Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsMonday, November 27, 2006 10:41 PM CST
Massey denies withholding Hamm statement
Advertisement

DECATUR — Amanda Hamm told police her then-boyfriend held the door of her sinking car shut as her 3-year-old son struggled to escape, an officer testified Monday at Hamm’s murder trial.

The revelation came as prosecutors spent the day highlighting what they said were her conflicting accounts of the day her three children drowned in Clinton Lake. At times she said it was an accident, and at others she blamed former boyfriend Maurice LaGrone Jr., police have said.

In another development Monday, DeWitt County Sheriff Roger Massey denied withholding from the defense a handwritten statement Hamm made. The state also rested its case Monday.

Hamm, 30, is on trial on nine counts of first-degree murder in the Sept. 2, 2003, drownings of Christopher Hamm, 6; Austin Brown, 3; and Kyleigh Hamm, 23 months. LaGrone, 31, was convicted of murder in April and sentenced to life in prison.

State police officer Mark Murphy testified Monday that Hamm changed details of her account during the more than five hours he and two detectives spent with Hamm. That Sept. 22, 2003, interview, done while she was a psychiatric patient at St. Mary’s Hospital, was the final time Hamm spoke to police.

In that statement, Hamm offered incriminating statements about LaGrone’s failure to help her save the children. At one point, she said, LaGrone prevented Austin from opening the car door.

Murphy said that statement was personally troubling to him.

“I lost my attention briefly. I thought of my own kids,” said Murphy.

During the hospital session, Hamm recanted portions of her statement, a development Murphy admitted was frustrating to police.

Hamm denied later in the interview that she knew LaGrone had a plan to kill the children. Murphy quoted Hamm as saying, “If I had known, I wouldn’t have gone to the lake.”

Hamm voluntarily answered questions seven times for police beginning on Sept. 2 and ending on Sept. 22, 2003, when she was a patient at the Decatur hospital.

In other testimony, Massey denied that he deliberately withheld a handwritten Hamm statement from the defense.

In questioning by defense lawyer Steve Skelton, Massey acknowledged that Hamm had written a statement to police on Sept. 17, several hours after she finished a one-hour interview that was audiotaped by police.

Massey read to the jury the one-page statement in which Hamm maintains LaGrone parked the car facing the water on a boat ramp. She said she told her boyfriend to “throw it in park or something” as the car went quickly down the ramp and into the water.

Hamm wrote that LaGrone told her he couldn’t change the car’s gear. He then opened the drivers’ door and exited the rolling car, ignoring her repeated pleas for help in getting the children out of the back seat, she said in her statement.

“He put his hand on the gearshift. I thought he was going to put it in park,” Hamm wrote in the statement.

Skelton noted in his questions to Massey that LaGrone’s attorneys received the document during the pretrial discovery process when potential evidence is shared with opposing counsel.

“Were you trying to hide it from me?” Skelton asked the sheriff.

“Absolutely not. We wanted everyone to be on the same page,” said Massey.

The state ended its case Monday afternoon after 11 days and 40 witnesses.

A defense motion for a directed verdict was denied by DeWitt County Judge Stephen Peters. He said the jury must determine the credibility of conflicting statements from Hamm and other witnesses about what happened at the boat ramp.

The defense will call two experts to the stand today. Texas psychologist Mark Cunningham will testify about Hamm’s ability to respond to the emergency situation and Richard Ofshe of California is expected to testify about involuntary statements people may give to authorities.

Skelton said LaGrone will not testify until next week.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 18 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Krusty Krab wrote on Nov 29, 2006 8:31 PM:

" have had... "

Krusty Krab wrote on Nov 29, 2006 6:48 PM:

" Defense attorney: wrote on November 28, 2006 9:41 AM: WOW! "Defense Attorney" likes to play "matador" with cars! Cool. He seems to also have have guns pointed at him... must know what it's like to be in fear of your life and how quickly one can pull a trigger in defense of that life. Must have been rigorous training at John Marshall. Better call him to save the day at your next bar fight, domestic, drive-by, ect, ect, ect. "

Tired Of All Of This wrote on Nov 28, 2006 3:10 PM:

" Jesus H.... give me a break... more stories.... more lies... coming from everywhere... and I just can't wait to hear the added stories that will be told when dear old Maurice shows back up in town explaining how he was also victimized throughout this ordeal... what a shame... I don't think the real truth will actually be found... and the tragedy of it all is the loss of 3 children that none of us will never get to know if we ever had a chance to cross paths with in our lives... Seems like the makings of total corruption everywhere... where's Batman when you really need him??? "

RAW wrote on Nov 28, 2006 2:39 PM:

" She is guilty! Every time I see her picture I want to puke. Smart or dumb, she's guilty... "

Jon wrote on Nov 28, 2006 12:11 PM:

" Are some of you insinuating that cops are capable of lying?!? Surely you jest - they are defenders of all that is right and good in this world! Cops never lie, abuse suspects, falsify statements, hide evidence or shoot unarmed people! "

Defense attorney: wrote on Nov 28, 2006 9:41 AM:

