The Great Flood of 1993 was one of the most devastating natural disasters to have occurred in the U.S., resulting in around 50 fatalities and around $12-16 billion in damages. Authorities quickly began to suspect that the West Quincy levee had been intentionally damaged and eyes quickly turned to known local criminal: James Scott.
The locals were convinced that the levee could not have broken due to natural causes and so sabotage became the logical conclusion. Neal Baker, a sergeant at the Quincy Police Department became suspicious of Scott after noticing some inconsistencies in his story.
Firstly, Scott claimed that he had been working on reinforcing the levee yet his appearance was too clean. He was also not wearing a life jacket. On top of this, Scott had a criminal history, having committed arson in 1982 and 1988.
The investigation into James Scott
The more the local authorities looked into the case, the more it looked like Scott was hiding something. He couldn’t keep his story straight and several people who knew him claimed he had told them he had damaged the levee intentionally.
Scott’s apparent reason for intentionally sabotaging the areas only defence against the flood waters was supposedly because he wanted to strand his wife on the other side of the river so he could be free to party and even have an affair. Witnesses claimed that he had boasted about his apparent actions at a party.
James Scott was put on trial in 1994 and was quickly found guilty. He was given a sentence of 20 years to life in prison. He had a re-trial in 1998 but the sentence was upheld.
Is he really guilty?
While the witness testimony certainly sounds damning, there wasn’t actually any physical evidence to support this story. As a matter of fact, two soil-science experts testified that the evidence pointed to the levee breaking due to natural causes. Scott claimed that he had only been trying to help.
Meanwhile, the prosecution was focused on the inconsistencies in his story and witness testimony. Neither of which could be considered a smoking gun that definitively proved Scott was guilty. The lack of evidence has led many to believe James Scott was simply a fall guy. One person on Reddit claims that “it seemed like insurance fraud.”
One of the witnesses, Norman Haerr, claimed he had heard Scott boast about damaging the levee. According to a documentary from Vice, Haerr owned land that had been damaged by the floods and he could claim on his insurance for vandalism, but he did not have flood insurance. If the flooding was deemed to be natural, Haerr would get no money, if it was deemed criminal, he would. Haerr did not disclose this conflict.
Despite the complete lack of evidence and the shady details regarding the prosecution, James Scott remains in prison to this day. A petition has also been started to see justice for Scott. He has maintained his innocence even when confessing to the crime could have resulted in a potential earlier release.
