'..Russia .. cyberpower proved the perfect weapon .. political sabotage..' (no replies)        
' “We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official said, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.”

..

Mr. Putin, a student of martial arts, had turned two institutions at the core of American democracy — political campaigns and independent media — to his own ends..

..

..The Russians clearly had a more sophisticated understanding of American politics, and they were masters of “kompromat,” their term for compromising information.

..

..the hackings of the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon..

..

What seems clear is that Russian hacking, given its success, is not going to stop. Two weeks ago, the German intelligence chief, Bruno Kahl, warned that Russia might target elections in Germany next year. “The perpetrators have an interest to delegitimize the democratic process as such,” Mr. Kahl said. Now, he added, “Europe is in the focus of these attempts of disturbance, and Germany to a particularly great extent.” '



'..the White House’s reluctance to respond forcefully meant the Russians have not paid a heavy price for their actions, a decision that could prove critical in deterring future cyberattacks.

..

..President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia moved beyond mere espionage to deliberately try to subvert American democracy and pick the winner of the presidential election.

..

..A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness. For Russia, with an enfeebled economy and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.

..

The United States had two decades of warning that Russia’s intelligence agencies were trying to break into America’s most sensitive computer networks. But the Russians have always managed to stay a step ahead.

Their first major attack was detected on Oct. 7, 1996, when a computer operator at the Colorado School of Mines discovered some nighttime computer activity he could not explain. The school had a major contract with the Navy, and the operator warned his contacts there. But as happened two decades later at the D.N.C., at first “everyone was unable to connect the dots,” said Thomas Rid, a scholar at King’s College in London who has studied the attack.

Investigators gave it a name — Moonlight Maze — and spent two years, often working day and night, tracing how it hopped from the Navy to the Department of Energy to the Air Force and NASA. In the end, they concluded that the total number of files stolen, if printed and stacked, would be taller than the Washington Monument.

Whole weapons designs were flowing out the door, and it was a first taste of what was to come: an escalating campaign of cyberattacks around the world.

..

The Russians were also quicker to turn their attacks to political purposes. A 2007 cyberattack on Estonia, a former Soviet republic that had joined NATO, sent a message that Russia could paralyze the country without invading it. The next year cyberattacks were used during Russia’s war with Georgia.

..

Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret: He did not name Russians publicly, or issue sanctions. There was always a reason: fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.

“We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official said, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.”

..

Last year, the attacks became more aggressive. Russia hacked a major French television station, frying critical hardware. Around Christmas, it attacked part of the power grid in Ukraine, dropping a portion of the country into darkness, killing backup generators and taking control of generators. In retrospect, it was a warning shot.

..

..CrowdStrike’s nicknames for the two Russian hacking groups that the firm found at work inside the D.N.C. network. Cozy Bear — the group also known as the Dukes or A.P.T. 29, for “advanced persistent threat” — may or may not be associated with the F.S.B., the main successor to the Soviet-era K.G.B., but it is widely believed to be a Russian government operation. It made its first appearance in 2014, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer.

..

Only in March 2016 did Fancy Bear show up — first penetrating the computers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then jumping to the D.N.C., investigators believe. Fancy Bear, sometimes called A.P.T. 28 and believed to be directed by the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency, is an older outfit, tracked by Western investigators for nearly a decade. It was Fancy Bear that got hold of Mr. Podesta’s email.

..

It was bad enough that Russian hackers had been spying inside the committee’s network for months. Now the public release of documents had turned a conventional espionage operation into something far more menacing: political sabotage, an unpredictable, uncontrollable menace for Democratic campaigns.

..

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and editor, has resisted the conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers working for Mr. Putin’s government or that he was deliberately trying to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. But the evidence on both counts appears compelling.

..

Mr. Putin, a student of martial arts, had turned two institutions at the core of American democracy — political campaigns and independent media — to his own ends. The media’s appetite for the hacked material, and its focus on the gossipy content instead of the Russian source, disturbed some of those whose personal emails were being reposted across the web.

..

In late 2014, hackers working for Kim Jong-un, the North’s young and unpredictable leader, had carried out a well-planned attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment intended to stop the Christmastime release of a comedy about a C.I.A. plot to kill Mr. Kim.

In that case, embarrassing emails had also been released. But the real damage was done to Sony’s own systems: More than 70 percent of its computers melted down when a particularly virulent form of malware was released. Within weeks, intelligence agencies traced the attack back to the North and its leadership. Mr. Obama called North Korea out in public, and issued some not-very-effective sanctions. The Chinese even cooperated, briefly cutting off the North’s internet connections.

As the first Situation Room meetings on the Russian hacking began in July, “it was clear that Russia was going to be a much more complicated case,” said one participant. The Russians clearly had a more sophisticated understanding of American politics, and they were masters of “kompromat,” their term for compromising information.

..

..code was put out in the open by the Russians as a warning: Retaliate for the D.N.C., and there are a lot more secrets, from the hackings of the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon, that might be spilled as well. One senior official compared it to the scene in “The Godfather” where the head of a favorite horse is left in a bed, as a warning.

..

As the year draws to a close, it now seems possible that there will be multiple investigations of the Russian hacking — the intelligence review Mr. Obama has ordered completed by Jan. 20, the day he leaves office, and one or more congressional inquiries. They will wrestle with, among other things, Mr. Putin’s motive.

..

Did he seek to mar the brand of American democracy, to forestall anti-Russian activism for both Russians and their neighbors? Or to weaken the next American president, since presumably Mr. Putin had no reason to doubt American forecasts that Mrs. Clinton would win easily? Or was it, as the C.I.A. concluded last month, a deliberate attempt to elect Mr. Trump?

In fact, the Russian hack-and-dox scheme accomplished all three goals.

What seems clear is that Russian hacking, given its success, is not going to stop. Two weeks ago, the German intelligence chief, Bruno Kahl, warned that Russia might target elections in Germany next year. “The perpetrators have an interest to delegitimize the democratic process as such,” Mr. Kahl said. Now, he added, “Europe is in the focus of these attempts of disturbance, and Germany to a particularly great extent.” '

- Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger and Scott Shane, The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S., December 13, 2016


Context '[Russia] may become a threat to the world. That is the worst thing that could happen to Russia.' - Yegor Gaidar

'..Russian strategy of hybrid influence and destabilization .. German Council on Foreign Relations.'

'German intelligence says Russia is trying to destabilize German society..' - '..war that Moscow is waging against the West..'

'[Putin is doing] anything that can and will expand Russian influence to U.S.S.R.-era levels of power.'


'..Zero tolerance for Russian intrusions .. Estonia .. policy of publicly naming or prosecuting spies..'

'..the Soviet Union was cut off from Western financial markets and was effectively under permanent sanctions..'

          Daniel Boone        

Daniel Boone

BOONE, Daniel, pioneer, born in Berks County, Pennsylvania, 22 October, 1734 (For more on Daniel Boone's birthplace please visit his Homestead); died in Missouri, 26 Sept., 1820. Among the immigrants that landed, 10 Oct., 1717, at Philadelphia was George Boone, of Exeter, England, who came with his wife and eleven children, bought land near Bristol, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and joined the society of Friends. His son, Squire Boone, married Sarah Morgan, and Daniel was their son. Squire Boone, who was a farmer, moved, about 1748, to Holman's Ford, on the Yadkin, in North Carolina.

Daniel's education was very limited; he could read and write, but beyond that all he knew related to the fields, the woods, the net, the rifle, and hunting. He was a hunter born, and loved the solitude of the forest. Strong, brave, lithe, inured to hardship and privation, he traced his steps through the pathless forest, sought out the hiding places of panther, bear, and wolf, and was the match of any Indian in the sagacity with which he detected the footsteps of the red man. About 1755 he married Rebecca Bryan and set up his own log cabin, but, displeased with the encroachments of civilization on his solitude, and incited by the glowing accounts brought by John Finley, who had penetrated into the unknown regions of Kentucky, formed a company of six kindred spirits, and, bidding adieu to his family and the comforts of home, on 1 May, 1769, set out on his perilous journey of exploration.

America's Four Republics: The More or Less United States
By: Stanley Yavneh Klos
Edited: Naomi Yavneh Klos, Ph.D.

  • First United American Republic: United Colonies of North America: 13 British Colonies United in Congress was founded by 12 colonies on September 5th, 1774 (Georgia joined in 1775)  and governed through a British Colonial Continental Congress.  Peyton Randolph and George Washington served, respectively, as the Republic's first President and Commander-in-Chief;
  • Second United American Republic: The United States of America: 13 Independent States United in Congress was founded by 12 states on July 2nd, 1776 (New York abstained until July 8th), and governed through the United States Continental CongressJohn Hancock and George Washington served, respectively, as the Republic's first President and Commander-in-Chief; 
  • Third United American Republic: The United States of America: A Perpetual Union was founded by 13 States on March 1st, 1781, with the enactment of the first U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and governed through the United States in Congress Assembled.  Samuel Huntington and George Washington served, respectively, as the Republic's first President and Commander-in-Chief; 
  • Fourth United American Republic: The United States of America: We the People  was formed by 11 states on March 4th, 1789 (North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in November 1789 and May 1790, respectively), with the enactment of the U.S. Constitution of 1787. The fourth and current United States Republic governs through  the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in Congress Assembled, the U.S. President and Commander-in-Chief, and the U.S. Supreme Court.  George Washington served as the Republic's first President and Commander-in-Chief.

After numerous adventures with the Indians, having become intimately acquainted with the character of the country, established an enviable reputation for sagacity and integrity on important frontier service assigned to him by Lord Dunmore in the campaign against the Indians, usually called "Lord Dunmore's War," and constructed a strong fort on the left bank of Kentucky river, which he named "Boonesborough," he determined to bring his wife and family to the new home. Some of his neighbors joined him, and he conducted the party, numbering upward of thirty, safely to "Boonesborough" without having encountered any other difficulties than such as are common to this passage. 



 Daniel Boone founded Boonesborough while he worked for Richard Henderson of the Transylvania Company.


On one occasion Boone, with an armed party of thirty men, had gone for a supply of salt to a place called "Salt Licks," nearly 100 miles north of Boonesborough, and was captured, with twenty-seven of his men, by a band of more than 100 Indian warriors led by two Frenchmen. 



They carried them first to Old Chillicothe, on the Miami, and then to Detroit, where they surrendered for a ransom all their prisoners except Boone; him they took back to Old Chillicothe, where the great Blackfish, a renowned Shawanese chief, adopted him into his family under an imposing but painful ceremonial; all his hair, except a tuft three or four inches in diameter on the crown of the head, was plucked out; that tuft was allowed to grow to the length of the "warlock," dressed with feathers and ribbons; an ablution in the river was supposed to cleanse him from the taint of white blood; a coat of paint on his face, and a solemn charge from Blackfish, completed the rite. 

After a prolonged and anxious residence among them, during which he was kindly treated, he discovered their intention of marching upon Boonesborough, and resolved, at the peril of certain death in the event of recapture, to attempt his escape and save his family and friends. Chased by 450 Indians, he performed that daring feat in the forty-third year of his age, and thus simply records it: "On the 16th [of June], before sunrise, I departed in the most secret manner, and arrived at Boonesborough on the 20th, after a journey of 160 miles, during which I had but one meal." 




At the fort he learned that his wife and children, despairing of ever seeing him again, had returned, and safely reached her father's home in North Carolina. The Indians assailed the fort, but were repelled with loss, and retreated. Boone then, in the autumn of 1778, rejoined his family on the Yadkin, and returned with them to Kentucky in 1780. 

The country, though well settled, was still unsafe, and, soon after his return, Boone and his brother, Squire, were surprised by Indians; Squire was killed and scalped, and Daniel had a narrow escape. A sanguinary engagement, called the "Battle of the Blue Licks," took place in 1782, in which Boone's two sons fought at his side. One of them was killed, and the other severely wounded. Boone was full of expedients, and on one occasion extricated himself from four armed Indians by blinding them with tobacco dust. Kentucky was admitted into the union, 4 Feb., 1791, and in the survey of the state the title to Boone's land was disputed. The case was decided against him, and, stung to the quick by the wrong, he had again to seek a new home, which he established at Point Pleasant, between the Ohio and the Great Kanawha; but in 1795 he removed to Missouri, then a Spanish possession, and received not only the appointment of commandant of the Femme Osage district, but a grant of 8,000 acres. The Spanish possessions passed into the hands of Napoleon, who sold them to the United States, and, in the survey that followed, the Spanish grant of Boone's lands was pronounced invalid. An appeal to the legislature of Kentucky, and another to congress, resulted in a grant by the latter of 850 acres. Boone was then seventy-five years of age, hale and strong. The charm of the hunter's life clung to him to the last, and in his eighty-second year he went on a hunting excursion to the mouth of Kansas river. He had made his own coffin and kept it under his bed, and after his death they laid him in it to rest by the side of his wife, who had passed away seven years before. 

On 13 Sept., 1845, their remains were removed to the cemetery near Frankfort, Kentucky, a few miles from the fort of Boonesborough, by the concurrent action of the citizens of Frankfort and the legislature of Kentucky. 


Cemetery in Frankfort, Kentucky where Daniel and Rebecca Bryan Boone were re-interred


His son, Enoch, born in Boonesborough, Kentucky, in 1777 ; d. 8 March, 1862, was the first white male child born in Kentucky. Daniel Boone's wife, with her daughters, went to live with her husband in his palisaded fort in June, 1776, and while there gave birth to this son; but after Boone's capture, on 7 Feb., 1778, his family returned to North Carolina. -- Edited Appleton's American Biography Copyright© 2001 by Stan Klos TM




An American biographical and historical dictionary Containing an account of the lives, characters, and writings of the most eminent persons in North America from its first settlement, and a summary of the history of the several colonies and of the United States. By: W. Hyde, 1832.


BOONE, Daniel, colonel, one of the first settlers of Kentucky, was born about 1730. While he was young, his parents, who came from Bridgeworth,England removed from Pennsylvania or Virginia to the Yadkin river in North Carolina. 






He was early addicted to hunting in the woods; in the militia he attained to the rank of colonel. In 1769, in consequence of the representation of John Finley, who had penetrated into the wilderness of Kentucky, he was induced to accompany him in a journey to that country. He had four other companions, John Stuart, Joseph Holden, James Money, and William Cool, with whom he set out May 1. On the 7th of June they arrived at the Red river, a branch of the Kentucky; and here from the top of a hill they had a view of the fertile plain's, of which they were in pursuit. They encamped and remained in this place till Dec. 22, when Boone and Stuart were captured by the Indians near Kentucky river. In about a week they made their escape; but on returning to their camp, they found it plundered and deserted by their companions, who had gone back to Carolina.




Stuart was soon killed by the Indians; but Boone being joined by his brother, they remained and prosecuted the business of hunting during the winter, without further molestation. His brother going home for supplies in May 1770, he remained alone in the deep solitude of the western wilderness until his return with ammunition & horses July 27th. During this period this wild man of the woods, though greeted every night with the howlings of wolves, was delighted in his excursions with the survey of the beauties of the country and found greater pleasure in the solitude of wild nature, than he could have found amid the hum of the most elegant city. With his brother he traversed the country to Cumberland river. It was not until March 1771, that he returned to his family, resolved to conduct them to the paradise, which he had explored.


Students and Teachers of US History this is a video of Stanley and Christopher Klos presenting America's Four United Republics Curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. The December 2015 video was an impromptu capture by a member of the audience of Penn students, professors and guests that numbered about 200. - Click Here for more information



Having sold his farm, he set out with his own and 5 other families, Sept. 25,1773, and was joined in Powell's valley by 40 men. After passing over two mountains, called Powell's and Walden's, through which, as they ranged from the north east to the south west, passes were found, and approaching the Cumberland, the rear of the company was attacked by the Indians on the 10th of October, when six men were killed, among whom was the eldest son of colonel Boone. One man was also wounded, and the cattle were scattered. This disaster induced them to retreat about 40 miles to the settlement on Clinch River, where he remained with his family, until June 6,1774, when, at the request of gov. Dunmore, he conducted a number of surveyors to the falls of Ohio. On this tour of 800 miles he was absent two months. After this he was entrusted by the governor, during the campaign against the Shawanese, with the command of three forts. 



Early in 1775, at the request of a company in North Carolina, he attended a treaty with the Cherokee Indians at Wataga in order to make of them the purchase of lands on the south side of the Tennessee river. After performing this service, he was employed to mark out a road from the settlements on the Holston to the Kentucky river. While thus employed, at the distance of about 15 miles from what is now Boonesborough, the party was attacked March 20, and 23, 1775 by the Indians, who killed four and wounded five. Another man was killed in April. On the first day of this month at a salt lick, on the southern bank of the Kentucky,in what is now Boonesborough a few miles from Lexington, he began to erect a fort, consisting of a block house & several cabins, enclosed with palisades. On the 14th of June he returned to his family in order to remove them to the tort.. His wife and daughters were the first white women, who stood on the banks of the Kentucky river. Dec. 24th one man was killed and another wounded. July 14, 1776, when all the settlements were attacked, two of Colonel Calway's daughters and one of his own were taken prisoners; Boone pursued with 18 men and in two days overtook the Indians, killed two of them, and recovered the captives.






The Indians made repeated attacks upon Boonesborough; Nov. 15,1777 with 100 men, and July 4 with 200 men. On both sides several were killed and wounded; but the enemy were repulsed; as they were also July 19 from Logan's fort of 15 men, which was besieged by 200. The arrival of 25 men from Carolina and in August of 100 from Virginia gave a new aspect to affairs, and taught the savages the superiority of "the long knives," as they called the Virginians. Jan. 1, 1778 he went with 30 men to the blue licks on the Licking river to make salt for the garrison. Feb. 7, being alone, he was captured by a party of 102 Indians and 2 Frenchmen; he capitulated for his men, and they were all carried to Chillicothe on the Little Miami, whence he and 10 men were conducted to Detroit, where he arrived March 30. The governor, Hamilton, treated him with much humanity, and offered 1001, for his redemption. But the savages refused the offer from affection to their captive. Being carried back to Chillicothe in April, he was adopted as a son in an Indian family. He assumed the appearance of cheerfulness ; but his thoughts were on his wife and children. Aware of the envy of the Indians, he was careful not to exhibit his skill in shooting. In June he went to the salt springs on the Sciota. On his return to Chillicothe he ascertained, that 450 warriors were preparing to proceed against Boonesborough. He escaped June 16, and arrived at the fort June 20th, having travelled 160 miles in 4 days, with but one meal. His wife had returned to her father's. Great efforts were made to repair the fort in order to meet the expected attack. On August 1st, he went out with 19 men to surprise Point Creek town on the Sciota; meeting 30 Indians, he put them to flight and captured their baggage. At last, Aug. 8, the Indian army of 444 men, led by captain Dugnesne and 11 other Frenchmen, and their own chiefs, with British colors flying, summoned the fort to surrender. 



The next day Boone, having a garrison of only 50 men, announced his resolution to defend the fort, while a man was alive. They then proposed that 9 men should be sent out 60 yards from the fort to enter into a treaty; and when the articles were agreed upon and signed, they said it was customary on such occasions, as a token of sincere friendship, for two Indians to shake every white man by the hand. Accordingly two Indians approached each of the nine white men, and grappled with the intent of making him a prisoner; but the object being perceived, the men broke away and re-entered the fort.



An attempt was now made to undermine it; but a counter trench defeated that purpose. Atlast on the 20th the enemy raised the siege, having lost 37 men. Of Boone's men two were killed and four wounded. "We picked, up," said he, "125 pounds of bullets, besides what stuck in the logs of our fort, which certainly is a great proof of their industry." In 1779, when Boone was absent, revisiting his family in Carolina, Colonel Bowman with 160 men fought the Shawanese Indians at old Chillicothe. 



In his retreat the Indians pursued him for 30 miles, when in another engagement col. Harrod suggested the successful project of mounting a number of horses and breaking the Indian line. Of the Kentuckians 9 were killed. June 22nd,1780, about 600 Indians and Canadians under col. Bird attacked Riddle's and Martin's stations and the forks of Licking river with 6 pieces of artillery, and carried away all as captives. Gen. Clarke, commanding at the falls of Ohio, marched with his regiment and troops against Reccaway, the principal Shawanese town on a branch of the Miami, and burned the town, with the loss of 17 on each side. 


