RICHARD G.

BIRCHALL

February 3, 2014

THE FOLLOWING IS INTENDED AS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM RICHARD G. BIRCHALL, FORMER COUNSEL OF SUZANNE R. DAMOUR

I have reviewed the Rankins Article posted on Mass Live on Monday, January 27, 2014, by reporter Patrick Johnson (Alex Rankins files Motion to overturn 1996 Murder Conviction in the death of Robert DAmour) and, in connection therewith, I have reviewed the motion papers (including affidavits, exhibits and Memorandum of Law) submitted to the Hampshire County Superior Court by Rankins current attorney, Ms. Sandra Bloomenthal of Nashua, New Hampshire. Inasmuch as the Mass LIve Posting mentions my name and the motion papers attached thereto allege misconduct on my part, I feel compelled to respond with an emphasis on actual facts, not supposition and invective. What follows is a rendition of certain facts that relate to Rankins claims. Many of these facts have been conveniently ignored, buried or other distorted over the some twenty-one (21) years since Robert DAmour was murdered in the kitchen/living room of his own home on Morgan Street in South Hadley. Bearing in mind that Rankins, per the usual trope, alleges in paragraph 11 of his affidavit (which affidavit was attached to the motion papers on Mass Live) that Birchall stole from *DAmour+ and therefore stole money from my defense, I direct attention to the following facts that clearly establish, (a) that no funds were either stolen or misappropriated by Birchall and (b) that Rankins was in no way denied the absolute best defense that the insurance money paid out upon the death of Robert DAmour could provide:

1. Commencing in and about February 4 of 1994, I became one of several attorneys representing the interests of Suzanne DAmour (DAmour). At that time, Ms. DAmour had been summoned before a special Hampshire County Grand Jury which was investigating the shooting death of Ms. DAmours husband, Robert DAmour, in March of 1993. Over time, Ms. DAmour became a target of the Grand Jury and was eventually indicted as a principal in the death of her husband.

At no time did I or have I represented Alex Rankins (Rankins). Rankins had his own Springfield attorney who had represented him on numerous occasions over the years. When he was indicted by the same Grand Jury in Hampshire County in June of 1994, this same Springfield attorney handled all surrender negotiations with the FBI and the Hampshire County District Attorneys Office. This same attorney, together with Springfield co-counsel David Hoose, represented Rankins in the capital case that was tried in Superior Court, Franklin County, in October, 1996.

I did have occasion, however, to meet Rankins in person on one occasion in April of 1994 when DAmour traveled to Washington, D.C. for a meeti ng with him. I was directed to attend the meeting as counsel for DAmour based upon the collective judgment of the other attorneys representing her. The meeting was held in a room off the main lobby of the Crystal City Marriott near the Pentagon. Prior to departing for Washington, I accompanied DAmour to a local bank in the Springfield area where DAmour withdrew $20,000 in cash. I was present at the Marriott in Crystal City when these funds were handed over to Rankins. (Note: At that juncture, neither Rankins nor DAmour had been charged with any crimes)

Prior to the April trip to Crystal City, I was present, as one of DAmours attorneys, on several occasions (4-5) when DAmour wired funds to Rankins at various places in Virginia (where Rankins had a wife and a residence), Louisiana, North Carolina, etc. The funds were wired from a Western Union /Mail Boxes store in Enfield, CT.,
2

adjacent to the Enfield Stop & Shop and across the street from what is now a Big-Y Market. Again, at that time, no charges had been brought against either DAmour or Rankins.

Several weeks after the meeting in Crystal City, I was advised that Rankins had traveled to Miami, FL, prefatory to flying to Brazil (Rio de Janeiro) at the behest of DAmour.

Funds for Rankins ticket and his traveling money were wired to him in Miami. I was present, as one of DAmours attorneys, when the funds were wired. During the course of Rankins stay in Rio, there were at least 7 -8 occasions that I can specifically recall when additional funds were wired to him. The amounts varied from $5000 to as much as $10,000. I was present on each occasion. (Those who attended DAmours trial are aware that DAmour was captured on state police video tape delivering cash to Rankins at Bradley Airport during one of Rankins trips to Springfield following the murder. The actual amount remains in dispute but it was not less than $25,000 and could have been as much as $50,000)

I mention these instances of the transfer of substantial funds to Rankins from shortly after the murder in March of 1993 until August of 1994 when he surrendered to the FBI in Brazil for the express purpose of demonstrating that Rankins received substantial direct financial assistance from DAmour prior to his retention of additional counsel for his murder trial and prior to the full payment of all of his trial expenses. This substantial financial assistance took place both prior to and subsequent to his decision to flee to Brazil. As I have indicated, I was present on numerous occasions when funds were disbursed directly to Rankins. In all instances, the decision regarding cash disbursement to Rankins was made solely by DAmour. None of her attorneys, myself included, had any authority, either actual or apparent, to make decisions regarding cash payments to Rankins. All in all, Rankins received
3

cash payments of well into six figures ($200,000+) prior to the disbursement of funds for his defense at trial (funds that totaled many hundreds of thousands).

