David Romprey--Second Essay

One of the things I most enjoy about people is learning what shaped them from their past. Though we are often told that we can "do anything" or "be anything," I know better than that. I know we are not simply influenced by our past, or even defined by it, but sometimes even determined by it. Our past is a gift and a bane; a blessing and a curse. So when David and I sat down one long evening about four weeks ago, I learned some of the ways his past shaped him. The two things that most weighed on him were the fact that his grandfather served a life sentence in the Missiouri State Penitentiary for armed robbery and his father died, at age 54, of a massive heart attack at a mental health facility in Mexico. Whereas his grandfather was, seemingly, a life-long crook, his father was a life-long Fundamentalist preacher, a preacher whose sometimes erratic ways brought took the family overseas and back as he tried to get a clearer vision of his proclamation of Christ's Kingdom. Thus, David had serious criminal and mental health issues in the immediately preceding generations. David was no stranger to the mental health struggles himself, but he had made significant strides in that area. What our conversation did was to help him begin to come to grips with the "criminal" part of the background.

Looking Up Old Cases

There was a certain family lore about his grandfather's case, but the more I probed David, the more he didn't seem to be precisely clear on the facts. So, while sitting there, I dug into one of the data bases I had, and came up with some cases from 1960 and then 1970/71 in Missouri, where one Vernon Douglas Romprey was sentenced to life-imprisonment. The facts of the case, in brief, were as follows:

In Jan. 1956 two masked men and one with a false moustache broke into a jeweler's home in Independence, MO and then forced him to take them to the jewely store where they got $12,500 in cash and jewels. Romprey was allegedly the guy, in a mask, who stayed back at the jeweler's home to watch the wife and a sickly mother-in-law. When the robbery was over, the two robbers called the home, and the three then met up and high-tailed it out of town. The next week an off-duty police officer saw four men, Romprey, Whittaker, and two others, with a car with bullet holes in it in St. Louis. Becoming suspicious, he arrested them. When photos were shown to the jeweler (Mr. Diessl) in Independence and more photos were shown to him in St. Louis, he identified Romprey, Whittaker and a third man as the people who robbed him.

There isn't time to go into all the details about trial and appeal (the cases are at 339 SW2d 746 (1960--Romprey); 312 SW2d 34 (Whittaker); and Whittaker's later appellate case, 451 SW2d 11 (1970)), but one significant fact emerged after the original case, and that issue was adjudicated in 1970. I quote from that case (Whittaker).

The FBI Letter

Here are the words from the 1970 case:

"Approximately three years later [i.e., 1959] a special agent of the F.B.I. wrote a letter to the prosecuting attorney of Jackson County in which he stated that defendant and Vernon Douglas Romprey (tried separately from defendant) had been found guilty of the robbery of Mr. Walter Diessl, and that a ‘confidential source of information, who has furnished reliable information in the past, recently advised that the above described robbery was not committed by Romprey and Whittaker.’ It was also stated in the letter that the ‘source’ had advised that the robbery was committed by three persons named Young, Pinkerton and Shepherd, and that photographs reflect ‘a striking resemblance’ between Pinkerton and Romprey and between defendant and Young. It was further stated in the letter that a ‘second confidential source’ had advised that he had seen Young in possession of some watches which he was trying to sell, and that Young had stated that they had come from the Diessl robbery. In the letter it was also stated that the ‘confidential source who furnished information’ that defendant and Romprey did not commit the robbery ‘cannot be made available for interview,’ but that it was ‘believed’ that the ‘second source’ ‘may be willing to talk to someone from your office.’ At the hearing on the motion a former F.B.I. agent, who had furnished the information contained in the letter, testified to substantially the same information contained in the letter, but he refused to disclose the sources of information. In substance, his testimony was to the effect that persons whose identity could not be disclosed had told him that defendant was not guilty of the robbery."

There is an immediate plausibility to what the FBI agent was saying. Indeed, the only "look" that Mr. Diessl got at the man alleged to be Romprey was when the break-in to his house occurred. Since Romprey was wearing a mask in the semi-darkness, and since the element of surprise and terror would be present, there was a significant possibility of mistaken identity. In addition, identification of defendants in those days was frequently "guided identification": i.e., where a victim was presented with defendant photos and asked if "that was the guy." Though I don't know the specifics of the latter, the FBI agent's letter seems to cast significant doubt on the conviction of Romprey. This isn't to say that Romprey, in general, was an angel in life; it might suggest, however, that he wasn't involved in the Jan. 1956 Independence, MO robbery.

The court (Supreme Court of MO) didn't credit the FBI agent's letter testimony because it was hearsay (he didn't name his sources) and because too much time had lapsed to re-open the case. In addition, the lawyer who brought the appeal probably didn't argue forcefully enough that the method used to identify suspected criminals in those days violated provisions of the MO and US Constitutions. So, in a nutshell, the court decided to let the jury verdict of 1956 stand. A last-ditch effort of Romprey to get a new trial through a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court was also turned down in 1971.

David's Reaction

I wasn't able to do all this research for David "on the spot"--I spent some time later that night and the next morning putting together this material. We exchanged emails, with me laying out the possible case for grandfather's innocence. Here is David's typically gracious response to me:

"I'm a bit overwhelmed by your digging into this, with all you do and the keen interests you have in so many other things. Nevertheless, I'm VERY grateful to you for giving me these leads. I can certainly do more research if properly motivated. Not sure I will be, as it's not my cup of tea. However, to find out if my grandfather was grieviously WRONGED by the state of Missouri is something I might want to ascertain, as that has a ripple and trickle-down effect in even my most assiduous resistance to the doctrines of determinism!!

Be very satisfied and energized this week in all you do, David.

Conclusion

After that conversation, David and I talked again and again--and we were both convinced that a new friendship was born. He signed up to get free "mailings" of my essays. I had to take a trip out of state, but we were going to get together once things settled down for me. But now, that time is gone. So many things were cut short by David's untimely death, but it seems clear to me that when he died, he had successfully transmuted the bad messages of his past to work for him. The criminal past wasn't his; the mental health difficulties of the past were controllable and were actually empowering for him today. Life was opening in so many ways for him. That is why we feel such grief at his passing. We won't be so touched again for a long, long time.

3666