About this time Boone returned to Kentucky with his family. In Oct. 1780, soon after he was settled again at Boonesborough, he went with his brother to the Blue Licks, and as they were returning the latter was slain by a party of Indians, and he was pursued by them by the aid of a dog. By shooting him Boone escaped. The severity of the ensuing winter was attended with great distress, the enemy having destroyed most of the corn. The people subsisted chiefly on buffalo's flesh. In May 1732 the Indians having killed a man at Ashton's station, captain A. pursued with 25 men, but in an attack upon' the enemy he was killed with 12 of his men. Aug. 10 two boys were carried off from major Hay's station. Capt. Holden pursued with 17 men; but he also was defeated, with the loss of four men. In a field near Lexington an Indian shot a man and running to scalp him, was him- self shot from the fort and fell dead upon his victim. On the 15th Aug. 500 Indians attacked Briant's station, five miles from Lexington,and destroyed all the cattle; but they were repulsed on the third day, having about 30 killed, while of the garrison 4 were killed and 3 wounded. Boone, with cols. Todd and Trigg and major Harland, collected 176 men and pursued on the 18th.



They overtook the enemy the next day a mile beyond the Blue Licks, about 40 miles from Lexington, at a remarkable bend of a branch of Licking river. A battle ensued, the enemy having a line formed across from one bend to the other, but the Kentuckians were defeated with the great loss of 60 killed, among whom were cols. Todd and Trigg, and Major Harland, and Boone's second son. Many were the widows made in Lexington on that fatal day. The Indians having 4 more killed, 4 of the prisoners were given up to the young warriors to be put to death in the most barbarous manner. 

General Clarke, accompanied by Boone, immediately marched into the Indian country and desolated it, burning old Chillicothe, Peccaway, New Chillicothe, Willis town, and Chillicothe. With the loss of four men he took seven prisoners and five scalps, or killed five Indians. In October the Indians attacked Crab orchard. One of the Indians having entered a house, in which were a woman and a negro, and being thrown to the ground by the negro, the woman cut off his head. From this period to the peace with Great Britain the Indians did no harm. "Two darling sons and a brother," said Boone, "have I lost by savage hands, which have also taken from me 40 valuable horses and abundance of cattle. Many dark and sleepless nights have I spent, separated from the cheerful society of men, scorched by the summer's sun and pinched by the winter's cold, an instrument ordained to settle the wilderness."

From this period he resided in Kentucky and Virginia till 1798, when in consequence of an imperfect legal title to the lands, which he had settled, he found himself dispossessed of his property. In his indignation he fled from the delightful region, which he had explored, when a wilderness, and which now had a population of half a million. With his rifle he crossed the Ohio and plunged into the immense country of the Missouri In 1799 he settled on the Femme Osage river with numerous followers. In 1800 he discovered the Boone's Lick country, now a fine settlement: in the same year he visited the head waters of the Grand Osage river and spent the winter upon the head waters of the Arkansas. At the age of 80, in company with a white man and a black man, laid under strict injunctions to carry him back to his family, dead or alive, he made a hunting trip to the head waters of the Great Osage, and was successful in trapping beaver and other game.




In January 1812 he addressed a memorial to the legislature of Ky. stating that he owned not an acre of land in the region, which he first settled; that in 1794 he passed over into the Spanish province of Louisiana, under an assurance from the governor, who resided at St. Louis, that land should be given him; that accordingly 10 thousand acres were given him on the Missouri and he became Syndic or chief of the district of St. Charles; but that on the acquisition of Louisiana by the United States his claims were rejected by the commissioners of land, because he did not actually reside; and that thus at the age of 80 he was a wanderer, having no spot of his own, whereon to lay his bones.

The legislature instructed their delegates to congress to solicit a confirmation of this grant. He retained, it is believed, 2,000 In his old age he pursued his active course of life, trapping bears and hunting with his rifle. Though a magistrate and sometimes a member of the legislature of Virginia, and much engaged in agriculture; yet he preferred the solitude of the wilderness to the honors of civil office and the society of men.


He died at the house of his son, Major A. Boone, at Charette, Montgomery Company, September 26th, 1820, aged nearly 90 years. His wife died in the same place. He left sons and daughters in Missouri. In consequence of his death the legislature of Missouri voted to wear a badge of mourning for 20 days. A brother died in Mississippi Oct. 1808, aged 81. 

Col. Boone was of common stature, of amiable disposition, and honorable integrity. In his last years he might have been seen by the traveler at the door of his house, with his rifle on his knee and his faithful dog at his side, lamenting the departed vigor of his limbs, and meditating on the scenes of his past life.

Whether he also meditated on the approaching scenes of eternity and his dim eyes ever kindled up with the glorious hopes of the christian is not mentioned in the accounts of him, which have been examined. But of all objects an irreligious old man, dead as to worldly joy and dead as to celestial hope, is the most pitiable. An account of his adventures, drawn up by himself, was published in Filson's supplement to Imlay's Description of the Western Territory, 1793.— Niles Register, March 13, 1813.

Capitals of the United States and Colonies of America

Philadelphia
Sept. 5, 1774 to Oct. 24, 1774
Philadelphia
May 10, 1775 to Dec. 12, 1776
Baltimore
Dec. 20, 1776 to Feb. 27, 1777
Philadelphia
March 4, 1777 to Sept. 18, 1777
Lancaster
September 27, 1777
York
Sept. 30, 1777 to June 27, 1778
Philadelphia
July 2, 1778 to June 21, 1783
Princeton
June 30, 1783 to Nov. 4, 1783
Annapolis
Nov. 26, 1783 to Aug. 19, 1784
Trenton
Nov. 1, 1784 to Dec. 24, 1784
New York City
Jan. 11, 1785 to Nov. 13, 1788
New York City
Nov. 1788 to March 3,1789
New York City
March 3,1789 to August 12, 1790


Editor’s Note: The Showalter grand jury is noteworthy in that forces for justice – Judge Joseph Dannehy, Special Prosecutor Austin McGuigan and as many as 17 Connecticut State Police detectives – could only knock down some of the walls protecting New London Police, State’s Attorney C. Robert Satti, Asst. State’s Attorney Harold Dean, Judge Angelo Santaniello, former Mayor Harvey Mallove and others who escaped complete discovery. The cover-up continues to this day, highlighted by the suppression and disappearance of the grand jury transcripts.




The foundation for investigative reporting in this case was developed by John Peterson, who was managing editor of The Norwich Bulletin during the grand jury. The grand jury began hearing testimony on July 5, 1977
.








Special Prosecutor McGuigan became Chief State’s Attorney, then was fired after convicting appointees of the governor and many other public officials.

---
Chronology, Grand Juror Report, Follow-up Columns
Via
Law And Justice In Everyday Life, CT Law Tribune


F. Lee Bailey on Law and Justice in Everyday Life and the Showalter case:

This book - which is mainly about public officials, police, judges and lawyers either shaming or shining - is a good read. Many of the stories stand alone, like slices of life. Others will appear early in the book, with follow-up chapters later. The crown jewel, in my view, is his handling of the strange death of Kevin Showalter, who was slammed 50 feet down the road in New London, Connecticut on Christmas Eve 1973 while changing a tire on the traffic side of a parked car. For many years, Andy Thibault dogged a case which public officials seemed determined to let die, despite the presence of a likely suspect. He tells me his mentor, John Peterson, broke the case open and then handed over the torch. Joined by the victim's mother, Lucille, who revealed herself as a determined but delightful woman as the story unfolds, Andy beats up on police, prosecutors, judges and governors until finally there is action. Spurred on by an appointment hastened by Gov. Ella Grasso, Judge Joseph Dannehy conducted one of the most brilliant and thorough investigations I have ever seen. If this book were only about the Showalter case, it would be worth the price.

APPENDIX

THE SHOWALTER CHRONOLOGY – A FOUR YEAR SEARCH FOR JUSTICE


New London, Ct.

1973

December 24

Approximately 11:10 to 11:20 p.m. Kevin B. Showalter is killed. Car leaves scene. Only taillights observed by a neighbor.

There is much confusion. Mr. Showalter had been changing a tire on his companion’s car. His companion Debra Emilyta, was sitting about six feet away from the car on a stone wall.

Ms. Emilyta told police she heard a thud, but did not see the car which struck Mr. Showalter. She said she ran across the road, a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue near Plant Street, before seeing Mr. Showalter’s body.

Mr. Showalter’s body was thrown 22 feet from the believed point of impact, onto a sidewalk near a large tree. The police report prepared that night noted the deceased’s shoes were found 110 feet apart. Part of a leg bone was found 75 feet away.

Michael Buscetto of Mike’s Auto Body gives police body putty, apparently from the car which struck Mr. Showalter. The putty never made it to the police station. Det. Lt. Konstanty T. Bucko later denies its existence.

December 25

Autopsy performed. No trace of alcohol or drugs found. Cause of death listed as lacerated liver and broken neck.

In efforts to console Mrs. Showalter, friends, neighbors, witnesses and officials volunteer information about the accident. She quietly listens for about six weeks, taking it for granted that police are acting on the same information. December 26

New London police begin full-scale search for red car.

1974

February 6

FBI report describes paint particles on Mr. Showalter’s clothing as “racing green” or “forest green” used on 1968 Chrysler products.

February 7

Mrs. Showalter notes she had the impression local police were not actively pursuing the case. She began interviewing those persons who came to her voluntarily and made a written record of her findings.

During the next three weeks, Mrs. Showalter spends much of her time making telephone calls and knocking on doors. She and her youngest son Craig, then 14, visited a number of local auto dealers and garages. She said in most cases they were told police had not made any inquiries of them.

February 28

New London police conduct first interview with Harvey N. Mallove, the downtown merchant and former mayor and city councilor. Mallove stated he drove by Pequot Avenue near Plant Street shortly before 11:15 p.m. on Christmas Eve 1973. Seven people near the accident scene contradict what he said he saw.

April 20

Mrs. Showalter writes to State’s Atty. Edmund J. O’Brien, requesting a one-man grand jury investigation into her son’s death. O’Brien never responds.

On the same day, Atty. Thomas Bishop, representing Mrs. Showalter as the administratix of Mr. Showalter’s estate, asks Atty. Joseph Moukawsher to conduct a coroner’s inquest of the hit-run death.

April 23

Moukawsher agrees to conduct inquest but must confer with New London police before setting date.

June 4

Mrs. Showalter writes to New London Police Chief John J. Crowley, asking for a progress report on the investigation by his force. Crowley neither acknowledges receipt of letter nor responds. Copies of letter were sent to City Manager C. Francis Driscoll, and Abraham Kirshenbaum, then chairman of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.

June 10

Mrs. Showalter asks Superior Court Judge Angelo Santaniello to call for a grand jury investigation.

June 24

Santaniello notes Moukawsher has agreed to conduct coroner’s inquest. He tells Mrs. Showalter, “If it appears that during any stage of this proceeding that any further intercession is necessary, appropriate action will be taken at that time.”

July 2

Mrs. Showalter writes to City Manager C. Francis Driscoll, asking for a report from his office assessing the police department’s handling of the case. She also asks for a reply to her June 4 letter to Police Chief Crowley.

July 9

Driscoll tells Crowley to prepare a complete report for Mrs. Showalter.

July 10

Bucko completes report on fatal accident.

July 25

Driscoll sends Mrs. Showalter Bucko’s report. The report said Mr. Showalter’s body was in the road, but the ambulance crew which took Mr. Showalter to Lawrence Memorial Hospital said they found him on the sidewalk several feet away. No police officer ever saw the body at the scene since the first officer arrived as the body was being placed in the ambulance.

Bucko says paint particles from a 1968 Plymouth at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton are similar to those found on Mr. Showalter’s clothing, but the same paint is used on any 1968 Chrysler product.

Bucko also says a piece of metal Mrs. Showalter found near the accident scene is in the detective bureau. When Mrs. Showalter first offered the metal to police, they refused to sign a receipt for it.

August 6

Mrs. Showalter writes to Driscoll regarding Bucko’s report. She lists six pages of comments on allegedly “serious omissions” and “strictly opinion judgments” by Bucko.

Mrs. Showalter also writes to Chief State’s Atty. Joseph Gormley, asking him to send a representative to the coroner’s inquest. She includes copies of correspondence with local officials and Bucko’s report.

August 9

Mrs. Showalter requests a meeting with the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.

August 15

Bucko updates report, at request of city manager Driscoll.

Bucko said of the body location, “the position he (Mr. Showalter) was found in at the scene of the accident, in my opinion, would not help in solving this matter.” Erroneous on the report is the position of the car jack which is shown on the front bumper. The car Mr. Showalter was working on, a Ford Pinto, had to be jacked from the side of the vehicle.

Omitted from the report is the location of a car mat seen to the rear of the car and the spare tire Mr. Showalter never got to put on the car.

August 20

Gormley writes to Mrs. Showalter, telling her the local police investigation “has proceeded smoothly,” and there is “no reason for this office to initiate its own investigation.”

August 28

The Public Safety Committee of the New London City Council meets in closed session for one hour to discuss the hit-run death. Chief Crowley requested the closed session. He said there is evidence that could jeopardize future action.

Mrs. Showalter submitted a 12-page statement for the meeting, but did not attend.

Crowley said the case is not closed and it appears an arrest may be made.

August 31

Mallove submits official statement to New London police.

November, 1974

After being postponed several times, the coroner’s inquest hears testimony from 50 persons. No findings issued.

1975

January 24

A state police detective participating in the federal grand jury probe of the city police department has told one of its patrolmen they identified the driver of the car which struck and killed Mr. Showalter on Christmas Eve, 1973.

“We know who killed the Showalter kid, how come you don’t?” the detective was quoted in The Norwich Bulletin as saying.

March 19-22

The Bulletin, in a four-part series, shows:

- Eyewitnesses and what New London police called “near witnesses” drastically differed in their accounts of the accident.

- Microscopic paint particles found on Mr. Showalter’s clothing on which police based their search may not have been left by the vehicle which struck him.

- Evidence entrusted to police officers at the scene has never been seen since.

- A claim by police that it would cost as much as $1,200 to trace vehicles possible involved in the mishap was declared false by the state Motor Vehicle Department.

The Bulletin, when preparing the series of articles, made repeated efforts to discuss the case with police officials but Lt. K.T. Bucko, who headed the case, on the advice of then Police Chief John Crowley, would not.

April 3 State police conduct an extensive door-to-door inquiry in the Pequot Avenue region. State police have been looking into the case as part of a federal grand jury investigation into alleged corruption within the city force.

July 12

The state of Connecticut offers a $2,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for the hit-run death of Mr. Showalter. A total of $3,000 is now being offered. Classmates and friends of Mr. Showalter’s have already collected $1,000.

July 21

A community effort by friends and classmates raises the reward to $5,000.

November 8

The transcript of the coroner’s inquest of the hit-run death conducted nearly a year ago has yet to be typed, Coroner Joseph Moukawsher confirms. He said he wants to review the transcript even though he believes his six-day long inquest did not establish any guilt in the case. He said he has not spoken with the court reporter assigned to the case since the early summer.

December 10

Mrs. Showalter writes to State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti, requesting a one-man grand jury investigation. No response.

1976

January 6

Satti refuses to confirm or deny the existence of Mrs. Showalter’s request. Mrs. Showalter has also asked Satti’s office to ascertain the location of recorded tapes made during the coroner’s inquest.

January 9

Mrs. Showalter sends a special delivery letter to Satti asking for a response to the December 10 request. No response.

February 19

In a feature article, also carried statewide by the Associated Press, The Bulletin profiles Mrs. Showalter on page one.

Some public officials regard her as a persistent nuisance, someone to be ignored and sidestepped, but Mrs. Lucille M. Showalter will not breathe easily until they tell her who killed her son, Bulletin reporter Fred Vollono wrote.

“The official comment seems to be there is nothing to it,” Mrs. Showalter said. “It is just the ramblings of a grief-stricken mother. But there are many people who urge me to go on. They say, ‘Lucille, if you stop, then nothing will ever be done.’”

February 23

Mrs. Showalter receives a letter of confession from an inmate at Somers state prison. The inmate said he was plagued by news accounts of the death. Every time he seems to forget the accident, the inmate said, he reads another news story.

April 2

Mrs. Showalter submits a third written request to Satti for a grand-jury probe. No response.

May 6

Common Pleas court Prosecutor Harold Dean quashes the only lead in the two and a half year old investigation, The Norwich Bulletin reports. The lead was the letter of confession written by the inmate at Somers Prison. State police arrested the inmate for harassment of the victim’s mother, Mrs. Showalter, to whom the letter was sent. Dean nolled the case and allowed it to be dismissed despite a prior meeting with state police when the significance of the arrest was discussed.

State police did not believe the letter writer was responsible for the hit-run death, but they thought the letter contained possibly significant information. Dean said he was certain the accused had no knowledge of the case, because he was incarcerated when Mr. Showalter was killed.

August 7 The day following the Bulletin’s report of Dean quashing the lead, Chief State’s Atty. Joseph Gormley says he had “no idea” why the lead “which very well could have led to something,” resulted in a dead end. Two state police officers had met with Gormley to discuss the letter of confession.

August 6

State police list the investigation into the killing of Mr. Showalter as “closed pending further development.” That classification came 31 days after Dean threw the harassment case out of court.

August 30

Mrs. Showalter again asks Superior Court Judge Angelo Santaniello to call for a one-man grand jury probe.

September 1

Mrs. Showalter publicly renews her efforts to have a one-man grand jury reopen the investigation into the hit-run killing of her son. In a statement sent to 22 media outlets, Mrs. Showalter says she made the appeal in an August 30 letter to Superior Court Judge Angelo Santaniello. She says she was asking the judge to “make good on a promise” he made to her in June 1974. Santaniello wrote in a June 24, 1974 letter, Superior Court intercession would be possible if the investigation required it.

Santaniello said, “probably the proper person” to approach would be State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti. But Mrs. Showalter said she is ignoring Satti because he failed to respond to her December 1975 letter asking for the grand jury.

September 23

State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti says he needs another three weeks to review information on the killing of Mr. Showalter before deciding whether the investigation should be reopened or shelved.

Satti says he had hoped to have the matter resolved by today, but the sinking of his 35-foot cabin cruiser two weeks ago, an unexpected report of crimes by New London police, and a new trial forced him behind schedule.

November 23

Mrs. Showalter turns to Governor Ella T. Grasso for help.

“I cannot endure this loss of a beloved son in the midst of a governmental system that appears to neither act nor care,” Mrs. Showalter says in a letter to the governor.

Mrs. Showalter says she is skeptical the New London County State’s Attorney’s review of the case will result in the one-man grand jury she has requested. Satti today said he is still reviewing transcripts of the Coroner’s Inquest and refused further comment.

December 21

Just three days before the third anniversary of the killing of Kevin B. Showalter, the state’s chief court administrator orders the city’s only unsolved hit-and-run case reopened.

John P. Cotter signs an order creating a one-man jury to probe the death, renewing hopes that allegations of police bungling and mishandling of the case will be settled.

“I can’t yet believe it,” says Mrs. Showalter, calling the action a “literal miracle.”

Cotter, a justice on the state Supreme Court, selects retired Superior Court Judge Raymond J. Devlin to head the one-man grand jury.

An attorney representing Mrs. Lucille M. Showalter also files a $600,000 lawsuit against the unnamed person(s) responsible for the killing of her son. Atty. Averum J. Sprecher of East Haddam says the suit is aimed at protecting Mrs. Showalter’s rights.

“The action as I have filed it will definitively preserve her rights when the investigative bodies finally determine who killed the boy,” he said. The suit is aimed at heading off fears the state’s statute of limitations might preclude Mrs. Showalter from pursuing civil action if the killer is found.

