Willamette Week| News| Lead Story

Every Portlander with a pulse knows the story of Richard Underwood Jr., the Hillsboro Christmas-tree vendor who suffered brain damage last December when he was struck with a baseball bat.

You couldn't avoid the story even if you wanted to. In the 60 days following the event, local television stations bombarded their viewers with 202 stories on Underwood, ranging from live coverage of a fund-raiser to dutiful reporting on press conferences staged by local police. A computer search of The Oregonian archives turned up at least 55 articles and numerous letters to the editor about the incident over the past year.

"It has been given World War III status in the headlines," Stephen Houze, an attorney for one of the eight teens accused in the assault, was quoted as saying.

It's little wonder. According to media reports, Underwood was set upon by a pack of wild teenagers nine days before Christmas. They used baseball bats to crush his skull, putting him in a coma from which it initially appeared he might never emerge.

"What an image--the Christmas-tree vendor dispensing good cheer," says Raymond Bassel, the attorney for one of the boys. "Plus, as you know, juvenile crime has been a big issue. Once [the media] seized it...they realized it made good news."

So when Jeremiah Jenkins and his cousin Matthew Bryant were tried on assault charges last month, a conviction seemed almost a foregone conclusion.

But as a Washington County jury sat through the two-week trial, a completely different picture of the incident emerged. In a unanimous vote, the nine men and three women decided to acquit, finding that the two boys were acting in self-defense when Jenkins swung the bat. "We knew going into the trial these kids were punks," explained jury foreman Mike Siegel. "When it was over, we still thought they were punks. We had nothing but sympathy towards Richard Underwood Jr. We liked the prosecutor but didn't have much use for the defense lawyers. And we still acquitted them."

What happened? How could two youths escape punishment for what was widely characterized as one of the most vicious and senseless beatings in the area in a decade? The answer has to do with how the truth differered from the picture the media had painted. Quite simply, the media got it wrong.

In the weeks since the verdict, WW reviewed tapes of the TV news coverage and clips from The Oregonian and compared them with the evidence that came out at trial. What emerges is a story of mischaracterization and fact-twisting. To these reporters and editors, the drama and appeal of the "story" about the Christmas-tree lot incident completely clouded the more nuanced picture of what really happened. That doesn't make the consequences any less tragic for Underwood, but it does raise questions about the media's apparent disinterest in getting the story right.

"The media had a Christmas story that pointed out their paranoid view of the world, complete with a Clockwork Orange-style band of roving thugs," says defense lawyer Tim Bowman.

As the six other teens accused in the incident await their fates--their trial was postponed following the not-guilty verdicts--it's worth taking a fresh look at the story. What follows is WW's comparison of what the media reported and what actually happened.

Alcohol

Details often make for compelling journalism. In the case of the Christmas tree incident, one of the details many reporters seized on was the idea that the teens had been drinking.

That's because the Dec. 16 fight began with an incident on Dec. 15, when William Underwood confronted a group of teens for breaking wine-cooler bottles in a nearby parking lot. The teens, the stories said, had come back the next night seeking revenge.

The Oregonian hammered the wine-cooler angle more than any of the other media organizations did. In a front-page story on Dec. 23, for example, the daily paper reported on the observations of a University of Oregon professor who is an expert on teen violence. Paraphrasing his analysis, the reporter stated that "the attack most likely occurred because the youths felt humiliated and put down by the older men. Add in drugs or alcohol, such as the youths had apparently been drinking, and [the professor said], 'it tends to put the foot on the accelerator when it comes to interpersonal violence spiraling out of control.'"

On Dec. 30, The Oregonian even used the story of the broken bottles to lecture about underage drinking in an editorial titled "Follow the Wine Coolers." The alcohol, it said, "might explain...why these kids...were so angry and humiliated."

In fact, there was no evidence presented at trial that the teens were drinking on the night of the assault.

There was, however, evidence that the Underwoods had been drinking--information that was either buried or overlooked.

Richard's brother Doug, their Uncle Bill and their friend Brad Nicholson were all at the tree lot on the night Richard was hurt. All the men except Richard said they had one or two beers on the night of the baseball-bat incident. (There was no testimony indicating whether Richard Underwood had anything to drink that night.) That doesn't mean the men were drunk, of course, but reporting this fact may have given TV watchers and newspaper readers a different impression of the scene.