2. Rankins alleges in his affidavit (par. 9) that my co-defendant *DAmour+ controlled all the money for my defense and also controlled what information I got to defend myself. Further, in paragraph 11, Rankins claims that he *Birchall+ stole from my co defendant and therefore stole money from my defense. As to the first allegation that DAmour controlled all the money for his defense Rankins is absolutely correct: DAmour did control all the money for the very simple reason that it belonged to her and not to Rankins. Fo r Rankins control complaint to make any sense one would have to conclude that Rankins considered himself a joint venturer with DAmour with respect to the acquisition of the money (i.e. through the murder of Robert DAmour) and that therefore, the money belonged as much to him as it did to DAmour. The joint venture theory is precisely what the Commonwealth alleged and argued with respect to Rankins; that is, Rankins was hired by DAmour to kill Robert DAmour and, as such, he was part of a joint venture to commit a murder so that DAmour could reap the life insurance rewards. Apparently, however, Rankins believes that since he pulled the trigger (according to the finding of the jury at his trial), he was entitled to somemaybe even 50/50-- control over the money, a perhaps not so improvident position for a triggerman to take. Rankins second allegationthat Birchall stole from *DAmour+ and therefore stole money *from him+ for his defenselends credence to this interpretation, that Rankins considered the money as his in equal parts with DAmour with respect to its disposition. Again, his lament and its genesis is clear: he pulled the trigger and thus he believes that he should have had some substantial say in the disposition of the ill gotten gains. Perhaps he should have taken that up with DAmour. Perhaps he did and was disappointed that she did not see things the same way as he did.
4

In any event, the implication of Rankins claims with respect to the money is clear: he is suggesting that in some fashion his defense was compromised (1) because DAmour controlled the money and (2) insufficient funds were devoted to his defense. The facts, however, belie this risible claim that somehow Rankins was stiffed by DAmour, by Birchall, by whomever: DAmour directed that no expense be spared with respect to Rankins defense. She had already shelled out substantial sums to Rankins prior to trial and she was prepared, apparently, to pay whatever it would take to give Rankins a world class defense. (Note that nowhere in his affidavit does Rankins specify what matters pertaining to his defense could have been paid for and were not) Rankins longtime Springfield attorney was retained by Rankins together with Attorney David Hoose, an experienced, certified capital murder case attorney. All of the Rankins legal teams expenses were paid in full by DAmour. These expenses included legal fees, disbursements, investigators, research etc. (Note: the investigators fees alone exceeded $100,000).

All of Rankins appellate expenses were paid in full. (DAmour retained the #1 appellate attorney in the Commonwealth, Ms. Wendy Sibbison, the same appellate attorney who represented DAmour on numerous successful trips to the SJC in Boston).

All of Rankins incidental expenses were paid in full including clothing, jail house canteen charges, etc. (These payments have continued in full by DAmour during the nearly 20 years that Rankins has been incarcerated)

All payments to third parties (including immediate family members) as requested by Rankins were made in full.

In summary, Rankins, courtesy of his co-defendant DAmour, received the best possible defense that money could buy. His conviction by a jury of his peers was in no way attributable to a lack of financial wherewithal.

3. Rankins alleges that Birchall stole from my co-defendant DAmour and therefore stole money from my defense. Regrettably, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, where the term stole or embezzled has been used in connection with Birchall and the DAmour case. It has been going on for some fourteen (14) years and will no doubt continue for another fourteen years. The characterization, however, is false; Birchall has never been charged, indicted, arrested, tried-- much less convictedof stealing or embezzling money from DAmour or anyone else. The allegations of theft were vetted by every conceivable law enforcement agency and determined to be unfounded. No charges of any sort were ever filed by any state, federal or local law enforcement agency. TO REPEAT: NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED AGAINST BIRCHALL BY ANY STATE, FEDERAL OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. As a result, readers might wish to ponder this question: When was the last time that an attorney allegedly stole/embezzled moneyin this case allegedly nearly $3 million dollars--from a client(s) and was never prosecuted. The answer is never; it doesnt happen. Virtually, every attorney in this Commonwealth over the last forty+ years accused of theft of client funds has been prosecuted. What should have been the final nail in the coffin of the unproven, spurious charge of theft/embezzlement occurred in July of 2006. Birchall was called before the Clients Security Board of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to answer a claim by DAmour that Birchall had stolen her insurance funds. DAmour presented her case; Birchall presented his. DAmour claimed that Birchall had stolen nearly three (3) million dollars of her money and requested that the Board reimburse her for some, if not all, of her alleged losses.
6

Birchall denied that any funds were misappropriated and he presented compelling evidence that all of DAmours funds were fully accounted for. The Board took the matter under advisement and within thirty (30) days, they rendered a decision. The Board found unanimously that all of DAmours funds were fully accounted for and that she had suffered no discernible losses and was therefore not entitled to any reimbursement. Birchall was fully exonerated. (It was noteworthy that DAmour denied at the time that she had paid any of Rankins legal expenses. Based upon Birchalls presentation, the Board contacted Rankins attorneys and conclusive ly determined that DAmour, as she had before the Grand Jury, had intentionally failed to tell the truth; that, in fact, she had authorized and had paid all of Rankins legal expenses to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.).