December 24

Superior Court Judge Joseph F. Dannehy is ordered to replace State Referee Raymond J. Devlin as the one-man grand juror investigating Mr. Showalter’s death. Chief Court Administrator John P. Cotter says Judge Devlin had asked to be taken off the case because he was too busy with other duties, and would be unable to commute from his New Haven office.

1977

January 4

Austin J. McGuigan, the special prosecutor assigned to the one-man grand jury probing the hit-run death of Mr. Showalter promises to pull “all the stops” in his investigation but says he needs help from the public to succeed.

McGuigan has worked for the state for two years as the top investigator of organized crime. He appeals to anyone with information to call him confidentially.

February 8

State Police Commissioner Edward P. Leonard, as part of a last-resort effort, makes a personal appeal to area residents for information about the killing of Mr. Showalter. In a letter to the people who live near the Pequot Avenue site where Mr. Showalter died, Leonard asks for facts – “No matter how insignificant they may appear” – which might shed light on the car, the driver or the accident scene.

Special Prosecutor McGuigan says police “had no suspects.” However, he says if a suspect is found police believe there is sufficient evidence to tie the person to the case.

April 18

Investigators say they feel confident the Showalter case will be solved.

The new optimism comes after a public appeal netted more than 300 leads, new laboratory analysis of existing evidence, and an accounting of each of the more than 10,000 green Chrysler products registered in Eastern Connecticut when Mr. Showalter was killed.

The new evidence means “there is a significant possibility the vehicle in question was not a green Chrysler,” Special Prosecutor Austin McGuigan says. While the investigators will not say what other color the car might have been, the evidence apparently opens new avenues for the investigation. Previously, other theories on who drove the death car, theories which have had some substantiation, were locked into the green Chrysler theory, police acknowledge.

May 10

State police investigators spend two and a half hours recreating and filming the Pequot Avenue death scene where Mr. Showalter was the victim of the hit and run.

May 18

State police again film and re-create death scene.

June 22

The Bulletin reports that one of the most intensive investigations in state police history, the probe into Mr. Showalter’s hit-run death, will be given to a one-man grand jury July 5 in Windham county Superior Court.

Judge Joseph F. Dannehy, the grand juror, imposes a gag order on all investigators assigned to the case. Special Prosecutor McGuigan and 17 state police detectives had gathered evidence for the grand jury.

June 23

More than 50 persons will be subpoenaed and the scope of the probe will be expanded to include subsequent actions connected with the accident, The Bulletin reports.

June 24

Eleven New London police officers, including the top detective involved in the first of three investigations of the hit-run death, have been subpoenaed, The Bulletin reports.

July 5

The grand jury begins behind closed doors with testimony by New London Det. Lt. Konstanty T. Bucko.

Outside, a television camera crew drips with sweat under the glare of a hot summer sun.

Inside it is quiet and cool – almost like any other day. The state police detectives and reporters talk about golf, baseball and other summertime activities. Because of the gag order imposed by Judge Dannehy, they can’t talk about what is most on their minds, what has brought them all together – the unsolved hit-run death of Kevin B. Showalter.

The session lasts about five hours and also includes testimony by Mrs. Showalter and Debra Emilyta, Mr. Showalter’s companion the night he died.

Ms. Emilyta has been sitting on a wall about 6 feet from Mr. Showalter when he was killed. She told police she only heard the 20-year-old Mitchell College student struck, and did not see the car which struck him.

July 6

Witnesses include Michael Buscetto of Mike’s Arco in New London. What he identified as body putty, apparently from the car that struck and killed Mr. Showalter, has never been seen since police officers placed it in an envelope that night, according to sources.

Ms. Emilyta concludes testimony.

Also testifying are Dr. Robert Weller, members of his family, and a friend, who while returning home from church drove past Mr. Showalter as he was changing the tire. They were among the last persons to see Mr. Showalter alive.

Other witnesses include Mrs. Ruth P. Hendel and Mrs. Charles (Shirley Pope) Alloway, her daughter.

On Christmas Eve, 1973, Mrs. Hendel had just turned away from the window of her home on Pequot Avenue where she had been watching Mr. Showalter work on the Emilyta car. She heard the noise of the car striking Mr. Showalter and turning back quickly she caught a glimpse of the taillights. Her first impression of the fleeing southbound car was that it was bright-colored, possibly red.

Mrs. Hendel continued to watch the accident scene as she telephoned Mrs. Alloway, the wife of a New London police officer.

Arthur Adams of New London, a Mitchell College security guard and former state policeman, also testifies. Aside from Ms. Emilyta and the hit-run driver, Adams may have been one of the last persons to see Mr. Showalter alive.

Adams saw Mr. Showalter working on the car and Ms. Emilyta sitting on the stone wall, swinging her legs. He observed the girl with a coat collar wrapped around her head, in conversation with Mr. Showalter, after the Weller party had driven by.

Adams continued on his rounds towards the Montauk Avenue side of the campus. Sometime after 11 p.m., he saw an ambulance heading for the hospital and two police cars heading down Plant Street.

July 7

Some of the last persons who saw Mr. Showalter alive and one of the first who saw him dead testify.

Six members of the Sitty family, who were celebrating Christmas Eve and occasionally watching Mr. Showalter change a tire from inside a house on Pequot Avenue, tell the grand jury what they knew about the case, Edmond Sitty had brought out a blanket and a corduroy coat to put over Mr. Showalter’s body after he had been struck and killed.

A New London High School classmate of Mr. Showalter, Arthur Petrini, was a passenger in a car that passed the accident scene sometime after Mr. Showalter was killed and before the ambulance and police arrived. He also testified.

July 12

Witnesses included two firemen and a dispatcher, two nurses and an orderly, the New London County Medical Examiner, the first man to officially identify Mr. Showalter, and a woman who lives near the accident scene.

Larry Grimes, a security guard who knew Mr. Showalter from Mitchell College, had made the preliminary identification at Lawrence and Memorial Hospitals, where he also worked. Mrs. Dorothy Bryson of Pequot Avenue, who came upon the accident scene, also testifies.

July 13

New London police officers pack the waiting room of the Windham County Courthouse. Of the 11 who were subpoenaed last month, at least seven are present.

The 11 include Patrolmen Vincent McGrath, Steven Colonis, Thomas P. Bowes Jr., and Cpl. Joseph Chiapponne, all of whom were involved in the initial investigation. With the change of shift, Sgt. Joseph Jullarine, Patrolmen Richard West and Glenn Davis and Det. Sgt. Konstanty T. Bucko joined the probe. Bucko was off duty at the time.

McGrath filed the motor vehicle report of the accident and the sketch on the report was by Bowes. Bucko took photographs of the scene and gathered evidence. His photographs may be the only ones taken. Bucko also went to the hospital and got the victim’s clothing, according to sources.

Colonis, the first officer on the scene, apparently arrived as Mr. Showalter was being placed in the ambulance. He interviewed Ms. Emilyta and took her to the station to file a 13-sentence statement.

There is some confusion of whether Colonis drove an unmarked police car that night. Sources say police made conflicting statements on that question.

July 14

Thomas Wainwright, who played tennis with Kevin Showalter at New London High, saw his lifeless body on a sidewalk on Pequot Avenue before an ambulance or police arrived, and is among those testifying today. Arthur Petrini, who testified last week, was a passenger in Wainwright’s car.

Mr. and Mrs. Donald Wainwright, who were stopped by police after circling the scene in another auto, also testify.

At least seven New London police officers are at the courthouse, but it is not known how many are testifying.

July 19

The grand jury shifts beyond reconstructions by “near witnesses,” as Sgt. Joseph Jullarine, now retired, testifies. He was the squad leader who reportedly conducted “an intensive investigation” for a red car during the 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shift on Christmas Day 1973.

July 20

The grand jury investigators spend much of the day alone reviewing physical evidence and testimony. Only three witnesses – New London police who have already appeared during the proceedings – are present.

July 21

Det. Bucko appears for at least the fourth time in the nine days the grand jury has convened. The session begins at 10 a.m. and ends about 5:45 p.m., with his departure.

A nurse’s aide who knelt by Mr. Showalter’s body, feeling for a pulse, also testifies, Sue Costello, who heard the report of an accident as she was leaving Lawrence and Memorial Hospitals in New London from her shift, had arrived on the scene before ambulance personnel and police.

July 26

The scope of the grand jury probe goes beyond Mr. Showlater’s death and runs smack into a crucial area of dispute with the appearance of New London police detective Walter Petchark.

On Christmas Day 1973, with evidence already missing and news of Mr. Showalter’s death on the radio, Petchark reportedly received a call from former mayor Harvey N. Mallove. Mallove later told The Bulletin there was no truth to the report. But he allegedly told Petchark he thought he saw the accident the night before.

Three city police detectives – Bucko, Petchark, and Carmello Fazzina – were present at the inquiry. They were followed by laboratory technicians from the FBI, who lent their expertise in the analysis of headlight glass possibly belonging to the death vehicle.

July 27

The former counsel for the estate of Mr. Showalter testifies. Atty. Thomas Bishop confirms his representation of the estate was severed in June 1974.

Thomas and Donald Wainwright return for further testimony.

July 28

Witnesses include Mrs. S.F. Zimet of Ledyard. Mallove said he was visiting at her home on Christmas Eve 1973, left about 10:45 p.m., and was home in New London about half an hour later.

Mrs. Zimet is accompanied by her attorney, L. Patrick Gray. Gray, like Bishop, is a member of the New London law firm Suissman, Shapiro, Wool, and Brennan.

Other witnesses include New London city Manager C. Francis Driscoll and Elise Mallove, Mallove’s daughter. Miss Mallove was home for her Christmas vacation in 1973.

The grand jury begins a four-week recess. More than 50 persons were called during the first 12 days of the inquiry.

August 30

New London police investigators and a newspaper editor who has followed their unsolved hit-run death case for three years are among the witnesses.

Retired Police Chief John Crowley and Det. Lt. K.T. Bucko, who refused repeated pleas by The Bulletin in March of 1975 to discuss the death of Kevin B. Showalter, gives testimony – as did the paper’s managing editor, John C. Peterson.

Peterson testifies for three hours.

August 31

The attorney who conducted a coroner’s inquest into Mr. Showalter’s death, the results of which have never met public scrutiny, is the first witness today. Atty. Joseph Moukwasher, who heard testimony from 50 witnesses during six days in September and November of 1974, is one of the few persons familiar with the substance of that investigation.

It took more than two years for the transcripts of the hearings to be typed and submitted to State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti.

State Police Sgt. Donald Crouch, who in 1974 and 1975 worked for the federal grand jury investigating alleged corruption in the New London force, also testifies. Other witnesses included Rosemary Benson and Carol James.

September 1

Physical exhibits appear to outnumber witnesses in the 15th day of proceedings. Two state police technicians from the crime lab in Bethany carry satchels concealing evidence into the closed courtroom. One exhibit is a light colored automobile fender, which was dented and streaked.

September 2

Det. Edward Pickett of the New London County State’s Attorney’s office, who helped administer a lie detector test to Ms. Emilyta, testifies. Ms. Emilyta passed the test.

Another detective, private investigator Joe Harris, is also called. A former Waterford police sergeant, he worked on the case for a brief time, on his own.

Other witnesses in a short session include State Police Sgt. Charles Trotter, a principal investigator in the federal grand jury probe of the New London city police.

September 12

Two persons who saw Mr. Showalter on Christmas Eve 1973, hours before he was killed testify.

Ramona Ricci, a coworker of Mr. Showalter’s at a Waterford discotheque, attended one of two parties Mr. Showalter had planned to go to after work that night. Nancy Wicksham, who also testified, had joined friends that holiday evening at the club.

September 18

Mallove says his status as a suspect in the case is “nothing new.” During testimony in a New Jersey courtroom, Connecticut State Police revealed Mallove is a prime suspect in the hit-run case. The testimony concerned refusal by two New Jersey men to comply with a subpoena issued by the one-man grand jury. Trooper Charles Wargat also testified he was told the two men repaired Mallove’s car on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day 1973.

Mallove tells The Bulletin he did not know the men and never had a car repaired at their shop on Reed Street in New London. He says he didn’t kill Mr. Showalter and doesn’t know anything about anybody who did.

September 19

One of the two men who testified with immunity today has said in a published account he has no knowledge of the case and denied any car was repaired in his New London shop on Christmas Eve 1973.

Walter String Jr. made those comments in the New Jersey Courier Post. He and his son, Walter String III, had been ordered to appear today by a New Jersey judge, after refusing to comply with a subpoena.

Among the dozen or so witnesses are New London city police Sgt. Donald Sloan and Cpl. Charles Alloway. They took the first full statement from Ms. Emilyta, five days after the accident.

September 26

Darlene Barnes, a friend of Mr. Showalter who patronized the Waterford discotheque where he worked, is among the witnesses today. Ms. Barnes was also one of the 50 witnesses during the coroner’s inquest of 1974.

October 3

Larry Grimes testifies again. The Mitchell College security guard who made the first identification of Mr. Showalter at Lawrence and Memorial Hospitals, was also at the courthouse on July 12, and Sept. 26.

The grand jury will be in recess until October 17. It has convened 20 times since July 5 and heard about 90 witnesses.

October 11

Judge Dannehy says published reports that Mallove is a prime suspect in the case “couldn’t bother me in the least.”

“They (the newspapers) are free to speculate if they wish,” Dannehy says. “I am not concerned with their claimed right to freedom of expression.

I think that sometimes their attitude is to publish and be damned, but they don’t bother me.”

“Why don’t you wait” for the grand jury report? Dannehy asked.

October 17

The sales manager of a New London auto firm who said he has sold a number of cars to the family of a suspect in the hit-run case testifies.

In 1970, Peter Emmanuel Sr. of New London Motors sold a Lincoln Continental to Harvey N. Mallove, whom state police have identified as a suspect in the Christmas Eve, 1973 death. A compact car was among the other autos the New London firm sold to Mallove.

State police were looking for a green Chrysler product when they first questioned New London motors personnel, Emmanuel said before he testified. But the firm didn’t sell Mallove such a vehicle, which police had believed was the death car, he added.

October 24

The grand jury does not convene today because the investigators were not ready to proceed, Judge Dannehy said. He said he plans to conduct several more sessions before adjourning to write the final report, but did not specify.

November 14

The grand jury meets for its first regular session since October 17 and hears one witness. The witness, Gary Jordan of New London, said he was dating Elise Mallove on Christmas Eve 1973.

Sources say the grand jury conducted at least one special session since October 17, but it was not known who testified.

November 21

State police continue working long and irregular hours probing Mr. Showalter’s death as they re-create the hit-run scene on Pequot Avenue near Plant Street for at least the third time.

November 29

The man whom state police have said they consider a prime suspect in New London’s only unsolved hit-run death has his day in court.

Harvey N. Mallove testifies for about four hours before the secret grand jury probing Mr. Showalter’s death. Atty. Leo J. McNamara accompanies Mallove to the Windham County Courthouse.

Mallove says he was one of a number of persons who drove by the accident scene shortly before or after Mr. Showalter was killed. But a four-part series by The Bulletin in March of 1975 showed Mallove saw a scene that seven other persons said could not have taken place.

Mallove passed the accident scene within a minute or two after an ambulance call was logged. His statement to New London police – dated eight months later – conflicts with accounts of seven persons at the scene or looking out their windows seconds after Mr. Showalter was struck.

Mr. Showalter was struck by a car as he changed a tire on a friend’s parked Ford Pinto, on a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue near Plant Street.

In his statement, Mallove said he saw an automobile parked at an angle in front of the Pinto. None of the seven persons saw any car stopped at the scene immediately after the victim was hit according to the July 10, 1974 report by New London Det. Lt. Konstanty T. Bucko.

Mallove’s vivid description of a middle-aged man talking with a girl near the car also conflicts with statements by the seven persons.

In his statement, Mallove said he assumed the man was a member of the police department. But Bucko claims in the July 10 report that Mallove told him the talking to the girl was “NOT” a policeman.

Bucko’s report also claims Mallove learned on Christmas Day 1974 that “a man had been killed and he remarked to some people that he saw the body.” But Bucko continued to report that after Mallove viewed photographs of the scene he realized what he mistook for a body was a floor mat. In his statement, Mallove said he saw a “flat object which I assumed was a blanket or a mat.”

In his August 31, 1974 statement, Mallove said, “Seeing no trouble, accident, or any evidence of anything out of place…I continued on my way home.”

In the July 10, 1974 report, Bucko claims; “Mr. Mallove stated he was going to stop because he realized there had been an accident.”

Mallove has told The Bulletin that Bucko misquoted him.

December 7

The calling of witnesses ends with Mallove’s second appearance.

The proceedings included a film screening, apparently of the death scene as re-created by state police.

After the 35 minute screening, Special Prosecutor McGuigan and Judge Dannehy questioned Mallove for about 40 minutes. That was the bulk of the afternoon session.

The question of whether indictments should be handed down in New London’s only unsolved hit-run death now rests with Judge Dannehy.

After 24 sessions and more than 100 witnesses, Dannehy said the next step for the grand jury is the final report on who killed Kevin B. Saltwater.

1978

Feb. 17 Report filed.

Feb. 22

Report made public.

  • THE DANNEHY REPORT


  • SHOWALTER COVERUP COLUMNS

    Chapter 1

    Law and Justice in Everyday Life

    Cover-Up In New London

    Hit-And-Run Continues To Mock Justice


    Sept. 4, 2000

    If Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney John Bailey wants to bring closure to cold cases, here’s one from New London that should top the list: The Showalter hit-and-run cover-up is a dark chapter in Connecticut history, a tale more appropriate for a Third World country.

    And yet, only one thing bothers former New London County State’s Attorney C. Robert Satti about the Showalter case: that it was investigated at all.

    Satti, now retired, made the point again and again, most recently this year. Satti’s complaint, made during the wake of the late state police Detective George Ryalls, was that Ryalls’ obituary mentioned the suspect the prosecutor refused to pursue in the Showalter probe.

    Kevin B. Showalter, a 20-year-old Mitchell College student, was killed at 11:12 p.m. on Christmas Eve 1973. He was changing a tire on a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue on the New London shoreline when he was struck and killed. His girlfriend, sitting only 6 feet away on a stone wall, claims she saw nothing.

    Auto body putty from the death car disappeared after a tow truck driver gave it to New London police. The evidence file that was supposed to contain the putty was stuffed with bathroom tiles. The file that was supposed to contain headlight glass from the death car instead contained glass from three different headlights. State police and others suspected that, in order to throw legitimate investigators off the trail, the late young man's clothing was pounded on a different-colored car than the one that killed him.

    The victim's mother, Lucille M. Showalter, tried to get a grand jury investigation of the cover-up. She was rebuffed repeatedly by the presiding judge, Angelo Santaniello who, it later became clear, was best friends with the leading suspect. Santaniello then referred Showalter to prosecutor Satti, who happened to be his former law partner. Satti refused to acknowledge registered letters from Mrs. Showalter pleading for a grand jury probe.

    Satti did finally meet with Mrs. Showalter in 1978, after Judge Joseph Dannehy of Willimantic, acting as a one-man grand jury, named former New London Mayor Harvey N. Mallove as the probable driver of the hit-run vehicle. Satti called the three-hour meeting, in which he repeatedly told Mrs. Showalter that there never should have been a grand jury investigation under Dannehy.

    Mallove held a good hand; he had the best legal muscle in New London County on his side. New London police would not question him for more than seven months, and then only in a perfunctory manner. They would say they inspected his cars, but they did not. Significantly, Mallove’s Lincoln had been repaired, but it wasn’t until state police took over the case four years after the accident that the fender was finally seized.

    Santaniello would arrange for a coroner’s inquest and put his niece in charge of typing the transcript. Only after two years of intense public pressure would the transcript be typed. But the inquest never issued a finding.

    Santaniello tipped off Mallove that he was a suspect. The judge was also aware of what local police knew about the case. Mrs. Showalter memorialized the admissions in tape-recorded telephone conversations.

    “I did talk to Harvey,” Santaniello told Mrs. Showalter on Oct. 17, 1975, “and I said, `You’re suspected.’ As a matter of fact, at that time a police officer came to him on the same day or the next day, and told him you were making accusations about him and that he was a prime suspect.” The day before, Mallove told Mrs. Showalter, “Judge Santaniello is of the opinion that you fingered me.”

