Charles Stuart on respirator after being shotPresumed Innocent: Charles Stuart
In 1990, Charles and Carol Stuart, an upper-middle class white couple were returning from a birthing class (Mrs. Stuart was expecting their first child) at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. That night, Carol Stuart died of gunshot wounds in the car that her husband said was invaded by an assailant when the couple were stopped at a traffic light. Police responded following Charles Stuart's frantic 9-1-1 call from his cellphone. His story: a black man had jumped into the car and shot his wife, fatally, while wounding him near fatally with several gunshots to the abdomen.
The atttack took place in the Mission Hill section of Boston, near Roxbury, a predominantly African-America section of the city. Law enforcement and the news media readily accepted Charles Stuart's version of that night's events. The city went on a massive manhunt for the killer, with police detaining dozens of young African-American men who fit the description. The news media did stories sympathetic to Charles Stuart, suggesting his was a "camelot" marriage; some television stories suggested that "if it could happen to them (the Stuarts), it could happen to anyone."
It was later proven that Stuart himself had staged his wife's murder, both for insurance money and the desire to be with another woman. He even enlisted the help of his brother, who shot Stuart himself to help cover the crime. Once Stuart was finally caught in a series of lies and arrested for his wife's murder, he committed suicide by jumping off Boston's Tobin Street Bridge.
Once the truth about Charles Stuart was finally revealed, the finger pointing began. Questions like "why were police so quick to accept his story?" and why did the news media almost "canonize" Charles Stuart so readily as a poor victim of a random crime? These are important questions and ones on which I would like to hear your ideas and insights.
There are so many story lines that make good movies and television. Boy meets girl, girl likes boy, boy doesn't notice girl, boy finally notices girl and they live happily ever after. Then, there's the typical story about the young person that really wants to be a star, practices really hard, then becomes a star. Place whichever universal story line you want in a new locale with new actors and you've got box office gold. The same tends to go for television news. One of those stories seems to be that the "good" (white) couple travels into the "bad" (ethnically diverse) area and one of the "good" people dies at the hand of a "bad" person. It's ridiculous, really, but people buy into it every time. Regardless of the fact that it enforces erroneous stereotypes about class and race (which it most certainly does), it plays on a person's most internal and primordial fear/truth--the fragility of life.
ReplyDeleteI've studied this case in other classes and have come to know a lot about it. When this happened, the police basically set up camp in the middle of the area and started arresting/interrogating every black man that wasn't in elementary school or didn't yet have an AARP card. Also, the newspapers started printing stories about blacks vs. whites and these "extreme" racial divides in the city. It became a media frenzy and newspapers and television shows took it out of control and ultimately created a type of war between the two sides, perpetuating already gross stereotypes.
I find it horribly problematic that in 1989, the police weren't astute enough to figure out this guy killed his wife. Let's face it, 1989 is part of the era of technology and in today's world, merely being a decent actor isn't a good enough alibi. Perhaps I've seen one too many episodes of CSI, but there had to have been clothing fibers or hairs left behind if the man truly did jump into the car, shoot the husband in the stomach, and kill the wife. (On a more practical note of physics...it seemed nearly impossible for somebody to jump into the back seat of the car and maneuver the gun "just-so" to get the kind of trajectory that the bullet holes had.) Regardless, the police were much too quick to buy his story...especially after he was so quick to remove his baby son off life support (they delivered him through C section while Stuart's wife was dying). He should've stayed a key suspect in the case for more than 48 hours.
On a technical note, I'd like to see the stock footage from these news stories. Was all their stock footage of random black men going about their daily lives? Did they only interview middle-class white people about their "fears" and about what kind of area the "bad" place is (an area that they, most likely, probably hadn't visited themselves)? I feel like my assumptions on their types of video might hold pretty true.
But perhaps the person MOST guilty in this isn't the media or the police. It's Stuart himself. Not only is Stuart the one that killed his wife and planned it all out, but he himself is the one that played on these typical fears within middle-class white America and specifically fabricated the "black man with a raspy voice" and chose the specific area it happened in. He played on these already existing stereotypes of race and class and magnified them even more.
My last note:
It's a tragedy Stuart killed his wife (and ultimately, his child). Not only was she pregnant, but SO many people said that she was a truly great person. I don't have any pity for Charles Stuart and wish he wouldn't have jumped off the Tobin Street Bridge so that he could've seen his time in court. He killed his wife AND he owned a FUR shop???? He definitely deserved to be "Big Ted's" b-word in the big house...
