Killer Owes the Truth to One Man

The first murder trial I ever covered, I thought the accused offered a novel defense: He said he raised the gun but then blacked out and didn’t remember the shooting.

My next trial, it seemed an odd coincidence: the blackout defense. In the next, the defendant admitted stealing drugs from someone, but said it was his partner who killed the victim.

It didn’t take long to see a pattern. When a murder case wasn’t a genuine whodunit--did they get the wrong guy?--nobody was ever willing to own up to sheer evil. No defendant ever admitted, I ended her life for her credit cards.

So when I hear Jaturun Siripongs’ quasi-confession in the murder of two people in a 1981 Garden Grove market robbery, it’s easy to be skeptical. He argues in court papers that he participated in the robbery, but an accomplice--whose name he has kept secret for 17 years--did the actual killing.

I’ve heard it before.

An 11th-hour reprieve Nov. 16 spared Siripongs from execution. Today in San Francisco, a federal judge is scheduled to determine if Gov. Pete Wilson’s clemency denial for Siripongs was handled improperly. It’s a moot point. Whatever happens, prosecutors say Siripongs’ fate will rest with Gray Davis, who takes over as governor Jan. 4.

I’m already on record in this column opposed to California’s death penalty laws, which are carried out unevenly county to county. But unsettling to me is Siripongs’ refusal to tell the truth to one who deserves it most--Surachai Wattanaporn.

On Dec. 15, 1981, Wattanaporn found his wife, Packovan, 36, choked to death in the market storeroom. Quach Nguyen, a 52-year-old employee, was found stabbed to death next to her. More than $25,000 in jewelry and cash was missing.

Wattanaporn has now sided with those who say the state should spare Siripongs.

At Siripongs’ trial in 1983, Wattanaporn stood in court to support a death sentence. But his attitude has tempered over the 15 years of Siripongs’ appeals. Should Gray Davis surprise us and set aside Siripongs’ death sentence, Wattanaporn might well be an influencing factor.

Siripongs isn’t showing much gratitude, indicating that the killer of Wattanaporn’s wife is still around. But he won’t say who it is.

Siripongs, now 43, who had once worked for Packovan Wattanaporn, was arrested two days after the murders trying to use her credit card to buy a TV set. He now argues his native Thai culture has kept him from being disloyal to his supposed accomplice. But when he served time in a Thai jail, Siripongs was a paid snitch, prosecutors say.

Also, he buried Packovan Wattanaporn’s jewelry in a ceramic Buddha at his home. So much for cultural respect.

Prosecutors say there was, indeed, evidence at the scene to indicate a woman may have helped Siripongs. But only as a lookout. And that was never proved.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Jim Tanizaki, now assisting in the Siripongs case, suggests: “If there was an accomplice who did the actual killings, why is it Siripongs got all the goods?”

It was Siripongs’ knife used in the robbery, and blood on it was consistent with his. And most compellingly, numerous cut marks on his hand were consistent with his using that knife.

Siripongs knew Packovan Wattanaporn could recognize him. Does any sane person believe he was going to allow her to live after that robbery?

Accomplices can be given a death sentence, but in many instances they only receive life without parole. Prosecutors suspect that Siripongs is hanging on to his “accomplice” defense because it’s his only hope. But Gov. Wilson certainly didn’t buy it. Could Gray Davis be that naive?

Someday a governor in California is probably going to grant clemency in a death penalty case. But it won’t be for someone who shows so little remorse he lies to a victim’s husband who has come to his defense.

Jerry Hicks’ column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Readers can reach Hicks by calling the Times Orange County Edition at (714) 966-7823 or by faxto (714) 966-7711, or e-mail to jerry.hicks@latimes.com