    It was not until 1977 that state police, who took over the case at the behest of former Gov. Ella Grasso, formally named Mallove a suspect. Next week, I'll propose a means to solve the Showalter cover-up.

    Showalter Cover-Up Is New London's Shame

    Sept. 11, 2000

    New London, where I grew up and began working in the 1960s and ‘70s, was a dirty little city with character.

    It had a restaurant called the Hygienic that was everything but. There were at least a couple bars where the cops couldn't do anything, except maybe a little business.

    The top pimp in town never went to jail until he was about 60 and a certain court official retired.

    New London will always be the city that tried to cover up the Christmas Eve 1973 hit-and-run death of Kevin B. Showalter. It's been doing a pretty good job for nearly 27 years, but the onion is beginning to peel.

    The local daily newspaper admitted -- in its official history published this year -- that it did a shoddy job on the Showalter case. Specifically, The Day admitted its failure to explore the relationship between a former mayor and a top judge, and their influence on the course of the criminal investigation. That’s a beginning.

    Political and police corruption goes back a couple generations in New London. By the 1970s, New London police were widely known to be involved in the selling of women, dope and refrigerators, among other things. A federal grand jury took note. But as with the Showalter case, there were these little problems with the evidence.

    A jewelry store owner and former city mayor multi-millionaire Harvey Mallove was the prime suspect in the hit-and-run death of Showalter, a student at Mitchell College. Showalter’s date that night, Christmas Eve 1973, said she saw nothing from her vantage point six feet away, sitting on a stone wall under a streetlight on a residential street as a young man changed the tire of her car.

    Harvey was everybody’s pal. He would take kids to the Super Bowl, then, down the road, get them jobs as cops. He was friends with bums in the street and bums in high political office. He was wired. The standing joke among reporters became: Harvey's a great guy to have a beer with, just don't change your tire if he's driving by.

    “I didn't kill the kid in any way, shape or form,” Harvey told me many times. As mayor, Harvey helped hire a few police chiefs. His best friend was the administrative judge for the county; that was the judge who controlled the early stages of the investigation, specifically a coroner’s inquest that never issued a finding.

    State police followed up a report that Mallove’s best friend, County Administrative Judge Angelo G. Santaniello, was with Mallove on Christmas Eve 1973. Santaniello reportedly was No. 11 on a guest list for a party at the home of his political mentor, the late state Sen. Peter Mariani. The Mariani party was one of two Mallove attended that night.

    Santaniello told reporters he never went out on Christmas Eve.

    Another state judge, Joseph F. Dannehy, conducted two grand jury investigations. In 1978, Dannehy named Mallove as the probable driver of the hit-run vehicle, but said evidence that might have ensured conviction was either mishandled or destroyed.

    Mallove died a few years ago with this legacy. Others still have time to come clean and tell the truth about the cover-up. Mrs. Showalter tried unsuccessfully to have Satti, Santaniello and others prosecuted for hindrance of prosecution (CGS Section 53a-166) warning of impending discovery, providing means of avoiding discovery, preventing discovery by deception. Because a conspiracy to hinder prosecution is an ongoing crime, those with information could tell Chief State's Attorney John Bailey, who has begun an initiative to solve some of the state's cold homicide cases.

    Isn’t it time? No one kept the system honest when it counted, though some tried. Most stood by as the system that was supposed to protect the victim and his family betrayed them all.

    Where is the conscience of the community?

    Cold Case On Ice Forever

    Nov. 6, 2000

    One way to deflect attention from a suspect is to get investigators involved in meaningless, time-consuming tasks. Another way is to create a bogus suspect who is then exposed as such, causing a belief that the case is just too hazy to pursue.

    Both of these devices were used repeatedly in the cover-up of the Showalter hit-run case in New London. Whether this was happenstance, indifference, incompetence or malfeasance, the result was the same. The system failed.

    And now, it seems, the truth will remain buried forever.

    Judge Joseph F. Dannehy, the grand juror who investigated the case, wrote in his finding of fact: “After December 25, 1973, the New London Police Department did virtually nothing to solve the hit-run death of Kevin B. Showalter.” The accident occurred the night before.

    Local police and court officials, however, were pro-active in another sense. Their actions served to protect the assailant.

    For example, New London police claimed it would cost as much as $1,200 to trace vehicles using data from the state Motor Vehicle Department. The motor vehicle department declared there was no such charge.

    Nevertheless, New London police spent their time hand-sorting local motor vehicle cards. They looked for a green Chrysler. That was likely a false lead; state police said paint particles found on the victim's clothing did not come from the car that killed him.

    Former Mayor Harvey Mallove began meeting informally with police and court officials as early as Dec. 25, 1973. Mallove wanted to know what the police knew.

    The only lead after two and a half years was quashed by then New London Common Pleas Court Prosecutor Harold Dean in May 1976. The lead was a letter of confession written by a Somers prison inmate to the victim’s mother, Lucille Showalter.

    “I told Harold how important that was to me,” Mallove, the prime suspect, confided to an associate. He also acknowledged discussing the purported confession with his best friend, the presiding judge for the county, Angelo Santaniello.

    The author of the letter was known to be connected with “fences,” or purveyors of stolen goods in the New London area. State police arrested him for harassment of Mrs. Showalter. Two state troopers met with Dean for an hour. They told him the letter contained possibly significant information. State police also believed they could connect the dots in New London between the letter writer and the powers-that-be. Did he owe some favors? Was he paid? Police knew the author had no liability for the accident; he was actually in Florida at the time of the hit-run.

    Dean nolled and dismissed the case without telling the troopers or Mallove. Soon thereafter, state police listed the killing of Showalter as “closed pending further development.” Upon learning of Dean's action, Chief State's Attorney Joseph Gormley remarked he had “no idea” why the lead, “which very well could have led to something,” resulted in a dead end. The case would remain closed for six months, until Gov. Ella Grasso brought the matter to Justice John Cotter.

    Was there criminal activity connected with the Showalter cover-up? It appears we will never know for certain. Dannehy named Mallove as the probable driver, noting that evidence which might have ensured conviction was destroyed. The Chief State’s Attorney’s Office reviewed aspects of the case this fall after a series of columns appeared in The Law Tribune. However, the statute of limitations for the most likely potential charge, conspiracy to hinder prosecution of motor vehicle misconduct, has expired. This shameful case, it appears, is destined to stay on ice forever.

    - AND:

    Olympic Gold for Missing Evidence


    November 28, 2005

    Judge Ellen Gordon was in way over her head with what she tried pass off as a ruling in Day Publishing v. State's Attorney.

    Clueless Gordon was handed a hot one, a case no one has ever wanted in the so-called New London Judicial District. Every single time this case has come to court, begging for justice, The Robes, the prosecutors and their minions have either desecrated their oaths or looked the other way. Clueless Gordon, fairly new to the scene, has managed to join the list of those who are both ostriches and failures.

    The Day newspaper asked Gordon this year to release the grand jury testimony regarding the cover-up of the 1973 hit-run death of Kevin Showalter. Before Gordon probably ever heard of Showalter, five New London County judges recused themselves from a John Doe civil suit against the driver because they were friends with the prime suspect, Harvey Mallove. Mallove -- the late mayor of New London and multimillionaire jeweler who picked police chiefs, planned to run for Congress and starred in the social scene -- was prone to say, "I never killed the kid -- in any way, shape or form."

    It's not like we could expect a New London judge to show guts or brains in this case. Compelling testimony from the first of two grand juries implicated local law enforcement and court officials in a widespread cover-up.

    On Christmas Eve 1973 at 11:12 p.m., as the call came in, a high-ranking New London officer, said, "F--k him, he's dead," and then left to go home. Showalter, a 20-year-old Mitchell College student, lay dead on a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue by the shoreline. His body was thrown 22 feet from the point of impact. His shoes were found 110 feet apart. A leg bone was 75 feet away.

    A tow truck driver gave police auto body putty from the death car. The putty was never seen again. New London police mixed headlight glass from at least three different cars in what they called the evidence file. Replacing the auto body putty was bathroom tile. A local coroner's inquest never issued a finding. State police, who took over the case at the behest of Gov. Ella Grasso, were bewildered and angry when they could not find the transcript of the coroner's inquest. Mallove's best friend -- the presiding judge for the county, Angelo G. Santaniello -- had put his niece in charge of typing that transcript. Santaniello also tipped off Mallove to his status as a suspect.

    Now, Clueless Gordon can't find the 3,000-page transcript of the first grand jury. Does she care? Court clerks allegedly performed a diligent search. Would any reasonable person believe or accept any of this?

    Among the last persons known to possess the grand jury report was the late State's Attorney, C. Robert Satti. Satti, who refused to investigate the case before a special prosecutor was appointed, claimed he returned a copy to the grand juror, then Willimantic Superior Court Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Joseph Dannehy. Both Dannehy and Satti are dead. Did "Do Nothing Bob" -- Mallove's moniker for Satti -- take it with him? We might as well ask Harvey, also dead, or Kevin.

    Gordon's pathetic decision, dated Nov. 7, went on for about a sentence before its first fatal error. It might sound like a technical error, but it's much, much more than that. She actually said New London police investigated the case.

    Before this, I thought it might take generations to remove the stench from the New London courthouse. Alas, for New London, the stench of this cover-up is forever.


    Find & Open
    the Showalter File

  • Hartford Courant Editorial








  • more COOL JUSTICE








  •            Mandatory Reporting Law on Sexual Abuse Not So Mandatory -- Especially for Prep Schools / Abysmal Failures Noted on So-Called Background Checks        

    NEW:
    Mandatory Reporting [NOT Really] Column
    on Sexual Abuse Cases Generates Range of Comments


    Meriden Record-Journal Post 7-18-17 Follows Hearst CT [links below]
    & Cool Justice Blog 6-4-17


  • Column via Record-Journal

  • Facebook Tag Leads to Comments




  • State Reports Only 14 Arrests & Four Convictions in Past Seven Years
    Statute of Limitations Just One Year for This Misdemeanor








    By Andy Thibault
    The Cool Justice Report
    http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/
    June 4, 2017









    Editor's Note: This column may be reprinted or re-posted courtesy of The Cool Justice Report http://cooljustice.blogspot.com.

    Connecticut has been a very safe place to avoid arrest and prosecution for failing to report sexual abuse -- especially if you're a teacher or administrator at a prep school.

    That's just part of the picture.

    Suppose you lose your teaching job after being accused of rape. Just don't put that job on your resume. You'll be fine for perhaps a decade or more. It also helps to amend your full name on the resume. Supposed background checks will fail to detect resume gaps and irregularities.

    But what about that mandatory reporting law compelling teachers and administrators to report suspected abuse to the state? No problem. It hasn't been enforced with any great enthusiasm at the preps: No report, no warning for future employers or victims.

    The revelations come after a series of articles by The Boston Globe Spotlight Team and an investigation by the powerhouse law firm Covington & Burling for Choate Rosemary Hall in Wallingford. The Globe found that abuse victims routinely suffered retaliation at private schools in New England. The schools in turn covered up the abuse. Choate, for example, failed to report abuse incidents prior to 2010.

    A spokeswoman for Connecticut courts told The Cool Justice Report there were just 14 arrests in the state for failing to report sexual abuse from January 2010 through late April 2017. During the same time, there were only four convictions, according to the data provided via the state Judicial Department. One of the convictions was of a day care operator. No additional data was available immediately.

    There is only a one-year statute of limitations for failure to report sexual abuse claims, and that crime is a misdemeanor. Connecticut Deputy Chief State's Attorney Len Boyle said in a statement there are no plans to try to change that, but he noted there is a five-year statute of limitations for a felony charge if prosecutors are able to cite willfulness or other aggravating factors. Willfulness, like intent, carries with it a significant burden of proof.

    "The one-year statute of limitations," Boyle said, "is largely consistent with the limitations periods for all crimes (i.e.: one year for a misdemeanor and five years for a felony). We have not sought to lengthen it. The more egregious cases of failure to report (willfulness, gross negligence, etc.) are felonies and provide a five year limitations period."

    Boyle's office is investigating whether anyone at Choate broke the law by failing to report suspected abuse, The Hartford Courant reported in April.

    Among the 12 teachers accused of abuse in the Choate report, one went on to become a teacher and administrator at several public schools in Connecticut. He was able to avoid detection partly by amending his name and omitting two teaching jobs at private schools -- Choate and The Gunnery, in Washington, CT -- on his resume. The resume, obtained under Connecticut's Freedom of Information law, also shows some overlap for jobs at public schools in Connecticut and New York.

    This teacher / administrator, Jaime E. Rivera, aka Jaime Rivera-Murillo, resigned as principal of Wamogo High School in Litchfield in April. Before that, he was a teacher and assistant principal at Newtown High School for about 11 years. The first teaching job listed on his resume was at Henry Abbot Technical High School in Danbury, beginning in 2001. That leaves a seven-year gap following his graduation from St. Michael's College in Vermont, where he reported earning a Bachelor of Arts in Teaching English as a Second Language.

    The Covington & Burling report says Rivera-Murillo was fired after being accused of anally raping one student and grabbing the breast of another during a Choate field trip to Costa Rica in 1999. Rivera, a faculty leader for the trip, denied engaging in sexual misconduct but admitting drinking alcohol including beer with students and "local moonshine" with others.

    Choate did not report the alleged assaults at the time as required by law. The alleged rape victim told the Covington & Burling team that a female administrator admonished students not to discuss what happened.

    The process for vetting resumes at Connecticut public schools like Wamogo and Newtown high schools and Abbot Tech seems to be check the boxes and wave the guy through with barely a pretense of scrutiny. This abysmal failure of diligence and critical thinking should be alarming to students, parents and all taxpayers.

    "He didn't list Choate as a former employer when he applied," Christine Chinni, the lawyer for Regional District 6 which includes Wamogo, told The Boston Globe.

    District 6 Superintendent Edward Drapp, asked about the committee of 12 that reviewed Rivera-Murillo's credentials and the review process, declined to discuss his procedures for background checks. Besides the resume, which he produced after a formal FOI request, Drapp was also asked to provide documents related to that review committee. Here is Drapp's response: "Attached is a copy of Mr. Rivera's resume. This is the only document in the district's possession that meets the criteria of your FOI request. For the remainder of the school year I will be focused on the students and therefore I am not doing any additional interviews or making any other statements on this matter."

    Drapp's response sounds like the result of bad coaching from an inept lawyer. The assertion that there are no documents regarding the review committee is not credible. Are we to believe the review committee never had a meeting?

    The Globe reported in April that the sexual misconduct at Choate occurred from 1963 to 2010 and ranged from intimate kissing to groping and sexual intercourse. The Covington & Burling report cites 12 teachers. Other Globe stories cited more than 100 private schools in New England with more than 300 former students saying they faced sexual abuse or harassment.

    Just last month, The Kent School was sued and accused of failing to report a 49-year-old teacher who had sex with a 15-year-old student in the late 1980s.

    The student claims her advisor scolded her for spreading vicious rumors. Another teacher allegedly told the student she was a sinner for committing adultery. The suit claims the abuse was widely known at the school and that the student was shunned, called "obviously crazy" and blamed for the teacher's breakdown. During a church service the student attended at the school, the suit asserts, Kent staff openly prayed for the teacher's well being. The teacher subsequently got a job at a private school in Indiana.

    Kent School, founded in 1906, charges more than $60,000 annually for tuition, board and fees.

    Rev. Richardson Schell, the headmaster, said in a statement: "We do not know why [the student] has elected to pursue a lawsuit at this time."

    Schell opened the statement by saying he had reviewed the complaint: " ... I am deeply sorry for the wrongful actions of the former Kent teacher who engaged in an inappropriate relationship with this former student ... as the Headmaster of the school then, I responded immediately and to the best of my ability."

    The statement does not address the school's duty to report the alleged abuse in a timely manner.

    Notably, Schell undertook a massive letter writing campaign some years later when he was annoyed by what he called a TV sitcom's "obnoxious, objectionable content." His letter writing campaign netted responses from 17 companies and he also reached out to publications including Advertising Age and Media Week to generate publicity regarding his concerns about popular culture, The New York Times reported.

    Finally, on the national front, The Associated Press reported that a former president of Penn State and two other former university administrators were each sentenced Friday to at least two months in jail for failing to alert authorities to a 2001 allegation against ex-assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, a decision that enabled the now-convicted serial predator to continue molesting boys.

    Thibault, a private investigator for the Hartford office of Integrated Security Services http://www.intesecurity.com/, is the author of a second collection of newspaper columns, “more COOL JUSTICE” http://morecooljustice.com/, credited with helping to free a woman unjustly convicted of first degree murder. His public service includes four years on a local board of education. Follow him on Twitter @cooljustice.









  • The Choate Report










  • Short version of column
    Via Hearst CT dailies


  • Danbury News Times


  • Connecticut Post


  • Norwalk Hour


  • Greenwich Time


  • Stamford Advocate







  • more COOL JUSTICE







  •           Reprise: Ongoing Cover-Up in Badaracco Homicide, Dog Killers, RFK 2nd Shooter & Many Other Matters in the Public Interest        

  • Complete list of SPJ winners


  • 'Therefore whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which you have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed on the housetops.'
    - Luke 12:3







    Finalists,
    CT SPJ Contest, 2016


  • Complete list


  • Annual dinner


  • Dinner highlight:
  • Diane Smith and Maureen Croteau to be inducted into Connecticut Journalism Hall of Fame



  • Partial List of Finalists

    Courts/Crime
    Regional B




    Hartford won’t indemnify cops in killing of child’s dog; Officers’ personal assets attached; CTNewsJunkie; Andy Thibault
  • Complete article


  • Crime levels are surging in Plainfield; Norwich Bulletin; John Penney

    'Problem pockets' worry residents; Stamford Advocate; Nelson Oliveira, John Nickerson

    Lawyers have personal, professional reasons to help Community Speaks Out fight opioid crisis; The Day; Karen Florin

    Bones, tissue, teeth: Small details help investigators identify remains; The Day; Lindsay Boyle

    General Column
    Regional B




    Andy Thibault Cool Justice: Pretend investigations the norm in Badaracco homicide for 32 years; Litchfield County Times; Andy Thibault

  • Complete Article




  • Andy Thibault Cool Justice: Important questions about a homicide are ignored or deflected; Litchfield County Times;

  • Complete Article




  • Cool Justice: How judges and prosecutors circle the wagons to shaft public, protect themselves; Litchfield County Times;

  • Complete Article



  • Rabbi a man for all seasons, all people; News-Times; Brian Koonz

    Why would women vote for a misogynist? ; News-Times; Jacqueline Smith

    High noon in the wild west town of Bethel; News-Times; Jeff Gewert

    Police drug testing not a routine thing; Norwich Bulletin; Brendan Cox

    MPD secrecy standard procedure; Record-Journal; Eric Cotton

    Judge’s ruling says state must re-invent town-by-town system of schools; Record-Journal; Glenn Richter

    We’ve just made the wrong person president; Record-Journal; Glenn Richter

    Football is great, but is it worth the health risks? ; Record-Journal; Jeffery Kurz

    Coping with President Trump; Stamford Advocate; Jeff Gewert

    Biggest little fan meets Moriah; The Chronicle; Jennifer Lemanski

    The Coast Guard museum has no parking plan; The Day; David Collins

    Why was seizure-prone Sen. Maynard driving? ; The Day; David Collins

    In-Depth
    Regional B

    No place to play in western Greenwich; Greenwich Time; Emilie Munson





    Cool Justice: RFK Jr. points to forensic evidence of second gunman in his father’s assassination; Litchfield County Times; Andy Thibault

  • Complete Article




  • Year after Nina Coe’s disappearance from Middletown, family pleads for answers; Middletown Press; Cassandra Day

    Plight of low-wage workers worsens; News-Times; Rob Ryser

    Hihchey, Bilda went on $340,000 trip; Norwich Bulletin; Ryan Blessing

    Over decade, many NPU salaries jump 40%; Norwich Bulletin; Ryan Blessing

    Family devastated by loss of ‘hero’ mom killed in Meriden hit-and-run; Record-Journal; Leigh Tauss

    Pedestrians, bicyclists prohibited from accessing new trail through Wallingford condo complex; Record-Journal; Leigh Tauss

    Man who shot at Meriden mosque comes full circle as prison term approaches; Record-Journal; Mike Savino

    We were children, I wasn't the only victim; Stamford Advocate; Amanda Cuda

    Stamford's surging development demolishes old homes; Stamford Advocate; Liz Skalka

    Damning report details DCF failure in near-starvation of Groton toddler; The Day; Deborah Straszheim

    Navy gets under sailors’ skin; The Day; Julia Bergman

    Norwalk works to keep Millennials coming; The Hour; Kaitlyn Krasselt, Robert Koch







  • more COOL JUSTICE








  •           Pathankot attack: NIA to produce arms seized before court        

    Mohali: The arms and ammunition recovered during the Pathankot terror attack on January 2 last year would be produced by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) before a special court here on the next date of hearing.

