“Safety and security don’t just
happen, they are the result
of collective consensus and public
investment. We owe our
children, the most vulnerable
citizens in our society, a life
free of violence and fear.”
~Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa
It was not about money; it was never about money.
If you were to ask the parents of Erin Nicole Peterson or
Julia Kathleen Pryde whether $8 million is a fair price for the lives of their
children, they would throw the offer in your face. If you were to ask them if
$80 million is a fair price for the lives of their daughters, they would say
there is no amount of money that is worth a child’s life—period. There is
nothing that can compensate parents for the agonizing silence when they enter
their dead child’s bedroom; there is nothing that will ever make the pain
completely go away.
For
the plaintiffs, the whole purpose of the lawsuit was to find out the truth that
had not been revealed by the Governor’s report that was supposed to have given
them a complete picture of how their daughters were killed in the largest
school massacre in modern U.S. history.
And
it was not just about two families. Pryde and Peterson may have been the names
on the suit, but they were not the only ones driven to find the truth. All the
families of the victims were in the courtroom in spirit. Andy Goddard, father
of Colin Goddard, who was seriously injured in the shooting, came every day to
listen to the proceedings and take notes. Andy sent his notes each evening to
families of the killed or wounded who were not able to attend the trial.
When
the Pryde and Peterson families filed their lawsuit, many of us wondered if
they could get a fair trial or if the cards were stacked against them. Stop to
think of what they were doing: they were suing Virginia’s largest state
university, a school that is the most powerful economic engine in southwest
Virginia. The school has a powerful lobby in Richmond, and one member of the
school administration, David Nutter, actually served in the Virginia House of
Delegates at the time. As I have already noted, Nutter did not back legislation
meant to strengthen school safety. Furthermore, the trial was to be heard by a
Virginia judge appointed by the Virginia legislature. The potential for
conflict of interest and the possibilities for undue influence and miscarriage
of justice were alarming.
Not
only did the school have powerful support in Richmond, but Tech was probably
counting on swinging public opinion in its favor with the fact that 30 of the
32 dead victims’ families had settled with the state. The strategy apparently
relied on the assumption that no one would learn what had motivated the other
30 families to sign, and that the factual flaws in the Governor’s report would
never be discovered. Tech was gambling that there would be no need to formally
acknowledge the errors, if discovered, until the two-year statute of
limitations for filing legal claims or challenging the legitimacy of any
settlement had expired.
The
state of Virginia appeared willing to do anything to keep Virginia Tech from
being sued. Michael Pohle remembers the families of the deceased being told,
through their own attorneys, that the state would withhold payment for medical
care for the wounded survivors if the families of those killed did not
settle. Given the emotional roller
coaster the families were on and their inability to think clearly as they came
to grips with their loss, they were easy prey.
Indeed,
as soon as the terms of the settlement offer were known, the families began
speculating among themselves that the wounded were being held hostage to get
them to sign. Once the family meetings were held in October, 2008 with Virginia
Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum and law enforcement officials (following the
settlement), some family members, including Michael Pohle, publicly challenged
the settlement, arguing they had been lied to and the state had used the
wounded as pawns to force families to settle.
The
fact that the families’ attorneys carried this message raises serious
questions. Yes, on the one hand it would be appropriate for them to convey such
information to their clients, but it is odd that the some of the families do
not remember their attorneys going into detail about what other options were
available other than accepting the settlement terms. Some families had the
feeling they were being rushed into a settlement.
The
state played the same game with the families of the wounded. Andy Goddard
recalls being told the families of the deceased would get nothing if they, the
families of the wounded, did not settle. (To be continued)
