Epilogue to The Guy with the Knife

On November 13, 2015 Jon Christopher Buice was granted parole by the Texas Board of Pardons and Proles.  For some the story is over.  For others it is a travesty.  For Jon it is just the beginning of the rest of his life.  Opinions are varied depending on your perspective.  Since April of 2015  Alison Armstrong's documentary, "The Guy with the Knife" has been shown numerous times in a multitude of Gay film venues in as many states.  Each time it has either received acclaim or awards for best documentary with outcries for social change by its viewers.  It goes without question the film has great social merit and in a dynamic way shows the need for social change in the justice system in Texas. 

Prior to the granting of Jon's parole, one of the screenings of the documentary was at the LBJ School of Public Affairs. The following is a re-posting of  and article from the school's student run Journal, "the bainesreport".  Nathan Fennell, student in the masters program clearly raises questions about the merits of arbiters in the justice system in the state of Texas.  Judge for yourself the issues that it raises and then ask yourself, "What would you do if you or one of your love ones were caught in the snare of the Texas Justice System"

Published on November 22nd, 2015 | by Nathan Fennell

0

A Look at “The Guy with the Knife”: Is the Texas Criminal Justice System too Easily Manipulated?

The LBJ School of Public Affairs’ Center for Health and Social Policy (CHASP) recently collaborated with the William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law at the UT Law School and the LBJ School’s Harvey Milk Society to present a screening of the film “The Guy with the Knife.” The screening was followed by a panel discussion where we were fortunate to have a star-studded lineup including the film’s director, Alison Armstrong, LBJ School Senior Lecturer and criminal justice policy expert Michele Deitch, and a number of the individuals featured in the film.“The Guy with the Knife” tells the story of Jon Buice, a man serving a 45-year sentence for his role in the 1991 murder of Paul Broussard. For those unfamiliar, it is a “true crime” story that reached national prominence as a symbol of hate crimes on the basis of sexual preference. The story itself is replete with dramatic elements. Broussard was a gay man killed in Houston’s Montrose neighborhood, a predominantly gay district that had a known history of “gay-bashing” attacks with limited police or EMS intervention. The suspects, known as the “Woodlands 10”, were all teenagers from the suburbs. But it took a national media campaign led by gay rights activists to spur police and prosecutorial action in the case, and ultimately the Woodlands 10 were handed their sentences amid well-organized outcry from the public.Since then, the narrative of Broussard’s murder as a hate crime has largely changed. Ray Hill, the lead activist who organized rallies and demonstrations to push for heavy prosecution of the Woodlands 10, eventually admitted to fabricating the story of it being a hate crime in order to garner media attention. And in a telling turn of events, Hill eventually began advocating to get Buice paroled. The story rivals compelling fiction in its drama and intrigue, as heartbreaking as it is riveting.While there are many conversations to be had about the film and the underlying facts, what struck me the most was the manipulability of Texas’ criminal justice system in all of its phases. The film features a host of examples of individuals and groups influencing this system. At various times it credits individuals, organized advocacy efforts, and media campaigns with spurring:

1.        the Houston Police Department to conduct a serious investigation into  Broussard’s  death, which otherwise would likely have gone           unsolved;

2.        the Houston District Attorney’s refusal to accept fewer than a 45-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea from                                       Buice;

3.        the Parole Board’s rescinding of Buice’s release order after he was originally  granted parole in 2011; and

4.        the continued denial of Buice’s parole each year from 2012-2014

The film presents compelling evidence of media and/or activist involvement in each of these decisions. Taken as a group, these four instances show that the criminal justice system in Texas is not always operated by impartial arbiters, but rather can be subject to the same vagaries and attitude shifts as any other part of the American political process.This is not to say that the influence of public opinion on the criminal justice system is always bad. Rather, this is to say that refusing to acknowledge the role of political influence in the criminal justice system is a problem. The distinction is more than semantic. For example, a large-scale activism and media campaign was necessary to force the Houston Police Department to fully investigate Broussard’s death. This was an important moment in the history of relations between Houston Police and the GLBT community, and has led to lasting improvements. To the extent that such campaigns are necessary to spur the police to investigate crimes committed against underrepresented communities, political pressure can be good.However, pretending that Buice’s sentence was based solely on the merits of the case ignores the political climate in which the sentence was given. Buice was a 17-year-old kid who in many states across the country would have been eligible to be tried in the juvenile justice system.  He was not sentenced to 45 years in prison because of the crime he committed. Rather, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison because of public outcry at the time of his case, in large part due to their belief in a fabricated motive that the originator has since recanted.  The District Attorney and judge in this case took their cues from the public, not from an impartial evaluation of the facts or the interest of justice. This is evidenced by the fact that half of the Woodlands 10 were sentenced to probation even though their involvement with the murder was similar.We must either do more to insulate the key decision-makers in the criminal justice system from political pressures or put more effort into recognizing the implications of political influence on our justice system. This is true not only of judges and district attorneys, but also of the parole board – the institution designed to evaluate the severity of the offense and the subject’s risk to society. Ultimately, the parole board is responsible for determining who should be released to supervision before completing their full sentence.  It is the supposed last bastion of technocratic authority in the criminal justice system.On Friday, 11/13, the Parole Board granted Buice parole for the second time. With their decision comes an opportunity for Buice to submit his parole plan and be released. It also provides one more opportunity for advocates to attempt to change the Parole Board’s decision. A second reversal would confirm that our criminal justice system values the opinions of the politically influential more than those of its own experts.Texas Chief Justice Nathan Hecht recently said in an interview with the Texas Tribune that the public demands of its justice system two incompatible goals – that they be independent and that they be accountable to the people. In Texas, we have fallen too far on the latter end of the spectrum. If the purpose of the criminal justice system is to balance the rights and needs of victims, defendants and society as a whole, we need to make sure that the arbiters of that system are judging by the merits of the case and not the size of the megaphone shouting them.Edited by: Mariam Ahmed

About the Author  Nathan Fennell is a first-year student in the Masters in Public Affairs program at the LBJ School. He holds a B.A. in Political Science and Rhetorical Studies from the University of North Carolina. He is interested in criminal justice policy, especially during the pretrial phase.