    The NIA stated this during a hearing in the designated court here yesterday.

    The arms would be produced as evidence for exhibit and identification by the witnesses, NIA senior public prosecutor told the court.

    The arms and ammunition belonged to terrorists killed during the counter-terror operation.

    The court here fixed August 14 as the next date of hearing in the case, the day on which the statement of Flight Lieutenant Vimal Kumar, the first witness in the case, would also be recorded.

    The officer is expected to identify the arms and ammunition on the next date of hearing.

    Kumar was among the 39 witnesses in the case.

    Security forces had recovered some arms and ammunition, including assault rifles, grenade launchers, mortars, bullets, from the Pathankot Airbase after the terror attack there.

    Last year, terrorists had attacked the Pathankot air base, claiming the lives of seven security personnel while four terrorists were also killed.

    Cases were initially registered by local police stations in Pathankot, but subsequently, these were transferred and handed over to the NIA, a central probe agency that was set up after the audacious 26/11 Mumbai terror strike to probe all terror cases in the country.

    The NIA had filed a charge sheet in the Pathankot terror attack case in December last year. 

    Section: 
    Yes
    News Source: 
    Facebook Instant Article: 
    No

              Support your local library        



    Special thanks to Sprague (CT) Public Library Director Chris Kolar, staffers and volunteers, who hosted a lively discussion on judicial and political corruption Sept. 22 ...

    Here is a 2014 interview with Kolar regarding her service and the library's renovation, via The Norwich Bulletin:






  • Kolar Q & A







  • Kolar said more than 80 library patrons and guests participated in the Sept. 22 event, which focused on patterns of suspects having their hooks into cops, judges and prosecutors.



    Cases cited via the books more COOL JUSTICE and
    Law and Justice in Everyday life included the hit-run death of Kevin Showalter in New London and the disappearance / homicide of Mary Badaracco in the northwest Connecticut town of Sherman. The group also discussed police and prosecutorial misconduct, the Bonnie Foreshaw case and the use of teams of private detectives to dig up dirt on cops, doctors, a prosecutor and children in the Woody Allen sex assault case.


    Best Intro Ever by a Librarian

    Kolar opened the evening with a few short videos:








  • Foreshaw case in 50 seconds
























  • What is more COOL JUSTICE?

















  • Also, the beginning of this video via Huffington Post:








  • Yale's Bogus Woody Allen report









  • Then, Kolar said, "Our guest speaker wandered in off the street tonight and needed someone to talk to ... "


  • Showalter case background



  • Badaracco case background


  • As I visit various libraries around the state, my appreciation grows for the service and capabilities of our hard-working librarians.

    -- AT






  • more COOL JUSTICE








  •           Hit-and-Run Chronology, Grand Jury Report & Follow-up Columns, Re; Library Discussion 9-22-16        

    Open
    the Showalter File

  • Hartford Courant Editorial




  • Cool Justice Editor's Note:
    This post is primarily for patrons and guests of the Sprague Public Library, who might participate in a discussion on Thursday at 6:30 p.m. A link to announcements of that event is at the very bottom of this post. Thanks for reading, AT.


    Via
    Law And Justice In Everyday Life


    F. Lee Bailey on Law and Justice in Everyday Life and the Showalter case:

    This book - which is mainly about public officials, police, judges and lawyers either shaming or shining - is a good read. Many of the stories stand alone, like slices of life. Others will appear early in the book, with follow-up chapters later. The crown jewel, in my view, is his handling of the strange death of Kevin Showalter, who was slammed 50 feet down the road in New London, Connecticut on Christmas Eve 1973 while changing a tire on the traffic side of a parked car. For many years, Andy Thibault dogged a case which public officials seemed determined to let die, despite the presence of a likely suspect. He tells me his mentor, John Peterson, broke the case open and then handed over the torch. Joined by the victim's mother, Lucille, who revealed herself as a determined but delightful woman as the story unfolds, Andy beats up on police, prosecutors, judges and governors until finally there is action. Spurred on by an appointment hastened by Gov. Ella Grasso, Judge Joseph Dannehy conducted one of the most brilliant and thorough investigations I have ever seen. If this book were only about the Showalter case, it would be worth the price.

    APPENDIX

    THE SHOWALTER CHRONOLOGY – A FOUR YEAR SEARCH FOR JUSTICE


    New London, Ct.

    1973

    December 24

    Approximately 11:10 to 11:20 p.m. Kevin B. Showalter is killed. Car leaves scene. Only taillights observed by a neighbor.

    There is much confusion. Mr. Showalter had been changing a tire on his companion’s car. His companion Debra Emilyta, was sitting about six feet away from the car on a stone wall.

    Ms. Emilyta told police she heard a thud, but did not see the car which struck Mr. Showalter. She said she ran across the road, a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue near Plant Street, before seeing Mr. Showalter’s body.

    Mr. Showalter’s body was thrown 22 feet from the believed point of impact, onto a sidewalk near a large tree. The police report prepared that night noted the deceased’s shoes were found 110 feet apart. Part of a leg bone was found 75 feet away.

    Michael Buscetto of Mike’s Auto Body gives police body putty, apparently from the car which struck Mr. Showalter. The putty never made it to the police station. Det. Lt. Konstanty T. Bucko later denies its existence.

    December 25

    Autopsy performed. No trace of alcohol or drugs found. Cause of death listed as lacerated liver and broken neck.

    In efforts to console Mrs. Showalter, friends, neighbors, witnesses and officials volunteer information about the accident. She quietly listens for about six weeks, taking it for granted that police are acting on the same information. December 26

    New London police begin full-scale search for red car.

    1974

    February 6

    FBI report describes paint particles on Mr. Showalter’s clothing as “racing green” or “forest green” used on 1968 Chrysler products.

    February 7

    Mrs. Showalter notes she had the impression local police were not actively pursuing the case. She began interviewing those persons who came to her voluntarily and made a written record of her findings.

    During the next three weeks, Mrs. Showalter spends much of her time making telephone calls and knocking on doors. She and her youngest son Craig, then 14, visited a number of local auto dealers and garages. She said in most cases they were told police had not made any inquiries of them.

    February 28

    New London police conduct first interview with Harvey N. Mallove, the downtown merchant and former mayor and city councilor. Mallove stated he drove by Pequot Avenue near Plant Street shortly before 11:15 p.m. on Christmas Eve 1973. Seven people near the accident scene contradict what he said he saw.

    April 20

    Mrs. Showalter writes to State’s Atty. Edmund J. O’Brien, requesting a one-man grand jury investigation into her son’s death. O’Brien never responds.

    On the same day, Atty. Thomas Bishop, representing Mrs. Showalter as the administratix of Mr. Showalter’s estate, asks Atty. Joseph Moukawsher to conduct a coroner’s inquest of the hit-run death.

    April 23

    Moukawsher agrees to conduct inquest but must confer with New London police before setting date.

    June 4

    Mrs. Showalter writes to New London Police Chief John J. Crowley, asking for a progress report on the investigation by his force. Crowley neither acknowledges receipt of letter nor responds. Copies of letter were sent to City Manager C. Francis Driscoll, and Abraham Kirshenbaum, then chairman of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.

    June 10

    Mrs. Showalter asks Superior Court Judge Angelo Santaniello to call for a grand jury investigation.

    June 24

    Santaniello notes Moukawsher has agreed to conduct coroner’s inquest. He tells Mrs. Showalter, “If it appears that during any stage of this proceeding that any further intercession is necessary, appropriate action will be taken at that time.”

    July 2

    Mrs. Showalter writes to City Manager C. Francis Driscoll, asking for a report from his office assessing the police department’s handling of the case. She also asks for a reply to her June 4 letter to Police Chief Crowley.

    July 9

    Driscoll tells Crowley to prepare a complete report for Mrs. Showalter.

    July 10

    Bucko completes report on fatal accident.

    July 25

    Driscoll sends Mrs. Showalter Bucko’s report. The report said Mr. Showalter’s body was in the road, but the ambulance crew which took Mr. Showalter to Lawrence Memorial Hospital said they found him on the sidewalk several feet away. No police officer ever saw the body at the scene since the first officer arrived as the body was being placed in the ambulance.

    Bucko says paint particles from a 1968 Plymouth at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton are similar to those found on Mr. Showalter’s clothing, but the same paint is used on any 1968 Chrysler product.

    Bucko also says a piece of metal Mrs. Showalter found near the accident scene is in the detective bureau. When Mrs. Showalter first offered the metal to police, they refused to sign a receipt for it.

    August 6

    Mrs. Showalter writes to Driscoll regarding Bucko’s report. She lists six pages of comments on allegedly “serious omissions” and “strictly opinion judgments” by Bucko.

    Mrs. Showalter also writes to Chief State’s Atty. Joseph Gormley, asking him to send a representative to the coroner’s inquest. She includes copies of correspondence with local officials and Bucko’s report.

    August 9

    Mrs. Showalter requests a meeting with the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.

    August 15

    Bucko updates report, at request of city manager Driscoll.

    Bucko said of the body location, “the position he (Mr. Showalter) was found in at the scene of the accident, in my opinion, would not help in solving this matter.” Erroneous on the report is the position of the car jack which is shown on the front bumper. The car Mr. Showalter was working on, a Ford Pinto, had to be jacked from the side of the vehicle.

    Omitted from the report is the location of a car mat seen to the rear of the car and the spare tire Mr. Showalter never got to put on the car.

    August 20

    Gormley writes to Mrs. Showalter, telling her the local police investigation “has proceeded smoothly,” and there is “no reason for this office to initiate its own investigation.”

    August 28

    The Public Safety Committee of the New London City Council meets in closed session for one hour to discuss the hit-run death. Chief Crowley requested the closed session. He said there is evidence that could jeopardize future action.

    Mrs. Showalter submitted a 12-page statement for the meeting, but did not attend.

    Crowley said the case is not closed and it appears an arrest may be made.

    August 31

    Mallove submits official statement to New London police.

    November, 1974

    After being postponed several times, the coroner’s inquest hears testimony from 50 persons. No findings issued.

    1975

    January 24

    A state police detective participating in the federal grand jury probe of the city police department has told one of its patrolmen they identified the driver of the car which struck and killed Mr. Showalter on Christmas Eve, 1973.

    “We know who killed the Showalter kid, how come you don’t?” the detective was quoted in The Norwich Bulletin as saying.

    March 19-22

    The Bulletin, in a four-part series, shows:

    - Eyewitnesses and what New London police called “near witnesses” drastically differed in their accounts of the accident.

    - Microscopic paint particles found on Mr. Showalter’s clothing on which police based their search may not have been left by the vehicle which struck him.

    - Evidence entrusted to police officers at the scene has never been seen since.

    - A claim by police that it would cost as much as $1,200 to trace vehicles possible involved in the mishap was declared false by the state Motor Vehicle Department.

    The Bulletin, when preparing the series of articles, made repeated efforts to discuss the case with police officials but Lt. K.T. Bucko, who headed the case, on the advice of then Police Chief John Crowley, would not.

    April 3 State police conduct an extensive door-to-door inquiry in the Pequot Avenue region. State police have been looking into the case as part of a federal grand jury investigation into alleged corruption within the city force.

    July 12

    The state of Connecticut offers a $2,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for the hit-run death of Mr. Showalter. A total of $3,000 is now being offered. Classmates and friends of Mr. Showalter’s have already collected $1,000.

    July 21

    A community effort by friends and classmates raises the reward to $5,000.

    November 8

    The transcript of the coroner’s inquest of the hit-run death conducted nearly a year ago has yet to be typed, Coroner Joseph Moukawsher confirms. He said he wants to review the transcript even though he believes his six-day long inquest did not establish any guilt in the case. He said he has not spoken with the court reporter assigned to the case since the early summer.

    December 10

    Mrs. Showalter writes to State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti, requesting a one-man grand jury investigation. No response.

    1976

    January 6

    Satti refuses to confirm or deny the existence of Mrs. Showalter’s request. Mrs. Showalter has also asked Satti’s office to ascertain the location of recorded tapes made during the coroner’s inquest.

    January 9

    Mrs. Showalter sends a special delivery letter to Satti asking for a response to the December 10 request. No response.

    February 19

    In a feature article, also carried statewide by the Associated Press, The Bulletin profiles Mrs. Showalter on page one.

    Some public officials regard her as a persistent nuisance, someone to be ignored and sidestepped, but Mrs. Lucille M. Showalter will not breathe easily until they tell her who killed her son, Bulletin reporter Fred Vollono wrote.

    “The official comment seems to be there is nothing to it,” Mrs. Showalter said. “It is just the ramblings of a grief-stricken mother. But there are many people who urge me to go on. They say, ‘Lucille, if you stop, then nothing will ever be done.’”

    February 23

    Mrs. Showalter receives a letter of confession from an inmate at Somers state prison. The inmate said he was plagued by news accounts of the death. Every time he seems to forget the accident, the inmate said, he reads another news story.

    April 2

    Mrs. Showalter submits a third written request to Satti for a grand-jury probe. No response.

    May 6

    Common Pleas court Prosecutor Harold Dean quashes the only lead in the two and a half year old investigation, The Norwich Bulletin reports. The lead was the letter of confession written by the inmate at Somers Prison. State police arrested the inmate for harassment of the victim’s mother, Mrs. Showalter, to whom the letter was sent. Dean nolled the case and allowed it to be dismissed despite a prior meeting with state police when the significance of the arrest was discussed.

    State police did not believe the letter writer was responsible for the hit-run death, but they thought the letter contained possibly significant information. Dean said he was certain the accused had no knowledge of the case, because he was incarcerated when Mr. Showalter was killed.

    August 7 The day following the Bulletin’s report of Dean quashing the lead, Chief State’s Atty. Joseph Gormley says he had “no idea” why the lead “which very well could have led to something,” resulted in a dead end. Two state police officers had met with Gormley to discuss the letter of confession.

    August 6

    State police list the investigation into the killing of Mr. Showalter as “closed pending further development.” That classification came 31 days after Dean threw the harassment case out of court.

    August 30

    Mrs. Showalter again asks Superior Court Judge Angelo Santaniello to call for a one-man grand jury probe.

    September 1

    Mrs. Showalter publicly renews her efforts to have a one-man grand jury reopen the investigation into the hit-run killing of her son. In a statement sent to 22 media outlets, Mrs. Showalter says she made the appeal in an August 30 letter to Superior Court Judge Angelo Santaniello. She says she was asking the judge to “make good on a promise” he made to her in June 1974. Santaniello wrote in a June 24, 1974 letter, Superior Court intercession would be possible if the investigation required it.

    Santaniello said, “probably the proper person” to approach would be State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti. But Mrs. Showalter said she is ignoring Satti because he failed to respond to her December 1975 letter asking for the grand jury.

    September 23

    State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti says he needs another three weeks to review information on the killing of Mr. Showalter before deciding whether the investigation should be reopened or shelved.

    Satti says he had hoped to have the matter resolved by today, but the sinking of his 35-foot cabin cruiser two weeks ago, an unexpected report of crimes by New London police, and a new trial forced him behind schedule.

    November 23

    Mrs. Showalter turns to Governor Ella T. Grasso for help.

    “I cannot endure this loss of a beloved son in the midst of a governmental system that appears to neither act nor care,” Mrs. Showalter says in a letter to the governor.

    Mrs. Showalter says she is skeptical the New London County State’s Attorney’s review of the case will result in the one-man grand jury she has requested. Satti today said he is still reviewing transcripts of the Coroner’s Inquest and refused further comment.

    December 21

    Just three days before the third anniversary of the killing of Kevin B. Showalter, the state’s chief court administrator orders the city’s only unsolved hit-and-run case reopened.

    John P. Cotter signs an order creating a one-man jury to probe the death, renewing hopes that allegations of police bungling and mishandling of the case will be settled.

    “I can’t yet believe it,” says Mrs. Showalter, calling the action a “literal miracle.”

    Cotter, a justice on the state Supreme Court, selects retired Superior Court Judge Raymond J. Devlin to head the one-man grand jury.

    An attorney representing Mrs. Lucille M. Showalter also files a $600,000 lawsuit against the unnamed person(s) responsible for the killing of her son. Atty. Averum J. Sprecher of East Haddam says the suit is aimed at protecting Mrs. Showalter’s rights.

    “The action as I have filed it will definitively preserve her rights when the investigative bodies finally determine who killed the boy,” he said. The suit is aimed at heading off fears the state’s statute of limitations might preclude Mrs. Showalter from pursuing civil action if the killer is found.

    December 24

    Superior Court Judge Joseph F. Dannehy is ordered to replace State Referee Raymond J. Devlin as the one-man grand juror investigating Mr. Showalter’s death. Chief Court Administrator John P. Cotter says Judge Devlin had asked to be taken off the case because he was too busy with other duties, and would be unable to commute from his New Haven office.

    1977

    January 4

    Austin J. McGuigan, the special prosecutor assigned to the one-man grand jury probing the hit-run death of Mr. Showalter promises to pull “all the stops” in his investigation but says he needs help from the public to succeed.

    McGuigan has worked for the state for two years as the top investigator of organized crime. He appeals to anyone with information to call him confidentially.

    February 8

    State Police Commissioner Edward P. Leonard, as part of a last-resort effort, makes a personal appeal to area residents for information about the killing of Mr. Showalter. In a letter to the people who live near the Pequot Avenue site where Mr. Showalter died, Leonard asks for facts – “No matter how insignificant they may appear” – which might shed light on the car, the driver or the accident scene.

    Special Prosecutor McGuigan says police “had no suspects.” However, he says if a suspect is found police believe there is sufficient evidence to tie the person to the case.

    April 18

    Investigators say they feel confident the Showalter case will be solved.

    The new optimism comes after a public appeal netted more than 300 leads, new laboratory analysis of existing evidence, and an accounting of each of the more than 10,000 green Chrysler products registered in Eastern Connecticut when Mr. Showalter was killed.

    The new evidence means “there is a significant possibility the vehicle in question was not a green Chrysler,” Special Prosecutor Austin McGuigan says. While the investigators will not say what other color the car might have been, the evidence apparently opens new avenues for the investigation. Previously, other theories on who drove the death car, theories which have had some substantiation, were locked into the green Chrysler theory, police acknowledge.

    May 10

    State police investigators spend two and a half hours recreating and filming the Pequot Avenue death scene where Mr. Showalter was the victim of the hit and run.

    May 18

    State police again film and re-create death scene.

    June 22

    The Bulletin reports that one of the most intensive investigations in state police history, the probe into Mr. Showalter’s hit-run death, will be given to a one-man grand jury July 5 in Windham county Superior Court.

    Judge Joseph F. Dannehy, the grand juror, imposes a gag order on all investigators assigned to the case. Special Prosecutor McGuigan and 17 state police detectives had gathered evidence for the grand jury.

    June 23

    More than 50 persons will be subpoenaed and the scope of the probe will be expanded to include subsequent actions connected with the accident, The Bulletin reports.

    June 24

    Eleven New London police officers, including the top detective involved in the first of three investigations of the hit-run death, have been subpoenaed, The Bulletin reports.