This goes back to the idea mentioned in Heider's book. People in the media ultimatley have the power to decide whose life is important. They made it clear in this case. Stuart and his wife were the victims. Stuart was sympathized. It is a trajedy that Carol was murdered, but I have to wonder how the media would have reacted if the situation were reversed. What if the couple was black or hispanic? I think the media's coverage reflects that hegemony that is still present in our society. By never questioning Stuart's innocence and casting a negative view on the black community, the media indirectly provided thier opininon on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Cory that this is a perfect story for the media. It has all the "great" elements: murder, drama, good guys and bad guys. Again, I feel this type of coverage is best for Hollywood. Even the article from Time seemed overly dramatic.
First of all, I can't believe I haven't heard of this story with all of the E News "Most Gruesome Murder" shows that I watch! Upon initially reading the story, my first though is that I wouldn't have suspected him to be the murderer because he suffered serious injuries himself (I mean really, how do you miss your foot and end up shooting your abdomen?!) Even with his injuries, however, it is clear that the cops did not handle this case properly.
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone that the media jumped all over this story. As Cory said, it has all the elements of a dramatic news story (and a Lifetime movie). The media, of course, took Stuart's bait without question, and perpetuated the stereotype of a "wholesome white family" becoming victims in the "bad black neighborhood".
Of course hindsight is 20/20, and many of the flaws in his story may not have appeared as obvious at the time as they do today. Regardless, police acted carelessly when they turned the search for the murderer into an all out attack against all black men in the area.
What is most unfortunate, in my opinion, is that it always seems like the media and the police just can't comprehend a good looking white male would commit such a heinous crime..it happens time and time again. We see interviews with neighbors saying "I just couldn't imagine John killing his wife, he was always so nice and waved to me when he picked up the paper in the morning".
Our society has such a skewed image of what a criminal should look like and what kind of background he should come from. This is especially true for whites, but even in the OJ Simpson case, it is difficult to deny that his good looks and social status helped keep him out of jail. After all of the crimes that have been committed by wealthy, intelligent, and good looking people in our country, you would think that we would be able to look past these stereotypes and dig deep enough to find out what kind of people we are really dealing with in criminal cases.
First of all, as far as news stories are concerned, the stars aligned for the journalists who covered Charles Stuart's case and it astounds me how all of these factors played out in his favor (initially). Apparently the police were quick to believe him because of the brutality of the crime. This knowledge came from the show Rescue 911 which was ironically near the scene on the day the murders took place. They filmed one of the original officers saying that that was why they (the police) felt sorry for the Stuarts and took quick action. It's on youtube in 3 parts if you type in Charles Stuart.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally I think that the police used simpathy for Stuart to justify their methods of investigating the murders, like their total infiltration of the area and unfair profiling random black men. Finally, I also think Carol Stuart's reputation and the fact that she was pregnant had a major impact on the investigation. Clearly the ensuing media frenzy surrounding the prepostrous police investigation of that area fueled the pre-existing racial tensions.
On a side note, I would very much like to know how aware Stuart was of these pre-existing tensions, how big a factor that played into his plot and if he had the foresight to see that this would be as big a deal (regarding race relations and the media) as it became.
I think it is interesting how a formal investigation on Stuart did not take place. In most cases the "significant other" is the first person they look at. Perhaps they did not doubt his story because of his own injuries, but it seems a little odd that they just took the bait and began searching for a suspect that fit Stuart's description of the criminal. The holes in the story, realized later on, could have prevented this man from killing himself. Similar to what Cory had said, I would have been really interested in the details of that trial. He was looked at as a victim right away because of the wounds he had suffered, but the fact that he showed no concern over his wife's condition should have been a major indicator that this man was hiding something.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the brother only came forward because he was worried that the situation would have been worse for him if his girlfriend had gotten that information out there.Did he also not care that an innocent person would be put in jail on his behalf? Was he honestly able to walk through his neighborhood, look people in the eye, and play the victim suffering from the tragedy the family was faced with?
This was a horrible crime, and Stuart was quick to describe the criminal as a black man with a raspy voice. Why did he choose that description? Was he hoping it would be more believable? The man obviously had no conscience. He went to great lengths to murder his wife and unborn child, he tried to get a lot of people on board to assist in the murder, he played the victim by making sure he would be wounded in the process, and he did this all because his wife was worth no more than her life insurance policy. Above all else, someone would have been locked up for a crime Stuart himself committed. The type of description he gave did not only highlight a horrible crime, but it brought race into the mix. People who fit the "description" were questioned and reviewed over something that police could have avoided if they opened their eyes a little bit, or did some preliminary work. Why were they so quick to assume that Stuart was telling the truth? Were they unconsciously believing Stewart because of a stereotype they may have held within themselves? With all the officers brought in for investigation, did not one of them second guess the details of the crime?
