'I hope he rots'

Ex-cop sentenced to life in prison for child rape

By George P. Hassett

A former Somerville police officer convicted of raping a 23-month-old child last month was sentenced to life in prison Tuesday.

A jury found that Keith Winfield, 31, used a hot object to rape his wife’s niece on Oct. 13, 2005 while he babysat the girl and his own infant daughter. On Tuesday, the child’s mother submitted a victim impact statement read by Assistant District Attorney Beth Merachnik. In it, she said her daughter still talks about the attack.

“She has told numerous people, ‘Uncle Keith burned me,’” she said.

She said her daughter has changed from a “fun loving carefree little girl” to a “reserved but aggressive” child since the rape. She said the now 4-year-old girl may need further surgery as she grows up and her body develops. And Winfield, she said, should suffer for what he did.

“I think Keith should sit in jail forever. I want him to rot and think how he ruined his own niece’s life,” she said.

The details of the rape were disturbing even to two experienced doctors who treated the child and testified about her injuries. Dr. Carol Allen, a pediatrician for 33 years, examined the child the day after the attack and had to pause to maintain composure while on the witness stand describing what she saw.

“It was shocking. I had never seen anything like it before,” she said.

Dr. Alice Newton, who specializes in child abuse treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital, testified that she has handled approximately 1,000 cases of sexual abuse of children in her career. During her testimony she was forced to take a 5 minute break when tears came to her eyes as she described examining the child the night after the attack.

The brutal crime and its aftermath divided one family and threw another into chaos.

Keith Winfield’s wife Patricia Winfield stood by him and cut off her relationship with her sister and parents, the mother and grandparents of the child. Her father testified that he has not spoken to her in the two years since the attack. After her husband was found guilty, Patricia Winfield blamed her sister for the child’s injuries and said, “She just got away with murder.”

When the jury returned a guilty verdict on Nov. 15 Keith Winfield’s brother John Winfield, 23, of Somerville, stood with his arms wide and yelled at the jurors, “Are you [expletive redacted] kidding me? Were you listening? There was no evidence!”

As all four court officers in the room at the time dragged him away he continued to scream at the jury. “You should all die,” he said. With no security in the courtroom Keith Winfield’s mother Margaret A. Winfield, 56, of Somerville, pointed at the victim’s mother screaming, “She did it! She did it!” Keith Winfield remained calm during the outbursts.

Each were taken into custody as defendants, the second and third Winfield’s to come before Judge Patrick Riley that day. John Winfield was sentenced to 60 days at the Billerica House of Corrections but was allowed to go free in less than a week after Riley revised his decision. Margaret A. Winfield was sentenced to 60 hours of community service.

On Tuesday as he was being led away to serve a life sentence, Keith Winfield turned for a moment and looked at his wife and mother who were both in tears. No words were exchanged. His two young daughters played in the hallway outside the courtroom.

Keith Winfield never took the stand to deny the charges himself during the trial. The only time the jury heard from him was when prosecutors played an audiotape of an interview he submitted to with the Melrose Police Department.

Keith Winfield’s lawyer, Doug Louison, said on Tuesday that despite the jury’s verdict the Commonwealth did not introduce enough evidence directly implicating Winfield to uphold a guilty verdict.

During the trial prosecutors never introduced evidence directly implicating Winfield for the crime. Instead, they emphasized the sequence of events that led to him being alone with the child for 45 minutes on the day doctors said the rape occurred. The child’s mother testified that she brought her daughter to Winfield’s home that day so Patricia Winfield could baby sit the girl while she worked. The mother said she changed the girl’s diapers that morning and there were no visible injuries.

In the taped interview with Melrose police investigators the jury heard Winfield admit he was alone with the child for 45 minutes. He said he changed the girl’s diaper for the first time that day and noticed a “really red diaper rash.”

Louison said four other people – Patricia Winfield, the victim’s mother and the victim’s grandparents – had the same access to the child Keith Winfield did.   

However, his motion to vacate the verdict was denied and Winfield was sentenced to life in prison.

Keith Winfield joined the Somerville Police Department in 2000. He turned in his badge and gun and was placed on administrative leave in October 2005 after city officials learned he was being investigated for the rape. He was indicted for the crime nine months later in August 2006.