    July 5

    The grand jury begins behind closed doors with testimony by New London Det. Lt. Konstanty T. Bucko.

    Outside, a television camera crew drips with sweat under the glare of a hot summer sun.

    Inside it is quiet and cool – almost like any other day. The state police detectives and reporters talk about golf, baseball and other summertime activities. Because of the gag order imposed by Judge Dannehy, they can’t talk about what is most on their minds, what has brought them all together – the unsolved hit-run death of Kevin B. Showalter.

    The session lasts about five hours and also includes testimony by Mrs. Showalter and Debra Emilyta, Mr. Showalter’s companion the night he died.

    Ms. Emilyta has been sitting on a wall about 6 feet from Mr. Showalter when he was killed. She told police she only heard the 20-year-old Mitchell College student struck, and did not see the car which struck him.

    July 6

    Witnesses include Michael Buscetto of Mike’s Arco in New London. What he identified as body putty, apparently from the car that struck and killed Mr. Showalter, has never been seen since police officers placed it in an envelope that night, according to sources.

    Ms. Emilyta concludes testimony.

    Also testifying are Dr. Robert Weller, members of his family, and a friend, who while returning home from church drove past Mr. Showalter as he was changing the tire. They were among the last persons to see Mr. Showalter alive.

    Other witnesses include Mrs. Ruth P. Hendel and Mrs. Charles (Shirley Pope) Alloway, her daughter.

    On Christmas Eve, 1973, Mrs. Hendel had just turned away from the window of her home on Pequot Avenue where she had been watching Mr. Showalter work on the Emilyta car. She heard the noise of the car striking Mr. Showalter and turning back quickly she caught a glimpse of the taillights. Her first impression of the fleeing southbound car was that it was bright-colored, possibly red.

    Mrs. Hendel continued to watch the accident scene as she telephoned Mrs. Alloway, the wife of a New London police officer.

    Arthur Adams of New London, a Mitchell College security guard and former state policeman, also testifies. Aside from Ms. Emilyta and the hit-run driver, Adams may have been one of the last persons to see Mr. Showalter alive.

    Adams saw Mr. Showalter working on the car and Ms. Emilyta sitting on the stone wall, swinging her legs. He observed the girl with a coat collar wrapped around her head, in conversation with Mr. Showalter, after the Weller party had driven by.

    Adams continued on his rounds towards the Montauk Avenue side of the campus. Sometime after 11 p.m., he saw an ambulance heading for the hospital and two police cars heading down Plant Street.

    July 7

    Some of the last persons who saw Mr. Showalter alive and one of the first who saw him dead testify.

    Six members of the Sitty family, who were celebrating Christmas Eve and occasionally watching Mr. Showalter change a tire from inside a house on Pequot Avenue, tell the grand jury what they knew about the case, Edmond Sitty had brought out a blanket and a corduroy coat to put over Mr. Showalter’s body after he had been struck and killed.

    A New London High School classmate of Mr. Showalter, Arthur Petrini, was a passenger in a car that passed the accident scene sometime after Mr. Showalter was killed and before the ambulance and police arrived. He also testified.

    July 12

    Witnesses included two firemen and a dispatcher, two nurses and an orderly, the New London County Medical Examiner, the first man to officially identify Mr. Showalter, and a woman who lives near the accident scene.

    Larry Grimes, a security guard who knew Mr. Showalter from Mitchell College, had made the preliminary identification at Lawrence and Memorial Hospitals, where he also worked. Mrs. Dorothy Bryson of Pequot Avenue, who came upon the accident scene, also testifies.

    July 13

    New London police officers pack the waiting room of the Windham County Courthouse. Of the 11 who were subpoenaed last month, at least seven are present.

    The 11 include Patrolmen Vincent McGrath, Steven Colonis, Thomas P. Bowes Jr., and Cpl. Joseph Chiapponne, all of whom were involved in the initial investigation. With the change of shift, Sgt. Joseph Jullarine, Patrolmen Richard West and Glenn Davis and Det. Sgt. Konstanty T. Bucko joined the probe. Bucko was off duty at the time.

    McGrath filed the motor vehicle report of the accident and the sketch on the report was by Bowes. Bucko took photographs of the scene and gathered evidence. His photographs may be the only ones taken. Bucko also went to the hospital and got the victim’s clothing, according to sources.

    Colonis, the first officer on the scene, apparently arrived as Mr. Showalter was being placed in the ambulance. He interviewed Ms. Emilyta and took her to the station to file a 13-sentence statement.

    There is some confusion of whether Colonis drove an unmarked police car that night. Sources say police made conflicting statements on that question.

    July 14

    Thomas Wainwright, who played tennis with Kevin Showalter at New London High, saw his lifeless body on a sidewalk on Pequot Avenue before an ambulance or police arrived, and is among those testifying today. Arthur Petrini, who testified last week, was a passenger in Wainwright’s car.

    Mr. and Mrs. Donald Wainwright, who were stopped by police after circling the scene in another auto, also testify.

    At least seven New London police officers are at the courthouse, but it is not known how many are testifying.

    July 19

    The grand jury shifts beyond reconstructions by “near witnesses,” as Sgt. Joseph Jullarine, now retired, testifies. He was the squad leader who reportedly conducted “an intensive investigation” for a red car during the 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shift on Christmas Day 1973.

    July 20

    The grand jury investigators spend much of the day alone reviewing physical evidence and testimony. Only three witnesses – New London police who have already appeared during the proceedings – are present.

    July 21

    Det. Bucko appears for at least the fourth time in the nine days the grand jury has convened. The session begins at 10 a.m. and ends about 5:45 p.m., with his departure.

    A nurse’s aide who knelt by Mr. Showalter’s body, feeling for a pulse, also testifies, Sue Costello, who heard the report of an accident as she was leaving Lawrence and Memorial Hospitals in New London from her shift, had arrived on the scene before ambulance personnel and police.

    July 26

    The scope of the grand jury probe goes beyond Mr. Showlater’s death and runs smack into a crucial area of dispute with the appearance of New London police detective Walter Petchark.

    On Christmas Day 1973, with evidence already missing and news of Mr. Showalter’s death on the radio, Petchark reportedly received a call from former mayor Harvey N. Mallove. Mallove later told The Bulletin there was no truth to the report. But he allegedly told Petchark he thought he saw the accident the night before.

    Three city police detectives – Bucko, Petchark, and Carmello Fazzina – were present at the inquiry. They were followed by laboratory technicians from the FBI, who lent their expertise in the analysis of headlight glass possibly belonging to the death vehicle.

    July 27

    The former counsel for the estate of Mr. Showalter testifies. Atty. Thomas Bishop confirms his representation of the estate was severed in June 1974.

    Thomas and Donald Wainwright return for further testimony.

    July 28

    Witnesses include Mrs. S.F. Zimet of Ledyard. Mallove said he was visiting at her home on Christmas Eve 1973, left about 10:45 p.m., and was home in New London about half an hour later.

    Mrs. Zimet is accompanied by her attorney, L. Patrick Gray. Gray, like Bishop, is a member of the New London law firm Suissman, Shapiro, Wool, and Brennan.

    Other witnesses include New London city Manager C. Francis Driscoll and Elise Mallove, Mallove’s daughter. Miss Mallove was home for her Christmas vacation in 1973.

    The grand jury begins a four-week recess. More than 50 persons were called during the first 12 days of the inquiry.

    August 30

    New London police investigators and a newspaper editor who has followed their unsolved hit-run death case for three years are among the witnesses.

    Retired Police Chief John Crowley and Det. Lt. K.T. Bucko, who refused repeated pleas by The Bulletin in March of 1975 to discuss the death of Kevin B. Showalter, gives testimony – as did the paper’s managing editor, John C. Peterson.

    Peterson testifies for three hours.

    August 31

    The attorney who conducted a coroner’s inquest into Mr. Showalter’s death, the results of which have never met public scrutiny, is the first witness today. Atty. Joseph Moukwasher, who heard testimony from 50 witnesses during six days in September and November of 1974, is one of the few persons familiar with the substance of that investigation.

    It took more than two years for the transcripts of the hearings to be typed and submitted to State’s Atty. C. Robert Satti.

    State Police Sgt. Donald Crouch, who in 1974 and 1975 worked for the federal grand jury investigating alleged corruption in the New London force, also testifies. Other witnesses included Rosemary Benson and Carol James.

    September 1

    Physical exhibits appear to outnumber witnesses in the 15th day of proceedings. Two state police technicians from the crime lab in Bethany carry satchels concealing evidence into the closed courtroom. One exhibit is a light colored automobile fender, which was dented and streaked.

    September 2

    Det. Edward Pickett of the New London County State’s Attorney’s office, who helped administer a lie detector test to Ms. Emilyta, testifies. Ms. Emilyta passed the test.

    Another detective, private investigator Joe Harris, is also called. A former Waterford police sergeant, he worked on the case for a brief time, on his own.

    Other witnesses in a short session include State Police Sgt. Charles Trotter, a principal investigator in the federal grand jury probe of the New London city police.

    September 12

    Two persons who saw Mr. Showalter on Christmas Eve 1973, hours before he was killed testify.

    Ramona Ricci, a coworker of Mr. Showalter’s at a Waterford discotheque, attended one of two parties Mr. Showalter had planned to go to after work that night. Nancy Wicksham, who also testified, had joined friends that holiday evening at the club.

    September 18

    Mallove says his status as a suspect in the case is “nothing new.” During testimony in a New Jersey courtroom, Connecticut State Police revealed Mallove is a prime suspect in the hit-run case. The testimony concerned refusal by two New Jersey men to comply with a subpoena issued by the one-man grand jury. Trooper Charles Wargat also testified he was told the two men repaired Mallove’s car on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day 1973.

    Mallove tells The Bulletin he did not know the men and never had a car repaired at their shop on Reed Street in New London. He says he didn’t kill Mr. Showalter and doesn’t know anything about anybody who did.

    September 19

    One of the two men who testified with immunity today has said in a published account he has no knowledge of the case and denied any car was repaired in his New London shop on Christmas Eve 1973.

    Walter String Jr. made those comments in the New Jersey Courier Post. He and his son, Walter String III, had been ordered to appear today by a New Jersey judge, after refusing to comply with a subpoena.

    Among the dozen or so witnesses are New London city police Sgt. Donald Sloan and Cpl. Charles Alloway. They took the first full statement from Ms. Emilyta, five days after the accident.

    September 26

    Darlene Barnes, a friend of Mr. Showalter who patronized the Waterford discotheque where he worked, is among the witnesses today. Ms. Barnes was also one of the 50 witnesses during the coroner’s inquest of 1974.

    October 3

    Larry Grimes testifies again. The Mitchell College security guard who made the first identification of Mr. Showalter at Lawrence and Memorial Hospitals, was also at the courthouse on July 12, and Sept. 26.

    The grand jury will be in recess until October 17. It has convened 20 times since July 5 and heard about 90 witnesses.

    October 11

    Judge Dannehy says published reports that Mallove is a prime suspect in the case “couldn’t bother me in the least.”

    “They (the newspapers) are free to speculate if they wish,” Dannehy says. “I am not concerned with their claimed right to freedom of expression.

    I think that sometimes their attitude is to publish and be damned, but they don’t bother me.”

    “Why don’t you wait” for the grand jury report? Dannehy asked.

    October 17

    The sales manager of a New London auto firm who said he has sold a number of cars to the family of a suspect in the hit-run case testifies.

    In 1970, Peter Emmanuel Sr. of New London Motors sold a Lincoln Continental to Harvey N. Mallove, whom state police have identified as a suspect in the Christmas Eve, 1973 death. A compact car was among the other autos the New London firm sold to Mallove.

    State police were looking for a green Chrysler product when they first questioned New London motors personnel, Emmanuel said before he testified. But the firm didn’t sell Mallove such a vehicle, which police had believed was the death car, he added.

    October 24

    The grand jury does not convene today because the investigators were not ready to proceed, Judge Dannehy said. He said he plans to conduct several more sessions before adjourning to write the final report, but did not specify.

    November 14

    The grand jury meets for its first regular session since October 17 and hears one witness. The witness, Gary Jordan of New London, said he was dating Elise Mallove on Christmas Eve 1973.

    Sources say the grand jury conducted at least one special session since October 17, but it was not known who testified.

    November 21

    State police continue working long and irregular hours probing Mr. Showalter’s death as they re-create the hit-run scene on Pequot Avenue near Plant Street for at least the third time.

    November 29

    The man whom state police have said they consider a prime suspect in New London’s only unsolved hit-run death has his day in court.

    Harvey N. Mallove testifies for about four hours before the secret grand jury probing Mr. Showalter’s death. Atty. Leo J. McNamara accompanies Mallove to the Windham County Courthouse.

    Mallove says he was one of a number of persons who drove by the accident scene shortly before or after Mr. Showalter was killed. But a four-part series by The Bulletin in March of 1975 showed Mallove saw a scene that seven other persons said could not have taken place.

    Mallove passed the accident scene within a minute or two after an ambulance call was logged. His statement to New London police – dated eight months later – conflicts with accounts of seven persons at the scene or looking out their windows seconds after Mr. Showalter was struck.

    Mr. Showalter was struck by a car as he changed a tire on a friend’s parked Ford Pinto, on a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue near Plant Street.

    In his statement, Mallove said he saw an automobile parked at an angle in front of the Pinto. None of the seven persons saw any car stopped at the scene immediately after the victim was hit according to the July 10, 1974 report by New London Det. Lt. Konstanty T. Bucko.

    Mallove’s vivid description of a middle-aged man talking with a girl near the car also conflicts with statements by the seven persons.

    In his statement, Mallove said he assumed the man was a member of the police department. But Bucko claims in the July 10 report that Mallove told him the talking to the girl was “NOT” a policeman.

    Bucko’s report also claims Mallove learned on Christmas Day 1974 that “a man had been killed and he remarked to some people that he saw the body.” But Bucko continued to report that after Mallove viewed photographs of the scene he realized what he mistook for a body was a floor mat. In his statement, Mallove said he saw a “flat object which I assumed was a blanket or a mat.”

    In his August 31, 1974 statement, Mallove said, “Seeing no trouble, accident, or any evidence of anything out of place…I continued on my way home.”

    In the July 10, 1974 report, Bucko claims; “Mr. Mallove stated he was going to stop because he realized there had been an accident.”

    Mallove has told The Bulletin that Bucko misquoted him.

    December 7

    The calling of witnesses ends with Mallove’s second appearance.

    The proceedings included a film screening, apparently of the death scene as re-created by state police.

    After the 35 minute screening, Special Prosecutor McGuigan and Judge Dannehy questioned Mallove for about 40 minutes. That was the bulk of the afternoon session.

    The question of whether indictments should be handed down in New London’s only unsolved hit-run death now rests with Judge Dannehy.

    After 24 sessions and more than 100 witnesses, Dannehy said the next step for the grand jury is the final report on who killed Kevin B. Saltwater.

    1978

    Feb. 17 Report filed.

    Feb. 22

    Report made public.

  • THE DANNEHY REPORT


  • SHOWALTER COVERUP COLUMNS

    Chapter 1

    Law and Justice in Everyday Life

    Cover-Up In New London

    Hit-And-Run Continues To Mock Justice


    Sept. 4, 2000

    If Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney John Bailey wants to bring closure to cold cases, here’s one from New London that should top the list: The Showalter hit-and-run cover-up is a dark chapter in Connecticut history, a tale more appropriate for a Third World country.

    And yet, only one thing bothers former New London County State’s Attorney C. Robert Satti about the Showalter case: that it was investigated at all.

    Satti, now retired, made the point again and again, most recently this year. Satti’s complaint, made during the wake of the late state police Detective George Ryalls, was that Ryalls’ obituary mentioned the suspect the prosecutor refused to pursue in the Showalter probe.

    Kevin B. Showalter, a 20-year-old Mitchell College student, was killed at 11:12 p.m. on Christmas Eve 1973. He was changing a tire on a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue on the New London shoreline when he was struck and killed. His girlfriend, sitting only 6 feet away on a stone wall, claims she saw nothing.

    Auto body putty from the death car disappeared after a tow truck driver gave it to New London police. The evidence file that was supposed to contain the putty was stuffed with bathroom tiles. The file that was supposed to contain headlight glass from the death car instead contained glass from three different headlights. State police and others suspected that, in order to throw legitimate investigators off the trail, the late young man's clothing was pounded on a different-colored car than the one that killed him.

    The victim's mother, Lucille M. Showalter, tried to get a grand jury investigation of the cover-up. She was rebuffed repeatedly by the presiding judge, Angelo Santaniello who, it later became clear, was best friends with the leading suspect. Santaniello then referred Showalter to prosecutor Satti, who happened to be his former law partner. Satti refused to acknowledge registered letters from Mrs. Showalter pleading for a grand jury probe.

    Satti did finally meet with Mrs. Showalter in 1978, after Judge Joseph Dannehy of Willimantic, acting as a one-man grand jury, named former New London Mayor Harvey N. Mallove as the probable driver of the hit-run vehicle. Satti called the three-hour meeting, in which he repeatedly told Mrs. Showalter that there never should have been a grand jury investigation under Dannehy.

    Mallove held a good hand; he had the best legal muscle in New London County on his side. New London police would not question him for more than seven months, and then only in a perfunctory manner. They would say they inspected his cars, but they did not. Significantly, Mallove’s Lincoln had been repaired, but it wasn’t until state police took over the case four years after the accident that the fender was finally seized.

    Santaniello would arrange for a coroner’s inquest and put his niece in charge of typing the transcript. Only after two years of intense public pressure would the transcript be typed. But the inquest never issued a finding.

    Santaniello tipped off Mallove that he was a suspect. The judge was also aware of what local police knew about the case. Mrs. Showalter memorialized the admissions in tape-recorded telephone conversations.

    “I did talk to Harvey,” Santaniello told Mrs. Showalter on Oct. 17, 1975, “and I said, `You’re suspected.’ As a matter of fact, at that time a police officer came to him on the same day or the next day, and told him you were making accusations about him and that he was a prime suspect.” The day before, Mallove told Mrs. Showalter, “Judge Santaniello is of the opinion that you fingered me.”

    It was not until 1977 that state police, who took over the case at the behest of former Gov. Ella Grasso, formally named Mallove a suspect. Next week, I'll propose a means to solve the Showalter cover-up.

    Showalter Cover-Up Is New London's Shame

    Sept. 11, 2000

    New London, where I grew up and began working in the 1960s and ‘70s, was a dirty little city with character.

    It had a restaurant called the Hygienic that was everything but. There were at least a couple bars where the cops couldn't do anything, except maybe a little business.

    The top pimp in town never went to jail until he was about 60 and a certain court official retired.

    New London will always be the city that tried to cover up the Christmas Eve 1973 hit-and-run death of Kevin B. Showalter. It's been doing a pretty good job for nearly 27 years, but the onion is beginning to peel.

    The local daily newspaper admitted -- in its official history published this year -- that it did a shoddy job on the Showalter case. Specifically, The Day admitted its failure to explore the relationship between a former mayor and a top judge, and their influence on the course of the criminal investigation. That’s a beginning.

    Political and police corruption goes back a couple generations in New London. By the 1970s, New London police were widely known to be involved in the selling of women, dope and refrigerators, among other things. A federal grand jury took note. But as with the Showalter case, there were these little problems with the evidence.

    A jewelry store owner and former city mayor multi-millionaire Harvey Mallove was the prime suspect in the hit-and-run death of Showalter, a student at Mitchell College. Showalter’s date that night, Christmas Eve 1973, said she saw nothing from her vantage point six feet away, sitting on a stone wall under a streetlight on a residential street as a young man changed the tire of her car.

    Harvey was everybody’s pal. He would take kids to the Super Bowl, then, down the road, get them jobs as cops. He was friends with bums in the street and bums in high political office. He was wired. The standing joke among reporters became: Harvey's a great guy to have a beer with, just don't change your tire if he's driving by.

    “I didn't kill the kid in any way, shape or form,” Harvey told me many times. As mayor, Harvey helped hire a few police chiefs. His best friend was the administrative judge for the county; that was the judge who controlled the early stages of the investigation, specifically a coroner’s inquest that never issued a finding.