4. With respect to the allegation in Rankins motion papers that trial counsels representation of Rankins was deficient in certain unspecified ways, that the representation was far below the level of competence required in such a case, I can only comment that I attended every day of Rankins trial and found trial counsel to be fully prepared and highly competent.

The Rankins case, all things being equal, was a difficult case to try principally because Rankins had made certain statements (admissions of guilt) prior to and subsequent to the murder that adversely impacted his defense. The fact remains, however, that Rankins had available unlimited financial support to rebut the prosecutions case. That the rebuttal was unsuccessful in no way diminishes the competence and professionalism of his chosen counsel.

5. A few final words regarding Attorney Bloomenthals attempt to turn Rankins Motion to vacate his conviction into a referendum on my conduct. As discussed above, Rankins affidavit virtually screams out I was in a joint venturer with DAmour and I

got the short end of the stick because of DAmour, because of Birchall, because of whatever. This lament, at this late date (i.e. nearly 20 years later), devoid as it is of cognizable facts, surely will and should fall on deaf ears both at the Superior Court level and at the Appellate level.

However, Attorney Bloomenthal, in full defense mode, throws a few additional items at the wall hoping that one or more will stick; to wit:

(a) She claims that the second trial was a trial of Rankins in abstencia, that Rankins had no opportunity to present a defense, to cross-examine witnesses, to elect to testify or not to testify and to aid in the selection of a jury of his peers. Tellingly, she cites no cases (because there are none) in support of this bizarre proposition that a man duly convicted of murder by a jury of his peers is somehow entitled to get another trial (without first overturning his initial conviction) this time as a full participant at the separate trial of his co-defendant. Charitably, this is worse than nonsense.

(b) Bloomenthal also argues, in the same bizarre fashion, that DAmours acquittal on the murder charges operates as a de jure post-conviction acquittal of Rankins under the theory that, according to the Judges charge to the jury, the jury could not convict DAmour without first finding Rankins guilty of murder and therefore, according to Bloomenthal, an acquittal of DAmour operates as an acquittal of Rankins. Again, no cases are presented in support of such a result because there are none. DAmours acquittal, similar to any other acquittal, could have been based on any number of factors unrelated to Rankins. For example, the jury heard testimony as to the bad conduct of the victim, Robert DAmour (i.e. the rape of one of his employees). The jury could have very well found (and some jurors willingly admitted) that the victims bad conduct overrode the bad conduct of the
8

defendant a result that is often described as jury nullification. However, no one will ever know what the jury concluded as to Rankins because the jury was not asked to separately assess the guilt or innocence as to Rankins and report these findings separately to the court. The jury was not required to. The jury was only asked to consider DAmours guilt or innocence and, for whatever reason, they voted (after a week and a half) for acquittal, a result that did not and cannot reverse Rankins earlier conviction in Franklin County and his mandatory sentence of life without parole.

(c) Finally, Bloomenthal hopes to stir the pot for her client by referencing Birchalls incarceration in Barnstable County for civil contempt of court. Unfortunately for Rankins, Bloomenthal has failed to do her homework although it is singularly unclear as to how Birchalls wrongful incarceration for civil contempt in Barnstable County between 2007 and 2009 relates in any way to Rankins conviction for murder in 1996.

Bloomenthal appears unaware that the banking documents upon which Birchalls civil commitment rested have been determined to be forged and that the matter of DAmours (and her attorneys) involvement, if any, in the forgery is now in the hands of law enforcement. Birchall retained the former #1 State Police/FBI certified Massachusetts based hand-writing expert who has certified that the relevant banking documents underpinning Birchalls civil contempt of court bear the handwriting not of Birchall or any associates of Birchall but of two persons presently unknown and that, accordingly, Birchalls civil contempt incarceration was devoid of any legal justification.

The matter is progressing through law enforcement channels and we shall shortly see what the consequences will be if the forgers can be identified and what belated relief, if any, there will be for Birchall and, in turn, for several of his friends
9

and financial supporters in the Springfield area who have been harassed, sued and otherwise unstintingly abused as part of an illicit ten year campaign to disparage Birchall and all who have sought to assist him.

10