Acting Police Chief Robert R. Bradley said if Keith Winfield had refused to resign he would have fired him. He said Winfield’s status as a Somerville cop could not protect him from the consequences of the crime he committed.

“Nobody is above the law,” Bradley said.   

Comments

[why?]

For starters the victim's mother has 25 counts of felony drug charges against her-Why wasn't this brought up? How about the injures (broken ribs,wrist and skull) to this little girl that was 4-6 week old when she was only with the mother and grandparents. I know both sides of these families and i will tell you these jurers made a horrible mistake. Oh by the way Keith's own two daughters were never taken away from him. If he was such a sicko how did he go to war for this country in Desert Storm. Now let talk about Tricia's sister the victims mother first she does not even know this baby's father. Second she moved to las Vegas and Italy to "straighten her life out".Third she claimed a false rape case approx.12 years ago. Fourthly she was fired for stealing a prescription pad to support her o.c. habbit. Last of all she has been jealous of her siser for as long as i can remember. She is just jealous cuz Tricis married a wealthy police officer, bought a three family home in a nice city, has two beautiful healthy daughter and did not have to work until all can to be.

[WTF?]

Wow...this whole case is very disturbing...actually the most I've ever heard. I went to school w/ the younger bro John. I don't know either families as far as that but how could anyone do that to a baby? If it wasn't the uncle...do you really think the kid's own mother or grandparents could do that? And would the mom do that b/c she's jealous of her sister? Come on...that's a little pyschotic don't you think? Obviously it's a psychotic person to begin w/ that could even conjure up an idea like that, let alone actually do it. Yeah he has his own kids and they've never been injured, that we know of. His wife was so loyal she stood by him when this was done to her niece, don't you think she might have covered something up if it happened to her own kids? Why would she want to ruin such a perfect life, as you made it seem that she has? If a jury found sufficient eveidence to convict, then God Bless the justice system. This is all just f*ucked up and if he did this to a baby...he should be raped in jail every day 3x a day w/ a hot f*ucking object for the remainder of his sentence. What was that again? Oh yeah,....LIFE!!!

[Mother is a liar]

Hey WTF?

The baby's mother is that psychotic. She likes her drugs way more than anyone else in the world. She also did hate her siter so much she would ruin her life just to make herself have a laugh. She always wanted the parents attention and now she has it all to herself. She is so happy right now. She doesn't give a F**K who really did this she just cares that her sister is sad and she too now has to raise her children on her own. THE MOTHER IS A DRUG USER AND HONESTLY WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME IF SHE LET HER DEALER DO THIS TO HER DAUGHTER FOR A QUICK FIX. Trust me she is that psychotic.

[Election]

All speculations, folks.

[Willy]

I have doubt on this case even I have limited information. First of all, Keith was a policy office. He was alone with the baby girl for 45 minutes only. I don't believe a person can be that fucked up do such stupid crime that is so easily exposed. Talking about Keith is a policy office and he knows this better than average people. What the hell in world he would do that and left terrible wounds to the baby? This is very fishy !!!

As far as the baby girl saying "uncle Keith burned me", I have my thought on this too. If you repeat the same statement to a young child, she/he will accept it and it become the truth in his/her mind. (1000 same lies will be become truth) It is very easy to manipulate a young child's mind.

Even if Keith is a phyco, there is no question in my mind that he would pick a better time, better place, better victim...

Come on people, something is wrong here !!!

[lk]

Keith Winfield's friends need to step back and take their blinders off, a jury found him guilty and I see no reason as to why their verdict should be set aside.

If anything the behavior of his family during this leads me to believe that we are dealing with damaged genes.

As for his kids showing no sign of abuse, so what? plenty of killers have gone outside the family for their victims.

As for mother is a liar, you will be lucky if your message does not reach her or you could be looking at getting a lawyer to defend yourself from slader charges.

[lk]

Excuse me Willy, are you saying that being a police office equates one with being perfect?

Police officers are human, as a group they are as flawed as you and I.

[KJR]

I have read all the comments above. While I can see the various points each has made, I believe the trail jury rendered the correct verdict in this particular case. This case was brought before a Middlesex Grand Jury in July of 2006. All 23 grand jurors listened very carefully to the evidence including the viewing of the photos of this little girls injuries. The evidence was sufficient for us to indicte Keith Winfield accordingly. It was without reservations of heart and mind that I signed those indictments.