On Saturday morning I learned that the Texas Department of Pardons and Paroles sent a note to my son's attorney Bill Habern to let them know that they had granted my son's request for parole. I am deeply grateful that the Parole Board made this decision.

Jon has spent more than half of his life in prison for a crime he committed when he was 17 years old. He is now almost 43. During all of those years my son has done everything he could possibly do to repent for his crime and to try to make something of his ruined life.  Jon knows that he can never bring back Paul Broussard. That will be his burden to bear for the rest of his life. He will always hope, as he says, for the forgiveness of Paul’s family. While that forgiveness may never come, Jon and I will nevertheless always hope that someday it might come to pass. 

When Jon gets out of prison, his life will not be easy. The world has changed profoundly in the last quarter century. While he has worked hard and earned two associate's, one bachelor's degree and a master's degree Jon will of necessity have to learn to live with the freedom that he has missed. Jon has a loving family to come home to and he has friends who have supported him in his efforts both on the outside and in prison. It will be a difficult transition, but those of us who know and love Jon will do our best to support him and help him to make something of his life. Jon wishes to do everything he can to contribute to the community. It will not be an easy path.

I would like to thank everyone who has played a role in helping to support Jon throughout all of the time and who are hoping and praying that he will be successful.

Thanks you to all of you who have helped this come to pass.

Sincerely,

Jim Buice

11/18/2018
Corrections in red 11/23/2015

In Defiance of Malfeasance

The Social-Political alliances initiated by individuals in the media, public and legislative sectors of Houston beginning in September 2003 and continuing until this day have continued to derail the release of Jon Buice.  As each year passed more and more erroneous detail about the crime that never went to trial, has over-whelmed the thought process of many.  For thirteen years and nearly as many parole sessions the media rhetoric has been malicious in their presentation of facts about the events that lead to the death of Paul Broussard.  Their one-sided malefic approach has shaped public thought and opinion through "fixed images" of a "hate crime".  All opinion contrary to those fixed images were quickly subdued and not allowed to contradict the mindset of the Greater Houston Area general public.  The voices of Ray Hill (Gay Rights Advocate), Susan Bardwell, deceased (Police Reporter-Houston Chronical) and others have been overshadowed by Andy Kahan (Self-anointed Victims’ Rights Advocate) though the use of the Houston Media, and others to protest the release of Jon. (See “Conspiracy”, previous entry in this blog)

In 2015, Alison Armstrong’s documentary “The Guy with the Knife” was released at the Dallas International Film Festival (DIFF) (See “The Guy with the Knife”, previous entry in this blog).  It was during this showing that I became aware of Maria Gonzalez, Associate Professor of English, University of Houston and past president of the Houston GLBT Caucus.  I quickly noticed a stark contrast of opinion between her and Noel Freeman, (See “How is it That..”, previous entry this blog) another past president of the Houston GLBT Caucus, but gave it little thought until Alison screened the film at the U of H (See “Tale of Two Universities”, previous entry in this blog).  I queried Alison Armstrong, after the Dallas showing, about Gonzalez and Alison explained to me that she was keenly interested in the truth about Jon and had agreed to be in the documentary.

In April 2015, during the screening at the U of H, I met Maria Gonzalez and was moved by her earnest attempt to come to a truth in the matter of Jon.  At this showing Andy Kahan was asked about his involvement with politicians’ in the parole of Jon.  Andy exclaimed that he could not release such information.  Gonzalez was quick to answer with the names of those politicians.  My interest in her was greatly enhanced and I asked her if she would be interested in meeting Jon, face to face.  Gonzalez indicated that she was interested and would entertain the liaison in the August time frame.

Prior to Maria Gonzalez going to visit with Jon, I asked her to have lunch with me in order to gain some insight into her thought processes and to impart knowledge on how Jon was raised and what my objectives were for our meeting.  Over the course of an hour and a half we discussed how she and I came to be at the point in life we were presently.  It became apparent that we shared many things in common as adolescents.  We also came to realize that we would unite in the cause of Jon’s parole. At this meeting she indirectly indicated that she was familiar with John Whitmire and Garnet Coleman, having helped on their campaigns for office and in the role they played in the parole processes of Jon. She said she would be willing to redirect initiatives originally put into place to keep Jon incarcerated. We did not discuss the current social-political rhetoric about Jon; rather we both agreed that she should formulate an opinion of Jon after her visit with him in August.  Based on meeting with Jon she could then reconsider redirection of the social-political initiatives.  I left the luncheon with hope that this would be the year my son comes home.

On Saturday, August 22, 2015, Mara Gonzalez came face to face with the 17 year old-now 41 year old horrific homophobic killer she believed existed in Jon since the days of the crime.  Having been a frequent visitor of the Montrose area during those days she surely felt the essence of the time.  I can only imagine the emotions she had sitting there in a small corridor of seats along the south wall of the Ramsey Unit Visitation Building.  It is miserable at best.  Even the contact visitation area is not much better.  Both areas are crowded and noisy.  The biggest difference is that in Unit Visitation Building you have the constant arrival of families and friends of inmates and the chatter of others seated in the cramped visitation area.  Most of the noise is due to a plexi-glass wall with small holes in it that divides the inmate from the visitor.  One practically has to yell to be heard over others.

I can only surmise as Maria sat there the many things that went through her mind and what direction this meeting would take between her and Jon:  What sort of man was Jon in reality?  Is he the person deserving of parole the documentary expresses?  Plus a hundred other questions I could not begin to know of must have entered her mind.  I can only express here what Jon told me after their meeting later that evening and what she expressed to me in an email following her visit.

Jon told me that evening that he felt that the meeting was most rewarding and that Maria and he discussed everything from his involvement in Paul’s death to his accomplishments and hopes for the future.  Jon spoke of moments when both he and Maria were either in tears or near to them as the realities of his life unfolded.  Acceptance, Redemption, Forgiveness, all areas of Jon’s being was laid out for Maria.  Jon said that he held back nothing of what was asked of him that day.

