This letter is in response to Mr. Nesbit's letter in the Jan. 9 R&L.
A mistake by the Tribune on Jan. 9 and then forwarded to the R&L Jan. 8 led Mr. Nesbit and others to believe that we (Mom, Dad and me) laid a deal on the district attorney's table. I want to make it perfectly clear that we (me, Mom and Dad) did not lay a deal of seven years on the DA's table; we simply asked for a deal that Misty could and would take. The DA offered the seven-year deal. If I had asked for a time, it would have been no time, but let me ask you, the fact that the DA laid a seven-year deal on the table for Misty, what does that say?
Why would the DA's office offer Misty a seven-year deal if they believed Misty was guilty of first-degree murder and had an open-and-shut case? Yes, Mr. Nesbit, I do have the right to my opinion and my freedom of speech, but if my letters tire you, you have the right and the freedom not to read them.
How about all the cases you read in which someone was convicted by a jury only later to be found innocent? When I say "innocent," referring to Misty, I mean innocent of hte charged she was convicted of. A jury is not always informed of all the truth and facts; some had already found Misty guilty before her trial. Yes, a jury did convict Misty, but through deceit and manipulation. I was there every single minute of every single day for three weeks and a day. Were you? I've lived this nightmare.
I have focused on the children each day for the past 28 months and will continue to for the rest of my life, but I want them to believe there is true justice, as their daddy did. I'll say it again: All I want is a fair trial for Misty. Everyone is entitled to that.
I wish I had no reason to be angry. I wish I'd wake up from this hellish nightmare and be able to hug my brother and tell him that I love him and miss him every waking moment. I wish I did not have to hear the unanswered cries of those babies for their momma and daddy. I wish Mom and Dad could once again hold their baby boy and Drey would have his little brother and best friend back. I wish we didn't haev to go to Glenwood Cemetery to talk or feel close to Quinn. I wish I could make everything all right, but I can't.
Yes, this is how I deal with things, because screaming for justice is all I can do. So when Misty gets a fair trial, then I will hush, and Quinn can finally be at peace. Quinn's memory will live as long as my heart continues to beat. When I look into the precious faces of his children, I see him.
When you start living my life, then you can tell me how to feel.
Sabrina Witherspoon Barnes
Mooresville
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Letter to the Editor: Sabrina Barnes
Regarding the sentencing of the teen driver in the 2006 death of a pedestrian at Morrison Plantation, I would like to know why Assistant District Attorney Alan Martin made a deal with Kristina Lawson?
Martin said part of the reason the state agreed to the plea arrangement was that the family of the victim, Janet Bush, was in favor of it. “They have never been vindictive,” Martin said in the newspaper article. “They said this young lady going to jail wasn’t going to solve anything.” I have no issues with Ms. Lawson or the Bush family. My prayers and sympathy go out to both families.
But on Jan. 23, 2007, my mom, dad and I, went to the DA’s office and outlined a deal of seven years on the table in the murder case of Misty Witherspoon, who was charged with killing her husband, Concord police officer Quinn Witherspoon. On Jan. 26, Misty accepted that deal, but five days later the DA’s Office removed it from the table, stating that the Mooresville and Concord police departments did not approve of the deal.
We have made it perfectly clear to the DA’s Office, the court, and the public that we did not want Misty to go to jail because we believe Quinn’s death was an accident. Where is Misty’s deal? (She received life in prison without parole.)
Why did the DA’s Office accept a plea for the Lawson case and not the Witherspoon case? Could it be because the Bush family did not have to battle against two police departments or because Misty’s dad was not an attorney or because neither party involved was a police officer?
Does this mean that police officers’ lives are more important than others? Is this fair?
Sabrina Witherspoon Barnes
Mooresville
Martin said part of the reason the state agreed to the plea arrangement was that the family of the victim, Janet Bush, was in favor of it. “They have never been vindictive,” Martin said in the newspaper article. “They said this young lady going to jail wasn’t going to solve anything.” I have no issues with Ms. Lawson or the Bush family. My prayers and sympathy go out to both families.
But on Jan. 23, 2007, my mom, dad and I, went to the DA’s office and outlined a deal of seven years on the table in the murder case of Misty Witherspoon, who was charged with killing her husband, Concord police officer Quinn Witherspoon. On Jan. 26, Misty accepted that deal, but five days later the DA’s Office removed it from the table, stating that the Mooresville and Concord police departments did not approve of the deal.
We have made it perfectly clear to the DA’s Office, the court, and the public that we did not want Misty to go to jail because we believe Quinn’s death was an accident. Where is Misty’s deal? (She received life in prison without parole.)
Why did the DA’s Office accept a plea for the Lawson case and not the Witherspoon case? Could it be because the Bush family did not have to battle against two police departments or because Misty’s dad was not an attorney or because neither party involved was a police officer?
Does this mean that police officers’ lives are more important than others? Is this fair?
Sabrina Witherspoon Barnes
Mooresville
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
