TO THE EDITOR
The DAR has been irresponsible in its reporting of the Ben Ressel story. The reporters who covered the story and editorial staff have not taken the time to get the facts straight or attempt to understand the legal concepts that apply to the case. The paper has unjustifiably criticized the elected coroner, Jim Akers, elected Prosecuting Attorney, Kevin Barbour, and most recently, the Special Prosecutor, Ian Page. They all did their jobs and deserve "fair and balanced" media coverage.
Heavenly Hafford was struck by a Volkswagen Bug driven by Randel Sparks. Jim Akers (who has never met Ben Ressel) investigated the accident and prepared a thorough report based on his training and experience. This report is a public record and can be reviewed by any interested citizen. In general, Heavenly suffered a severe fracture to the back of her skull that resulted in instant death. Mr. Akers' conclusion that the death was "instantaneous" is supported by the fact that none of the abrasions from the second vehicle bled. This is because her heart was not beating.
The second vehicle ran over the dead body later. Your most recent article indicated that the second impact was approximately seven seconds later. There is no support for this statement in the police reports and written witness statements. Having taken the sworn deposition of the girl who was with Heavenly, I can say this statement is not true. This is just the latest of numerous misstatements made by the DAR. The paper apparently feels entitled to make up facts in order to make its story better.
The statute at issue in this case requires that a driver stop after an accident if he knows there was "injury to person". If Heavenly Hafford was already dead when the second vehicle ran over her body, under the law there was no "injury to person" resulting from that accident and, therefore, no violation of the statute. That is exactly what Kevin Barbour said when he announced that no charges would be filed against Ben Ressel. This was not good enough for the DAR, though. Your paper had a big story and did not want it to end.
There is another element of the alleged "crime" that was never addressed. The statute requires that the defendant "know" he caused injury to person. Even if the State had been able to get over the hurdle of presenting evidence that Heavenly Hafford was still alive and therefore "injured" by the accident with the second vehicle, it would not have been able to prove knowledge. The State would have had to prove that the driver of the second vehicle "knew" he had hit a person who was still alive. The bottom line is that the case was impossible to make. Mr. Page appeased the masses by taking the case to the grand jury but he cannot possibly be expected to twist the facts that are in his file and/or create new ones so the case will fit neatly into the "story" that the DAR has been pushing since December 2015.
The DAR wrote a very ill-informed editorial which referred to a report from Dr. Russell Deidiker, a forensic pathologist hired by attorneys representing the Hafford family in a civil wrongful death lawsuit, as a "game changer". Dr. Deidiker's report did not have anything to do with the criminal case and would not have helped the State obtain a conviction against Ben Ressel. In general, Dr. Deidiker indicated that he could not say whether death resulted immediately from the impact with the Sparks vehicle. That may have helped the Hafford family in the civil case but it would have been of no use in a criminal prosecution. In a criminal case, the State has the burden of proving each and every element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt, including the fact that Heavenly Hafford was still alive and therefore "injured" when run over by the second vehicle. It is also noteworthy that Mr. Akers called Dr. Deidiker shortly after the death (and before Dr. Deidiker became an expert in the civil case) and the two of them agreed that an autopsy was not necessary.
I do not expect the DAR staff to be lawyers and have a thorough understanding of these legal concepts but I assume the paper can afford to hire a lawyer. If the paper had done its research and at least talked to a practicing attorney, it soon would have learned that there was no case. You did not even have to go to the expense of hiring an attorney. You could have interviewed local criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors or possibly even someone from the Attorney General's office. No one would have told you there was a legally sufficient case against Ben Ressel for leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. It was not a close call.
In spite of the fact that you did not know what you were talking about, you wrote an editorial calling on Kevin Barbour to disqualify himself and seek the appointment of a Special Prosecutor because he knows Ben Ressel. Mr. Barbour has been a very good prosecuting attorney for a long time. His judgment and integrity have never been called into question. He has lived in Butler County his entire life and run for office several times so he knows a lot of people. He sometimes prosecutes people he knows and decides not to prosecute people he knows. This is unavoidable. If Mr. Barbour thought his relationship with Ben Ressel was too close, or if this had been a borderline case, he would have recused himself. He did not deserve the implication that he was sweeping something under the rug for a friend.
Your paper really went off the rails in its criticism of Ian Page. He handled the case with competence and integrity. The things he stipulated to were FACTS. He had to play the cards he was dealt. Insisting on a trial and not agreeing to uncontested facts that are in his file would have been inappropriate. Nothing would have been accomplished by denying the facts set forth in his file, which he is obligated to turn over to the defense. The DAR's suggestion that Mr. Page should have tried to marginalize the findings of the coroner and instead rely on the testimony of the Hafford family's paid expert is beyond ignorant, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Deidiker's testimony does not even establish the missing element of the State's case. Ian Page is a good young lawyer stuck with a very difficult case who is trying to do the right thing under intense scrutiny. He did not deserve a front-page headline calling him "incompetent". The only incompetence I have seen in this case has come from your newspaper. The DAR is a bully. It brings to mind the words of Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
The DAR referred to the case against Ben Ressel as "high profile" and indicated that it has "generated more community outrage and emotion than we have seen in a long time". Why is that? Could it be because the DAR has written approximately 15 front-page articles and two editorials? It has been a high-profile case because the DAR has made it that way. Jim Akers, Kevin Barbour, Ian Page and Ben Ressel are all collateral damage. I do not know the paper's motivation for pushing the case against Ben Ressel but suspect it has something to do with control. The DAR has been throwing its weight around and trying to serve as the moral authority of Butler County for too long. You should stick to reporting the facts and, while you're at it, try to get them right.
Finally, I think it is appropriate for someone to stand up for Ben Ressel. He has been unable to speak publicly about this incident for almost two years because of his arrest and criminal prosecution while getting lambasted by the DAR and social media. He is still hamstrung to some extent because of the fact that the tampering charge is still pending. All I am comfortable saying at this point is that the mob that has run him out of town has made assumptions that are not true. The truth is Ben Ressel was a good citizen and a huge asset to our community (mentoring kids, President of The Boys and Girls Club, President of Kiwanis Club, and President of the TRC Board of Trustees - all unpaid positions). He has been unfairly criticized by a rush to judgment led by the DAR.
Samuel P. Spain
Publisher's note: Mr. Spain, you get PAID to stand up for Ben Ressel. I however CHOOSE to stand up for Heavenly Hafford. I also find it hypocritical and disgraceful that you as the lead defense attorney would defend the actions of the two prosecutors involved in the case. Give me a break. I stand by the Daily American Republic newspaper reporting.