Later that evening I emailed Maria asking her opinion of Jon and her view of the meeting with him.  She replied, “My visit with Jon went very well.”  She expressed that she enjoyed talking with him on numerous topics.  She said that she was impressed with his intellect and how hard he has worked to stay above the normal inmate one expects to see in prison.  Maria gave me great hope when she said, “Jim, you have a fine son in Jon”.  It made my heart swell to hear that from someone who thought otherwise just a few years ago.

I realized at that moment that Maria Gonzalez, in defiance to the malfeasance of the “Hate Crime” rhetoric crowd, has become a new supporter for the release of Jon Buice.  I applaud you Maria and call you friend.

James Buice

8/27/15

A Tale of Two Universities……

For the DIFF 2015 Review by Truth in Cinema click on the following:
DIFF 2015 Review: 'The Guy With The Knife' Digs Into Media .

On Tuesday April 21, 2015 there were two separate showings of Alison Armstrong’s, “The Guy with the Knife”.   The first showing was at Texas Southern University, located in the heart of Houston-minutes from downtown.  The University is home to nearly 10,000 students yearly.  The documentary was hosted by Associate Professor of Journalism, Michael Berryhill.  The second showing was at the University of Houston, also located in the heart of Houston-minutes from downtown.  The University is home to 40,000 plus students each year. The documentary was sponsored by The GLBT Resource Center, Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies, Department of History, The Center for Public History, and The Department of English and hosted by Associate Professor of English, Maria Gonzales. The day would prove to be a major contrast played out in the two universities between 2 pm and 9 pm. TSU, students and Alumni gathered to view Alison’s film to understand the importance of truth in journalism.  U of H students and Alumni were not integral to the showing of the film.  Rather, GLBT community members with an interest in the contents of the documentary gathered to view and debate the issues presented before a selected panel arranged by the host, Associate Professor Maria Gonzales.

The TSU showing was attended by protagonists of the film, excluding Andy Kahan.  At the U of H showing Professor Berryhill was not available, however Andy Kahan, victims advocate, was at the U of H showing.   Jon Buice, while a major player in the documentary, was not at either showing due to circumstances beyond his control.

The TSU showing catered mostly to journalism students and Alumni who were there to see Professor Berryhill’s participation in the documentary.  There is no apperception of the contents as none of the students, Alumni or Professor Berryhill had seen any of the content prior to the showing.  Professor Berryhill from the first days of his involvement in the plight of Jon Buice, as it related to Chaplin Hill’s unjust persecution at the Wynne Unit, become an avid researcher.   He involved his graduating class in an exercise to gather facts in the case in order to show the importance of truth in journalism.  Many of the players in the film from opposing sides were interviewed by these students.  The facts were refined and utilized by Professor Berryhill into an Article posted in the Blog: “Grits For Breakfast” - 'The Death of Paul Broussard, the Parole of Jon Buice: How the News Media Have Played and Were Played', Michael Berryhill, Thursday, July 11, 2013  see,  Death of Paul Broussard, the Parole of Jon Buice - Grits for ...

After the showing of the documentary at TSU, Alison Armstrong conducted a ‘question and answer’ period for audience participation and feedback about the film and its contents.  Ray Hill, Linda Hill, Professor Berryhill and I were on hand to answer questions if queried.  Also available were, Jerry Hattan – Cinematographer and Allan Pogue – Photographer who provided black and white stills of prison life in the film.  The audience directed various questions to each of the participants in the film. 

Ray was asked about his change of position from organizer of media and GLBT community outrage to confident and friend.  They were seeking to understand if Ray in a moment of conscience felt that he had done an unjust action in the conviction of Jon.  Ray was not apologetic about is part in the media extravaganzas during the days prior to the conviction or for the yearly vigil’s for Paul Broussard conducted in the Montrose GLBT community.  He did confirm that after knowing Jon that he realized that the death was not a ‘Hate Crime’ as portrayed year after year by Activists, Media and various GLBT Caucus members in the media after his change in position.  Professor Berryhill was asked about his motivation and his views concerning the early media and the continuance of hate crime dicta by activists like Andy Kahan and Noel Freeman.  Professor Berryhill explained his position in the matter and his disdain for the subjection of a Catholic Chaplin, Linda Hill, in a travesty of injustice conducted by the Wynne Unit in Huntsville, Texas.  A longtime associate of Linda Hill, Michael Bass exposed the lunacy of the accusations presented in the Houston Press article, "Hate Crime and Punishment," noted in the documentary, about the purported scandal that cost Jon his parole in 2010 and Linda Hill’s dismissal of a 27 year ministry within the Texas Prison System.  Michael expressed that Linda was both Jon and his spiritual advisor and that she was instrumental in helping him to become successful in his life outside of the TDCJ.  He stated that Jon and he made a pact to stay on the straight and narrow, not join gangs, educate themselves and strive to be successful when released.  Michael now owns a successful real-estate investment company and is the proud father of a beautiful daughter, Grace Evelyn Bass.  Other questions were directed to the results of the polygraph.  It was explained that Jon passed a total of three (3) polygraphs.  One concerning the accusations of inappropriate involvement with Linda.  One concerning the night of Paul’s death and his motivation (hatred towards Gays) and one concerning the coercion by Wardens in the TDCJ - Wynne Unit admitting involvement with Linda.  The polygraphs confirmed that Jon not only passed the tests but did so under adverse conditions that would produce sporadic results if lying were attempted. 

Later that evening an entirely different audience assembled in a small viewing room in the Student Center at the U of H.  The showing mostly catered to the GLBT community who were interested in the documentary.   A panel was assembled by Professor Gonzales to address questions at the conclusion of the film.  Professor Gonzales was in the documentary and like Professor Berryhill had not seen any of the content prior to the showing. In the documentary Professor Gonzales had expressed knowledge of Jon Buice that was largely dependent on Media and participation in activities around avocation to keep Jon in prison.  Professor Gonzales’ willingness to view any information that would bring more light to her understanding was apparent and manifested in the hosting of the film for the GLBT community.  Alison Armstrong’s documentary clearly showed that Professor Gonzales had an open mind and was approachable to learn what Alison had found in her research.

Prior to the U of H showing I met Professor Gonzales briefly and found her to be a pleasant woman with a cheerful personality.  I was moved by her willingness to undertake a complex issue of opposing perspectives in the matter of Jon Buice.  As the attendees gathered, I noticed Andy Kahan who sat two rows directly behind me.  I was not alarmed by his presence because while I take great issue with his advocacy, to keep Jon in prison, I have no personal issues with the man. 

