'Dildo Trial' Ends; Walsh Innocent

Former Cambridge City Councillor William H. Walsh was found innocent yesterday of charges of malicious destruction of a city art exhibit which contained several "anatomically explicit" dildos.

After only forty minutes of deliberation, a jury at the Cambridge District Court delivered a verdict of not guilty to Walsh, who faced charges of malicious destruction of personal property in excess of $250.

The state charged Walsh with malicious destruction after he tore two dildos and removed a sculpture which read, "Show Me Yours," from a controversial art exhibit on October 5.

The exhibit was on display throughout October in the Cambridge City Hall Annex, a public arts space.

James J. Rafferty, Walsh's attorney, said before the verdict, "I feel we were able to demonstrate that there was no crime here."

The six-member jury agreed, clearing Walsh of the charge. The former councillor maintained that he should have never been prosecuted in the first place.

"It's great to be vindicated," he said. "When you do prevail, it's rewarding."

Walsh added that the case should serve as a message to public officials that they should not feel intimidated to take controversial stands, but he described the trial as "an awful expe- rience to go through."

Walsh said in interviews last week that he wasmoved to remove the dildoes after city employeesworking in city hall found the exhibit offensive.

The former city councillor removed the dildoesshortly before the exhibit opened to the public,bringing them to City Manager Robert W. Healy'soffice. The items were subsequently reinstalled,but with a protective barrier and a notice thatthe exhibit involved "sensitive" material.

Although the jury found in Walsh's favor, JudgeMark Coven added his own remarks after the jurorswere dismissed. "There is no question in my mindthat Mr. Walsh was acting in what he considered tobe good faith for the people who came to him whenhe was acting as a city councillor."

Walsh's attorney said he found the judge'scomments unusual and potentially problematic. "Ourcriminal justice system is based on the fact thatthe jury has the final word. That ought to be thefinal word in the case."

Nonetheless, he added that Coven is "awell-respected judge" and said that it was "hisprerogative" to make the comments.

Rafferty, who defended Walsh pro bono, said hehad seen the exhibit and was personally offended."I agreed to represent Walsh pro bono because ofmy own sense of outrage, not at Mr. Evers....Mydispleasure was directed at the City," he said.

Curaco-born artist Hans Evers, who had filedthe complaint against Walsh leading to Friday'strial, said, "The whole reason for me pursuing wasbecause I felt that it was outrageous what hedid."

Evers, in an interview before the trial, saidWalsh must be held accountable for his actions.

"I think if there was anyone who was afterpublicity, who was going to get some kind ofmessage out, it was Walsh," he said.

Evers said in an interview Thursday that hisexhibit was intended to raise public awareness ofgender issues.

"The exhibit, as I pointed out in the past,deals with issues of gender [and] sexual identityand incorporates elements that are anatomicallyexplicit, but there's nothing lewd about them," hesaid then.

Mary Alice Monagle, an employee at theCambridge traffic office located in the City HallAnnex in which the exhibit was displayed,testified on Walsh's behalf in the trial that theexhibit was "sexually offensive."

"I was shocked and offended by the exhibit,"she said.

After the verdict was announced, she applaudedit as the correct decision.

"I think the verdict was the only right one,"said Monagle. "I do think it was a waste oftaxpayers' money that it had gone that far. It wasreally a sin. Obviously the district attorney'soffice should take a look at their priorities."

Middlesex Assistant District Attorney Alex S.Moffat had attempted in the trial to portray Walshas a man who "maliciously, intentionallydestroyed" Evers' artwork.

But Rafferty said in the trial that Walsh hadacted not out of malicious intent, but out of theinterests of his constituents, who objected to theexhibit's "pornographic" nature.

When Walsh testified in the trial, he claimedthat he acted out of civic responsibility.

"I was very disturbed that the city had allowedthis to happen with nobody being informed," hesaid. "I didn't like the artwork."

But Evers disputed the claim in an interviewlate last night. "My feeling was that it was notsomething he did to protect the citizens ofCambridge at all," he said. "But it's somethingthat's very hard to prove beyond a reasonabledoubt."

City Councillor Sheila T. Russell said she wasglad her former colleague was acquitted, andcalled the art exhibit "junk."

"It was terrible. I went down and looked atit...I was offended," she said.

Evers said that the decision would not affecthis art in the future.

"I think my art has never been about trying toshock people...so I don't think that this decisionis going to influence my art to be morecontroversial or less controversial. Mymotivations for my artwork lie somewhere else,"said Evers.

