Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Friday, July 18, 1997 Page: 3A
Plea brings needed closure
When killer Joann Curley muttered the word “dozen,” a stir shot through
the courtroom like a sharp painStanding in the back of the courtroom, I raised
my eyebrows and counted on my fingers.
One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Nine. Ten. Eleven. Twelve.
A dirty dozen if there ever was one, I thought, as a timorous, yet deadly,
assassin confessed to the judge that she had slipped “rat poison” to her
husband on 12 separate occasions.
“In a drink,” she then said as demurely as an English butler serving tea.
Damn.
After six years of denying guilt and cooperating with police and agreeing
to an exhumation and demanding answers to the question “Who killed Bob
Curley,” the wife finally admitted that she did it.
By feeding the husband thallium-laced rat poison.
Twelve torturous times.
Double damn.
For her truthfulness, she will be rewarded.
Ten to 20 years in a state prison looks a whole lot better than a possible
date with the death chamber. Someday, she will be home free, to marry and fall
in love again if she so chooses.
Yet, it hardly seems fair.
Or does it?
No matter what Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.’s critics say, rather than accept
Curley’s plea to third-degree murder, the district attorney would have
preferred to go to trial against the 33-year-old Wilkes-Barre mother.
But, as Olszewski said at the press conference following yesterday’s
hearing, “I think we could have won. I know we could have lost.”
If he lost, so did the Curley family, which has already endured too much of
the glaring peep show that all high-profile murder cases in this community
inevitably become.
These people do not need the likes of me writing daily columns about their
loss as they struggle through a trial day after day for a month or more. Nor
do they need the stress that accompanies the wait for an outcome.
What they need is what’s commonly called “closure.”
Attorney Tony Lupas and the members of the Curley family he represents used
that word several times as they sat with Olszewski at the post-hearing press
conference.
Obviously, this finale helps them.
Remember that fact when Olszewski’s critics belabor his decision for weeks
to come.
Because when they berate Olszewski, they berate the victim’s family. And
what kind of true crusader is willing to do that?
Still, how can you agree to allow the mastermind of a carefully planned
murder to one day go free?
Equally carefully.
This third-degree plea never would have happened had Bob Curley’s mother,
brother or sister opposed it. It also likely never would have occurred had
Joann Curley refused to answer every question Olszewski and two state police
detectives put to her when they interviewed her this week.
But they didn’t oppose the deal, and she did answer all their questions.
Olszewski stressed that they now know how and why Joann did what she did.
And although Olszewski deferred answering questions about that interview
until the Curley family decides whether to make it public, he acknowledged
that money was the motive.
That’s as cold as it gets.
This is the same woman who was awarded more than $1 million in an insurance
settlement from her first husband’s death shortly before Bob Curley died.
Despite her wealth, greed sent her to his deathbed with enough rat poison to
execute him.
As she stood before the judge, Joann Curley exhibited no obvious remorse.
Just honesty, in exchange for a very good and legal deal.
Of course, not everyone will understand or approve.
Still, a killer is going to jail, and her victim’s family has been released
from its prison of uncertainty.
Family members agree that justice has been served.
That’s all that matters.
Steve Corbett’s column normally appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.
E-mail Corbett at stevec@abc.com