After the showing of the documentary at the U of H, Professor Gonzales assembled a panel consisting of Alison Armstrong, Ray Hill, Christopher Haight and herself for a ‘question and answer’ period allowing audience participation and feedback about the film and its contents.  Linda Hill, and I were on hand to answer questions if queried.  Jerry Hattan, Allan Pogue and Michael Bass also were present. 

The feedback was different and unlike that at TSU.  The participants that spoke were there largely there to express their view-points centered on experiences as Gay persons rather than the contents of the film.  The first to speak was a gentleman. [Names not given due to respect for their privacy]  He began by expressing his experiences as a Gay man living in the Montrose area and the plight of its citizens over the years prior to and after Paul Broussard’s death.  Being made aware that I was present he tempered is disdain for the film and Ray Hill’s advocacy to free Jon.  Ray and he momentarily exchanged opposing view-points that seemed to elevate but were quickly deflated by Professor Gonzales.  The gentleman later apologized to me, although not necessary, for his advocacy to keep Jon in prison for the duration of his sentence, if not for life.  The next to speak was an Elderly Lady that expressed her fear over the years and that she likewise felt that Jon should remain in prison because she considered him a threat.  It was apparent to me that she was victim to the sensationalism surrounding the issue of Jon Buice. After her views were expressed another Gay gentleman began his disdain for the film by expressing that he was present during the assault of Paul that night and had returned to the bar just moments before the actual altercation.  This was quickly dispelled by Ray Hill and the opposing view-points quickly escalated into verbal exchanges that required intervention by Professor Gonzales and others present in the panel.  Alison expressed that her research had not indicated any such person and that even the other victims had not wanted to be interviewed for the documentary. After the issue was settled about his attempt to interject himself into the night of July 4, 1991, a younger black gentleman ventured his views but did not direct them to what he had seen on the film.  He touched on a point that I had made in the film on the morality of killing as a combatant in war and person killing in a crime.  His expose’ quickly escalated into the killing of black persons and in particular to the wrongful deaths of black men by police.  Professor Gonzales quickly discharged his attempt to redirect the audience from which the forum was assembled.  After the room quietened Alison asked Andy Kahan if he had anything that he wished to express.  Andy Kahan unlike most viewings that I have seem of him in the public seemed somewhat subdued and only expressed that he has known Nancy Rodriguez for twenty plus years and that he wished Jon to remain in prison for at least 27 years, the age of Paul at his death.  Ray Hill quickly responded with the absurdness of this view point but was again quickly reined in to keep any escalation from reoccurring.  Andy was also asked to disclose the politicians that had written to keep Jon in prison.  He declined to name them however Professor Gonzales did saying that she was largely responsible for their continual involvement in protesting Jon’s release.  I appreciated her honesty in the matter and hope that she will use that same ability to undo the continual bashing of Jon’s parole.  I believe that she was earnest in her desire to know the truth about Jon and would respond positively to the caucus and inspire others to move from all the lies to the truth.

Although Professor Gonzales was a welcome light in the darkness it became very apparent that there was great polarization among the audience with the exchanges that had been presented by those noted above. Other exchanges of a lesser extent not noted here.  It is not to say that the views were inessential to the value of the forum, but they like the others only redirected attention from the documentary and its message to personal experiences.  At this juncture I elected to speak with the audience about Jon.  I told them that I had members in my family that were Gay and processed no animosity whatever.  I expressed that Jon was never homophobic or racial and that he had a lot to offer society if but given the chance.  I asked those that had expressed negative views to re-examine their hearts and realize that avocation for continual imprisonment of Jon are construed by those that support Jon’s release equal to the crimes against Gays they have felt over the years.  The room went quiet and the forum concluded with Professor Gonzales and Alison Armstrong thanking all those that had attended.

After the closing of the forum I briefly met with Professor Gonzales again and expressed my appreciation for her part in the documentary and open mindedness.  I encouraged her to visit with Jon and she indicated that she would.  I told her that she would have to give information to Jon in order to be included in his visitor list.  She indicated that she would get with Ray on the particulars. I spoke briefly with Christopher Haight, Historian and panel member and told him that he could find out more about Jon on this blog.  He indicated that he was not aware that it was my blog and that he would look into it.  To my surprise Dough Caddy, Attorney-retired, a Gay gentleman that I have known for years, supporter of Jon’s release, approached and spoke briefly of his appreciation for the documentary and asked how Jon was doing.  I told him that Jon was doing well and admonished him to write Jon.  He said that he would as they had lost contact over the years. 

As I readied to exit the room, I noticed various participants and panel members in conversations about the room.  I also noticed Andy Kahan standing alone with a Journalist that I did not know, that had attended with him, adjacent to the exit.  I did not speak nor was there a visual exchange.  On exiting Alison approached and asked how I was doing and expressed her appreciation for my attendance in both showings this day.  I expressed my gratitude and proceeded to leave.  On my way through the student center to the parking area I noticed the Elderly Lady who spoke in the question and answer period, sitting with one of Jon’s supporters at a table.  The significance to this was that she was talking with a gentleman along with his wife that had told both audiences this day that he had been convicted of killing and had redeemed himself and was a productive member of society and that Jon was deserving of a second chance.  I briefly spoke with her, thanked her for her attendance and expressed that she had nothing to fear from the release of Jon and that she should re-examine her heart and find forgiveness in her heart for Jon for his transgression.  She expressed that she would think about the issues and left.  I too proceed to leave.

On the hour long journey from Houston to my home I thought to myself about the stark contrasts between the attendees of TSU and the U of H.  It became apparent that redemption and forgiveness were issues that tore at the hearts of those peering into the issues at hand.  On one hand there were those that viewed the issues without bias as they did not feel victimized by the crime.  They expressed that Jon, seventeen at the time, now forty-one had shown remorse and had redeemed himself and deserved a second chance. They took offense at the involvement of Activists and Politicians in the processes of Jon’s Parole.  They spoke of avocation against those forces.  On the other hand there were those that were in great opposition to Jon’s release as they felt victimized by the crime.  They had sought to express their own plight as a Gays rather than the merits of Jon’s plea for absolution.  I can only hope that the documentary “The Guy with the Knife” will continue to be shown and that individuals like Professor Gonzales will be receptive to its message and no longer use the political power they possess over local and state politicians to derail the parole of my son, Jon Buice. As I approached home and collected my thoughts for the night I realized that there is a long journey ahead to the end of this “Tale of Two Universities” which has just began. 

