By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
Some experts on church desecration, both in and out of law enforcement, are skeptical about the recent vandalism of St. Luke "Community" United Methodist Church, a politically influential black church in East Dallas struck by vandals on May 3.
A longtime African-American civil rights activist, brought here from Atlanta, told me he had examined evidence of the desecration at the request of the FBI: "I told the FBI that white people did not do this," he said.
The activist, who was consulted because of his knowledge of anti-black church desecrations elsewhere, spoke to me on the condition that I not use his name until after the FBI has made a public announcement of its own findings.
Some people in law enforcement with experience in hate-crime arson and desecration also expressed skepticism to me about the attack on St. Luke, in which a swastika was painted and white paint daubed onto a wall of the church. Some of the people I talked to said their skepticism was heightened by the timing of the attack, on the night before a crucial debate on a hate-crimes bill in the Texas Senate.
The experts have a theory about why the desecration of St. Luke may not be what it seems, but, before going there, I need to put some cards on the table: Even discussing the possibility that the attack on St. Luke was a ruse--even bringing it up--is inflammatory, and I know that. No matter how the paint got there, it was the cause of deep pain and distress for the adults who belong to the church and especially for the children. The Reverend Zan Wesley Holmes, longtime pastor of St. Luke, a former state legislator and an influential leader in the city and state, told me he wants to know who attacked his church, no matter who it may have been.
Holmes, who told me he was aware of the skepticism before we spoke, said the act itself was a vicious blow to his church and its members, regardless of who did it.
"I received a call from somebody in Austin who was saying they didn't think this is in the pattern of white supremacists that they have seen elsewhere," Holmes said. "But the fact that the church was vandalized and painted, that is disturbing in itself."
The other thing that needs to be said right away is that the attack on St. Luke may be exactly what it looked like at first glance--the work of white bigots. One person I spoke to this week, a member of the church, said he had his own skepticism about people who think they can interpret swastikas and blobs of paint on a church wall. "I don't think you can draw logical inferences from an illogical act," he said.
The fact remains, though, that there are people in the world who do have long experience in this area, and they do make observations, and they do draw inferences from the evidence. The man who consulted for the FBI gave me a list of reasons why the attack on St. Luke did not match up with any of his earlier experience with church desecrations:
1. Swastikas, he said, are almost never used in attacks on black churches.
2. There were no KKK or white supremacist markings on the wall at St. Luke.
3. No anti-black racial epithets were painted on the wall. The expert told me he couldn't think of a single attack on a black church in his memory where vandals failed to use the N-word.
4. The paint itself was atypical, he said. The FBI informed him it was a high-quality water-based latex paint, applied from a can with a brush, easy to wash off if someone gets to it before it dries and hardens. Vandals typically use spray-paint, because it's cheaper, faster to apply and harder to get off.
5. The location and choice of the church was atypical. Even though members of St. Luke and many local reporters leaped to the conclusion that St. Luke may have been chosen because of its political prominence, the man who called me said church vandals typically attack small, isolated, poorly lit buildings where there is little chance of getting caught. St. Luke, on the 5700 block of East R.L. Thornton Freeway, is brightly lit and is exposed to the freeway on the side that was painted.
He said that, in his experience, "No churches are desecrated in a lighted area on a busy street. The people who do this stuff like to sneak around in some little neck of the woods where they can't get caught."
He was not alone in his feeling that certain aspects of the St. Luke attack do not match the pattern of typical church attacks.
Ken Lybrand, a private investigator who served 13 years as a Dallas police detective in the intelligence unit before retiring last year, agreed with my informant. "I don't disagree with him on the issue of swastikas," he said. "Typically you're going to find swastikas in the Jewish community. When African-Americans are targeted, you're going to have the N-word."
I also spoke with detective Truly Holmes (no relation to Zan Holmes), who is in the Dallas Police intelligence unit and is working on the St. Luke case. Because he is involved in the case, Holmes declined to comment at all on St. Luke and even declined to hear questions about it. He did tell me he was involved in the investigation of a church desecration in Sand Flat, Texas, recently, where four teen-agers were arrested in a spray-paint attack on historic Mt. Moriah Baptist Church.