"You look at this generation of jook sing boys and jook sing girls. They have no respect for elder people."
-- Louis Chu

"[Willie] Mak has a proud look, lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, and a heart that devised wicked imaginations."
-- Prosecuting Attorney Robert Lasnik

Benjamin Ng's family was scorned.

Some Chinese Americans blamed Ng's parents for the young man's behavior. The people with whom Ng's father carpooled became scared of the senior Ng. He had spent the past seven years as a cook in Seattle. Prior to arriving in the United States, he worked as a barber in Hong Kong. "For forty years I have been a hard worker," Yu Lau Ng, Benjamin's father, commented. "I never did anything bad to people….I have never hurt anybody in my whole life." Because of the attention surrounding his son, he was forced to quit his job and remain unemployed.

Benjamin's mom, Shun Ng, remained at her job, despite harassment by her co-workers. If both Ng's parents had quit their jobs, they would have gone broke. "My poor wife," said Ng's father. "She works in a garment factory. All workers jeer at her and scold her. The Chinese people blame us. Our son's crime has nothing to do with the family. But for the sake of an income, his mom has to work."

On August 27, 1983, less than a week after Ng's trial ended, Benjamin's eldest brother, Keong Ng, entered the office of the Seattle Chinese Post and asked to speak with Assunta Ng, the paper's publisher. Assunta Ng (no relation to Benjamin's family) was handed a draft copy of an apology that had been written by Benjamin's father. The family wanted to purchase advertising space in the newspaper and apologize to the Chinese community.

"It's just normal for parents to love their children," a portion of the advertisement read. "When children grow up, they will be away from their parents and independent in society. Parents are busy with their own lives and cannot control their children. We feel painful about [Benjamin] Ng's criminal behavior."

The Seattle Chinese Post, published in separate English and Chinese editions, ran the apology exclusively in the Chinese edition. In addition to the advertisement, Benjamin's father agreed to a telephone interview with the newspaper. The senior Ng told the reporter, "I don't have face to see anyone. Before the trial, Benjamin insisted that he did not kill anybody and told the family not to worry. Now, with all the evidence, no matter whether he shot anybody or not, he is still involved in acts against heaven."

On March 30, 1983, charges of aggravated first-degree murder were filed against Tony Ng, who was formally named as the third suspect in the murders. Ng became a suspect in the killings because he was an associate of Mak and Benjamin Ng and he had been missing since the killings. Prosecutor Downing said, "Wai Chin has told police that on the night before the killings he saw the third man involved in the Wah Mee Club in the company of [Willie] Mak. Other witnesses have placed Wai Chiu 'Tony' Ng with Mak on that night [of the shootings]. Tony Ng is a friend of Mak and Benjamin Ng and was seen in the company of these two during the week of February twelfth through the nineteenth."

Tony Ng's family had also been labeled outcasts. Business at his father's restaurant declined. The senior Ng, who regularly visited Chinatown, now rarely showed his face in the area. "After work, I go home, sleep, get up, and come back to work," Tony Ng's father told a reporter. "I have lost face." Though charges were filed, Tony Ng was still at-large. Authorities believed that Ng had fled to San Francisco or Vancouver, B.C. Police pursued a tip that Ng had been spotted in Victoria, B.C., but found nothing. In a March 30, 1983, interview, Tony Ng's father stated, "[Tony Ng] is an adult. I don't know where he is. I haven't seen him since before the killings."

And while Ng remained at large, Willie Mak went to trial.

The prosecution team remained the same during Mak's trial. William Downing and Robert Lasnik, having successfully convicted Benjamin Ng earlier, were familiar with the events surrounding the killings, so new prosecuting attorneys were not needed.

Mak's defense consisted of two relatively young criminal attorneys who worked for the Associated Counsel for the Accused (ACA). The ACA's director, Roy Howsen, was confident in choosing the two attorneys in their late-twenties. "[They] make a good team," Howsen told the media.