The media ate up this story and perhaps in turn caused the racial tension to build. Once it was revealed that Stuart killed his wife and child, I am sure there were people in the community furious about the approaches that were taken during the investigation and during the coverage. The police were randomly targeting and profiling black men and did not look outside that spectrum at all.
During autopsy reports do they not try and identify the type of weapon used and then try and link that weapon to a suspect? Does anything make sense here? Stuart targeted a specific race and I believe he may have done so because he was aware of the stereotype and knew that an investigation in which a black person was criminal (in this specific area,) would take longer. It was also clear that the attention would not be shifted onto him because the police would be preoccupied trying to find the right guy. If the man he described was a middle aged white man, would the police have as many leads to work off of or places to look? Would they have considered Stuart as a suspect sooner?
I believe that Stuart hurt anyone and everyone he possibly could. I hope he did not consider the worth of the people he targetted as fitting the description to be less than someone else. This situation disgusts me because this man was wrong on SO many levels and people were willing to see him as the victim and criminalize anyone in the neighborhood that was a suspect.
This case proves that media has a tremendous influence over the viewer. I write this because if the 911 show didn't respond to the scene and show the world the murder victim's (being Mrs. Stuart and their unborn child)I wonder if the investigation would've been handled differently.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Charles kept asking about his wife as he was carried into the ambulance. And after this America felt sympathy for this 'unknown criminal.' Charles was in the hospital for weeks and the question of, "Did he shot himself to cover up the murder?" never came up.
What insane person kills his wife, resulting in the death of their child and shots himself in the abdomen to cover it up? But because America believed their was a bad African-American that killed a 'decent' man's wife, the search continued and Charles never became a suspect. For this, investigators believed the media painted description of a killer and never questioned Charles possible motives.
The location of the murder, the time of day and the way the murder took place all became something from a Block Buster hit and everybody bought into it, even the professionals.
This case reminds me of a saying, when you assume something you make an ass out of you and me.
I have a feeling that Charles Stuart knew from the start that the media would pick up on this and run, especially the more he cried for help. Young couple gets shot in a bad neighborhood. Easy enough story, right? Except when your brother rats you out.
ReplyDeleteIt was nice of Carol Stuart's family to set up a scholarship fund for students from Mission Hill. She (and her family) weren't knowingly involved in the fiasco of blaming a black man, and although it's not the biggest thing they could've done, at least they are trying to give back to the community what their son-in-law destroyed.
Does anyone else think it's sad that the Stuarts' baby was born premature and was able to live for 17 days before dear ol' dad pulled the cord and authorized a discountinued life support of the little guy? I mean yeah the baby was having seizures but I guess Charles wouldn't be able to live with a daily reminder of what he did to his own family.
Guess that's why he jumped off the bridge.
The problem with all of this was that the media jumped on the story, just as he knew they would. Charles played the police and the media and may have gotten away with it, if not for his brother Matthew ratting on him. I think we as media need to be more conscious of stories like this and try to give them enough coverage without going overboard. Then we won't look so stupid next time someone tries to play us.
I think it very clearly can be seen why he was believed as to what happened on that night. His wife ends up dead, and this man is shot multiple times in the abdomen. I think that's fairly easy to believe his version of the incident.
ReplyDeleteHe was portrayed as a victim because off the bat, it seemed fairly clear that he was in fact a victim, and the media painted him tragically because the man just lost his wife and unborn child. Again, it's easy to see why everyone felt sympathy for the man.
As members of the media, it is our job to look at every side, to have healthy suspicion, and question even the most obvious of stories. I admittedly don't know anything about this case aside from what was just posted, but I don't think the media was at fault for reporting what appeared to be a horrible crime against a family.
The man obviously was a coward all the way around, but to assume that the media could or should have known that from the beginning is unjustified.
While reading this article, I began to get a visual of the conversation between Charles and his brother, and this is how I imagined it went.
ReplyDeleteCharles: Bro, I need your help in killing Carol
Brother: Why?
Charles: Because she's worth a lot of money dead, and I don't want the kid anyway. There is 10,000 dollars in it for you.
Brother: What do I have to do
Charles: Just meet me in the "black neighborhood" around 8 and then shoot me.
