Erica Baker

Erica Baker, whose picture is posted in my first post, disappeared when she was nine years old, in 1999. The information below is given in the hopes that someone, somewhere, saw something on February 7, 1999, in Kettering, Ohio, and will have their memory jogged by one of the details. The information and the article entitled "Where's Erica's Miracle?" are from The Official Erica Nicole Baker Website and are in the rightfully-impassioned words of her bereaved family.

Erica's Description
Date Missing: February 7, 1999
Missing from: Kettering, Ohio
Age at time of disappearance: 9
Age now: 13
Eyes: Hazel - blue dominant
Hair: Blonde
Height: 3'11"
Weight: 65 lbs
Complexion: Fair to medium
Race: White
Note: Erica's two front teeth slightly protrude.
Erica was last seen wearing a pink sweatshirt with Winnie-the-Pooh characters on it, a bubblegum pink hooded raincoat, light colored blue jeans, and white cheerleading shoes with purple inserts.
-----------------------------------------
WHERE'S ERICA'S MIRACLE?
Thursday, March 25, 2004

Former Federal Public Defender, Beth Lewis is making a final (hopefully) last-ditch effort to avoid testifying before a Montgomery County Grand Jury about what she may (or may not) know regarding what happened to Erica Baker on February 7, 1999 (and subsequently thereafter).

Tips pointed the Montgomery County Prosecutor to a (possible) suspect, Jan Marie Franks, who failed to cooperate when questioned about her (possible) involvement in a hit and run accident that may have taken Erica’s life. Former Federal Public Defender Beth Lewis represented Franks for 5 (plus) years prior to her death in December 2001 from a (supposed) drug overdose.

Lewis (thru representation) has filed a motion asking the Ohio Supreme Court to “reconsider” their decision of March 2, 2004, which requires her to testify. In her motion, she (again) cites attorney-client privilege, and says that the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court “strikes at the heart of matrimony” and “counsels against marriage”.

It is believed that Franks disclosed information to Lewis that will shed light on what happened to Erica -- information that will (possibly) lead authorities to Erica’s whereabouts -- information that may lead to the arrest and conviction of more than one perpetrator.

Is it possible Lewis was representing more than one client who was in the vehicle that day? Sure it is. She’s said as much on an audiotape recently aired by a local Dayton news station. Is that not, in and of itself a breech of that “sacred” attorney-client privilege? Possibly more than one breech?

The heart of Lewis’s matter has been whether it’s all right for the spouse of a deceased client to waive attorney-client privilege. She’s been told by eleven (11) judges that’ it’s not only “all right” . . . IT’S THE LAW!

The heart of Erica’s family matter has been and still is to FIND ERICA!

It is my understanding that Lewis’s attorneys are arguing that if a surviving spouse waives the attorney-client privilege, then those whose illegal acts could be revealed by the waiver are likely to see to it that their attorney and/or spouse dies first. Based on this understanding, one can only surmise that Lewis is or has represented more than one perpetrator who committed crimes against Erica, and that she (Lewis) is possibly in fear of her life and/or that of her loved ones. If that is the case, Ms. Lewis should, by all means, apply to the court for protection.

Given the political atmosphere surrounding the “Marriage Debate” at present, it is my opinion that Lewis and her attorneys are attempting to ride the coattails of a “hot issue” and are hoping to take advantage of the emotional frenzy. Marriage IS a sacred institution, and how dare them! Criminal acts should NOT be permitted to be sheltered with an esoteric argument about the “sanctity of marriage”. This particular argument about marriage is against the interests of society as a whole. All criminal acts should be prosecuted. If a person has knowledge of a criminal act, the fact that he or she is married to the perpetrator, or accomplice, should not prevent them from their obligation to society to see to it that no criminal act go unpunished.

Ms. Lewis seeks a free pass that would allow her to avoid providing information that could lead to the arrest and prosecution of person(s) responsible for Erica's disappearance. As a society, we should be outraged and not permit her to gain any further ground in her avoidance of revealing the truth.