One member of the defense team was a rail-thin, tall man named Donald Madsen. Madsen attended Pacific Lutheran University before getting a degree in economics from the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. He received his law degree from the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. Madsen smoked a trademark, corncob pipe and was known more for his awareness and cross-examination skills in the courtroom. For as long as he could remember, he had always wanted to be a lawyer.

The Mak defense team's other member was twenty-eight year old Jim Robinson. Robinson was a meticulous legal researcher. "Robinson is going to spend longer in the law library," Howsen told reporters, "to research everything to its logical conclusion and then some." Robinson graduated with a degree in political science from Utah State University. He earned his law degree at the University of Washington Law School.

Though Mak's defense team was strong and able, his defense itself was rife with problems. "[N]ot one [witness] has wanted to come in to testify for Mr. Mak," said defense attorney Madsen. "We've had to subpoena everyone." Those subpoenaed were not afraid of Mak but, rather, they did not want to be identified as supporters of the defendant. And they cringed at being called "defense witnesses," because that only cemented the perception that they were coming forth to help Mak. Madsen told reporters, "It's only accurate to portray them as persons who might have knowledge about certain things in Chinatown which we want to bring forth."

Jury selection lasted for more than two weeks. The prosecution would seek the death penalty against Mak and, as with Ng's trial, jury selection was scrupulous. That Ng's trial had been held and heavily reported on made it difficult to find jurors unaware of the Wah Mee tragedy. Moreover, it was difficult to find individuals unbiased about the young men involved. Defense attorney Madsen asked numerous questions of prospective jurors: Given the fact that Ben Ng was found guilty, would you infer that Mr. Mak is also guilty of this? Do you feel someone ought to pay for this crime with their life? Based on what you heard, do you believe the motive was robbery? Have you reached a conclusion or do you feel that Mr. Mak was present that night? Do you believe the intent was to kill the people? Did you hear about a planning session ahead of time?

One prospective juror was excused because of her strict religious beliefs and, because of those beliefs, an inability to impose the death penalty. The court asked the prospective juror, "If we get to the penalty phase, one of the penalties that will be considered is death. How would you best describe your feelings about the death penalty?"

"I'm a Christian," the prospective juror replied, "and as I've studied the life of Christ…I have come to the conclusion that I could not push the button myself, I'm sure."

"If you sat as a juror and went back to the jury room, and you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the State had proven death was the proper sentence under the facts and under the law, could you answer yes to that question?"

"No."

The prospective juror was then excused.

While would-be jurors were grilled, Mak sat between his attorneys and observed the proceedings. Dressed in brown slacks, a camel V-necked sweater, and a cream-colored shirt, Mak's eyes remained on the prospective jurors. Occasionally, he would glance around the room but, for the most part, he watched the proceedings impassively.

The trials for Benjamin Ng and Willie Mak had to be held separately because, as Prosecutor Downing had told reporters, the young men were blaming one another for the killings. As a result, Mak's defense differed greatly from that of Ng's. Mak's attorneys would argue that the young man left the Club before the killings began. They would cite a July 11, 1983, statement filed with the court, wherein Mak stated, "I left the Wah Mee Club prior to anyone being shot. I left because Ben Ng was acting strangely and appeared to have abandoned the plan which we made prior to entering the Club. I was concerned that he might shoot someone, but I did not interfere because I was frightened that he would turn on me and shoot me. I left the Club and heard what appeared to be gunshots." They would argue that Mak may be guilty of robbery, because he took two guns from the victims, but he definitely left the Wah Mee before the massacre began.

Jury selection lasted for six days and, when final decisions were made, the jury consisted of six men and six women -- nine Caucasians, one African American, one Puerto Rican, and one Hawaiian.

Opening statements were presented on September 20, 1983. Willie Mak, wearing a blue shirt and gray slacks, sat with his head resting in his hand and exhibited no signs of emotion as he listened to the opening statements. Prosecutor Downing told the jury that Mak considered murder a necessity in the robbery plan to insure no witnesses would live. "A necessary and central part of Willie Mak's plan was to eliminate all witnesses to this crime of robbery," Downing said. "Shoot them with small-caliber weapons, he told his friends, because it makes less noise. Willie Mak was a schemer. Willie Mak was a planner. For at least a couple of years, he was working on a plan that would result in him having a tidy sum of money and a minimum chance of apprehension."