Brother: aren't you afraid of getting caught?
Charles: Nope. I got a fool proof plan. I'm going to drive into the "ghetto", shoot Carol, you'll shoot me, I'll call the police and say we were mugged by a black guy and he shot me and my wife. It's perfect because the media is so dumb they'll never ask me the hard questions because I'm a victim and they always show sympathy towards them, and the police are so gullible, that if I tell them it was a black guy, they'll just find anyone who fits my description.
Brother: wow, your a geniuous.
Even though this may seem a tad bit humerous, it is believable. Journalist are always looking for that story that will bring emotion to its audience. So portraying Charles as the perfect husband and soon to be father, was a perfect story.
But what makes this story very believable is where it took place. Where does crime take place? In the "Ghettos" and poverished parts of towns. If I said that I was stabbed while walking through Mid-Town, most people would not think twice of asking me if I was telling the truth.
Police know where the " bad" parts of town are and who live their, and what did they do; go into that part of town and arrest everyone black. The fact is that all people in these communities do fit the description because the description is not detailed. "Calling all cars, calling all cars, be on a look-out for a black or Latino man," or you'll hear " suspect is a black male between 5'7 and 6'2 and between 170 and 220 lbs."
Luckily for me I have no persnal experience, but my friends and family have been victims of this plenty of times.
Yes, the police did drop the ball on this one when they took Stuart's testimony and began their "witch" hunt in an ethnically diverse part of town for someone who fit the profile of a raspy voiced, black male.
ReplyDeleteThe police though are part of the general populace who see the news on t.v. and read the papers throughout their daily lives (before they were police and beyond) and are told on a regular basis by the media that this particular part of town they patrol is crime ridden and the people that come from this part of town are responsible for much of the crime in the area.
As Heider mentions the media has built up and perpetuated an image to the public that certain parts of cities (usually the ethnically diverse areas) are worse than other less diverse areas.
At the time of the murder journalists and the media did little in the way of investigative reporting and instead jumped on board with a story that would sell and hold an audience. The ball was in their court and they droped it. Instead of being whistle blowers on this one, they sat in the stands and cheered for Stuart.
Has the media today done much to change the perception of minority populations in the U.S. or is it still as Heider describes it, festivals and crime?
Boy, this story made me remember this old jam. So, this is a blast from the past for you 90's kids. The Charles Stuart case is verse three of Marky Mark's second biggest hit behind "Good Vibrations." He even included a nice cinematic recreation of the whole event.
ReplyDeleteBecause this is how it is, on the wildside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUDlXJ5Wfc
Anyway, you can imagine the crosswiring here between the white rapper 'telling it like it is' with stories 'from the wildside' (Good usage of the Lou Reed sample too). The paradoxes inherent throughout this video are for another discussion.
Regardless of the pop culture angle, this case was part of the string of "blame the unknown (insert color here) guy" that crackled throughout early 90's cable news. The Susan Smith case also had similar derangements, wherein she blamed a black man for stealing her car with her children inside.
However, by the time of Susan Smith, the cynicism factor was shortened for the news though and it did not take long for the real story to emerge, that she drove her car into the lake with her kids inside.
I believe that "victims" giving 24 hr cable news face time (through constant press ops and candelight vigils) in fact allows criminals "to hide in plain sight/" And the more cynical side of me wants to think that these victims being paraded around until the 'story' falls apart is a key factor in driving continuing coverage. As long as viewers bullshit detectors are engaged, their attentions and passions will follow.
Will people consciously engage the media to cover their own guilt? I still think they will and do. Though the game may have changed a little, depending on the easier blameful group, specific groups may not be called upon to receive blame in the court of public opinion.
I think the reason the police were so quick to believe Charles' story is because he was in a predominantly African American neighborhood and the Stuarts were a White, upper- middle class couple. I also think it was a lot easier for the police to believe him than launch a full on investigation like the police would do in today's society. From what I've learned whenever there is a murder or domestic disturbance between a couple the police usually look to the spouse as their first suspect. So it makes me wonder why the police were so quick to believe Charles' story. As for the media, I'm still questioning why they didn't investigate the story themselves instead of just believing the police and Charles. If they had done their own research and instead of just trusting what they hear maybe the police would've caught him in his lies earlier and would've given him the justice he deserved. Charles was able to not only take his wife's life, but also his own child’s, for money and another woman, but couldn't take responsibility for his own actions. He jumped to his death to take the easy way out instead. What a coward.
