34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Court eyes '72 NA killing
Top Headlines A Bristol County Superior Court judge in 2005 ruled the FBI withheld evidence favorable to Lykus and that other evidence used to convict Lykus was flawed, depriving him of a fair trial. But the judge's ruling was appealed by the Bristol County District Attorney's Office, which argued there was substantial other circumstantial evidence for a jury to convict Lykus. Lykus was 20 when he was convicted in 1973 in the kidnapping and murder of 13-year-old Paul Cavalieri, and of extorting $50,000 from his family. Lykus, now 55, the son of the late Police Chief Stanley Lykus, has always denied killing Cavalieri, the son of a prominent local businessman. But he admitted to picking up the ransom money, saying he was paid $500 from a drug dealer he did not know. The young boy's murder and Lykus' arrest stunned the community. Evidence used in the case included voice print analysis of telephone calls to the victim's family, which were taped by authorities, demanding $50,000 in ransom. Police also found bullets in his apartment which were the same caliber as those in the murder and staples similar to those included in the ransom note. When confronted by police with evidence, Lykus changed his story several times. Lykus had lost previous appeals, but obtained FBI documents which revealed the bureau deliberately withheld a report questioning the reliability of the voice identification linking Lykus to the ransom call. The report was kept from state prosecutors. The SJC heard arguments about the case last week and some of the justices voiced skepticism about whether a new trial should be granted in light of other compelling evidence against Lykus. "I look at this and I see a case of substantial evidence of guilt. What do you see?" Justice John M. Greaney asked Lykus' lawyer, Chauncey B. Wood of Cambridge. Wood argued evidence in the case was not as strong as the prosecution claims, including the statements by six people who identified Lykus' as the voice of the ransom caller. The people were friends and neighbors of Lykus. Wood argued the statements were flawed because the witnesses were questioned by police at the same time in the same room. He also said the FBI played a major role in the investigation and the bureau's decision to withhold evidence was serious and should not be excused. "What we're talking about here is the intentional misconduct of a law enforcement agency which was designed to undermine the integrity, the reliability and the fairness of the criminal justice process," Wood told the justices. But Assistant District Attorney William R. Connolly argued that even without the voice print analysis, the case against Lykus remained strong. "There's overwhelming evidence that this person is guilty," he told the justices. Lykus lost his bid to be released from prison on bail while the appeal was pending. The justices did not indicate when they would rule on the case. DAVID LINTON can be reached at 508-236-338 or at dlinton@thesunchronicle.com.
Post Your Comments resident wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:55 PM: " "Realist" is right on target, and I also agree with "skeptic". Others were involved and were "excused" if they testified against him. Many agree that he was set up. Perhaps if "lonicutter", the public and the jury had access to the trial transcripts as well as the new evidence, they would realize there was enough evidence to create/show a reasonable doubt. Hello? Why would the FBI withhold evidence? The fact still remains that there was deliberate misconduct by the justice system, thus, not allowing a fair trial!!! How is that acceptable? " realist wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:26 AM: " I remember this case as it happened just before my freshman year at Feehan.
I know the SC has a penchant for missing details, but there must have been more physial evidence than bullets of a particular caliber and staples that were similar to the ones used for the ransom note. The bullets and staples could probably be found in a hundred homes in the area at the time. As for the voice print technology, while good, it was in its infancy in the 70's - I wonder if there are experts available today who can testify as to how it was done in the 70's. Maybe I watch too many CSI shows, but I wonder if there is any DNA evidence that was preserved in a warehouse somewhere? " skeptic wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:08 AM: " Was "lonictter" on the jury? If evidence was withheld then the accused has the right to see it.
Maybe he's guilty, maybe he's not. Maybe he didn't act alone. " lonicutter wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:38 AM: " AHH! The good old days when 13 year old boys were kidnapped for money and not perverted acts. (Please forgive my warped sense of humor...I mean no disrespect to the deceased or his family). In 1972, I lived on Chestnut St. in NA, right down the street from the Cavalieri's home. It was an absolute tragedy finding that boy. They had this guy nailed from the beginning. As I recall, there was no doubt about his guilt. He should rot in jail until he expires. " or
|
