Murder in Boston (28 page)

Chuck may have, probably did, commit suicide. But so far it has not been proven. And the media is off base when it treats the incident as a matter of fact rather than speculation. A rumor around town had it that the district attorney’s office had three witnesses who saw Chuck alone on the bridge, saw him climb over the rail, and saw him jump. If that is true, why has Flanagan not released these witnesses’ names or at least announced officially that they exist? Why hasn’t the
Globe
editorialized about
that
?

The FBI long ago completed its tests on the pistol that was recovered from the Pines River. Why have authorities not revealed the results of those tests? Was it the death weapon? Did it contain identifiable fingerprints (never mind
whose
)? How long had it been in the river? Whatever happened to Chuck’s watch? to Carol’s ruby ring? And when did Chuck put the car keys in the vacant lot?

How about the autopsy reports? How about the hospital records of two victims of violent death? Do they show that Carol was shot from the front seat or the backseat? Was the angle of entry such that Chuck could have shot himself? Did he have alcohol or drugs in his system when his body was recovered? Did his body show signs of violence other than what would have resulted from smacking into the surface of the river at 120 miles per hour?

The questions go on and on. Was Chuck involved in other scams? How much insurance
did
he have on his wife? When were the policies written and with whom? Why has the text of his alleged suicide note not been disclosed? Was it written in his hand? Why has his new car been locked away? What were the results of the DNA tests ordered because there was a question about whether he was actually the father of Carol’s baby? Why did Matthew involve Jack McMahon in disposing of Carol’s belongings? And why would Jack McMahon get involved? Why was a third shot fired in the car that night? What was its trajectory? Was it from the same weapon? And what about Willie Bennett? Why does the DA say Bennett is not yet out of the picture? Is he merely trying to keep more records from the public, or does he have a more substantial reason for making that statement? Is Bennett’s voice raspy? Why did Chuck give such a good description of him? Why did he point him out when he could just as easily have said none of them looked like his assailant? Why? Why? Why?

On the
People Are Talking
show Alan Dershowitz said that throughout the Stuart affair the people involved consistently revealed things they should not have (such as Perenyi and Clayman running on about their clients), while failing to reveal things they should have. He is absolutely correct. The list of things that have
not
been divulged in this case is infinitely longer than the list of things that have.

What about Debbie Allen? Was she dating Chuck? Was it threatening his marriage? Did Carol know about it? Could she have been a motive for the murder? What
are
the possible motives Chuck would have had for wanting to murder his wife? Here are some that have been suggested:

• He wanted the insurance money, either because he was greedy or because he wanted to use it to finance a restaurant.
  
• He wanted to stop Carol from going to the police to report that he was 1) dealing drugs, 2) running an insurance scam, 3) planning a big robbery at Kakas & Sons.
  
• He did not want to be a father.
  
• He did not want to be married anymore.
  
• He was angry because Carol was pregnant and would be quitting her job.
  
• There was another woman.
  

In an afternoon anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the circumstances and an active imagination can come up with half a dozen more. It makes for good gossip—but little knowledge.

There are too many unanswered questions for me to responsibly draw firm conclusions in saying unequivocally that Chuck shot Carol, that Chuck shot himself, that Matthew was an innocent pawn, that Willie Bennett’s life has been ruined. Too many questions remain unanswered. Maybe the answers will come next week. Maybe next year. Maybe never. Maybe Flanagan will retire when
he
gets to be eighty years old and the Stuart documents will still be locked in his safe, perhaps to be revealed by the next crusading DA.

If the DA would tell what he knows. If the police would tell what they know. If the principals in the story, from Matthew and Michael Stuart to Mario DiMaiti, from Willie Bennett to Dereck Jackson, would tell their stories under oath and submit to cross-examination, then we might all have an approximate idea of what happened on the night of October 23 and why. In other words, if there is a trial.

Will there be a trial? Who knows? If I had to bet, I’d say no. Fear of a trial is the primary reason no one is talking. No one wants to say too much, because then a trial might be a necessity. If the case can be allowed to die as it is, it is all wrapped up nicely and neatly. If no one else knows what
they
know and what
they
don’t know, no one can accuse
them
of covering things up.

But it is not only the prosecutors and the police who do not want to talk. If there is a trial, or even a public hearing, there is no way the testimony could be restricted to matters applying only to a criminal case. Politics would come oozing out of every seam and crack. And nobody involved wants that. The DA doesn’t want to be accused of incompetence. Neither do the police. Mayor Flynn doesn’t want to have to answer allegations of racism. Black leaders do not want to have to face accusations that they overreacted to the arrest of Willie Bennett. Willie Bennett does not want to talk in public, period; he doesn’t want anyone to hear his voice. Michael Stuart doesn’t want to declaim publicly about how he lived with himself for months without telling the world that his brother may have been a wife killer. Neither does Matthew, who already has admitted
some
role. Journalists don’t want to have to admit they may have been snookered a second time. The
Globe
, watching its reputation, doesn’t want to admit how sloppy its coverage was. The
Herald
probably doesn’t care. One thing about being a Murdoch tabloid is that no one expects a lot.