James Buice

4/25/2015

The Guy with the Knife.

SPECIAL SCREENING ON TUESDAY, April 21st. At Texas Southern University at 2:00pm in the MLK Building Room 104. [update 4/20/2015]

For the DIFF 2015 Review by Truth in Cinema click on the following:

Search Results

DIFF 2015 Review: 'The Guy With The Knife' Digs Into Media .[update 4/23/2015]

On April 15th & 16th Alison Armstrong's documentary was shown at the Dallas 2015 film Festival.  The Theater seated approximately 200 persons.  It was a pleasant surprise to see that each showing mostly filled the seating. While not a huge venue those that elected to view the film were at first mostly likely intrigued by the title and written synopsis of the film by Bridgette Poe.  Others may have came because they had some familiarity with the crime.   For what ever reason they came, to view the film, they came with a certain amount of skepticism, including myself.  All of us however left with an uneasiness of how the Justice System could go so wrong.

The relationship of  the protagonists' of the film Ray Hill and Jon Christopher Buice have long intrigued persons within and outside of the Gay community. Ray Hill who at the onset of this relationship was adversarial and was largely responsible for the lengthy sentencing of Jon Buice.  The film begins in retrospect with Ray on a road trip to Colorado City, Texas to see Jon.  As the film progresses it makes no excuses for the crime.  Neither does Jon.  He does not blame his parents, society or the drug crazed night of the crime.  Ray also makes no excuses for his part in the sensationalizing of the night of July 4, 1991 within the media.  To this day he still does not.

As the documentary progresses one begins to the understand the gravity of  how Activists with the unbridled use of Media can create a reality that is greater than the truth.  In the end the creation becomes the reality and the truth becomes a quest that must endue the pain of running a gauntlet of extreme biased scrutiny.  Those that would rather accept the views of an Activist, with a self-serving interest, gather in their preconditioned view, rather than truth, and line up to strike down any rhetoric to the contrary of their belief. 

Alison in no way attempts to place judgement one way or the other on Jon's part in the death of Paul Broussard.  Rather she addresses the person that Jon is now in contrast to the 17 year old adolescent who was party to an altercation that got out of control and escalated into the tragedy of Pauls death.  It strikes down the aspect of Rays avocation in 1991, that it was a hate crime.

After the opening scenes of Ray inciting the Gay Community locally and Nationally it turns to a more humanistic out-pouring by Ray to Jon and how they over a period of time became the friends they are today.  It also develops the turning point for Ray to begin his advocacy to free Jon.  One can see Ray's change of heart is largely due to his own conscience once he comes to understand that Jon did not go to the Montrose area of Houston, on July 4, 1991, to murder anyone and that he was not the homophobic killer he promoted.  

Jon moves from adolescent to adulthood in the film with recognition and acceptance of the tragedy that he has caused for the families he has harmed.  Both Paul's and his own.  It becomes apparent that he has reached deep within his soul and cries out for forgiveness from Nancy Roderiguez, Paul's mother.  However it is not forthcoming as Ray after his appointment as leader of the GLBT Caucus, keeps the ideal of a hate crime alive with the yearly vigil held to commemorate Paul's death. Nancy is shown suing the families of the assailants for her pain and suffering.  Although not disclosed in the film, Jon's family was sued for 2.5 million.  She did not prevail in achieving her goal because her legal team was unable to show failure by myself to control the actions of Jon Buice as a minor.  She did however cause great financial difficultly over a period of years in monies spent to keep lawyers honest in their endeavors.  Eventually an undisclosed settlement by my homeowners policy settled out of court. 

Then enters Andy Kahan in 1992, an activist hell bent on keeping the sensational historical untruths promoted by Ray then leader of the GLBT Caucus.  A yearly vigil is shown that was held to commemorate Paul's death along with the hate-crime rhetoric re-flamed year after year until Ray reaches out to Jon.  Andy comes across in the film as inept in his understanding of the truth and is the self proclaimed leader of those that oppose Jon's parole.  As he speaks the audience begins to realize that Jon is not the problem, Andy is with his narcissistic cries for his perverted sense of justice.  He even admits that he knows nothing about Jon and continues to promote lies without putting the proof in the public eyes for scrutiny.

As the film nears the end, the plight of Jon's journey to freedom is shown to be besieged by the continual set-offs, by a Justice System that is governed by Activists, Media, the GLBT Caucus and Government Officials meddling with the processes.  The audience is moved from the lies and media hype of the past to the truth in the matter of Jon Buice and the death of Paul Broussard.  There is sense of agitation within the audience with the likes of Andy Kahan and the meddlesome endeavors of State Elected Officials.  This becomes apparent each day with the question and answer period that was conducted after each showing.  Alison is very responsive to all questions and the audience is receptive of her answers.

Thank You Alison for your fair and unbiased documentary "The Guy with the Knife"  It was a long time coming and I pray that it has some bearing within the days to come with the continued showings next week to the Houston GLBT Caucus and others.  Hopefully they too will come to an understanding of the truth in the matters of Jon Buice and will undo the damage they continue do to his parole processes with the control they have over Politicians that govern the Parole Board.  It is time that they push the pendulum to a fair and balance view.  Jon has a lot to offer to society other than being the poster child of a Texas Hate-Crime that was never was.

James Buice

4/17/2015

Good Grief Ressie…?

The Texas Board of Pardons and Parole processes are at best, a travesty.  The Chair Person along with Voting Members are inept and ruled by Politics.  They bow down in deference to Activists, Caucuses, Politicians and other Self-Serving Groups.  For over a decade, High Profile voices have high-jacked the parole of Jon Buice.  Each year their vilifying of Jon has offset his parole.  There is no merit in what they do.  It is only a vehicle in which they assert their power.  It has nothing to do with justice.  It has only to do with the pretense that justice is being served.  

