By Dan Murphy
Last week, our story on the recent parole granted to Samuel Ayala, for the murder of Bonnie Minter and Sheila Watson in South Salem in 1977, drew a lot of interest and responses from our readers.
The headline of our story was “Is 42 Years in Prison Enough for any Crime?” The answer to our headline from our readers was a resounding NO.
One letter reads, “Mr. Murphy, I appreciated your story on the parole of Mr. Ayala. I do not think he should be granted parole. The comments of Jason Minter explained how Mr. Ayala showed no remorse and would have killed the children if he still had bullets left to do so on that day.
“Sadly, I believe that Ayala would have been granted parole with or without the in person testimony of Mr. Minter. This is because of the current trend towards no bail and releasing as many prisoners as possible.
“I am proud of the Minter’s decision to support the parole of the driver who was not involved in the rape or the shooting. This shows that he is able to differentiate between who should be freed and who should stay behind bars.
“Like you, Mr. Murphy, I lived nearby in Katonah at the time of these murders in 1977, and like your Mom, I was horrified that this type of brutal crime could happen in such a quiet, sleepy town like South Salem. I pray for Mr. Minter and his family,” writes Beth Woodson from Mt. Pleasant.
Westchester District Attorney Anthony Scarpino also wrote to the NYS Parole Board in opposition to Ayala’s release. “The recent decison by the NYS Parole Board to release murderer Samuel Ayala, found guilty of the 1977 rape and murder of two westchester women in their home while children were in the same home, is a travesty of justice. The recent hearing was held without the input of this office and leaves surviving victums concerned with their welfare at the release of the prisoner.
“Early in the process, the Westchester County District Attorney’s office made it clear that following their sentences, the defendants should be deemed unfit for parole consideration until 2027, 50 years after the crimes. The position of the DA’s officd has not changed. The rape and murder of these two westchester women, Bonnie Minter and Sheila Watson, were henious crimes that not only left them dead but left the children in the home that day to continue to be victims of those brutal acts.
“We do not believe parole decisions should be made without full acknowledgement of local impact,” wrote DA Scarpino.
At the sentencing in 1978, Westchester Judge Richard Daronco said, “Two innocent women’s lives were cruelly and wantonly taken by the Defendants in this case. All three Defendants share in the guilt in that none of them tried to stop or in any way curtail the activities of the others. The brutality shown was incredible. These were acts of terror, not only against these two unarmed, defenseless, helpless women, but at times in the presence of four very young children. These were acts of prolonged and deliberate violence. Two lives have been taken and, in addition, four young lives have been permanently, emotionally scarred. My only regret is that there is not a more severe sentence allowable which I might impose because I, without hesitation, would do so.”
Judge Daronco later became a Federal Judge and in 1986 was assasinated at his home in Pelham, by the father of a plaintiff whose lawsuit Daronco has dismissed. The Westchester County Courthouse and the Pelham Town House were both renamed in his honor.
State Senator Peter Harckham also challenged the decision of the Parole Board. “Constituents in my district are concerned that someone guilty of such violent crimes would be released from prison. Many of the same residents, friends and family members of the victims still live in the region and are concerned not only for their welfare but the negative psychological impacts that the release of Mr. Ayala would cause. It does not seem in the best interest of the community to grant parole to this individual.
“Additionally, Covid-19 and the subsequent restrictions on a courtroom presence for this hearing did not allow for these same family members and friends of the victims to present their concerns in person. I understand the need to maintain social distance and a reduced density, but that in a case of this nature accommodations were not made for them to present their concerns directly to the Board of Parole as they have done in the past is entirely dismaying,” stated Harckham.