To go back to the beginning: Did Chuck do it? If I were sitting on a jury and the only evidence I had heard is what has been revealed so far, I would feel compelled to vote for acquittal. After all, our system of jurisprudence requires that a man be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not necessarily believe Chuck Stuart is innocent—but at this writing he has not been proved guilty of the crime of which he is accused.

Ken Englade

Chronology

1989

September: 
Chuck Stuart approaches Michael and asks him if he knows someone who would be willing to commit a murder.

October: 
Chuck asks an old friend, David MacLean, if he would kill his wife, Carol.

October: 
Rebuffed by both his brother Michael and his friend, Chuck asks another brother, Matthew, to help him with a scheme to defraud an insurance company. Matthew agrees.

October 13: 
Chuck and Carol Stuart celebrate their fourth wedding anniversary by spending a weekend at an inn in Connecticut.

October 23: 
A man obviously in pain calls state police on his car telephone and says he and his wife have been shot by a gunman and are in need of assistance. By listening to the sirens of searching police cars, rescue units zero in on the car, which is pulled to the side of the road in one of Boston’s worst inner-city neighborhoods. Inside the vehicle is a gravely wounded Chuck Stuart and his dying wife, Carol. They are rushed to separate hospitals, but the pregnant Carol undergoes an immediate cesarean section. Her baby, a boy whom the family names Christopher, is not expected to live. Chuck undergoes abdominal surgery and is placed in intensive care.

October 24: 
Carol dies. Chuck describes the alleged assailant to police as a black man with a patchy beard and a raspy voice.

October 26: 
Michael Stuart learns from his brother Matthew that their other brother, Chuck, was involved in the shooting of his wife. They say nothing to anyone else.

October 28: 
Funeral services are held for Carol. Some eight hundred people attend, including the governor, the mayor, the police commissioner, and the city’s highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate.

October 29 or 30: 
Matthew leaves Boston for California. Stays away for six weeks.

November 7: 
A black man named Alan Swanson surfaces as the first serious suspect. The case against him is very weak, and he eventually is released.

November 9: 
Baby Christopher Stuart dies at Boston City Hospital. Age, seventeen days.

November 11: 
A black man with a long criminal record and a history of violence is arrested. His name is William “Willie” Bennett. He is charged with armed robbery, but police department leaks say he is the main suspect in the Stuart shooting.

November 15: 
A grand jury begins an investigation of the shooting with the focus on Bennett.

November 21: 
A black teenager named Dereck Jackson tells the grand jury that he heard Bennett confess to shooting the Stuarts. Soon afterward he recants his testimony, saying police intimidated him into implicating Bennett. He is followed by another black teenager who also had testified against Bennett.

November 23: 
Bennett is ordered held on $50,000 bail for a video store holdup.

December 5: 
Chuck Stuart is released from Boston City Hospital. Almost immediately he collects $82,000 on a policy his wife had taken out through the firm where she worked. Soon afterward he applies to collect on a separate policy of $100,000.

December 24: 
Matthew Stuart’s girlfriend, Janet Monteforte, goes to a lawyer and tells him that Matthew and his brother Chuck were involved in the incident.

December 28: 
Chuck views a police lineup, singles out Bennett as the man who looks “most like” his assailant.

December 29: 
Bennett is charged with an additional robbery but still not with the murder of Carol and Christopher Stuart.

1990

January 1: 
Michael, Matthew, and Janet tell brother Mark and half sister Shelly that Chuck was directly involved in Carol’s shooting. Matthew says he has decided to go to authorities on January 3.

January 3: 
Using a $10,000 certified check, which was part of his insurance money, and the trade-in value of the 1987 Toyota Cressida he was driving the night of the shooting, Chuck buys a new Nissan Maxima for $22,277.
Late in the day, Matthew and his friend, John “Jack” McMahon go to prosecutors.
Between 9:00 and 10:00
P
.
M
., Chuck checks into a hotel. Leaves a wake-up call for 4:30
A
.
M
. Makes one outside phone call to a local number. Hotel officials say since it was a local call there was no record of the number in its automatic equipment.

January 4: 
About 2:00
A
.
M
. Chuck gets restless and goes across the street to an all-night convenience store to buy a soda and a snack.
7:00
A
.
M
. His two-day-old car is found on the Tobin Bridge. On the seat is a note in which Chuck allegedly says he cannot stand the allegations being made against him. He does
not
confess to the murders.
12:30
P
.
M
. Chuck’s body is recovered from the Mystic River.
Late that day, a news release from the district attorney’s office says that Willie Bennett is no longer a suspect in the Stuart shootings.
The city’s black leaders announce their outrage at the way Willie Bennett and the residents of Mission Hill were treated by police. Some demand an apology from Mayor Flynn; others demand his resignation.

January 6: 
Chuck is buried with services at the Immaculate Conception Church in Revere. No politicians attend.