Between September and October, 2014, the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole presented the illusion of deliberating the matters of Jon’s parole.  The fact is that it was only a façade which hid the real facts – Doing the bidding of Special Interest Groups.   Silence in this blog allowed time to collect my thoughts.  Initially I wanted to write but could not find the words without lashing out in rage at those who, for their own self-serving interests, derailed Jon’s parole again.  I was bewildered by the Charade I received at the Parole Board –Angleton Office.  The moment I sat down with the Lead Voter - Cynthia Tauss, I knew the decision to keep Jon in prison another year had already been decided.  It mattered not, what would be said, the offset for another year was settled.  The Boards indulgence was only a formality to promote the idea of fairness, openness and transparency.  What would be said this day would have no bearing on the decision making process in the matter of Jon Buice. 

Every parole proceeding is different.  It is not really a hearing.  There is no direct exchange between those who oppose and those who promote Jon’s release.  Each proceeding begins with a certain amount of small talk and greeting by individuals that have been allowed into the proceeding in support of Jon.  I would ascertain that this is true for those that oppose.  Having never been able to address those that oppose Jon’s release I remain in darkness to the very forces that have power over the Board.  During the accolades that precede the oration in support of Jon, I ventured out a comment on how this proceeding would progress. I queried the idea of politics in Jon’s proceeding and immediately, half joking Cynthia said, “We are going to leave politics out.”  Everyone laughed because all that sat there at the conference table knew well that it was all about the politics and not the merit of Jon’s release.

Andy Kahan, Noel Freeman and Nancy Roderiguez, appeared before the Board in opposition to Jon’s release as they had done the previous year.  Prior to our theatrical reception by the Board Noel Freeman and Nancy Rogeriguez appeared on Fox 26, with Randy Wallace touting Noel Freeman and Nancy Roderiguez’s presentation.  Absent was Andy Kahan although made reference to as the Victims Advocate.  He was behind the scenes, most likely because of sanctions by the Houston Police Department.  (See previous Blog posting; “Legacy of a Liar – Andy Kahan).  During the editorial by Randy Wallace it became obvious that Nancy had been assured that Jon would be set off by the Board.  The gloat on Nancy’s face was all to telling.  Unlike in previous years, she did not have that haggard look that Andy Kahan usually had her appear before the public with in order to obtain sympathy.  It did not take a mentalist to ascertain that she was pleased knowing beforehand that she had prevailed once again.  Unlike in 2011, when Jon was granted parole and Andy Kahan had to obtain numerous politicians (See previous Blog posting; “Conspiracy”, In 2011.) to dictate to the Chair of the Board, Ressie Owens the overturn of Jon’s parole, she seemed elated.  Since that time these same politicians have continued to outcry a crime they have no direct knowledge of other than the erroneous editorializing and fabricated untruths of Activists and Media.  Ray Hill who originally started these untruths in 1991, now an activist for Jon’s release, was reassured by John Whitmire, on several occasions that he would not advocate with Andy Kahan.  Rather John Whitmire advocated with the Democratic and GLBT Caucus’ now lackeys of Andy Kahan.  A crafty way in which he was able to give the pretense of being straightforward and honest while being vile and corrupt.

Bill Habern- Attorney, Alison Armstrong- Film Journalist, Shelly Buice- Jon’s mother, Cristy Drexler- Child-hood friend, Lan Buice-Jon’s stepmother and myself appeared before the Board in support for Jon’s release.  Each person expounded advocacy for justice and a fair and unbiased hearing in the matter of Jon’s parole.  We concluded our exposes’ with a little contrived levity to lighten up the lackluster demure of the proceeding.  The predisposed demeanor of Cynthia Tauss in the mornings conference concluded with feeling of forlorn.  We knew from the moment that Cynthia made her statement about “Politics” that the decision had been made and we appeared for naught.  Bill Habern; Knowing that the Board would vote, “Non Release”, as long as John Whitmire and others protested Jon’s release only presented a rehashing of past articles of law in Jon’s case and emphasized Jon’s was released previously until politicians intervened.  Alison Armstrong; while not originally invited to the proceedings, was requested to attend by Bill Habern.  She agreed because of the audacious attack by Andy Kahan on her character after she exposed him for his lies in the matter of Jon Buice.   Alison told me prior to the proceeding that she had never made herself a part of any actions directly associated with the subject matter of an impending Documentary but felt because of Andy Kahan’s attacks, she must to further expose his deceit and treachery.  I believe that she was not given the respect for her candor in the matter.  Shelley Buice; Jon’s mother appeared for the first time before the Board to advocate for Jon’s release.  Due to chronic medical concerns she has over the years relied on Bill Habern and me to advocate her support to the Board.  Because of the continuous set-offs by the Board she felt that she must go and see for herself the proceedings.  She left unfulfilled and amazed at the lack of sincerity presented by the Board.  Christy Drexler; a child-hood friend of Jon and a great support to Shelley, helping with transportation to see Jon each month, advocated with little acknowledgement of its merit other than a graciousness pretense by the Board.  The nature of her advocacy was critical to the character of Jon Buice then and now.  She too, felt that all was for naught.  Lan and I; Stepmother and Father of Jon, have advocated for his release over the past decade.  We have endured Jon’s incarceration and continuous set-offs year after year.  We also left the Board that day with an uneasy feeling in the matter. 

As usual we found out later by the Houston News Media that Jon had been set-off again.  Media agencies and Advocates are able to obtain the information due to a hot line that can be accessed by all.  It is a fact of life and little at present can be done to give Jon the right to know prior to the general publics’ knowledge.  In the eyes of the Parole Board and the TDCJ, Jon has no rights.  Other than a cursory interview by a non-appointed Board associate Jon gets No hearing.  Just like he got, No Trial, only Advocacy to keep incarcerated and No Justice.   The Board associate only interviews inmates to ascertain his general well-being, any self-proclaimed accomplishments over the past year and to inform him of his upcoming parole proceeding.  Any other activities by the associate are unknown to Jon or others as the associates’ findings are not reviewed in the proceeding.