    State police followed up a report that Mallove’s best friend, County Administrative Judge Angelo G. Santaniello, was with Mallove on Christmas Eve 1973. Santaniello reportedly was No. 11 on a guest list for a party at the home of his political mentor, the late state Sen. Peter Mariani. The Mariani party was one of two Mallove attended that night.

    Santaniello told reporters he never went out on Christmas Eve.

    Another state judge, Joseph F. Dannehy, conducted two grand jury investigations. In 1978, Dannehy named Mallove as the probable driver of the hit-run vehicle, but said evidence that might have ensured conviction was either mishandled or destroyed.

    Mallove died a few years ago with this legacy. Others still have time to come clean and tell the truth about the cover-up. Mrs. Showalter tried unsuccessfully to have Satti, Santaniello and others prosecuted for hindrance of prosecution (CGS Section 53a-166) warning of impending discovery, providing means of avoiding discovery, preventing discovery by deception. Because a conspiracy to hinder prosecution is an ongoing crime, those with information could tell Chief State's Attorney John Bailey, who has begun an initiative to solve some of the state's cold homicide cases.

    Isn’t it time? No one kept the system honest when it counted, though some tried. Most stood by as the system that was supposed to protect the victim and his family betrayed them all.

    Where is the conscience of the community?

    Cold Case On Ice Forever

    Nov. 6, 2000

    One way to deflect attention from a suspect is to get investigators involved in meaningless, time-consuming tasks. Another way is to create a bogus suspect who is then exposed as such, causing a belief that the case is just too hazy to pursue.

    Both of these devices were used repeatedly in the cover-up of the Showalter hit-run case in New London. Whether this was happenstance, indifference, incompetence or malfeasance, the result was the same. The system failed.

    And now, it seems, the truth will remain buried forever.

    Judge Joseph F. Dannehy, the grand juror who investigated the case, wrote in his finding of fact: “After December 25, 1973, the New London Police Department did virtually nothing to solve the hit-run death of Kevin B. Showalter.” The accident occurred the night before.

    Local police and court officials, however, were pro-active in another sense. Their actions served to protect the assailant.

    For example, New London police claimed it would cost as much as $1,200 to trace vehicles using data from the state Motor Vehicle Department. The motor vehicle department declared there was no such charge.

    Nevertheless, New London police spent their time hand-sorting local motor vehicle cards. They looked for a green Chrysler. That was likely a false lead; state police said paint particles found on the victim's clothing did not come from the car that killed him.

    Former Mayor Harvey Mallove began meeting informally with police and court officials as early as Dec. 25, 1973. Mallove wanted to know what the police knew.

    The only lead after two and a half years was quashed by then New London Common Pleas Court Prosecutor Harold Dean in May 1976. The lead was a letter of confession written by a Somers prison inmate to the victim’s mother, Lucille Showalter.

    “I told Harold how important that was to me,” Mallove, the prime suspect, confided to an associate. He also acknowledged discussing the purported confession with his best friend, the presiding judge for the county, Angelo Santaniello.

    The author of the letter was known to be connected with “fences,” or purveyors of stolen goods in the New London area. State police arrested him for harassment of Mrs. Showalter. Two state troopers met with Dean for an hour. They told him the letter contained possibly significant information. State police also believed they could connect the dots in New London between the letter writer and the powers-that-be. Did he owe some favors? Was he paid? Police knew the author had no liability for the accident; he was actually in Florida at the time of the hit-run.

    Dean nolled and dismissed the case without telling the troopers or Mallove. Soon thereafter, state police listed the killing of Showalter as “closed pending further development.” Upon learning of Dean's action, Chief State's Attorney Joseph Gormley remarked he had “no idea” why the lead, “which very well could have led to something,” resulted in a dead end. The case would remain closed for six months, until Gov. Ella Grasso brought the matter to Justice John Cotter.

    Was there criminal activity connected with the Showalter cover-up? It appears we will never know for certain. Dannehy named Mallove as the probable driver, noting that evidence which might have ensured conviction was destroyed. The Chief State’s Attorney’s Office reviewed aspects of the case this fall after a series of columns appeared in The Law Tribune. However, the statute of limitations for the most likely potential charge, conspiracy to hinder prosecution of motor vehicle misconduct, has expired. This shameful case, it appears, is destined to stay on ice forever.

    - AND:

    Olympic Gold for Missing Evidence


    November 28, 2005

    Judge Ellen Gordon was in way over her head with what she tried pass off as a ruling in Day Publishing v. State's Attorney.

    Clueless Gordon was handed a hot one, a case no one has ever wanted in the so-called New London Judicial District. Every single time this case has come to court, begging for justice, The Robes, the prosecutors and their minions have either desecrated their oaths or looked the other way. Clueless Gordon, fairly new to the scene, has managed to join the list of those who are both ostriches and failures.

    The Day newspaper asked Gordon this year to release the grand jury testimony regarding the cover-up of the 1973 hit-run death of Kevin Showalter. Before Gordon probably ever heard of Showalter, five New London County judges recused themselves from a John Doe civil suit against the driver because they were friends with the prime suspect, Harvey Mallove. Mallove -- the late mayor of New London and multimillionaire jeweler who picked police chiefs, planned to run for Congress and starred in the social scene -- was prone to say, "I never killed the kid -- in any way, shape or form."

    It's not like we could expect a New London judge to show guts or brains in this case. Compelling testimony from the first of two grand juries implicated local law enforcement and court officials in a widespread cover-up.

    On Christmas Eve 1973 at 11:12 p.m., as the call came in, a high-ranking New London officer, said, "F--k him, he's dead," and then left to go home. Showalter, a 20-year-old Mitchell College student, lay dead on a well-lit section of Pequot Avenue by the shoreline. His body was thrown 22 feet from the point of impact. His shoes were found 110 feet apart. A leg bone was 75 feet away.

    A tow truck driver gave police auto body putty from the death car. The putty was never seen again. New London police mixed headlight glass from at least three different cars in what they called the evidence file. Replacing the auto body putty was bathroom tile. A local coroner's inquest never issued a finding. State police, who took over the case at the behest of Gov. Ella Grasso, were bewildered and angry when they could not find the transcript of the coroner's inquest. Mallove's best friend -- the presiding judge for the county, Angelo G. Santaniello -- had put his niece in charge of typing that transcript. Santaniello also tipped off Mallove to his status as a suspect.

    Now, Clueless Gordon can't find the 3,000-page transcript of the first grand jury. Does she care? Court clerks allegedly performed a diligent search. Would any reasonable person believe or accept any of this?

    Among the last persons known to possess the grand jury report was the late State's Attorney, C. Robert Satti. Satti, who refused to investigate the case before a special prosecutor was appointed, claimed he returned a copy to the grand juror, then Willimantic Superior Court Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Joseph Dannehy. Both Dannehy and Satti are dead. Did "Do Nothing Bob" -- Mallove's moniker for Satti -- take it with him? We might as well ask Harvey, also dead, or Kevin.

    Gordon's pathetic decision, dated Nov. 7, went on for about a sentence before its first fatal error. It might sound like a technical error, but it's much, much more than that. She actually said New London police investigated the case.

    Before this, I thought it might take generations to remove the stench from the New London courthouse. Alas, for New London, the stench of this cover-up is forever.







  • more COOL JUSTICE







  • Recent columns:

  • Via @CtNewsJunkie: City evades responsibility for unjust killing, 4th Amendment violation


  • NEW: RFK Jr. says ‘recent forensic evidence’ points to two shooters in his father’s assassination


  • Judges who played role in murder probe squelched access to key testimony


  • UPCOMING:


  • Book news @NorwichBulletin @HartfordCourant #moreCOOLJUSTICE #SpraguePublicLibrary Thursday, Sept. 22, 6:30 pm



  •           NEW: RFK Jr. says ‘recent forensic evidence’ points to two shooters in his father’s assassination         


    Robert F. Kennedy flanked by union organizers Dolores Huerta (left) and Paul Schrade (right). Huerta co-founded what would become the United Farm Workers. Schrade, also a union organizer, was one of five others wounded when RFK was assassinated in 1968.
    - Photo courtesy of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund


    Cool Justice:
    RFK Jr. points to forensic evidence of second gunman in his father’s assassination
    By Andy Thibault


    Buried on page 271 of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book on the Skakel murder case in Greenwich is a quick, but telling reference to his father’s assassination.

    As part of my summer reading I highlighted the passage. I had a visceral sense it was important.

    Kennedy family members rarely have spoken publicly about the assassinations of either President John Kennedy or U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, much less criticized the official findings. The passage is noteworthy for the simple fact it is memorialized in a book. It is not just a comment in an interview.

    This angle deserves serious attention, and so it wasn’t shoehorned into the column published Aug. 5 on the Greenwich murder case, “COOL JUSTICE: RFK Jr. attacks prosecutors, cops, courts for willful misconduct as he asserts cousin Skakel’s innocence.”

  • Aug. 5 column

  • Some of Kennedy’s claims and his book investigating the murder of 15-year-old Martha Moxley in Greenwich in 1975 have been panned by the state Judicial Department and other authors who chronicled the case. A state Supreme Court ruling on whether Skakel will face a retrial or be sent back to prison is expected this fall. A senior judge ruled in 2013 that Skakel did not receive a fair trial when he was convicted of the Moxley murder in 2002. Skakel was freed on bond after serving 11 years of a sentence of 20 years to life in jail.

    That covers a lot of ground, and the next court decision will be big news. It seems to me the “footnote” on page 271 also is big news.

    Following are two paragraphs from Kennedy’s book, “Framed, Why Michael Skakel Spent Over A Decade In Prison For A Murder He Didn’t Commit,” leading up to the clincher paragraph on the RFK assassination:

    “I sympathize deeply with Dorthy Moxley [Martha’s mother]. I have seen up-close the agony of a mother’s grief over the loss of her child. my mother lost her husband to murder and two of her sons to violent, untimely deaths in the bosom of their youth. I was with her when my father died. I stood beside her 29 years later as my little brother Michael died in her arms.

    “My mother told us that we needed to let go of our impulse for revenge and allow the cycle of violence to end with our family. This, she said, was the lesson of the New Testament, which swapped the savage eye-for-an-eye tribalism of the Old Testament for the ethical mandate that we turn the other cheek. But forgiveness wasn’t just ethics. It was salutary. Revenge and resentments, my mother said, are corrosive. Indulging them is like swallowing poison and hoping someone else will die. By opposing the death penalty for Sirhan, we diluted these poisonous passions.

    “And what if, God forbid, the object of our revenge turns out to be innocent? For several decades, my father’s close friend Paul Schrade [in recent photo, right], who took one of Sirhan’s bullets, has argued that Sirhan Sirhan did not fire the shot that killed my father. Recent forensic evidence supports him. How would we have felt now, if our family had demanded his execution?”

    Like most Americans, I had not paid much attention to the forensic details regarding the RFK murder. What kind of evidence was RFK Jr. referring to? What is the significance of his dropping this tidbit toward the end of a book on another subject?

    Robert F. Kennedy was shot just after midnight on June 5, 1968 in the back and in the back of the head at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He had been celebrating his California primary win in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. Kennedy had become a vigorous opponent of the Vietnam War and an advocate for civil rights, unions and racial justice. His death came just two months after the murder of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

    The renowned forensic pathologist and medical school professor, Dr. Cyril Wecht, assisted Los Angeles Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Noguchi in efforts to secure the Kennedy body and perform the autopsy. I reached out to Wecht this week to talk about the new Kennedy statement and the evidence cited by Paul Schrade and others.

    Regarding Robert Kennedy Jr.’s statement in the new book, Wecht commented: “I think it’s commendable. I wish he had done it sooner.”


    Letter presented this year to California parole officials by Paul Schrade


  • Complete column at Litchfield County Times


  • Also at:
  • New Haven Register







  • more COOL JUSTICE







  • Via @NorwichBulletin #moreCOOLJUSTICE @ #SpraguePublicLibrary 9-22-16 #TrueCrime All Sides of the Law






  • Recent column: Judges who played role in murder probe squelched access to key testimony




  •           Druze Tea        

    Herbal arrangement for tea brewing
    For those unfamiliar with the Druze culture, it is unique to the Levant (Lebanon, Syria and Israel). This minority group originated about a thousand years ago in the Ismaillia sect of early Islam, and was largely prosecuted after splitting off from it. Therefore, mate

    they usually dwell on mountains and have long tradition of bravery since they've always needed to fend for themselves in a rather hostile environment. In Israel, the Druze communities are all located in the north - from Mount Carmel in the largest Druze town Daliat el Carmel and all the way up north to the Western Galilee, the Golan Heights especially around Mount Hermon.

    Near my village alone there are four Druze villages - Jath, Yanuh, Yirka and Julis. We've held strong friendly relationships with our Druze neighbours. Growing up, two elders from the village Yanuh will travel on foot or by donkey and come help us build our village - they taught our parents how to built terraces from the many rocks around here so that we can grow crops along the hillsides, how to cultivate wild olives and do the grafting so the trees grow strong and bear good fruit, and we went every summer to the miller and grind our wheat (when we still grew our own), and every autumn to line up with all the other olive growers and press our olives into fine olive oil and buy handmade olive soap that was made on the spot from the pommace left from the pressing process. As the nearby village Yirka developed into a small town bustling with businesses - we go there also to do most of our shopping and other business (that's where I usually go to the ship my online orders, by the way), and continue to build business and work relations with our neighbours. My house (both the old and the new part) was built almost entirely by a Birka-Born team of construction experts who became my closest new friends since moving here, and their wives come to practice Pilates with me.

    Growing up here, I remember my mom being especially enthusiastic about learning from the Druze women about the bounty of edible and medicinal wild plants around here. From them she also learned to drink olive oil in the morning on empty stomach, and how to make a special scorpion antidote (from the scorpion that stung you, fried in olive oil). I never tried either, and probably never will. But I do love to learn from them about the nearly magical properties of the plants that grow everywhere around here. It's as if there is an entire pharmacy out in the open, here in the wild. 

    Besides, there is much to be learned from the Druze traditional way of living, which is very family centred and values hospitality and taking the time to sit and enjoy a cup of anything - tea, coffee, and more and more coffee. The latter is served everywhere you go - from the hardware store to the mobile phone shop. And of course you can't enter a home without being invited for at least a cup of coffee, and if it's dinnertime - to break bread with the whole family.

    Ka'kat Isfar
    As is widespread in all of Israel - among both the Arab and Jewish population - the Druze adore za'atar, sage and the many wild harvested and then dried herbs from around here. They are  popular as digestifs or medicinal brews for various ailments or as preventative measures: wild sage, white mint, savory, wild oregano, and more are either infused on their own or added, dried or fresh, to black tea.  The love for za'atar is so profound that it is even added to some sweet pastries, such as this traditional ka'akat isfar ("yellow cake") - a mildly sweet yeasted flatbread that is coloured with turmeric and additionally spiced with sesame and nigella seeds, hints of za'atar (this umbrella name could be wild oregano, savoury or thyme - more on that in another post), and hints of mysterious spices that I'm yet to identify (I detected nutmeg and perhaps even some cardamom or allspice but I can't be sure of the latter two). It has become a favourite of mine, but is never found in a pastry shop. Some families would sell their traditional homemade ka'kat isfar when they make it, and the recipes vary. The first one I tried was only spiced with turmeric. This particular version that I'm very fond of was made by a random person I met on one of my traveling tea parties, and I doubt I will be able to taste ever again. The only recipe I found that seems close is written in Arabic and I'm far from being proficient enough to follow a recipe in that language.

    Many of my Vancouver perfume studio guests have been indirectly introduced to Druze culture through the special tea I would brew each winter (we fondly called it "witch brew") of dried hulnejan (a particular type of dried galangal root) and ginger roots, which is simmered forever in a large pot, simultaneously cleansing the air, warming the chest and keeping colds at bay. It is often served with pecan nuts sprinkled on top, and a lot of sugar, which is how most Druze like their teas. I personally prefer it unsweetened, and like to add cinnamon bark which has its own natural sweetness. Sometimes I would add honey but not often.

    But Hulnejan is not the only interesting thing about the Druze tea culture. As it turns out, in the 19th Century, many Druze - especially from Syria - left for Argentina, and they brought back with them mate, and a special fondness for this unique South American concoction. They drink it socially, sharing the same bombilla (the silver straw), traditionally sucked from the tea which is brewed in a dried decorative gourd.

    Mate, Druze-style

    In this photo, I am holding a dainty cup of mate that was offered to me on the streets of Majdal Shams, a remote Druze village come ski tourist town on Mount Hermon (Jabal Sheikh), formerly part of Syria. 

    On Saturday morning, we were having a hard time finding a place to eat breakfast. The breakfast place recommended to us the night before was still closed at 8:30am - it turns out it was them who had the wedding the night before with the parade that blocked the streets) - and so we were directed by a local lady to a corner shop that sells coffee, cigarettes, local cherries and freshly whipped before your eyes malyukh (Druze flat bread that is baked on top of a saj - an iron dome much like an upside down wok) on top of open fire. The bread is baked only on one side, than folded and smeared with generous amounts of labneh (soft cheese made from strained yoghurt), za'atar mixture, and homemade hot sauce that I swear was spiked with cinnamon.  We were also offered black tea "on the house" which turned to be fragrant with "Ootra" - Arabic for the popular Pelargonium graveness. The lady was impressed with my Arabic (very basic, but still better than nothing) and even more so that I recognized what she put in the tea and know the Arabic name for it.

    I chatted her up as I was munching on the malyukh and sipping the tea, and learned that while Majdal Shams is not as big as Yirka - it is a lot more "modern" to her words. There is a high percentage of post-secondary education, most of which was acquired in Syria, where up until the civil war was offered for free to all Syrian citizens. As a background - you should know that up until 1967, the Golan Heights and Mt. Hermon, including the four Druze villages  there - Majdal Shams, Mas'ade, Ein Kiniya and Buq'ata - were under Syrian rule, and their culture is quite different than what you'll find in the Galilee. One thinks of the border between Israel and Syria (sworn enemies since the establishment of the state of Israeli in 1948) as hermetically sealed, but in fact there was a dynamic flow of the Druze population between the countries - especially for weddings and for family reunions, but also for studying abroad. This lady's brother lived in Syria for many years - he went there to study medicine, got married and lived there until the war started, and then requested to return, and came back to Israel via Jordan with his wife and their children.

    We finished our delicious breakfast, thanked the lady and crossed the street to where our car was parked, right in front of a bakery (the only other place that was already open by 9am). In front of it, two ladies sat on a bench and a couple of upside-down plastic grocery boxes, boiling water on a portable gas stove and sipping non other than mate from a dainty little jug. I was so astonished I could not hold my gasp of delight. In return, they offered me to sit down and join them, rinsing the bombilla with boiled water from the kettle and pouring fresh water over and over the mate to bring out the flavour time and again. I was so thrilled that even though we're only two hours drive from home, and are already experiencing new culture that is so different yet invites us to share a cup of tea together.
    I had a couple of jugs of mate with them and thanked the big spirit that's in this world that encouraged me to finally set up on my tea journey. 

              Law Enforcement Arrested The First Hansa Users In The Netherlands        

    The Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office announced the first arrests conducted by law enforcement in the country regarding the takedown of the Hansa Market. According to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Netherlands, law enforcement authorities arrested one of the top sellers in the country. The 28-year-old man of Krimpen aan den Ijssel, the Netherlands allegedly ...

    The post Law Enforcement Arrested The First Hansa Users In The Netherlands appeared first on Deep Dot Web.


              Time: "Innocent: The Fight Against Wrongful Conviction"         

    Time has a Special Edition “Innocent: The Fight Against Wrongful Convictions”, :25 Years of the Innocence Project”, 96 pages, heavily illustrated, many writers.

    There are seven chapters, each with several essays.  The first one starts with the wrongful conviction f a man for a brutal robbery and murder of a money order salesman in Cleveland in 1975.
    One of the biggest topics is DNA evidence.  But it has been surprisingly difficult to get cases retried with new DNS evidence,  Politically motivated prosecutors or the police entice confessions out of vulnerable defendants, especially from child witnesses in sex cases.