Foreperson - Middlesex Grand Jury - July - Sept 2006

[Shocked and confused!]

This is directed to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury. You mentioned there was sufficient evidence to indict Keith yet every article I have read says there was no physical evidence linking him to this horrific crime except for the circumstantial timeline. PLEASE tell me what other evidence was presented so I can try to understand how you could have come to this conclusion. This makes NO SENSE to me and the possibility that an innocent man has been sentenced to life is very upsetting! Please help me to understand this!

[Willy]

I am not saying policy office is perfect. What I try to say is that it make n sense to me that Keith would not do such stupid crime on the given place, given time, given victim...He maybe a crazy man and maybe will do such thing. But, I think he must known better that it was not the right time, right place, right victim at that moment. It is too obvious! He should have the knowledge of doing the crime that is easier to hide because of policy office background. 45 miniutes alone with the baby in his house with 2 of his daughts, wife might be home anytime, bla, bla...How can he do that? Come on people...This just don't make sense. Any DNA evidence? What is the hot object? "uncle Keith burned me" is not evidence. I can tell this 2 years old that ToothFairy exist many times and she will tell you ToothFairy visit her last night and left some money under her pillow.

Regards.

[Election]

I was wondering about that too. What was the hot object? A hair curler? Could the injuries be caused by a hairdryer blowing hot hair on the skin for too long? Did they ever find out? I agree, a 2-year old statement mens very little.

[it *is* funny]

The above statement from the foreperson of the jury convinced me more than anything else written here. I believe they got this one right. It's horrible and of course friends of the family don't want to believe it happened, but according to our justice system, he's guilty.

[Kate]

"including the viewing of the photos of this little girls injuries."

No one disputes that this poor little child was abused. The point some are trying to make is that perhaps Keith was not the abuser.

[no physical evidence presented]

4 people could have committed the crime within the time frame that was given by medical doctors.

all circumstantial evidence

how could a jury convict anyone or the crime without physical evidence?

Lots of emotion at the trial by doctors.

Kieth (police officer) numerous problems while employed

Mother of child (bonafide liar) Made 4 false claims of rape

Kieth attorney (not qualified for this type of case)

How can they be any conviction of anyone?

[Election]

The doctor's crying biz is weird. I mean, how bad could it be? Doctors should be used to all sort of terrible burns and wounds. The poor girl had an injury, but how bad could it be that the doctors were crying and all?

[Sad Story]

This is a sad story. People will never know the truth. I have heard so many positive/and negative stories about Mr. Winfield. On the other hand I have heard many negative stories about the mother of the child. No physical evidence? Life sentance? I think that the fact that he was a police officer hurt Mr. Winfield. If he committed the crime, he deserves to do the time. If he is innocent, what a shame!

[process of elimination]

No, there was no physical evidence. But despite the nonsense one sees on TV, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in any criminal case. And it, along with the defendant's inconsistencies, was what convicted him.

That the crime was committed in the timeframe indicated was irrefutable on the evidence, which was extensive. The burns were caused by an object applied directly to the skin, which was also irrefutable based on the evidence. No hair dryers, in other words. The object was placed across the vagina, elsewhere in the genital area, and inserted into the anus. All three had severe burns, and the victim spent a year -- a whole year -- in the hospital recovering from the injuries. Curling iron? Maybe, but there's no way to know for sure. It's not really relevant, in any case.

No, there was no physical evidence. But despite the nonsense one sees on TV, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in any criminal case. And it, along with the defendant's inconsistencies, was what convicted him.

(continued below)

[process of elimination]

(sorry for the dup paragraph above)

In the time frame in which the crime unquestionably took place, there were five people who could have committed it: the defendant, his wife, the mother, and the victim's grandmother. The grandfather, who was also with the victim, didn't see the child in the timeframe indicated by the injuries (not just the burns, but also a very fresh skull fracture).

There were two times the granmother could have done it; early in the morning, before the defendant was brought to the defendant's house, and late in the afternoon, when she picked up the victim. If she had done it in the morning, it would have been obvious to the victim's mother (the screaming). If she had done it in the evening, it would have been obvious to the victim's mother and grandfather. Neither is likely, and in fact the defense never even raised this possibility.

