve hours later for his blockbuster announcement that Michael was aware of Chuck’s involvement.

Chapter 23

Carol’s parents, the DiMaitis, retreated into seclusion with their grief the day after Chuck’s body was found. On January 25, exactly three weeks after Chuck allegedly committed suicide, three months and one day after their daughter died, Giusto and Evelyn, with their son, Carl, at their side, announced the creation of the Carol DiMaiti Stuart Foundation, a nonprofit organization whose primary purpose would be to provide college financial aid for Mission Hill students.

Fighting back tears, an exhausted-looking Giusto tried to put his family’s anguish into words. Evelyn, clad in a plain dark dress and looking even more distraught than her husband, dabbed gently around her distress-darkened eyes while her husband read haltingly from a typewritten sheet.

“Our daughter was truly the brightest of lights in our lives, a light that will never go out in our minds,” he read. “Her mother and I are filled with pride for the way she lived her life. She brought joy and comfort, not only to us, but to all she knew. Carol was a loving, caring person who always thought of the other person first. She loved to help those less fortunate than herself and was constantly trying to improve their place in this world by donating her legal skills to them and helping them in any way she could. She will always and forever be with us. We pray that God has taken her and our beloved grandson, Christopher, into his embrace in heaven, where they will be safe and happy with Him until the time we will join them.”

Looking somewhat embarrassed, he apologized to the assembled reporters for what he seemed to consider a slightly impersonal presentation. “I must ask your forgiveness in reading this statement,” he said, “but I don’t honestly feel I could have managed without it. It is very important for you to know that we have received expressions of sympathy from a tremendous cross section of the general public. It’s amazing to realize how this tragedy has touched a large number of people. So many of you have responded in a caring and loving way. You have our deepest gratitude and love for your support and thoughtfulness in helping us through this continuing nightmare.”

As Giusto stepped away from the microphone, looking as though he could not hold back the flood much longer, the DiMaitis’ attorney, Marvin Geller, moved forward. Although the main purpose of the foundation would be to offer financial aid to needy students, he said, its deeper purpose was to promote better relations between the races.

“The DiMaiti family, while suffering its own anguish, is not unmindful of the fact that the events of these past few months have caused many to look within themselves to examine their own innermost feelings about race relations and the manner in which our elected officials and the media have carried out their respective responsibilities,” he said in measured, courtroom-oratory tones. “Out of this debate has emerged anger and emotion. It has opened old, painful scars of racial tension. The DiMaiti family believes that Carol would not have wanted her death to be remembered as the cause of such divisiveness. She would not want to be remembered as the victim of a sensational murder, but rather as a woman who left behind a legacy of healing and compassion.”

The DiMaitis’ gesture drew praise from all political and racial factions, and within hours contributions began pouring in. After five days the fund had built to $42,000, and in less than a month it had climbed to more than $250,000.

Chuck’s siblings, with the exception of Matthew, watched the news conference in their lawyer’s office. Afterward they declined to meet with reporters but issued a statement through Richard Clayman.

“They understand the great tragedy that has befallen the DiMaiti family,” said an uncharacteristically subdued Clayman. “They understand the tremendous grief. They applaud the formation of the foundation, and I got the distinct impression they hope this will be a stepping stone to healing wounds.”

The wounds Clayman was referring to apparently went beyond the normal tension that could be expected between the family of the murdered, Carol, and the accused murderer, Chuck. A fight over money also was looming on the horizon.

Just hours before the news conference that was called to announce the creation of the foundation, a lawyer representing the DiMaitis filed a petition in probate court in Middlesex County asking that Carol’s brother, Carl, be named administrator of her estate. Less than a week later, Judge Vincent F. Leahy granted the request.

It was only the first step in what could, if either family felt so inclined, lead to a long, costly, bitter battle, one that could raise a number of intriguing legal questions and drag through the courts for years.

From documents filed later, it was learned that Carol’s estate consisted of $7,000 in a bank account and her share of the $70,000 equity in the couple’s $238,000 home in Reading. That did not include the insurance money, which was certain to be a contentious issue whether the Stuarts and the DiMaitis are able to settle the dispute or if they have to go to court.

The amount of money apparently was not in dispute. After Carol’s death, Chuck collected $82,000 on a policy she had through her employer. There were two additional $100,000 policies, bringing the total
publicly known
amount of insurance on Carol to $282,000. Chuck also had two $100,000 policies on his life and another policy, with the company for which his father once worked, for $14,000, for a total of $214,000. Since Charles Stuart was listed as the beneficiary of the smaller policy, it is not believed that amount will be at issue. Between them, though, Chuck’s and Carol’s insurance policies totaled at least $482,000. The tricky part will be deciding who will fall heir to that amount since both Chuck and Carol, as well as their only child, are dead.

Legal experts have speculated that if a settlement is not reached, a court will have to decide several very sensitive issues before it can be determined how the money will be divided. Normally, in a community-property state such as Massachusetts, when a mother dies without a will, as Carol did, half of her estate goes to her child or children; the other half goes to her husband.

Also under normal circumstances, if the husband then dies, his insurance money, plus his share of his wife’s, would go into his estate. Since Chuck also died without a will, and since Carol and Christopher are dead, his money would go to his parents.

But this case has been anything but normal. The circumstances, in fact, make the inheritance situation very complicated. The first hurdle to be surmounted, if the issue has to go to court, is trying to determine if Chuck murdered his wife, because if he did, his estate might not be able to claim her insurance money. The second hurdle is the question about when Carol died. Apparently she was not breathing when she arrived at Brigham and Women’s, although in the absence of medical reports it is difficult to say that with certainty. If she was not breathing, was she dead? She was not formally pronounced dead for several hours, but was her breathing artificially induced by life-support equipment? This is an important issue because if a court determines that Carol was already dead before Christopher was delivered by cesarean section, Chuck apparently would be the sole beneficiary. If it is determined that Carol was still alive when Christopher was born, then he would become an heir, along with Chuck. Then when he died seventeen days later, his portion of his mother’s estate would be divided between Chuck, the DiMaitis, and the Stuarts.