ALFRED — A Biddeford man charged with two counts of murder stemming from an incident in December 2012 stood solemnly in court while his attorneys entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity on his behalf, Tuesday, at York County Superior Court in Alfred.
This is a new plea for James Earl Pak, 76, who is charged with the fatal shootings of Derrick Thompson, 19, and Alivia Welch, 18, on Dec. 29, 2012 at their apartment at 17 Sokokis Road in Biddeford.
In March 2013, he had pleaded not guilty.
Pak is also alleged to have shot Susan Johnson, Thompson’s mother, who survived her injuries.
In addition to the two murder counts, he is charged with aggravated attempted murder and burglary. He faces a sentence of up to life in prison.
Relatives of both victims were in court for the brief proceeding, but declined to comment to the press.
Also on Tuesday, Pak’s attorneys, Joel Vincent and Larry Goodglass, filed two motions, one for a new competency hearing and another to suppress statements made by Pak.
Neither Vincent nor the state prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Leane Zainea, commented on the results of earlier psychiatric evaluations, but Vincent is challenging the state’s findings on Pak’s state of mental health at the time the crimes were committed.
While insanity pleas are rare, said Vincent, “In this particular case, Mr. Goodglass and I believe it’s an appropriate plea.” He added that he knows of cases where such pleas have been successful, including the case of a former client.
The insanity plea “makes state of mind at the time of the alleged crime an issue,” said Vincent.
Goodglass said the motion to deem statements made by Pak inadmissible in court is based both on whether there were violations in the voluntariness of his comments, and whether there were technical violations to his Miranda rights, which inform suspects of their right to remain silent.
Whether a statement is made voluntarily is “very complex,” said Goodglass; it can include circumstances such as a person’s state of mind, their mental health, their age, whether they suffer from dementia, and other issues. Unlike other states, he said, in Maine, there doesn’t have to be proof of police coercion or misconduct during an interrogation to make a statement involuntary.
The shootings took place at 17 Sokokis Drive in an apartment that Pak and his wife, Armit, rented to Johnson. The apartment is attached to the Paks’ garage, and both families shared the driveway.
The shootings stemmed from a dispute between the landlord and tenants regarding “the number of cars in the driveway, and the inability of the landlord to get snow removed,” Sgt. Mark Holmquist of the Maine State Police Major Crimes Unit told the Journal Tribune in a telephone interview the day after the murders.
The transcript of emergency calls made to Biddeford Police dispatchers reveal more detail of what led up to the shootings and the aftermath.
Although the names of the callers and the addresses were redacted in the transcripts, from information previously released by police it appears that the first call was made by Thompson, who requested that police come to the 17 Sokokis address. Another call, by a victim of the shooting, was apparently made by Johnson; and a third call is between dispatch, a woman who identified herself as James Pak’s wife, who is Armit Pak, and the man she said is her husband.
The first call was made shortly before 6 p.m., according to Holmquist.
In an excerpt from the transcript before the shooting, the caller states, “Can you send a cruiser, like, immediately. I got my landlord freaking out at me as you can hear in the background.”
Later, the caller states, “He’s giving me death threats, pointing his fingers like it’s a gun going bang. I got it all on video. All I’m trying to do is shovel.”
When Biddeford Police arrived, they spent 30 to 40 minutes talking with the families, said Holmquist. Three minutes after they departed, they were dispatched back to the apartment for a report of shots fired after Johnson called 911.
In an excerpt from a transcript from a second call that appears to have been made by Johnson, the caller states, “We’ve all been shot, please hurry. …
“My neighbor just came in and shot us. Please hurry. …
In a third call to police, according to the transcript, a man can be heard admitting to shooting the victims.
He also talks about dying.
In one excerpt from the transcript, he says, “I’m gonna die anyway. I want a die.”
Later he says, “I’m gonna shoot myself.”
“He thinks he’s helping other landlords,” said the caller, who said she was James Pak’s wife.
Also in the apartment while the shootings occurred was Johnson’s 6-year-old son, Brayden, who was unhurt and rescued by police.
Court documents filed in relation to a civil suit by Johnson against both James and Armit Pak, show that during the month of December 2012, the Paks were becoming frustrated with their tenants.
In a Dec. 8 document to Johnson signed by both James and Armit Pak, they write, “You said you were going to pay on Friday, now we have to bang on the door and chase after you, Friday and today. Also, we have told you there are to be no more than two vehicles parked in the driveway. … We are too old to put up with this, we rely on the rent to keep our bills paid.”
Johnson filed a civil suit against the Paks on Jan. 23 in York County Superior Court.
In her complaint, Johnson alleges assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of the uniform fraudulent transfer act, premises liability and trespass by the Paks.
She is seeking damages of at least $1 million.
That case is stayed until the criminal case against Pak is concluded.
A motion for attachment and trustee process against James Pak and Armit Pak for $1 million was approved on June 6, 2013.
The next proceedings in the criminal case against Pak are expected to take place in August.
— Staff Writer Dina Mendros can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 324 or dmendros@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less