The media got a hint of this issue in March, when defense lawyers talked about it at a hearing.

Outnumbered Victims

Most of the news coverage either stated or implied that the Underwoods were outnumbered when Richard Underwood was struck.

KOIN led off its noon broadcast on Jan. 1 with a live report from the Christmas-tree lot. "We're told five to six other youths stood around and watched it happen and did nothing," the reporter said.

That same day, KGW reported that "Jenkins, Hillsboro Police believe, swung the bat...while the other seven defendants were present."

The Oregonian told the story more colorfully on Feb. 12. "More than a dozen teens piled out of several cars at the tree lot...some watching as others came at [the Underwoods] with bats and fists flying," read the front-page story in the Metro section.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

On Dec. 15, the night before Underwood was struck by the bat, there were a number of boys at the Christmas-tree lot engaged in a screaming match with the three Underwoods. During this verbal battle, one of the boys waved a bat, and Doug Underwood, Richard's brother, pushed one teenager into the bushes and exchanged words with the girlfriend of another teen. In his testimony, Doug recounted: "One of the girls asked me, 'What are you going to do? Hit a girl?' I said it wouldn't be the first time."

The following evening, one of the boys involved in that dispute rounded up some of his friends to take revenge. All told, eight boys, only one of whom had been there the previous night, showed up at the tree lot on Dec. 16. A scuffle ensued between six or seven of the boys and three or four adults in the Underwood group. The jurors' impression was that the adults, all of whom were over six feet tall and solidly built, got the better of it.

When it ended, all of the boys went back to their cars, and six of the eight drove away. It was at this point that Underwood was struck with a bat by Jeremiah Jenkins. There was only one other teen there at the time--Matt Bryant--and he was held in a choke hold by Doug Underwood (Richard's brother) while William Underwood (their uncle) and friend Brad Nicholson stood nearby.

In other words, when the incident that captured the attention of the Portland area took place, the four adults were facing two teens--not the large gang that had been widely reported by local media.

The Unprovoked Attack

According to much of the media coverage, the Underwoods were the victims of an unprovoked attack.

On New Year's day, The Oregonian phrased it this way: "Before the three unarmed Underwoods knew what has happening, as many as a dozen of the youths were attacking them and a family friend."

In an 8 am broadcast on Jan. 5, KPTV reported that the Underwoods were "pretty much ambushed." On Feb. 6, KATU told how the teens "stormed" the Underwood lot.

It's true the teens were looking for trouble when they showed up at the lot. But if there was a single spark that lit the fuse causing Jenkins to swing the bat, it was the behavior of Doug Underwood, a finding that jurors said persuaded them to acquit.

At trial, Richard's younger brother was painted as a "hothead," according to jurors. An ex-girlfriend, for example, testified about his violent tendencies.

On the night of Dec. 16, Doug Underwood provoked the boys twice.

Initially, the dispute between the adults and the teens was strictly verbal. In fact, no one had thrown a punch when the boys started to walk away.

Then Doug Underwood said something that made the boys come back, although it was never established exactly what it was. According to Bowman, Doug Underwood said "something sexual and it had to do with [one of the boy's] mother." On the witness stand, Doug said he couldn't recall exactly what had happened but conceded that if he's angry, he might say something about someone's mother.

Whatever he said, it caused the war of words to turn physical.

"Doug Underwood was the one who started the fight," jury foreman Siegel said. "He lost his cool. I could see myself losing my cool in that situation. A bunch of punks descend on this lot and challenge these guys. Doug just took it a little too far."

As quickly as it started, though, the scuffle was over, and the boys again went back to their cars. Six of them drove away, leaving Bryant and Jenkins alone in the lot with the four larger men. Neither of them had been involved in the dispute the previous night. A witness for the state testified that Jenkins had told his friends that he didn't want to fight. As Siegel noted, "Not a single person testified that [Jenkins] had a single thing to do with either the verbal confrontation or the first fight. He was hanging back."