Alison Armstrong went to see Jon after the proceeding to seek more material for her documentary.  Even now I am not sure of the intent of her interview with Jon other than what Jon told me.  I have never been closely associated with her other than be interviewed for the documentary.  I have always had an uneasiness toward Journalists because of the way they use media.  In the past lengthy film footage has been taken of me and then only seconds of film used to purvey a statement, out of context, in hopes to show a confrontation between Nancy Roderiguez and myself.  I have hopes that in light of her advocacy before the Board that the documentary does not do the same.  I as others will have to wait until it is released.  Alison has for the past nine years been developing a documentary about Jon that will be aired at the Dallas Film Festival on April 15 & April 16.  The April 15^th showing will occur at 7:45pm at the Angelika 8 Cinema and April 16^th at 5:00pm at the Angelika 8 Cimema. Other showings are to occur in Houston at several locations after the Dallas Film Festal showings.  Alison has not set times for these showings.

After the media’s announcement of Jon’s “Non-Release” vote by the Board I spoke with Jon and tried to get a view of his well-being.  After all the malicious dealings of Andy Kahan and his inroads into the TDCJ and now the State Legislature.  (See earlier posts in this Blog to understand the extent of his treachery with the help of the TDCJ-Wardens and Under-Wardens at the Wynne Unit in 2010) I get a snapshot of his mindset.  I encourage him to continue on with his schooling and stay free of all the debilitating aspects of prison life.  He always appears to be stronger than I often comforting me rather than me comforting him.  I asked Jon how he felt about what had transpired at the Board and he replied, “Dad, I feel like Charlie Brown”.  I responded, “How is that.  What do you mean?”  Jon said, “It is like the cartoon strip where Charlie Brown has asked Lucy to hold the football where he can kick a field goal.  Lucy agrees to hold the ball.  Charlie asks Lucy if she is going to pull the ball away like she has done so many times in the past.  Lucy assures Charlie that she is not going to do that.  So Charlie readies himself for the kick.  He envisions a glorious field goal winning the game.  Just as he is about to initiate his journey toward completing the kick, he inquires of Lucy again, ‘are you really going to hold the ball this time’.  Lucy reassures Charlie.  He is off toward the kick and to his amazement seconds later he lying on his back on the ground starring up at the sky in bewilderment.  Lucy had pulled the ball away again."

I thought to myself, GOOD GREIF RESSIE….  Just like Lucy she continues to pull the ball out from under Jon.  I firmly believe after my last journey to the Board that Board Chair, Ressie Owens continues to hold Jon in prison for her own political well-being as State Senator, Congressmen and Special Interest groups that oversee her office and can have direct bearing on her reappointment as a Parole Board member and more importantly as the Chair-person.  All Board members are appointed and not elected into their position.  I believe that since Ann Richards was Governor of Texas it has been this way.  Rumor was that Richards was displeased with a Parole Board Member telling her to take a hike in a parole she did not want to occur.   After that incident, the Democratic run Texas Legislature, of the time, changed the rules of the game and placed the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole under the Governor’s office.  This set the stage for the Board to operate in continued secrecy with little or no accountability to constituency.  Think that this not a travesty.  Think again.  Texas is the most incarcerated State in the Union.  For that matter the World. 

Weeks before Jon’s parole proceeding I had went to the Huntsville Board Office where Ressie Owens conducts the business of the Board.  I spoke with her about Jon and his upcoming parole.  As in past meetings with Ressie the conversation was polite and mostly one-way with her listening, appearing to assimilate what was being said.  I read a letter asking her to advocate to the voting member Cynthia Tauss for Jon’s release.  After reading my letter to her she said that she would re-read the letter and pass it on to Cynthia.  After Jon expressed his feelings as Charlie Brown that I too realized that I felt the same.  While at the parole proceeding I had asked Cynthia if Ressie had sent her the letter where I had asked for Ressies’ avocation.  I remember how Cynthia had stumbled in her response until I qualified the significance of the letter.  Cynthia then awkwardly recovered saying yes she had seen it.  Being that I had given the letter originally to Ressie with her agreeing to forward it on to Cynthia, hopefully with admonition to release Jon, I gave her a copy.   I don’t believe that Ressie had sent a copy to Cynthia prior to the proceeding.  This is because a month after the Boards vote on Jon’s parole I received an official letter from the Board saying that it had been forwarded.  Ressie like Lucy while agreeing otherwise pulled the ball away.

What is going to take?   Every day, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles grants parole to inmates that have created far greater atrocities than Jon.   They are returned to the very society that left them to the justice systems keeping.  I find it strange that the Board finds Jon exceptionally unworthy of parole in comparison to some of the individuals that they have released over the past decade.  Jon must pale in the eyes of the Board with his scholastic achievements- two Associate’s, One Bachelor’s and now a Master’s Degree.  Apparently those released are the inmates that do not know ‘how to use the system’, as Andy Kahan proclaims that Jon does.  Even inmates that have had judication while in the TDCJ have been released while Jon has not one act of aggression on record in his 23 year journey with the TDCJ.  Jon has only the untruths and treachery of the TDCJ and Andy Kahan. The travesty of Linda Hill and the trump up charges that caused Jon’s parole offset in 2010.  The accusations of the admitted liar, Andy Kahan.  The GLBT, Noel Freeman, John Whitmire and the Democratic Caucus have all come to light.  The light is now starting to shine on the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole for failing to just do the job they appointed to do.  I believe now that the justice system would have paroled long ago if not for the Travesty the Board has allowed to occur.  There are guidelines while posted to the public that are not followed.  There are rules of conduct that are ignored.  There is intercourse with politicians and a willingness to do their bidding even in view of violations to written codes of conduct.    When is it going to stop?

