Sep 8, 2016 2 min read

The recent murder of Tierne Ewing by her husband, Kevin Ewing, has distressed many people. A Sept. 1 letter by George C. Miller asks that we not blame the Washington County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Gary Gilman for allowing Kevin Ewing’s release.

Kevin Ewing was said to have been given exorbitant bail to post. Well, somehow, Kevin Ewing managed to come up with the large sum of money to meet his bail. The question to ask is why he was given the opportunity to bail himself out while awaiting his hearing. Kevin Ewing proved himself to be a violent man. He was awaiting a hearing on charges of kidnapping, beating and brutalizing his wife earlier this summer. She was terrified of him. It is easy to ask why Tierne Ewing didn’t do whatever was necessary to escape her husband. However, in cases of severe domestic violence, this is often not easy. Some women fear their violent and often mentally unstable spouses will hunt them down and “make them pay,” possibly with their lives.

Kevin Ewing had a protection-from-abuse order against him, and was wearing an ankle monitor. The PFA meant nothing and he somehow managed to remove the ankle monitor. Given his history of violence, was he given a mental evaluation to determine if he was fit to be released on bail? It’s obvious the man had significant mental problems. In the absence of a certified evaluation, there is the commonsense principle that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Had Kevin Ewing been deemed too dangerous to be allowed to post bond, he would not have had the oppportunity to allegedly kidnap and murder his wife.

Gilman’s decision was inexcusably poor – and deadly. Let’s not try to defend the indefensible. The first concern should have been assuring the safety of Tierne Ewing.

Lee Bruno

Washington