Jenkins and Bryant were inside the car searching for their keys as the men approached them, according to a witness for the prosecution.

"The whole thing could have been averted if the Underwoods had let them just walk away," one juror said.

"The aggressors in the fight had changed from the initial group of kids to the Christmas-tree lot people pursuing the two kids back to their car and threatening them there," the anonymous juror explained.

Then the dispute turned physical again. Doug Underwood testified that he "helped" Bryant from the car, put him in a headlock and took him to the ground.

"Jeremiah didn't pull out a bat until the four adults were near the car and his friend was on the ground," juror Dessert said.

Jenkins testified that he walked towards the men holding the bat. He did a couple of check swings, and Richard Underwood Jr. took a step or two toward him. Then he gave the bat a full swing, and Underwood stepped into it, Jenkins says.

The Bat

News reports said or implied not only that more than one teen hit Underwood but that one or more bats were swung numerous times.

Typical was a story KOIN broadcast on Dec. 20, the day news of the incident broke. "He was selling Christmas trees on his family farm when several teenagers carrying baseball bats attacked him," the anchor said. The following day, The Oregonian reported that "Eight to 11 youths with baseball bats attacked him." KPTV told a similar story on Feb. 5: "Richard Underwood Jr. was struck repeatedly with a baseball bat at his family's Christmas-tree lot."

On Dec. 23 Willamette Week joined the fray. "More than a dozen teens, some with baseball bats, beat him," we reported.

"Most of us had the impression there was a single guy out there being ganged up on by baseball bats," one juror told WW after the trial. He said he didn't want his name used because he had received threatening phone calls.

Another juror, Joe Dessert, told WW that before the trial he was under the impression that "a bunch of kids had gone there and had beat this guy after he's down. I thought they kicked him and hit him until he was near death."

In fact, Underwood was felled by Jeremiah Jenkins with one swing of a single bat.

Some news reports did get some of the facts right some of the time. KGW, for example, reported on Jan. 2 that "Richard Underwood was beaten by a teenager with a baseball bat."

Even that statement raised concerns among some jurors. Juror Joe Dessert took note of the frequent use of the word "beating" in the news coverage. "'Beating' means somebody pummeled someone," he said. "That's the word that's been used from the very beginning and all the way through, and yet not a single person argued [at trial] there was more than one hit to the man."

The Peacemaker

The media went out of its way to paint Underwood as a mediator or peacemaker on the night of Dec. 15, which gave the injuries he sustained an even greater sense of tragedy.

In a front-page story on Dec. 20, for example, The Oregonian said, "Underwood nearly was killed because he tried to keep the peace." The story continued: "Richard Underwood Jr. stepped in, using the mediation training he had received at the Washington County Sheriff's recruit academy." (At the time, Underwood was a reserve sheriff's deputy; he has since been hired on a permanent basis.)

On Jan. 2, a KGW reporter said, "One of the reasons that people are so touched by this story is that Underwood one night had tried to stop a confrontation, a physical fight, between his family members and some teenagers. Police believe the teenagers came back the next day to get him."

At the trial, there was no evidence presented that Underwood acted as a mediator on either night.

"We know what Bill Underwood did, what Brad Nicholson did and what Doug Underwood did," said jury foreman Siegel. "Nobody ever talked about what Richard Underwood did. As far as we know, this guy is a blank slate."

"In all the hundreds of pages of police reports I read," defense lawyer Bowman said, "there was never a suggestion that he was trying to mediate."

The Verdict

The tone of much of the coverage after the verdict perpetuated the notion that the jury came to the wrong conclusion.

For example, on Oct. 28, the day after the verdict, The Oregonian reported in a front-page story that the jury "stunned a standing-room-only courtroom Tuesday by returning unanimous not guilty verdicts." (The following day, in the back of the paper, The Oregonian provided the best account yet of the story in a chronology of the events.)

The TV stations also made some effort to explain the outcome by interviewing jurors. Yet they also devoted considerable air time to demonstrating the community's outrage. For example, KATU sent a reporter to get the reaction of folks in a shopping-center parking lot--men and women who knew nothing about the case except what they had learned from the news media.

Several jurors have taken umbrage at news accounts of their decision. They point out they acquitted the pair because of the state's evidence--not because of the defense's arguments.