Defense attorneys argued that Benjamin Ng was the leader of the heist, stating that Ng was the first robber to pull a gun in the Club. They suggested that Mak was caught up in affairs of warring tongs in Chinatown. According to the defense, Mak went to the Wah Mee on the night of the massacre to "rough up one of the highest people in the Bing Kung tong." According to the defense, Mak was ordered to do so in retaliation for an earlier incident between the Hop Sing tong (of which Mak was a member) and the Bing Kung tong. The defense claimed that, several weeks earlier, Roy Chu, a Vietnamese member of the Bing Kung tong beat the president of the Hop Sing tong. It was known that Bing Kung tong-members gambled at the Wah Mee and Mak was sent there to get even; afterward, Mak would receive a monetary pay-off. Mak enlisted the help of Benjamin Ng and Tony Ng. "Robbery was not the motive," defense attorney Robinson told the jury. "Mak left almost as much money and jewelry at the scene as was taken out. Mr. Mak was contacted by Kong Mar and Roy Chu [of the Hop Sing tong]."

Defense attorneys also argued that, even if Mak was at the scene of the crime when the killings took place, as the prosecution was arguing, Mak would not have killed anyone because crimes in illegal gambling clubs are not reported. "Mak's understanding is that a crime of this nature isn't reported," said Robinson. "If nobody had been killed, there never would have been a report." Instead, the defense argued, the killings were at the hands of Benjamin Ng and Tony Ng. "Ng shot one," Robinson said, "and it's likely he shot them all. Mak knew [Benjamin] Ng reacted violently to stress," Robinson told the jury, "because he had watched him shoot and kill a Seattle man, Franklin Leach, in October 1981." The defense claimed that, in that incident, Mak, Ng, and another man, were disposing of a safe when Leach happened upon them. "Without consultation," Robinson said, "Benjamin shot the man twice and killed him."

Finally, on September 23, 1983, Wai Chin took the stand for the second time in the Wah Mee trials. Chin looked Mak straight in the eye and told the jury that Mak was one of the three killers. "They start shooting," Chin testified, "All three of them. I see blood coming out of my mouth. I put my head down. When I wake up, I hear, 'Is that all the bullets?' It is either Ng or Mak, not the third man, because he had a low-key voice."

In an effort to humanize this witness who had seemingly returned from the dead, Prosecutor Lasnik asked Chin about his time in the Navy, where he worked as a cook.

"Are you a good cook?" Lasnik asked.

"No, not really," Chin replied.

"But good enough for the officers," Lasnik finished, smiling. The two men shared a laugh.

The defense tried to discredit Chin, by citing specifics of his testimony in Ng's trial that they believed were conflicting. Defense attorney Robinson, with transcripts of Chin's previous statements in hand, cross-examined the witness. He asked why Chin had stated Mak held a "long-barrel gun with a small hole" but, during Ng's trial, Chin had said Ng was holding that weapon.

"I saw the guns," the witness replied. "They both had long barrels."

"How many of those people shot?" Robinson asked.

"All three," Chin replied.

"Last time, you said two shot."

"Last time, I saw at least two guns shot."

The defense had been arguing all along that Mak left the Club before the killings took place. If only two guns had been fired, there was the possibility that Mak was not a gunman.

"Are you testifying without any doubt three people shot?" asked Robinson.

"Yes," replied Chin.

"No question?"

"No question."

The defense had tried to rattle the key witness, but Chin's story remained consistent. The defense was foiled.

The following week was an important one in Mak's trial. It would see Mak take the stand and endure cross-examination by the prosecution. It would also see many of Mak's friends testify against their peer. On September 27, 1983, three of Mak's friends took the stand. One testified that Mak had lost between $20,000 and $30,000 gambling shortly before the killings at the Wah Mee Club. Another friend testified that Mak thought of robbing a Chinatown gambling club only after he had lost badly after each stint of gambling.