" I sleep very well at night. By the way, I take a lot of pro bono cases because of the amount of people I see that are falsey accused or wrongly charged due to overzealous prosecutors and officers of the law. With the shooting of the 92 year old "drug dealer" where the "credible source" used for obtainging a search warrant says he never gave her name or address ion Atlanta and the 50 shots fired at three unarmed men this weekend in New York, you would think some attitudes would start changing. You have no clue how many "SWAT team-like drug raids" have been carried out in this area with "questionable" information for warrants, excessive force and NO DRUGS, WEAPONS OR CONTRABAND of any kind found. Just rubble and threats left by local drug task force agents. I sincerely hope it happens to some of the people on here who believe that you have nothing to worry about if "your not doing anything illegal". You'd be the first to speak out about how YOU were violated. See how much media attention you'll get to DEFEND YOURSELF FROM FALSE CLAIMS. "

legal process wrote on Nov 28, 2006 9:32 AM:

" This case is about presenting a prosectution and defense regaring the deaths of three children. If most people had a clue about what is routinely withheld by "honest investigators" they would be shocked. If you can ever try and put yourself in a position where you are charged and NOT GUILTY of a serious crime and you are supposed to put your faith in a one-sided system whose goal is to get A conviction, not necessarily the RIGHT conviction, you may be more logical about this story. Massey has continually been accused of not turning over exculpatory evidence in many cases. This is not the first. His arrogance is intollerable for many in this community. He didn't win by a landslide. His credibility is in question, as well as his wisdom in conducting vehicle tests, which he clearly was not capable of doing in accordance with evidenciary rules. Emotion is not to enter a jury deliberation. Cases are won and lost by the evidence presented. "

Chicago reader wrote on Nov 28, 2006 9:22 AM:

" I like Massey so much I voted for him up here!!!! :) "

Hmmmm wrote on Nov 28, 2006 6:56 AM:

" Who's hiding..how ridiculous I am a very blunt person and I don't post my name anywhere..case in subject is if Amanda acually had a part in the death of her children, I've seen some pretty dense women and she might have been just that stupid or shocked that this was acually being carried out that she did not react the way a normal person would, I would also die saving my own BUT some out there just don't have a large mental capacity......God will be her judge in the end and she has to live everyday without her children and the facts of what did happen......She's in her own hell. "

I know wrote on Nov 28, 2006 6:41 AM:

" Defense lawyers will try anything if they are paid. Sometimes it is really disgusting the lengths they go to. I don't know how they sleep at night. "

hmmh wrote on Nov 28, 2006 6:39 AM:

" When she mentioned the 3 yr old trying to get out, I have wondered why the bigger kids didn't try to get out. Maybe they did. I wonder if Amanda said anything about yelling to the kids to tell them how to get out of the car?I believe my 5 yr old could get out himself and even swim to the shore. You wouldn't let your kids be looking at you out the back window without doing something. "

everyone wrote on Nov 28, 2006 5:55 AM:

" needs to stay focused here this is not about the Sheriff it is about the three children that died! Either at the hands of thier mother and boyfriend or some tragic accident! Yes I have an opinion but I am certainly not the judge and jury here so everyone please stay focused and think about the children the sheriff is really a minor part of this story! "

DJ wrote on Nov 27, 2006 7:24 PM:

" If you don't like Massey, and can't say anything good about him, why don't you run for sheriff and we will see how good you do. Myself I wouldn't have the job, especially in this situation. How can anyone believe her, she changes stories like we change channels on the tv. We had dealings with Sheriff Massey, and he did an exceptional job for us. "

Give Me a Break! wrote on Nov 27, 2006 7:15 PM:

" Skelton had access to the same evidence that Lagrone's lawyers had access to AND he attended the Lagrone trial on several occasions. This "conspiracy theory" is pretty lame if you ask me. Lagrone's defense team tried the same B.S. claiming that the sherrif had clothes that became "missing", then that defense team had to admit in court that they knew the sherrif had these clothes, had access to them if they wanted, and that they never asked for them! Is this "conspiracy" to withhold evidence as credible as the "conspiracy" claimed in Lagrone's case? Sounds like a case of anything to deflect the blame from the defendant. "

Ben Dover wrote on Nov 27, 2006 6:55 PM:

" How many different stories has she told? "

Fan Club Member wrote on Nov 27, 2006 6:21 PM:

" Let me rephrase what i said earlier....."I" didnt vote for massey, but DeWitt County sure did! You're right, Lagrone is in prison, but i think they should both be there....besides, these comments are only an opinion and im sure there are others in DeWitt County that agree...Who cares who i am? This is just my opinion so shush. "

Ryan Martin wrote on Nov 27, 2006 6:03 PM:

" If you are going to bash on Massey you should at least be brave enough to put your name instead of hiding behind a computer. Doesnt look like Massey and the rest of the investigators did too bad, Lagrone is in prison isnt he? "

Massey Fan Club wrote on Nov 27, 2006 5:43 PM:

" We voted for this guy again!!! yaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!! Gimmie a freikin break... "

Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?