News
Email
Print
Paternity-test request declined
Marker review committee had wanted to compare DNA of father, son
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: November 12, 2008
Updated: 11/12/2008 11:29 am
Jill Marker was four months pregnant when she was savagely beaten inside the Silk Plant Forest store in December 1995.
While in a coma, she gave birth to a healthy boy, Barron, in April 1996.
Now, Barron has drawn the attention of a citizens review committee formed by the city of Winston-Salem to investigate the case.
And the committee has made an unusual request.
Committee members decided that with the help of David Hall, an assistant Forsyth County district attorney, they would ask Marker's former husband, Aaron Marker, if he would agree to a paternity test. Aaron Marker has custody of Barron, who is now 12.
The committee is charged with investigating all aspects of the case and was formed because of questions about the assault conviction of Kalvin Smith, who maintains his innocence.
The paternity request came after investigators for the committee interviewed Ellen Lamoureux, the former wife of Kenneth Lamoureux, who was an early suspect in the case. Ellen Lamoureux told them that Barron might be Kenneth Lamoureux's son. The committee decided Oct. 27 to check out that possibility, voting 5-1, with two abstentions, to ask Aaron Marker for permission to compare his DNA to Barron's.
Aaron Marker said no during a telephone call with Hall on Monday. Hall made the request because the committee agreed to his offer to act as an intermediary. Separately, the district attorney's office has opposed Smith's effort for a new trial.
Aaron Marker said in a telephone interview yesterday that he decided not to allow the paternity test after talking with Willard Bartel, a lawyer in Cleveland who represented the Markers in a civil lawsuit against the shopping center in which Jill Marker was attacked.
Jill Marker's family won a $9 million settlement from the shopping center after Smith, who was thought to have acted randomly, was found guilty.
"He's a smart guy, so I listened to him," Marker said of Bartel, referring questions to him.
Bartel said that Marker has cared for his son for years and that there is no benefit for them to do the test.
"It doesn't help him in any way," Bartel said. "He's been caring for and loving his child.… Now to put him in a situation where he has by slim chance to find out he's not the father would just not be fair to him."
Police stopped investigating Lamoureux after he moved to Charlotte four months after the attack.
Jill Marker worked at Today's Child Learning Center, which Lamoureux's children attended. A co-worker of Jill Marker's told police that Jill Marker said that Lamoureux would drop by the Silk Plant Forest to talk with her. Two witnesses told police that he was in the store about an hour before the attack.
Lamoureux, who now lives in Texas, told the Winston-Salem Journal in 2004 that he met Jill Marker once, when his daughter dragged him into the store before Thanksgiving 1995. He denied knowing her well.
Ellen Lamoureux referred questions to her attorney, who did not return phone calls.
The panel also asked for permission for the paternity test from Bud and Edna Hoisington, Jill Marker's parents and legal guardians. Their daughter, who has brain damage and is blind, lives with them near Akron, Ohio. She is under 24-hour nursing care.
The Hoisingtons said yes to the DNA request but said they thought the decision was Aaron Marker's to make.
"Why wouldn't he want to know if that's his baby or not?" Edna Hoisington asked.
Now that Aaron Marker has said no, it's not clear what the committee's next move might be. At least three members of the nine-member committee raised questions about the request, and those voting in favor of it acknowledged that it was a delicate issue.
"There's an accusation that goes along with this," William Davis, a lawyer and committee member, said at the Oct. 27 meeting. "This is in a way adding insult to injury."
The Hoisingtons said that Davis was right. "I think she's suffered enough without somebody coming up and saying she had sex with somebody else and it's their baby," Bud Hoisington said.
Questions about Smith's conviction were raised both by the Journal in 2004 and by the Innocence Project at Duke University Law School, which started investigating the case in 2003.
Attorneys for Smith asked in April for a new trial, arguing that his conviction was based on witnesses who have recanted and who say that police pressured them to lie. A judge will hear five of Smith's 11 arguments for a new trial, with the hearing set for Jan. 5.
Blynn, the committee chairman, said yesterday that the committee would discuss Aaron Marker's decision at its next meeting, which will be at 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 24 in the Stuart Municipal Building.
■ Dan Galindo can be reached at 727-7377 or at dgalindo@wsjournal.com.
* This story has been updated to correct the date of the Silk Plant review committee's most recent meeting. It was Oct. 27, not Nov. 3.
Email
Print