The following day, Mak took the stand.

Mak told the court that he went to the Wah Mee Club on the orders of the Hop Sing tong. He was to rough up George Mar, one of the leaders of the Bing Kung tong. Mak believed that, in doing so, he would receive the respect of the Hop Sing tong, which he had joined only two weeks before. "[I] wanted to get ahead -- make them trust me," Mak told the court. He told the court that he went to the Wah Mee with a .357-caliber magnum revolver, which he would only use in a "life and death situation." He said Benjamin Ng went with him to identify George Mar. When the two men arrived at the Club, Mar took a swing at Mak first. "He tried to hit me first," Mak told the court. "I punch him right then." Mak then took Mar to the back room and beat him, thrashing the older man. Then, according to Mak, Benjamin Ng and Tony Ng tied the victims, something that Mak had not planned. Benjamin Ng grew "kind of pale," Mak said, and had a "scary" expression. Mak was worried about what Ng might do the people at the Wah Mee. Ng had the same "scary expression" as when he shot and killed Franklin Leach on the shores of Lake Washington. It was the same expression Mak had seen when Ng shot a barking dog five times, killing the animal. "I was feeling a little bit scared. The way Ben was acting. He was acting strange. Not normal." Concerned, Mak told the court, he left the Club prior to the carnage, having fired no shots. As he was leaving, he heard "snapping" sounds, but didn't know anyone had been killed until later that morning. He left the Club and returned to the Hop Sing tong, where he was rewarded.

"Did you go to the Wah Mee that night to inflict pain?" asked Prosecutor Downing.

"It was an order," Mak replied.

"You were doing what you had gone there to do -- cause pain?" Downing asked.

"I was go [sic] there to do what I was told," Mak replied.

But Jackie Wong testified that the Vietnamese man who had struck the Hop Sing tong-member was drunk at the time. Wong said the incident occurred at the Gim Lun Club, and the Vietnamese called Chu a "four-eyed bastard" and hit him on the head "a couple of times." The others at the Club were going to beat up the Vietnamese man, but Wong interfered. "I knew the kid," Wong told the court. "To me he's all right. I didn't want him to get into any trouble. I told those old men, 'Don't hit him.'" Wong took the Vietnamese man outside and told him to go home and sober up. The incident, as far as Wong was concerned, had been quelled.

Mak countered almost every aspect of the witness testimony for the prosecution.

Whereas Wai Chung Tam had testified that Mak had lost thousands of dollars in the weeks prior to the killings, Mak claimed that he was not financially broke at the time, and told the court that he had deposited $2,700 into a Chinatown bank the week of the robbery.

Whereas Sergeant Joe Sanford testified that Mak said, "I did all the shooting," during questioning, Mak accused Sanford of saying that if Mak didn't cooperate in the investigation, he would obtain a search warrant and "tear down [my] house."

"Did you ever at any time make a statement or indicate in any fashion that you did all the shootings at the Wah Mee Club?" Defense attorney Robinson asked his client.

"No," Mak replied.

Mak told the court that, late in 1982, he was invited to join the Hop Sing tong. "I had a lot of things going through my mind," he said. Working as a cook was getting him nowhere, and he was making little money. Mak had learned at a young age that tongs were a "bunch of hoodlums" and he described joining the tong as "the fast way to get ahead." Mak paid about twenty dollars in dues and pledged loyalty to the Hop Sing tong.

Mak's "Dear Public" letter was presented to the jury. Janell Whitaker, whom Mak had initially given the letter, read the entire piece to the court. Prosecutors claimed that Mak wrote the letter to shift blame from himself to other members of the Chinese community.

"Weren't you trying to beat this charge?" Downing asked Mak.

"No," Mak replied. He said he wrote the letter because he feared for his life.

"You're writing anything you can in order to try and save yourself in this matter, aren't you?" Downing queried.

"No," Mak replied. "I just want to tell the truth. I want the public to know what exactly happened that night."

Many members of the Chinese community took the stand to testify that they did not know of these activities of prostitution, drugs, and diamond smuggling that Mak had purported in his letter.