So, the mother? She's no mother of the year, certainly. There are existing injuries for which the jury recieved no explanation, and her situation is...problematic. But then, she wasn't on trial, nor were those injuries under consideration. Only the burns (and the skull fracture) were under consideration. She could have done it in the morning (but see previous paragraph re: screaming, as the grandmother was present) and in the evening (again, both her parents were present). And again, the defense didn't even present this as a possibility. Further, and more importantly, neither DSS nor the police presented any evidence that they suspected her. Certainly she would have been the primary suspect, especially given the other injuries. That she was not, but the defendant was, is suggestive. And finally, for her to have committed the crime in the morning meant that the defendant and his wife didn't recognize any signs of a severely traumatized child for the entire day they babysat her, which defies rationality given that he was on trial for the crime...while for her to have done it in the evening means that 1) she and her parents are engaged in a conspiracy of silence, 2) the medical experts are grossly incorrect about time frames, and 3) the grandparents are willing to permanently abandon their daughter and their grandchildren (unlikely in a Sicilian family, but they have not spoken or had any contact at all since the night after the crime was committed) to protect a horrible assault committed by their other daughter. It makes very little sense, any way one looks at it.

(continued)

[process of elimination]

(last post)

So one is left with the defendant and his wife. For the wife to have done it, the defendant was present at all times and would have heard the screaming (as would have their 2-year-old daughter), so in any case he would have been covering for his wife. This in a case where he was a 1) white cop, 2) going to jail for the sexual assualt and rape of an infant, which he has to know will probably not turn out well for him. When he was alone with the child, the 2-year-old was out of the house with his wife. That's the *only* time that the crime could have been committed without anyone else knowing and having to cover it up.

And then, there's this: the defendant claimed he was vehemently against the victim being in his house in the first place, and acknowledged that he very much disliked the vitcim's mother. That even though the victim's mother had babysat for *his* children and even though he had entrusted them to her care. He expressed repeated indifference to and lack of knowledge of the victim's behaviors and habits, except in a way that contradicted every other witness. He claimed to express concern to the victim's mother about injuries he had never once mentioned in the past, but claimed ignorance of an injury that even he admitted happened that day...an injury he didn't mention to the victim's mother on any of the four occasions she called the house, nor to the grandmother when she went to pick up the victim, nor the grandfather when he called from the hospital the following evening. There's more along these lines, but this is already far too long.

And remember: the defense presented no case. None. They didn't seriously contradict any prosecution witnesses. They didn't put the defendant or his wife on the stand (for obvious reasons), but neither did they present any witnesses at all. Not even a character witness. And the defense attorney lied -- repeatedly -- in his closing statement. That's not admissable as evidence, but it does indicate the weakness of the defense.

By process of elimination, there's no one else who could have done it, thus he clearly has opportunity. There's enough in his testimony to suggest a motive. The physical case was weak, but the circumstantial case was virtually iron-clad. It was the only possible decision.

[Election]

The fact the defense said nothing may simply indicate the lawyer was not very good.
I'm still wondering about the hot object, though; it is not irrelevant. What is the presumed motive? Torturing a little girl? Probably not. Most likely, the guy may have a fetish for young girls or something. But in that case, why use a hot object that would obviously leave traces? And where does one get a really hot object of the right size out of the blue? I doubt most guys would even know what a hair curler is.
Something still does not add up.

[process of elimination]

He hated the victim's mother. He admitted this, and it matches the rest of the family's testimony. He resented the victim being in his house. He said this too. He did everything possible to avoid having anything to do with the victim for the half-week she was in his house. He admitted this, and it matches everyone else's testimony. There's a lot more, showing any number of contradictions in his own testimony and vs. everyone else's.

When I wrote that the curling iron was irrelevant, what I meant was that it's not really relevant if it was a curling iron or a branding iron. The fact is that it was a straight rod-like object that generated heat, and one with a seam or break along one side. The defendant's house only had one item that fit that description: a curling iron.

And rationality? You're looking for rationality here, and that's a mistake. The crime was unquestionably committed as described: the deliberate application of a hot object to the exterior and interior of the genitals of a 23 month old girl. Could someone who could do that be understood to be rational? Do you understand that person and how their mind works? Likely not. So trying to puzzle out the rationality of it is a hopeless cause.

