Everybody loves to play in the dirt. Nobody wants to admit it, but there is an unsavory attraction to the real truth, the messy stuff people like to cover up, but dole out oodles of bucks to read in the National Enquirer. Here’s some “mud in your eye,” -- Laurie Kellogg could have pled out. A battered woman’s defense was there for the taking and she had every right to it, no one would have thought any less of her for leveraging the system to her advantage. With a documented history of broken bones, broken dreams and a broken spirit, Kellogg could have pled guilty, signed on for a few years in the slammer and been out on parole before her wounds became scars.

But as raw as her heart was, as raw as her wounds were she could not bring herself to do it. There was one small detail that tripped her up –- her innocence. She didn’t do it and would not say she did to cop a plea. Pretty grimy huh, the gal traded her freedom for her integrity.

Kellogg was young and naïve and her idealism drove what came to be an erroneous faith in the system that was eventually put an innocent woman in a cage. Still, in many ways Laurie, though she continues to live her life behind bars, is so much freer than those who put her there. Her integrity meant enough for her to risk her liberty to keep it intact, and runs counter to numerous allegations levied against those responsible for her incarceration.

From a legal standpoint apparently Kellogg’s conviction was an enigma right out of the jury box. In a July 4, 1992 post-mortem on the verdict the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle interviewed a trio of that city’s most prominent defense attorneys who were all mystified by the jury’s reasoning. The story titled, “Kellogg Jury’s Reasoning Baffles Area Lawyers,” opened by categorically asserting, “Three of Rochester’s top defense lawyers reacted to the Laurie Kellogg verdict with astonishment. 'The Rodney King verdict was astounding. Now, you’ve got this one, almost equally confusing,' said John F. Speranza, baffled by the jury’s logic.”1

It goes on to explain the legal ramifications and potential post-conviction options associated with Kellogg’s conviction which was evidently based upon very unconventional findings in lieu of the nature of the crime. The article goes on to quote another lawyer, John Parrinello, as saying, “…the verdict’s inconsistency could be the result of jurors clearing their consciences. Felony murder” opened the door to compromise, he said. By dropping the “intentional” murder charge to first-degree manslaughter after apparent doubts about her intent to kill, they convicted her on a second murder charge seemingly “to satisfy their conscience for not letting a person walk,” Parrinello said.”2

While the jury’s motives have raised their share of questions among journalists, legal professionals and laymen alike, there is one aspect of the case that casts considerable doubt upon Kellogg’s guilt and that is the indictment itself. Laurie was found guilty of taking part in a burglary which resulted in her husband’s death. However, the shooter, Denver McDowell, admitted he went into the cottage (where the murder occurred), to kill Bruce Kellogg, not to steal anything.

Additionally, the Democrat and Chronicle quoted defense attorney John F. Speranza saying, “… it was inconsistent that Kellogg would be acquitted of intentional murder and conspiracy, but found guilty of participating in a burglary that resulted in her husband’s death. The burglary charge also seems flawed,” he said. “He went in to kill the guy, not to steal.”

That is part of what the press had to say; what they failed to mention in any significant way was a number of key pieces of Laurie’s puzzle that, while irregular, may well merit investigation. Many of these leads are ambiguous yet hold enough water to drink from and see how they taste.

For example, while the means to ascertain it remain elusive, one source has quietly suggested that the prosecuting attorney may have left several witnesses alone in a room to corroborate their stories prior to testifying. It is a stinging assertion that was allegedly discovered through second-hand discussions with someone who claimed to have spoken with one of the witnesses. However, if the better part of a woman’s life is hanging in the balance, doesn’t it bear at least a cursory investigation?

In addition, politics, including election year dynamics are alleged to have played hard into the mix. The building where the trial was held is reported to have been graced with a plaque honoring the victim’s family who were said to be pillars of that community and very politically connected. Could politics have cost Laurie Kellogg 25-to-life and isn’t it worth the money and effort to find out?

There have also been unconfirmed whisperings of perjury, judicial misconduct and police corruption, all unsubstantiated but all remaining uninvestigated. Some of these concerns have been expressed by an attorney who has reviewed the case documents, but the lawyer is not the only one. And while we have not been able to corroborate it, one of the investigators assigned to Laurie’s case is said to have been arrested subsequent to the Kellogg investigation for admitting to evidence tampering in other cases. Could be a real stand up guy, shouldn’t we find out?

There are other unconfirmed allegations that have been swirling around the case for years as well as some which seem too unrealistic to be true yet come from potentially credible sources. One such assertion involves the ending of “Lies of the Heart,” the movie made about Laurie. A former private investigator told us that he had heard the film’s producer was quietly pressured by the prosecution to alter the original ending to implicate Laurie more substantially. Such an ending would better support her conviction in the mind of the public and make the drama more marketable.

While the substance of these and other allegations potentially supporting Kellogg’s innocence remain untested, the clock continues wear away her life behind bars. Laurie Kellogg believed in a system that did not believe in her. She was imprisoned by a vicious, violent and abusive man and trapped in a web of domestic violence that legitimately threatened both hers and her children’s lives.

Laurie has spent the choicest years of her life paying for a crime she did not commit, because she chose to tell the truth rather than lie and cop a plea. She has been abused by her late husband, abused by the justice system, abused by Hollywood and abused by the press. Her life may be covered with dirt others have soiled it with, but her heart remains pure and her resolve steadfast.

____________________
1 Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, July 4, 1992
2 Ibid