ReplyDeleteWho wants to believe that a soon-to-be father would kill his pregnant wife? That was the main impression I got from the article. Charles set himself up well by placing himself in the middle of an predominately black neighborhood. In fact, I wonder if he even thought about how well his plan would work. I'll assume he didn't think about his personal convictions for killing his love and his off spring.
ReplyDeleteThe end of the story suggests that the police didn't do their part in investigating the circumstances. Why did he leave the scene? Why did it take so long for someone to arrive to their aid? It seems like the police ignored a lot of holes, and jumped on what seemed like a good lead.
This story not only makes the Boston PD look bad, it also makes the city look bad. Boston PD didn't investigate all avenues. They didn't look into the survivors story. They didn't do a back check on Charles until it was too late.
I don't think it was a race issue, even though it was set up that way. I really believe that when it came down to it, the investigators probably thought: Who would kill their own child?
No one likes to think about that.
This tragedy evokes several elements promoting a saturated news story, and Charles Stuart played these elements with a line and sinker. Not only were he and his wife presumed victims of a violent crime, but a crime that played an upper-middle class white couple falling prey to an African-American man.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the first suspect in a crime scene is the first witness, it isn’t typical that a husband will murder his wife with no evident motive. Although these incentives did not surface until later in the case, Stuart gave authorities full reason to believe that he and his wife had been victim to homicide. Stuart was able to fabricate his story for some time, but eventually the truth caught up to him. Crime scene evidence is substantially objective, and once the links surfaced, Stuart was not able to escape the authenticity of his guilt. He did, however, have all his ducks in a row banking on the idea that police would be quick to believe that a black man jumped into his car and fired several rounds. Clearly, the police dropped the ball with the initial investigation, since an extensive interrogation of young African-American men in the area was held with little substantiation. Likewise, the media was so quick to paint Stuart to be a “camelot” victim, but the question arises as to whether it was due to race, or morality reasoning that husbands should not kill their wives.
The media is not only responsible for "accepting" the story; the police are also responsible because their investigation was clearly incomplete. There is more than one layer to this issue. The media should have scrutinized more thoroughly and the police should have investigated more thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteRace and class are another factor. The Stuarts were an upper-middle class white couple, the type of people who Heider would likely identify as news consumers and people with buying power. Given what we've discussed in class regarding race and class, it does not come as a shock that the coverage of the story was handled the way it was. But this is a sad reality, and the media needs to do a better job when covering many stories, this one included.
It is a reporter's job to be skeptical and dig deeper. Instead of pointing fingers after the fact, the news media needs to be more proactive to begin with.
I feel like this all goes back to laziness. Although journalists are often times accused of being lazy, it seems police officers have taken the "lazy torch" as well. It is so much easier to assume something that makes sense, then to question something that doesn't. All sides of the story should be investigated and reported, even the sides that are hard to find. Thankfully, justice was served.
ReplyDeleteAnd as the saying goes...Don't assume. It makes an ass out of you and me.
This is clearly a case of racial profiling and stereotypes. The police, the black community and the media took a knee jerk reaction to the typical views of what constitutes “black” dangers.
ReplyDeleteThe description that Stuart gave was prototypical, and it was embraced by the white community and the media (which had a field day), and the black community heeded the image as the media coverage influenced all points of view. The profiling of suspects could have rounded up most of the black men in the locale.
The story had all the factors that make a television show or novel. It had sex, violence, secret romance, police, racial overtures, family, and money. It was glamorized in an episode of Law & Order, made into songs by Marky Mark and O.G. and Da Bulldogs and was so generally ridiculous it could have been a tabloid story (it probably was).
I believe that more coverage needed to be devoted to the manhunt that falsely tied police up for weeks.
The 3rd paragraph from the end of the story begins "In hindsight, all the holes in Stuart's story look painfully obvious."
ReplyDeleteHis story was believed by the police and by the media. Who wouldn't want to believe that it was some "crazy" person after money or something else. Should there have been a better investigation? Yes, and it is easy to say that now, but everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The police should have looked into it further but realistically, when the police show up on a scene they immediately ask the person who called 911, "what happened?" they record it and then move on to the next "witness" in this case, they had no other witness. So, there is no reason why the police shouldn't have taken his word in the begining, but then followed up more closely at the details.
ReplyDeleteI think Stuart abusing the situation by saying it was a young black guy, but the police were not racially profiling by looking for someone who fit the description, they were doing what any police force across America would do. However, while there were officers out looking for the suspect, there should have been a detective back at the station asking questions.