One key witness was Don Chin, a businessman with a degree from the University of Washington, who explained that tongs were organized around the turn of the century, and provided assistance to members of the Chinese community. Chin said he didn't know anything about tong rivalries. "These sort of things, I'm not acquainted with," Chin told the court. "All I know is hearsay, and I don't want to repeat hearsay." Defense attorney Robinson prodded at Chin, trying to learn more about the tongs' shadowy dealings. Perturbed, Chin replied, "I'm not a member of a tong. I don't know why you're asking me questions about things I don't know too much about."

Bob Santos, the executive director of the International District Improvement Association, testified that he was aware of gambling games operated by Filipino and Chinese clubs, but he was also aware of a bingo game run by "six elderly women" he had seen near a church.

The day before closing arguments, Wai Chin was brought to the witness stand again. The prosecutors brought back the star witness to cement the defense's argument that Mak had left the Club before the robberies and killings took place. Chin once again told the court that Mak shouted, "Shut up! You're not supposed to talk!" while Benjamin Ng and Tony Ng robbed the victims.

The last witness to take the stand was an acquaintance of Mak's named Steve Chin. Chin testified that George Mar, whom Mak had supposedly been sent to the Wah Mee to beat up in retaliation, was not even a member of the Bing Kung Association.

On October 4, 1983, teams for the defense and prosecution made their closing arguments. Defense attorney Madsen told the jury to consider the possibility that Wai Chin may not have accurately recalled what he saw at the Club. Madsen conceded that Mak may be guilty of first-degree murder, because he was an accomplice to robbery, but if that were the charge, then the death penalty would not be applicable. Mak was not guilty of aggravated first-degree murder, Madsen told the jury, because he did not enter the Wah Mee Club with the intent to kill.

Prosecutor Downing listed by name ten witnesses whose testimony conflicted with Mak's. Downing told the jury, "The case boils down to credibility. You must decide if the defendant is being straight with you, whether he is a confused outsider, nobly exposing a corrupt world, or whether his story is fiction of a desperate and manipulative mind….The defendant was an accomplice with Benjamin Ng and Tony Ng and whoever actually held the gun, whoever actually pulled the trigger that sent the bullet into the brain of Jean Mar, it's irrelevant which one, because the defendant or an accomplice caused the death….How can Willie Mak seriously sit here and tell you that he was surprised or confused about how Benjamin Ng was acting? That's exactly the reason why he recruited Benjamin Ng. If you're going to need a guy who can shoot and kill people, he's a pretty reliable guy….If you believe his story, shake his hand, give him back the M-1, and send him out the door. There is no place or time for compromise in this case."

Prosecutor Lasnik said the seven deadly sins "fit Willie Mak to a T." Lasnik told the jury, "Mak has a proud look, lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, and a heart that devised wicked imaginations."

The jury deliberated for four hours before being sequestered at a Seattle hotel for the night, unable to decide on a verdict.

The next day, at noon, the jury returned to the court with a verdict. Mak sat with his eyes welling up slightly, his finger trembling beneath his chin, as the verdict was read. Mak was convicted of thirteen counts of aggravated first-degree murder and first-degree assault. He received the same conviction as Ng and, as initially in Ng's case, a possible death sentence loomed.

As Mak was led from the court, he smiled slightly at the row of victims' family members. "He has been smiling at us every day this week," said Marcheta Chinn, Henning Chinn's widow.

The sentencing phase followed, and attorneys for both sides argued whether Mak deserved the death penalty. "Why does Willie Mak deserve a different sentence than Benjamin Ng?" Robinson asked the jury. "He's a human being and the decision to stop his life is extremely major. The only thing absolutely certain about this case is death is irreversible. At the time of the execution, the person who makes the injection, or the person who pulls the trap door, is going to say, 'I'm not killing this man. The jury [is].'"

The defense also brought University of Washington psychology professor Elizabeth Loftus to the stand to testify about memory lapse and recollection. Loftus testified that a violent incident may impair the memory of witnesses and that Chin may have had gaps in his memory that were filled in with outside information he learned later.