As for the defense, whether they were any good or not, the fact is that they didn't seriously raise any of the actual possible alternatives. Instead, they raised impossible alternatives, given the medical evidence. Except once, with a very indirect implication that the defendant's wife was a possible suspect. Which, as I wrote earlier, was true...except that if she committed the crime, both her husband and her 2-year-old girl were in the house (a small one, and not at all soundproof) while the assault took place, which means they heard it and did or said nothing. She has no known motive, she allowed the victim's mother to babysit her own children, and she agreed to babysit the victim (which the defendant was against, by his own admission). So for her to have done it also requires premeditation (else why accept the victim into her home?), but that possibility wasn't raised either.

Whether the defense was any good or not (they were at least the second set of attorneys for the defendant), all they really had to do to raise reasonable doubt was construct and defend the possibility that the defendant's wife did it or the possibility that the victim's mother did it. Except that the medical testimony plus the fact that the defendant himself would have to be conspiring to protect her exonerates the mother (from this particular assault, at least), and the defense failed to raise the possibility that it was the defendant's wife. Certainly it's not the jury's job to do that if the defense didn't even feel it warranted.

[Election]

Thanks for the information. When I talk about rationality here, I'm referring to a pretty limited version of the concept. The guy was not insane, right? If so, he would have tried to be declared as such. All I'm saying is that he probably did not want to spend his life in jail or get in trouble, even if what he was planning to do was in itself clearly "irrational". Let's assume the guy did not simply want to inflict pain to the girl, that was not what he was trying to do. Let's assume this had mostly a sexual motive (of a perverted nature, obviously).
Is it possible that the mother had just used the curling iron? And that, being an object of approximately the right dimensions, he used it, not realizing it would be too hot for the baby's skin. What was the estimated temperature of the object, for it to be able to do that kind of damage? Did the mother say she had just used the curling iron?
This is obviously all irrelevant at this point, but I would like to understand what the guy was thinking (or what the jury thought the guys was thinking), based on the evidence. Did he "play" with the girl's genitalia for the "fun of it" and he happened to use a hot iron that caused the burns? Or did he intentionally burn her?

[process of elimination]

In my opinion, you're down the wrong path. Neither the prosecution nor the medical and DSS witnesses presented this as a sexual act (even though two of the charges were rape and sexual assault), but as pure violence. If the prosecution meant to imply that this was a crime based on sexual perversion, they didn't do a very good job of it. I think (obviously, this is a guess), that what the defendant wanted to do was, in fact, to inflict pain on the victim, first and foremost. That there was a sexual element to it, given the location of the injuries and the fact that the hot object was used to anally penetrate the victim, seems quite possible, but there's no way of knowing, and there was obviously no history to support or refute this argument presented at trial. What seems most clear is that pain (or punishment) was the primary motivation. In any case, however, it's not that important *how* he intended to harm the child. Whether sexual, violent, or some combination of the two, the important thing is that the act occurred.

As for the temperature of the object, it was very hot and sustained that heat for some time. The injuries were consistent with extended contact, according to the experts, not a brief touch. There were at least three applications of the hot object, all of which would have been done while the girl was struggling (unless she was in shock by the end, which is an obvious possibility). Given the struggling and the fact that the girl would have had to be turned over to inflict all the injuries in a way consistent with the medical evidence, whatever the object was, it was very hot (and sustained its heat despite being pressed to flesh three times) throughout the assault.

I don't see how it's possible to grasp a curling iron without realizing that it's hot.

Had his wife just used the curling iron? She had just left the house with their oldest child, so it's quite possible. But whether that was the case or he turned it on with the intention of using it, either way I still think you're mistakenly trying to apply rationality to an obviously perverted intellect. I just don't think you can say, "well, it's not logical" about someone's actions if they've committed to the sort of crime that was committed here, because the perpetrator doesn't think like you, me, or most rational beings. That follows from the crime itself, but also from the fact that -- as you say -- there was always going to be evidence of the crime, and certainly anyone (police officer or not) would know that. You're making the criminal here out to be a Moriarty, thinking carefully and rationally about the preliminaries, the act, and the aftermath. That doesn't apply here.

And, though this is even more speculative, his brother yelled a death threat at the jury and rushed at them while the verdicts were being read. That's not normal behavior. So maybe not everything is right with that family.

[Election]

Thanks, very informative.

[Stevecutsdocs]

I am curious if any of the people who are commenting on this post are still interested in this case. I am making a film about the trial and what happened to the families after the conviction. Please feel free to contact me on Twitter. Thank you. SMA