I have waited until now.  I know in my heart that I must continue in my efforts to keep the truth of what is occurring in my pursuit of my son’s freedom.  Jon is again 6 months from parole.  Andy Kahan is at the State Legislature asking for 10 years set-offs.  I could make the connection but will trust those that know truth know what I mean. This Blog entry may even enrage some of the Board Members.  I can only hope their anger is directed toward those that have put them in a compromised position to their own consciences’.  I never have wished anyone malice.  I have only wanted the truth to be heard.  I have been party to the “Travesty” that befell Jon in 2003 with the event of Andy Kahan.  I have seen Chronicle News Journalist, Mrs. Susan Bardwell (Now deceased) who once persecuted Jon, advocate for his release. I made a kindred friendship with Ray Hill.  I have had the best of Legal Councils, Mr. Bill Habren who has given his time and efforts without cost to help the truth come alive. I have been interviewed several times by the Journalist, Alison Armstrong over the past 7 years. All this has occurred and Jon is still not free.  Hopefully Alison Armstrongs’ film will get a message out to the masses.  I have never seen the film, but be assured that I will come April 15, 2015.  I am willingly to wait and see because I believe that Alison has found and presented the truth.  I trust that it will help free Jon if enough people see as truth also and write their elected State Legislative Representatives to advocate for Jon’s release.

James Buice, 4/5/2015  [corrections in Red, JB 4/7/15]

ENDGAME

“Intelligence”, is generally understood as:  The ability to reason, plan, solve problems; to think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas; to learn quickly; to learn from experience; to reflect in a broader and deeper capability;  to comprehend by —"catching on," "making sense" of things,  "figuring out”  what to do or ”perceive” what something is really all about.

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to:  Understand complex ideas; adapt effectively to the environment into which they are in; to learn from an experience or to form a level of reasoning that can overcome a conceptual obstacle by taking their thought processes to a level of maturity that allow them to see beyond the bigotry of a collective hamstringing.  This is true in many facets of life, whether mental, physical, spiritual, or political.

Humans in general are gregarious in their nature and are more likely to follow the masses rather than form a stand-alone opinion. It is far easier to, “go with the flow” than to formulate and accurate personalized understanding of a set of occurrences or circumstances when enticed to participate in a collective. From the times of Nimrod to the present, masses have been gathered to give power the collective over the individual. This has been verified time and time again by history.

Every day we are faced with situations that put our senses, our judgment, and our intelligence to test.  All areas of life are bombarded by those who want to add our number to their collective by enticing us, to decide, join, participate, lobby, demonstrate, protest, petition, etc., in various endeavors that will benefit the person(s), group(s), organization(s), excreta to achieve a specific objective(s) or goal(s).  It is no wonder that it becomes easier to “just go with the flow” when a premise seems to follow our individual predisposed opinions (un-intelligent view) on a particular occurrence or circumstance rather than to establish our position on the matter by research (an intelligent view).

At this point you must be asking yourself what does all-of-the-above have to do with Jon Buice.  Everything, this BLOG, Andy Kahan, The GLBT, various Local and State Politicians, Bill Habren, Ray Hill, etc., all have a vested interest in Jon Buice and obtaining a collective in the matter of his release or non-release from prison.  All have an objective one way or the other for their position.  For some it is not a matter of what happen in 1991 or the years following.  It matters not what Jon has done to redeem his life.   It matters not that Jon is a 40 year old man who has been in prison since he was a 17 year old teen.  It matter not that Jon has steadily worked toward his redemption.  Jon Buice is only the “Pawn” in an end game.

The endgame is control of the sensibility and logic of the masses to rein power over “The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles”. This quest for power or control over that agency is the ultimate objective and has nothing to do with justice for Jon Buice or Paul Broussard.  It all about  who has control over the out-comes and power over those that disagree with their position:  Andy Kahan wants to feed his narcissism and self-presumed power over the Parole Board; The GLBT wants to extend their power over Texas Legislation and to place a warning to all that they have that power; Politicians want the power of the vote from patrons of the first two groups; Bill Habren wants to see Justice administrated in the matter of Jon Buice, in order to provide similar justice for those like Jon, who are deserving of parole, caught in a viscous end game; Ray Hill wants solstice for the misgivings he has gained over the years since he had Jon incarcerated for 45 years knowing that it was too was only for a show of power to force into existence laws giving power to GLBT community.

I too have motives as promoted in this Blog.  I too, am seeking a collective.  I too, have an Endgame.  I Love and forgive my son for the actions that he took 23 plus years ago.  I had the intelligence to research, review and verify information concerning those actions. (See previous Blog postings).  I have seen first-hand the redemption of my son, Jon Buice.  His acceptance of what occurred that night in 1991, his pursuit of forgiveness, his education and enlightenment. In contrast, I reel at the accusations and falsehoods of those opposing Jon’s release without merit for their own self-importance in the eyes of others. I anguish over the Parole Board Members caving into the various collectives in fear of losing their appointed position or potential position with the Board.  I have great contempt for the Justice System and the inequalities in matters of law based on race, religion, social presence, politics and money.  I am bewildered at the release of others that have done things far more heinous in nature and who upon release were far less achieved than that of my son.  I am in wonderment as I do not see the collectives in opposition of their release.  I have come to understand that where there is no money to be made, no political or appointed position to be obtained or retained, no self-worth to be exploited, there is:  No endgame.

I have a great disdain for any collective that promotes unfounded hate.  Not only in the case of Jon Buice but for all: Christian vs. Muslim, Sectarian vs. Jews, Black vs. White, Gay vs. Straight, Liberal vs. Conservative and etc.  The embattlement of the divided seems endless.  I often wonder if there is any redemption for anyone that participates in such misguided collectives.  My intelligence, education and faith tell me one has to rise above these great divides and put aside unfounded prejudices. Still the collectives would have us believe that we do not possess the intelligence to discern truth in such matters and that they know better which position we should take.

Truth in the end always prevails and I know that Jon will one day be freed, even if Jon is to remain in prison yet another year.  Until Jon is released I will continue to oppose those that would capitalize on the ignorance of the masses that have no real knowledge in this matter, other than what the collectives would have them believe.  I will continue to fight those that lack the intelligence or the will to investigate and verify the sources of information being presented.  I will continue to expose the motivations of those in pursuit of derailing the parole of Jon Buice.  I will not stop until knowledge of the misuse of power by our Political and Justice System officials is laid to bare and all the players are identified who would corrupt the system for self-gain.  I will not stop until I succeed at stopping the masses from being misled to unfounded positions, by the collectives, in the matter of Jon Buice.  I will continue to provide knowledge of the issues and not cave into the any that oppose his release.  This is my Endgame.

Jim Buice

6-20-2014