Despite being found not guilty of maliciousdestruction, Walsh is not through with the justicesystem.

He is in the process of appealing a convictionin March, 1994 on 41 counts of bank fraud,conspiracy and making false statements. He wasremoved from the City Council in November afterbeing sentenced to 18 months in prison and twoyears' probation, as mandated by Massachusettsstate law.

This story was complied with AssociatedPress wire dispatches.Crimson File Photo'Dildo Trial' Ends Walsh Is Cleared OfCharges

Walsh said in interviews last week that he wasmoved to remove the dildoes after city employeesworking in city hall found the exhibit offensive.

The former city councillor removed the dildoesshortly before the exhibit opened to the public,bringing them to City Manager Robert W. Healy'soffice. The items were subsequently reinstalled,but with a protective barrier and a notice thatthe exhibit involved "sensitive" material.

Although the jury found in Walsh's favor, JudgeMark Coven added his own remarks after the jurorswere dismissed. "There is no question in my mindthat Mr. Walsh was acting in what he considered tobe good faith for the people who came to him whenhe was acting as a city councillor."

Walsh's attorney said he found the judge'scomments unusual and potentially problematic. "Ourcriminal justice system is based on the fact thatthe jury has the final word. That ought to be thefinal word in the case."

Nonetheless, he added that Coven is "awell-respected judge" and said that it was "hisprerogative" to make the comments.

Rafferty, who defended Walsh pro bono, said hehad seen the exhibit and was personally offended."I agreed to represent Walsh pro bono because ofmy own sense of outrage, not at Mr. Evers....Mydispleasure was directed at the City," he said.

Curaco-born artist Hans Evers, who had filedthe complaint against Walsh leading to Friday'strial, said, "The whole reason for me pursuing wasbecause I felt that it was outrageous what hedid."

Evers, in an interview before the trial, saidWalsh must be held accountable for his actions.

"I think if there was anyone who was afterpublicity, who was going to get some kind ofmessage out, it was Walsh," he said.

Evers said in an interview Thursday that hisexhibit was intended to raise public awareness ofgender issues.

"The exhibit, as I pointed out in the past,deals with issues of gender [and] sexual identityand incorporates elements that are anatomicallyexplicit, but there's nothing lewd about them," hesaid then.

Mary Alice Monagle, an employee at theCambridge traffic office located in the City HallAnnex in which the exhibit was displayed,testified on Walsh's behalf in the trial that theexhibit was "sexually offensive."

"I was shocked and offended by the exhibit,"she said.

After the verdict was announced, she applaudedit as the correct decision.

"I think the verdict was the only right one,"said Monagle. "I do think it was a waste oftaxpayers' money that it had gone that far. It wasreally a sin. Obviously the district attorney'soffice should take a look at their priorities."

Middlesex Assistant District Attorney Alex S.Moffat had attempted in the trial to portray Walshas a man who "maliciously, intentionallydestroyed" Evers' artwork.

But Rafferty said in the trial that Walsh hadacted not out of malicious intent, but out of theinterests of his constituents, who objected to theexhibit's "pornographic" nature.

When Walsh testified in the trial, he claimedthat he acted out of civic responsibility.

"I was very disturbed that the city had allowedthis to happen with nobody being informed," hesaid. "I didn't like the artwork."

But Evers disputed the claim in an interviewlate last night. "My feeling was that it was notsomething he did to protect the citizens ofCambridge at all," he said. "But it's somethingthat's very hard to prove beyond a reasonabledoubt."

City Councillor Sheila T. Russell said she wasglad her former colleague was acquitted, andcalled the art exhibit "junk."

"It was terrible. I went down and looked atit...I was offended," she said.

Evers said that the decision would not affecthis art in the future.

"I think my art has never been about trying toshock people...so I don't think that this decisionis going to influence my art to be morecontroversial or less controversial. Mymotivations for my artwork lie somewhere else,"said Evers.

Despite being found not guilty of maliciousdestruction, Walsh is not through with the justicesystem.

He is in the process of appealing a convictionin March, 1994 on 41 counts of bank fraud,conspiracy and making false statements. He wasremoved from the City Council in November afterbeing sentenced to 18 months in prison and twoyears' probation, as mandated by Massachusettsstate law.

This story was complied with AssociatedPress wire dispatches.Crimson File Photo'Dildo Trial' Ends Walsh Is Cleared OfCharges