"We thought it was reasonable for Jenkins to assume his cousin was in danger," jury foreman Siegel said. "We didn't know if Jenkins was innocent, but we felt at that point there was reasonable doubt."

"Matt Bryant was a kid out doing the wrong thing that night, and so were his friends," said juror Dessert. "But adults should be able to mitigate some of the circumstances, and they did not act in that capacity at all." Both Siegel and Dessert were particularly critical of The Oregonian--Siegel for a factually incorrect Oct. 29 editorial chastising the jury and Dessert for the front-page story the day after the verdict.

"They said the courtroom was 'stunned' by the verdict," Dessert explained. "I'm not sure who was stunned. I know there were at least five or six members of the defendants' families there. They were happy. Three or four Underwoods--they may have been stunned. There was a lot of media there. Maybe they were the ones who were stunned. What they're doing is reporting on themselves." They were also reporting on the unrealistic picture that they had drawn with their coverage, Dessert says. "They painted it, and they believed it."

Epilogue

This analysis isn't meant to excuse what any of the boys did on Dec. 15 or 16. All of the teenagers, with the possible exception of Jenkins, were looking for trouble at the tree lot.

Nor is it intended to minimize the suffering of Richard Underwood Jr.

What it does, however, is seek to shed light on how the news business works--or doesn't work.

Every media organization, including Willamette Week, occasionally oversteps its bounds. But rarely has the Portland area witnessed such a consistent and collective ability to get a story wrong.

WW asked Peter K. Bhatia, executive editor, and Therese Bottomly, managing editor, both of The Oregonian, to talk about the paper's coverage, but neither returned our phone calls. Editorial page editor Robert J. Caldwell did take time to talk to WW about the issue, conceding the paper had made a factual error in an Oct. 29 editorial--the paper said Jenkins and Bryant rounded up the other boys on Dec. 16--which was corrected on Oct. 31. Caldwell wouldn't comment on the coverage in the news section because he's not in charge of that.

The news directors at KATU, KOIN and KPTV all say they have no regrets about their coverage. (KGW's news director, Rod Gramer, was hired in August and won't comment on news coverage before he got there.) KOIN's news director, Kerry Oslund, became hostile when WW suggested that his station, along with the others, misreported some of the facts. "Willamette Week, the self-appointed referee, is going to come to the rescue of journalism?" he said. "You guys kill me sometimes."

The TV news directors wouldn't concede that any of their coverage was misleading or inaccurate. However, each said that if there was any error, it wasn't their fault--it was the fault of the defense, which wouldn't share its side of the story with reporters before trial.

"Would we have preferred to have the entire truth before we reported this story?" says Oslund. "Of course we would, but that's not the way it works."

"People were going with the information they had access to," said KPTV News Director John Sears. "Can the media be blamed for presenting a story when both sides are not talking? Absolutely not. That's their choice."

The implication, of course, is that if there were any inaccuracies, they came from the prosecution. It's unclear to what extent this is true. Often, reporters simply stated as fact, without any attribution, information that later proved to be untrue. Sometimes, the reporters prefaced their inaccurate statements with the line "According to police" but didn't directly quote any officer to support their claims.

In defending their coverage, all three news directors also pointed the finger at Judge Gayle Nachtigal, who barred cameras from the courtroom in this case.

"If the judge had allowed cameras in the courtroom, people would have been able to see what was happening as it unfolded," KATU's Gary Walker said.

Mick Mulcrone, a journalism professor at the University of Portland, says there's a larger issue. It's the feeding frenzy, the race for the finish line, that drives the daily news business. "Salacious and grotesque stuff like crime and sex drives ratings on TV, and the print media is competing with that," he said.

Norman Solomon, a nationally syndicated media critic who lives in San Francisco, agrees. "There's kind of a race that develops.... The TV newsroom maxim 'if it bleeds, it leads' is pretty apropos. It's not really journalism. It's kind of police-blotter stenography. You go out, you film the yellow tape, you get the horror story, and you've got it. It usually tops the news.... It's not to be confused with journalism...[which takes] digging. It's expensive to do journalism."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally published November 18, 1998