2 women with shopping list for thief acquitted

2 women with shopping list for thief acquitted


By Judy Harrison
BDN Staff

BANGOR, Maine — A Penobscot County jury on Thursday found two women not guilty of having a Bangor man steal more than $14,000 worth of appliances, lawn care equipment and flat-screen televisions from area retailers for them from a shopping list.

The items on the list that Evelyn Dempsey, 60, of Hampden and Judy Gariepy, 61, formerly of Hampden allegedly paid Michael Hughes, 38, to steal in fall 2006 included an oven, dishwasher, clothes dryer, televisions, snowblowers, lawn mowers, sewing machines, mixers and sheet sets.

The jury deliberated for 2½ hours before announcing its verdict about 6 p.m.

The women, who are physician assistants, were indicted in July 2007 for receiving stolen property from Hughes the previous year when Gariepy was living with Dempsey in Hampden. Gariepy now lives in Phoenix, Ariz.

“For Ms. Dempsey and Ms. Gariepy, this has been a long, heartbreaking ordeal,” defense attorneys David Bate and Richard Hartley, both of Bangor, said in a joint statement on behalf of their clients after the verdict. “They are very, very pleased to have their innocence confirmed, and they’re looking forward to resuming their normal lives. They are especially thankful of support they had at work and in the community. People have stood behind them.”

If convicted, Dempsey faced up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000 because she was accused of receiving stolen property worth more than $10,000. Gariepy faced up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 because she was accused of receiving stolen property worth more than $1,000 and less than $10,000.

Hughes has a long criminal history that includes convictions for theft. He testified Monday, the first day of the trial, that Dempsey gave him a list of things she and Gariepy wanted.

He would steal them and then sell them to the women, often for much less than their retail value, Greg Campbell, assistant district attorney for Penobscot County, told the jury Thursday during his closing argument. To find the women guilty, the prosecutor said, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the women knew or believed the items were stolen

“This is not an ideal case,” Campbell told the jury. “If it were ideal, Michael Hughes would be sitting at that [defense] table. Michael Hughes would be the star of the show, but sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.”

Hughes, who was arrested in October 2006 when he was caught shoplifting from Kohl’s in Bangor, has pleaded guilty to theft. In a plea agreement with the Penobscot County District Attorney’s Office, he is expected to be sentenced Monday to no more than 2½ years in prison. If the judge were to impose a longer sentence, he would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.

Gariepy and Dempsey, who lived together at Dempsey’s Hampden home, said that they bought the items from Hughes, but believed they were purchasing damaged or discounted merchandise, their defense attorneys told the jury in their closing arguments.

Dempsey took Hughes in when he was a troubled teen about 20 years ago, Bate, her defense attorney, told the jury. She knew he had spent time in prison and had substance abuse problems, the attorney said, but when they reconnected about 2½ years ago, she thought he had turned his life around.

Hughes told her in 2006 that he was working at the “Home Depot Warehouse,” Bate said. The company does not have a warehouse, but the women believed him because he sometimes wore an orange apron with the store’s name on it. Hughes told the women that he used either his employee discount or bought slightly damaged items at a deep discount for them, Bate told the jury.

Gariepy’s attorney, Hartley, criticized the investigation by Bangor police because they did not search Hughes’ residence and did not record interviews with the defendants. The defense attorney also said the prosecution’s star witness was not a credible witness.

“We know he’s a career criminal,” Hartley said. “He’s not just a thief — he’s a brazen thief. He would walk into a store and walk out with property [without paying for it]. It also was common for him to get store employees to help him get items out of the stores.”

One loss prevention manager testified that if he hadn’t been given a description of Hughes from other stores in the Bangor Mall area, Hartley told the jury, he wouldn’t have been suspicious of him.

“He looked like just another shopper,” the defense attorney told the jury.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
12 comments on this item

The two women are "Physician Assistants"..obviously not stupid, but how in heck would they not even begin to wonder where this idiot was getting all of the items on their shopping list! Never any receipts? Never any warranty paperwork? How about operator manuels for the items? Sounds like two very fortunate ladies who pleaded ignorance and got away with it! Just deny knowing and believing and it will be true!

I agree

Don't judge by what you read or see in the media. The media barely spent 15min a day in the court room during this trial. These women have been found NOT GUILTY. The media did not report any of the facts of this case. The local media had these women guilty before they were tried. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The media had them guilty first. The media only reported from the DA's side of the case. I think it is wrong that Mr. Campbell from the DA's office was discussing the case while it was being tried. I know I will look at the media reports differently from now on. I also question the ethics and integrety of the Bangor PD and the DA's office.

Our system is not perfect. but it is the best one we have. After being judged by your peers as being not guilty-that is it. put yourself in their shoes,and be happy that life is not more difficult for us all.

What a farce, inept prosecutors equals not guilty verdicts.

If these two are physician assistants, there is something amiss somewhere. If they were really that niave, they probably believe peter pan is a wash basin, and the tooth fairy, easter bunny and santa are real!

They knew about the stolen goods. That is obvious. Sometimes juries just dont give a damn.

Perhaps the jury was slipped a pad or two of empty 'scripts

I agree,don"t sound right to me,if someone bringsm me all I wanted on my list,I would want to make sure that I knew it was not stolen from a store,or anyones home,I think someone knew the two women better then we think!

Just because someone is acquitted don't think that means that they are not guilty....I have learned as long as you have the money to hire the right attorney and you have people as well as yourself that will lie for you....you can get away with just about anything....and it makes me sick!!! I don't know too much about this case but having seen someone be indictied and acquitted for something he did...I just know it's possible....Of course the Maine justice system is nothing to write home about anyway...So should we be surprised really?

None of you sat through the trial, or heard any of the facts brougt forth in court. And need i remind you, it is the facts of the case in which we try people, not the court of public opinion. You are commenting on assumptions you have gathered from the Bangor Daily News. Sad part is, the information you get from the BDN is based on the reporter, which spent 10minutes investigating the story, and another 20 at the trial. Bottom line, the jurrors in this trial have determined BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that these women were innocent. You have no facts, or information which lead to the decision made other than some poor excuse for reporting. Who would have heard these facts and background information?? The Jury. Thus, your court of public opinion, has some serious flaws. Have a little more faith in our justice system, and a little less in your neighbors assumptions.

believe me these women knew these were stolen items. I have known Mike and Evelyn for many years, this list was not a first time list nor a second or third, it's been going on for 15 years atleast. It just goes to show that if you have the money to buy a mouthpiece then you'll go free guilty or not. Mike on the other hand is doing yet another bid in the DOC when what he really needs is a couple of years in a lockdown rehab. He is not a violent person, the only one he hurts is himself and the ones who love him.

You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.