commentary by Patrick H. Moore
From the moment I posted a preliminary report on the Tristen Kurilla Pennsylvania murder case, numerous crime fans have made it clear that they are simply not buying the official (translated as the police) story. A woman named Dawn Taylor commented on Facebook:
“The boy may have been set up. Perhaps he abused her with non-threatening life injuries. Caretaker does nothing. Was Ms. Novak becoming a burden to care for? Did she have life insurance? Caretaker goes back a few hours later, sees she is still alive and kills her, knowing he can blame the boy. The boy confesses since he knows he abused her. Interesting that these “mental problems” don’t seem to have been documented by any health professionals. What better way to rid yourself of caring for this old woman than having a troubled kid confess. The boy immediately seeks help (when he sees) that the old woman is bleeding. The caretaker seeks no immediate help. It still doesn’t add up in my book and I will be following this story closely.”
Darcia Helle commented in a similar vein and made an additional point about how wrong it is to charge a 10-year-old boy as an adult, no matter what the crime:
“Trying a 10-year-old as an adult is wrong on so many levels. I mean… he’s 10! I was still playing with dolls at that age. When did we conveniently forget that children do not have the same emotional or psychological development as adults? I’m not excusing what he did by any means. But we need to remember that he is a child and needs to be treated as such.
And what’s with the grandfather? He checks on the woman, she’s bleeding from the mouth, and he, what? Leaves her there? Doesn’t call an ambulance? This confuses me. If she was conscious, wouldn’t she have told him what the child did? And if she wasn’t conscious, why would the grandfather leave her there and say she was okay? If he’d called an ambulance right away, would she have lived?
Lots of holes in this story that need to be filled in. The way it looks, to me, the grandfather is partially responsible. He was in charge of watching the minor child. The child told him the woman was bleeding from the mouth, but the adult in charge did nothing until it was too late.”
These skeptics will probably be pleased to learn that Tristen’s attorney, Bernard Brown, is pointedly questioning the of the 10-year-old’s confession, stating that it was “coerced” and as such should not be admissible
Terrie Morgan-Besecker of Citizen’s voice writes:
Prosecutors may face a challenge in presenting the alleged confession of a 10-year-old boy charged with killing an elderly woman because he was not represented by an attorney when he was questioned, the child’s attorney said.
Attorney Bernard Brown said the questioning of his client, Tristin Kurilla, raises several “red flags.”
“It seems there was some intimidation,” Brown said. “You can see through the writing of the affidavit, they seem to be double backing and re-interviewing Tristin or his family.”
To review quickly, Kurilla, of 232 Swendsen Road, Damascus Township, was charged as an adult Monday with homicide and aggravated assault. The official (police) version of the story is that Tristen got mad when 90-year-old Helen Novak yelled at him. He then choked her with a cane and punched her in the throat and stomach, causing her death. The attack occurred at the home of the boy’s grandfather, Anthony Virbitsky, who was Novak’s caretaker.
Here are the steps of what Attorney Brown refers to as “double backing and re-interviewing Tristin or his family.”
1) Kurilla’s mother, Martha Virbitsky,takes her son to the state police barracks in Honesdale in the afternoon, about four hours after the attack. According to an arrest affidavit, she tells Pennsylvania State Trooper John Decker that Tristen “admitted to choking and punching Novak.”
2) Then (and this seems strange) Tristen’s mother ask Trooper Decker to speak to the boy alone, despite the fact (according to the affidavit) the trooper repeatedly advises her that Tristen could face criminal charges and that he was entitled to have an attorney present.
Therefore, the trooper speaks to Tristen alone and asks him what happened. The affidavit asserts that Tristen said to Decker, “I killed that lady.” He then allegedly “described how he choked and punched her.”
3) After Decker had completed his initial conversation with Tristen, he then interviewed the boys grandfather, “who also said the boy admitted hitting Novak.” Then Decker told Tristen’s mother that he wanted to talk to her son again. This time Martha Virbitsky was present in the room with the officer and her son, “but she again declined to have an attorney present.” According to the affidavit, the boy provided a similar statement the second time around, admitting to the assault.
Al Flora, former chief public defender for Luzerne County, believes that a parent has no right to waive a child’s right to an attorney, which provides the defense a basis to challenge his statements. Mr Flora stated:
“The defense can probably raise the argument the statement was not given voluntarily, it was compelled in conjunction with the mother.” It is noted that Flora’s office has “represented several Luzerne County juveniles charged with homicide.”
There’s an additional question as to whether the child, based on his age, “was competent to knowingly waive his right to an attorney.”
Attorney Brown says the nature of Kurilla’s interview is “concerning.” His plan is to ultimately seek to suppress the statements, but his first priority is to get the case transferred from adult to juvenile court.
Simon McCormack of Huffington Post reports that according to The Times-Tribune, during a search of Kurilla’s cell (he is being held separately from other adult inmates in the Wayne County Correctional Facility), guards found several notes apparently written by the boy, including one that said “how to escape.”
In a further bit of information Peter Cameron, also a writer at Citzens’ Voice reports that the original prosecutor, Wayne County District Attorney Janine Edwards, has requested that the attorney general’s office to assume jurisdiction of the case because “the boy is related to a staff member in her office.”
Just like Prosecutor Edwards did earlier, according to J.J. Abbott, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, “it’s too early in the process to comment on whether (the AG) will argue for or against” moving Tristen’s case to juvenile court.
Attorney Brown has announced that a psychological examination is scheduled for Thursday, and that his plan is to file a petition to move the case on Friday.
* * * * *
As this rather fascinating case proceeds apace, it is interesting to note that there seems to be considerable consensus that 1) this has not been handled correctly by law enforcement up to this point, and 2) no matter what Tristen did or did not do, there is no way on earth that this matter should be adjudicated in adult court.
As an aside, would it not make sense in juvenile matters for police officers to simply refuse to question or take a statement from suspects unless legal counsel was present? This would go a long way toward ensuring that all juvenile suspects received due process and would make it much harder for the police to “railroad” them, which is what MAY have happened up till now in the case of Tristen Kurilla.