Prosecutor Lasnik asked jury members not to base their sentencing on Ng's sentencing. "How can you be asked to base your vote on what another jury did? You must make a personal decision and you must not be intimidated by the defense. You may know much more about Benjamin Ng than that jury did."

The jury was instructed, in part, that, to convict Mak, each of the following elements of the crime of aggravated murder in the first degree must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) That on or about the 19th day of February, 1983, the defendant or an accomplice caused the death of the individual named; 2) That the defendant acted with the intent to cause the death; 3) That the defendant acted with premeditated intent to cause the death; 4) That the death was a result of the acts of the defendant or his accomplice; 5) That one or more of the following aggravating factors was present 5a) The defendant and his accomplice committed the murder to conceal the commission of a crime or to protect or conceal the identity of any person committing a crime 5b) There was more than one victim and the murders were part of a common scheme or plan of the defendant 5c) The murder was committed in the course of or in furtherance of the crime of robbery; 6) That the acts occurred in King County, Washington.

The jury deliberated for less than two hours before returning with a sentence. Mak would receive the death penalty, they decided, many of the jurors with tears in their eyes. The young man showed little emotion as his sentence was read. He was ushered back to his jail cell. A short time later, Mak's defense attorneys met with him for two hours. Madsen later told the media, "He's doing all right, just like he's done throughout this trial. He's not one to show a lot of emotions."

One juror commented, "The evidence proved that he was very responsible for his actions. Good or bad, he knew what he was doing." Another juror said they came to a decision by taking votes on three separate elements: Mak's age, his role in the incident, and whether he had acted under duress. "On age, our country says when you're twenty-one, you're no longer a minor," said one juror. "Number two, we were confident he was the leader and we felt the evidence proved that. Duress? Nah, that was his way of life."

Relatives of the slain victims began crying when the sentence was read. They hugged Downing and Lasnik. Linda Mar, the daughter of Moo and Jean Mar, said, "It's still not over for us. It's still going to be hard. It doesn't quite help our wounds. How can it? He destroyed all these lives. Look what he did to Chinatown. I never heard anything like that. Gambling, yes. But prostitution? My God, he made Chinatown look like a horrible place to be."

Marcheta Chin said she was a little more relieved and felt justice had been served.

Mak was headed for Death Row, where he would spend twenty hours a day locked up in a six-foot-by-nine-foot cell, while his appeal worked its way to the Supreme Court.

After the trials of Benjamin Ng and Willie Mak, representatives of the King County Prosecutor's office and the Seattle Police Department met to discuss, as Prosecutor Norm Maleng put it, "measures to ensure that large-scale, illegal gambling doesn't recur." But these measures were not without their own suspect set of criteria. First, the police wouldn't prosecute members of aged and timeworn gambling clubs. "We're not concerned about going back into the past," Maleng said. "That is not our focus." His statement made sense. Scores of Chinatown residents had reported that age-old gambling clubs had operated -- and still were operating -- under a tolerance policy enforced by the police department. Why would police officers and prosecutors investigate gambling clubs that may expose their department to corruption and scandal?

At a press conference to announce these measures, Prosecutor Maleng was waxing nostalgic. He said police had "forged new lines of respect" between law enforcement and the Chinese community, penetrating a traditional "veil of secrecy." And the Seattle Police Department made a budget request for a full-time "Asian Community Relations" staff-person who would address some of the social problems, issues, and crime in the Asian community.

Even Police Major Beryl Thompson felt optimistic about the situation, and offered the following statement to Chinatown and its gamblers: "Gambling, per se, is not illegal as long as the house or operator does not take a cut of the action."

It seemed that, even though thirteen people had been killed in an after-hours gambling club believed to have been the home of police payoffs and vice corruption, it was once again business as usual in the city of Seattle.

Chapter Twelve | One rainy October evening, shortly before 8:00 p.m., I found myself outside of the Wah Mee Club, holding an unloaded .22 Ruger and staring the entrance to the Club

This story originally appeared as a serialized feature in Asian Focus newspaper