Of course, none of this addresses the fact that it is within Ms. Lewis’ power to provide comfort to Erica’s parents by disclosing what she may know about the fate of their child.

Shame on Beth Lewis for her grand-standing, clinging to attorney-client privilege when she has been told by no fewer then eleven judges that the privilege is NOT hers. That privilege belonged to a drug-addicted, career criminal whose husband has since waived it in order for the truth to be told.

Shame on Beth Lewis for her attempt to manipulate public opinion by using catch phrases from unrelated debates about marriage for her own means.

Shame on Beth Lewis for withholding information, adding to the pain Erica’s family has endured twenty-four-seven for more than 61 agonizing months!

Shame on Beth Lewis for publicly “empathizing” with Erica’s family! Her unconscionable excuse for silence has added to this family’s already unimaginable anguish! Lewis needs to come down off her hypocritical soapbox and take the ethical out she’s been given.

There are criminals who are career criminals, who have lived and known nothing but dead end roads most of their lives (Jan Marie Franks, et al).

Then there are criminals who are far beneath those . . .ones who are educated, who have taken oaths to protect and defend, yet, when given the opportunity, stand straight-faced on “holier-than-thou” ground and challenge clear and concise laws to the detriment of the victims and their families; all the while self righteously praying for a miracle.

WHOSE RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED?
October 23, 2003

Federal Public Defender, Beth Lewis has been given the perfect opportunity to do the legal, moral, decent thing...to reveal information disclosed to her by a former, now deceased client as to what happened to 9-year-old Erica Nicole Baker who disappeared February 7, 1999 while out walking the family dog.

The surviving spouse of a deceased client has given “express consent,” allowing Lewis to legally divulge communications with the client prior to her death on December 30, 2001, communications that may shed light on the mystery surrounding Erica’s disappearance.

As a life-long resident of this community, and a never-faltering member of the Erica Baker Search & Recovery effort, I have prayed to God countless times for a shred of information that would lead to Erica’s whereabouts, for the truth as to what happened to her on that fateful day.

Four years later, after incalculable, seemingly unanswered prayers, God has broken his silence by providing Lewis with a legal and moral way to do the honorable thing without disobeying the law of the land. A way in which she can, in good conscience, come forward with information provided to her by a now-deceased client, knowing that there is a statute in Ohio law that ethically permits her to do so . . . a rare but legal exception to the “sacred” attorney/client privilege.

Lewis has much to gain from complying with the court order to divulge information, the greatest of which is self-respect. Her failure to comply has only evoked criticism, criticism that has surely made her miserable (quote John Rion). How can she sleep, knowing Erica may be lying in a cold, dark grave, irreverently chosen by those who perpetuated this horrendous crime against her? Perhaps in her sleep tonight, Ms. Lewis should heed the cries of a missing child whose rescue so desperately depends on her. Then and only then will she be able to make peace with her youngest, most vulnerable critic, and ultimately with herself and God.

By remaining silent when the law gives her every right to disclose information, Lewis is perpetuating the myth that the rights of deceased criminals are far greater than those of their victims. If the information Lewis was privileged to implicates another client who is not deceased, that client is afforded the luxury of due process. He/she is presumed innocent until proven guilty and will have his/her day in court. Let him have his day in court. In the meantime, give peace to this family, to the community, and stop protecting the rights of a deceased criminal.

The issue here is not the rights of a deceased criminal, but the rights of a victim! An innocent nine-year-old child! Her rights MUST BE paramount to the deceased criminal's rights in order for our just system to function! Failure to uphold the law and not punish the criminal(s) -- (including Ms. lewis) would send the wrong message to society!

BOTTOM LINE . . . ANYONE WITH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A MISSING CHILD HAS A UNIVERSAL OBLIGATION TO REVEAL WHAT THEY KNOW!

I plead to Lewis, that she delve deep into the pit of her soul, pray for spiritual guidance, not social acceptance, and embrace the opportunity God has given her. He has clearly laid out a path for her by revealing a statute in the law that allows her to make the right choice… to help rescue one of his little lost lambs.