    There is some attention to forgiveness and to reparations.



    Chapter Six contains an excerpt from “Ghost of the Innocent Man” by Benjamin Rachlin, this excerpt focused on the Center for Actual Innocence in North Carolina.

    The book should be interesting to filmmakers Andrew Jenks and Ryan Ferguson (who was himself unjustly convicted of second degree murder in Missouri and got out after 10 years (Andrew Jenks’s film “Dream/Killer”, Movies, Jan. 22, 2016), and the MTV series "Unlocking the Truth".


              Comment on Burnett new FFB Police Chief by Daniel Dunnahoo        
    I have a house on 214 timber. It was broken into and about twelve hundred dollars in items were stolen. The suspect that did this crime is my my neighbor's son Nathan. Detective Christopher stated that a full investigation with search warrant will proceed. I want to know that Nathan and all others will be arrested and prosecuted. I like to get my possession back also. But as of now nothing is happening. Time is a wasting I feel that nothing is going to be done. Sincerely Daniel Dunnahoo.
              Licentious Gotham: Erotic Publishing and Its Prosecution in Nineteenth-Century New York        
    Licentious Gotham: Erotic Publishing and Its Prosecution in Nineteenth-Century New York
    author: Donna Dennis
    name: Kristin
    average rating: 3.93
    book published: 2009
    rating: 0
    read at:
    date added: 2010/01/09
    shelves: to-read
    review:


              Prosecutor: Tiger Woods to plead guilty to reckless driving        
    PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. (AP) -- Tiger Woods has agreed to plead guilty to reckless driving and will enter a diversion program that will allow him to have his record wiped clean if he completes the program, a prosecutor said Wednesday.
              Prosecutor confirms the identity of Bastille Day attacker        
    French prosecutor Francois Molins holds a press conference to give an update on the Bastille Day attack in Nice, France.
              Annual Eastern Freshwater Cod three-month fishing closure of the Mann and Nymboida Rivers and their tributaries is now in effect        

    The Daily Examiner, 3 August 2017, p.3:

    Fishing closure

    ANGLERS are reminded the annual three-month fishing closure of the Mann and Nymboida Rivers and their tributaries is now in effect.

    The closed waters include the Mann River and all of its tributaries upstream of its junction with the Clarence River; and the Nymboida River and all of its tributaries from its junction with the Mann River upstream to Platypus Flat.

    The closure does not apply to notified trout waters.

    All fishing in the specified area is prohibited until October 31 to enable the endangered Eastern Freshwater Cod to spawn uninterrupted during its breeding season.

    There will be an on-the-spot fine of $500 with maximum penalties of up to $44,000 and/or six months of imprisonment upon prosecution.


              Why are we still refusing to fully honour the spiritual and cultural relationship that traditional owners have to the land in Australia?        

    It doesn’t matter to the Turnbull Government that science declares that Aboriginal Australia has existed since time immemorial or that indigenous culture has existed on this continent longer than any other culture which is now part of multicultural Australia -  it stubbornly refuses to genuinely honour the spiritual and cultural relationship that traditional owners have with the land.

    June 15, 2017

    MEDIA RELEASE
    14 June 2017
    Traditional Owners slam passage of Native Title amendments
    Traditional Owners fighting Adani’s proposed coal mine have expressed profound disappointment at the passage of Attorney General Brandis’ amendments to the Native Title Act, stressing that while Mabo’s legacy has been diminished they will continue to fight for their rights.
    Senior spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, Adrian Burragubba, says, “Adani’s problems with the Wangan and Jagalingou people are not solved this week. The trial to decide the fate of Adani’s supposed deal with the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners is scheduled for the Federal Court in March 2018.
    “Our people are the last line of legal defence against this mine and its corrosive impact on our rights, and the destruction of country that would occur.
    “Senator Brandis has been disingenuous in prosecuting his argument for these changes to native title laws, while the hands of native title bureaucrats and the mining lobby are all over the outcome.
    “This swift overturning of a Federal Court decision, without adequate consultation with Indigenous people, was a significant move, not a mere technical consideration as the Turnbull Government has tried to make out.
    “It is appalling and false for George Brandis to pretend that by holding a ‘workshop’ with the CEOs of the native title service bodies, he has the unanimous agreement of Traditional Owners across Australia. No amount of claimed ‘beseeching’ by the head of the Native Title Council, Glen Kelly, can disguise this.
    “The public were not properly informed about the bill, and nor were Indigenous people around the country, who were not consulted and did not consent to these changes.
    “We draw the line today. We declare our right to our land. There is no surrender. There is no land use agreement. We are the people from that land. We’re the rightful Traditional Owners of Wangan and Jagalingou country, and we are in court to prove that others are usurping our rights”, he said.
    Spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, Ms Murrawah Johnson, says, “Whatever else this change does, we know that the Turnbull Government went into overdrive for Adani’s interests.
    “Brandis’ intervention in our court case challenging the sham ILUA was about Adani. Most of what Senator Matt Canavan had to say in argueing his ill-informed case for native title changes was about Adani. The Chairman of Senate Committee inquiring into the bill, Senator Ian McFarlane, referring to the native title amendments as “the Adani bill” was about Adani. And the PM telling Chairman Gautam Adani that he’d fix native title was about Adani”.
    “We are continuing to fight Adani in court and our grounds are strong. If anyone tells you this is settled because the bill was passed, they are lying”, she said.
    Adrian Burragubba says, “The Labor Opposition seems to understand this, even though they supported passage of the bill. Senator Pat Dodson went so far as to say this bill does not provide some kind of green light for the Adani mine, as some suggest.
    “Pat Dodson acknowledged that W&J have several legal actions afoot against Adani and we are glad that in the midst of this dismal response to the rights of Indigenous people some MPs, including the Greens who voted against the bill, recognise the serious claim we have to justice.
    Mr Dodson said in the Senate that: “most of this litigation will be entirely unaffected by the passage of this bill. In particular, there are very serious allegations of fraud that have been made against Adani regarding the processes under which agreements with the Wangan and Jagalingou people were purportedly reached. And those proceedings, which may impact on the validity of any ILUA, will only commence hearings in March next year. Other legal action is also underway, including a case challenging the validity of the licences issued by the Queensland government.”
    This week researchers from the University of Queensland released a report titled ‘Unfinished Business: Adani, the state, and the Indigenous rights struggle of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council‘.
    For more information and to arrange interviews:  Anthony Esposito, W&J Council advisor – 0418 152 743.


              Scott Dekraai case returns to the question of his execution        
    Scott Dekraai, the admitted killer of eight people in and near a Seal Beach hair salon in 2011, should not be executed, Dekraai’s lawyer argued this morning. The reason? Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders says deception by sheriff deputies and local prosecutors in the Dekraai case has been so extreme that there is no way […]
              TIME Magazine Poses Five Reasons for Death Penalty Decline        

    In a cover story for TIME Magazine, award-winning journalist and TIME editor-at-large David Von Drehle explores the decline of capital punishment in the U.S.  Von Drehle offers five significant reasons for the drop in death sentences, executions, and public support for the death penalty in the United States. First, he cites persistent problems with the administration of the death penalty: botched executions and a lengthy appeals process that fails to identify wrongful convictions for decades, if at all. Second, he points to the falling crime rate, showing that support for the death penalty has closely tracked the national murder rate throughout the 20th century. The third reason Von Drehle gives is the erosion of the justification for capital punishment. Life without parole sentences provide an alternative way to ensure that a murderer will never be released and an equivalent to "[w]hatever deterrent capital punishment provides." He also describes the historical use of executions as a tool of white supremacy. While he notes that "the overt racism of the old order is now plainly unconstitutional," the system remains plagued by economic bias, as a result of which "[t]hose without the capital get the punishment." Fourth, he highlights the financial cost of the death penalty, which has led some prosecutors to decide that death sentences are simply not a priority within a constrained budget. Finally, he says, "Actions of the legislatures, lower-court judges and governors can all be read by the Supreme Court as signs of 'evolving standards of decency' in society," which the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually see as justification for striking down capital punishment. He concludes, "The facts are irrefutable, and the logic is clear. Exhausted by so many years of trying to prop up this broken system, the court will one day throw in the towel."

    (D. Von Drehle, "The Death of the Death Penalty," TIME Magazine, June 8, 2015.) See Arbitrariness and History of the Death Penalty.


              Strauss-Kahn released without bail        
    NEW YORK (Reuters) – Former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was released without bail at a New York court hearing for his sexual assault case on Friday. At a hearing to seek changes to his bail conditions, prosecutors said the credibility of the hotel maid at the center of the case had been t...
              Italian PM Berlusconi laughs off sex crime trial        
    MILAN — Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Monday accused Italy’s judges of being out to get him and laughed off his ongoing sex crime trial as he returned to court on fraud charges in a separate trial. “The prosecutors are working against the country,” Berlusconi told reporters i...
              Prosecutors Want Katie Yow to Tell a Grand Jury What She Knows about the Firebombing of the Orange County GOP HQ. She’d Rather Go to Jail.        
    Yow, a Durham resident, is an anarchist and grand jury resister. She could soon face contempt charges. Standing near the corner of Market and Eugene streets in Greensboro Monday morning, Katie Yow is giving a stranger directions to Guilford County magistrate court. "All of this stuff is a governmental complex," she says to the woman, pointing toward a stretch of drab monoliths.…
              Questions About Price’s Girlfriends Anger Judge, Scolds Prosecutor        
    An angry judge today halted a prosecutor's questions about the love life of Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price, saying, "it's completely improper" to discuss in his political corruption trial.
              More Finger Pointing As Paxton’s Trial Expected To Cost $2M        
    More questions and finger pointing over hundreds of thousands of dollars Collin County taxpayers are plunking down for the prosecution of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
              John Wright (1923-2011): pillar of the Catholic faith        
    Michael Gilchrist

    John Patrick Wright, who died last June, was an outanding, courageous Melbourne Catholic layman who was a tower of strength for orthodoxy at a time when this was often under siege inside the Church under the banner of the "spirit of Vatican II".

    Born on 8 January 1923, he was the youngest of four children. First educated at Kildara, he attended De La Salle College in Malvern before completing his secondary education at Xavier College, Kew.

    He had a natural love of and aptitude for languages, excelling at Latin and French and after completing school in 1940 went on to complete a Law degree at Melbourne University.

    During World War II John Wright learned Japanese and was involved in interrogating Japanese prisoners of war while after the war he travelled to Japan as part of the British Occupational Forces and lived there for two years, making lifelong Japanese friends.

    In later years, while at the Bar he was a regular contributor to The Age, with an article called Lawyer's Diary, where he would provide, for the benefit of the reader, hypothetical court scenarios and rationales for outcomes arrived at. In 1972 he was appointed a Crown Prosecutor, a position he held until his retirement at the age of 62.

    The Church remained his enduring focal point. A founding member of the first parish council at Our Lady's, Ringwood, he undertook numerous parish activities while continuing to be a twice-weekly communicant.

    John Wright was a man of strong conviction and the courage of his conviction rarely failed him, even if this meant confronting others, as happened one night in a packed school hall when he challenged a teacher over the content of a religion lesson.

    He was later actively involved with a group of Catholics in the 1980s who had organised over concerns about deficiencies in the then Melbourne archdiocesan guidelines for religious education. This involved himself, other laypeople and some brave priests and religious in meetings with Archbishop Little and various diocesan officials in an effort to have the deficiencies remedied. In the end, their efforts proved fruitless until the advent of Archbishop Pell a decade later.

    He was a great admirer of the work of Bob Santamaria and the NCC, and, as with the Church, it continued to be a big part of his life, including volunteer work. He also assisted in the birth of the Catholic-based organisation, the John XXIII Fellowship Co-op, a major force in the struggle for Catholic orthodoxy in Australia. He would be actively involved with the Co-op for many years.

    On a personal note, I will be forever grateful to John Wright for his invaluable assistance in enabling me to put together my first book on the crisis within Australian Catholicism, Rome or the Bush. When no other publisher would touch this book, the John XXIII Fellowship Co-op took it on board and at the time of Pope John Paul II's first visit to Australia in 1986 it became a surprise best-seller. Much of the credit for this success can be attributed to John Wright's help and wise advice.


              The 10 Steps to Impeach a PresidentIt won’t be easy to impeach...        


    The 10 Steps to Impeach a President

    It won’t be easy to impeach Donald Trump. No president in American history has ever been convicted on articles of impeachment. 

    Only two presidents so far have been impeached by the House and had that impeachment go to the Senate for trial. The first was Andrew Johnson, in 1868, when the Senate came one vote short of convicting him. The next was 131 years later, in 1999, when Bill Clinton’s impeachment went to the Senate. 50 Senators voted to convict Clinton, 17 votes short of what was needed.

    What about Richard Nixon? He resigned early in this process, before the House had even voted on articles of impeachment. And then his successor, who had been his vice president, Gerald Ford, gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president.

    This isn’t to say Trump couldn’t or won’t be impeached. Only that it’s a long and drawn-out process. 

    It all revolves around Article I Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, and rules in the House and the Senate implementing those provisions.

    Step 1. It starts in the House Judiciary Committee, when a majority of the member vote in favor of what’s called an “inquiry of impeachment” resolution.

    Step 2. That resolution goes to the full House of Representatives where a majority has to vote in favor. And then votes to authorize and fund a full investigation by the Judiciary Committee into whether sufficient grounds exist for impeachment.

    Step 3. The House Judiciary Committee investigates. That investigation doesn’t have to be from scratch. It can rely on data and conclusions of other investigations undertaken by, say, the FBI.

    Step 4: A majority of the Judiciary Committee members decides there are sufficient grounds for impeachment, and the Committee issues a “Resolution of Impeachment,” setting forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment.

    Step 5: The full House then considers that Resolution and votes in favor of it – as a whole or on each article separately. The full House isn’t bound by the Committee’s work. The House may vote to impeach even if the Committee doesn’t recommend impeachment.

    Step 6: The matter then goes to the Senate for a trial. The House’s Resolution of Impeachment becomes in effect the charges in this trial.

    Step 7: The Senate issues a summons to the president, who is now effectively the defendant, informing him of the charges and the date by which he has to answer them. If the president chooses not to answer or appear, it’s as if he entered a “not guilty” plea.

    Step 8 is the trial in the Senate. In that trial, those who are representing the House – that is, the prosecution – and counsel for the president, both make opening arguments. They then introduce evidence and put on witnesses as in any trial. Witnesses are subject to examination and cross-examination. The trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court – who has the authority to rule on evidentiary questions or may put such questions to a vote of the Senate. The House managers and counsel for the president then make closing arguments.

    Step 9: The Senate meets in closed session to deliberate.

    Step 10: The Senate returns in open session to vote on whether to convict the president on the articles of impeachment. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate. Conviction on one or more articles of impeachment results in removal from office. Such a conviction also disqualifies the now former president from holding any other public office. And it doesn’t bar additional legal proceedings against that former president, and punishment.

    So there you have it–the 10 steps that must all take place to impeach the president. 

    It may come in handy.


              Final Arguments Underway in Murder Trial        

    Andrea Adelson | LB Indy In their final arguments before a jury charged with determining if a Lake Forest man is responsible for the 2009 murder of Laguna Beach’s Damon Nicholson, the prosecutor and defense attorney conveyed dramatically divergent portraits of the accused in a Santa Ana court W...

    The post Final Arguments Underway in Murder Trial appeared first on Laguna Beach Local News.


              Business Partner Arrested in Missing Surfer’s Death        

    Two men were arrested this week in connection with the disappearance and murder of Laguna Beach surfer and business executive Christopher Ryan Smith, who was last seen more than a year ago.   Prosecutors allege that Smith was killed last June by Edward Younghoon Shin, who wanted control of the ...

    The post Business Partner Arrested in Missing Surfer’s Death appeared first on Laguna Beach Local News.


              DNA Solves Cold-Case Murder        

    Prosecutors filed charges this week in a 1978 cold-case stabbing of a Laguna Beach architect....

    The post DNA Solves Cold-Case Murder appeared first on Laguna Beach Local News.


              Rollout Of Good2Go Sexual-Consent App Greeted By Confusion, Legal Questions        

    Designed for education and tested on drunk college students, president says. Civil-liberties group warns that 'enterprising prosecutors' can subpoena a student's 'entire history' from Good2Go, predicts 'fascinating 4th Amendment questions.'

    The post Rollout Of Good2Go Sexual-Consent App Greeted By Confusion, Legal Questions appeared first on The College Fix.


              Sentencing Phase In Boston Marathon Bombing Trial Begins        
    Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

    Transcript

    ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

    Prosecutors began to make their case today for why convicted bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be sentenced to death. The same jury that convicted him will decide Tsarnaev's fate.

              In Closing Argument, Prosecutor Says Tsarnaev Wanted To 'Punish America'        
    Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

    Transcript

    AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

    Dramatic and emotional closing arguments today in the trial of the admitted Boston Marathon bomber Johar Tsarnaev. NPR's Tovia Smith was in the court and joins us now. And, Tovia, prosecutors went first this morning.

              Closing Arguments To Begin Monday In Boston Marathon Bombing Trial        
    The defense rested its case on Tuesday for admitted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after just a few hours of testimony. The defense called four people to testify compared to the 92 called by prosecutors.

    Tsarnaev's lawyers have admitted he did what he's accused of doing.

              Prosecution Rests Case Against Admitted Boston Marathon Bomber         
    Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

    Transcript

    AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

    A milestone today in the case against admitted Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The prosecution rested, and the defense attorneys began their case. NPR's Tovia Smith was in court and joins us now.

              Prosecutors In Boston Marathon Bombing To Wrap Up Their Case        
    Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.


              The New Anti-Americans        
    Just objecting to President Obama's plan for saving the economy and the world is not enough to be anti-American. Even publicly hoping, as Rush Limpballs does, that President Obama fails in everything he does is not enough to be anti-American.

    No, to be one of the New Anti-Americans, you must combine strong dissent toward our new President with a long record of condemning as anti-American all those who dissented against War Criminal, Constitution-Shredder and Traitor George W. Bush.

    For all of us who spent the last eight years enduring verbal and even physical attacks because we dared to express our anti-war, anti-torture, pro-Constitution, anti-bush patriotism, Blue Girl has a rant that will make your heart soar.

    I remember being one of the people who opposed this war from the outset. I remember a squareheaded asshole with a buzz cut pushing his bumper up against mine and trying to push me into traffic a few days before the war started because I had bumper stickers on my truck that said "No War On Iraq" and "Get Afghanistan Right" - when he sped away I saw his..."This time, Anti-War is Anti-American."

    I remember being told by the dispatcher at the police department that I might should take those bumper stickers off my truck because "this is a pretty patriotic town."

    I remember the armchair patriots I worked with there being shocked that a military person was against a war, and how they viewed me with suspicion after learning that.

    I remember having my patriotism questioned, even though I was the one with a record of service to point to.

    And all of my opposing positions were prefaced with "I hope I'm wrong because if I'm right and this fails, America fails, and that is the last thing I want to see happen."

    Yet I'm anti-American and these assholes are the patriots?

    Bullshit. They are traitorous, treasonous cowards, and they do not deserve the rights afforded them by the people like my husband, and elmo, and Rook and, to a lesser extent, me and everyone else who stepped up and took that oath to the Constitution and did so enthusiastically because we knew what was said therein.

    They don't deserve the civil liberties that men and women like bmaz and grolaw fight every day to defend in court. They don't deserve the the protections of the law that my friend RW works within every day to protect society in her role as a prosecutor.

    Fuck Rush Limbaugh.

    Read the whole thing.

    Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.
              The Crime of a Two-Tiered Justice System        
    In the context of the vapors experienced by the Beltway fainting virgins at the prospect of prosecuting torturers and murderers for, you know, torturing and murdering, Glenn Greenwald brings us an example of the kind of justice Smirky/Darth and their minions should be receiving.

    Homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100

    A homeless man robbed a Louisiana bank and took a $100 bill. After feeling remorseful, he surrendered to police the next day. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

    Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. He approached the teller with one of his hands under his jacket and told her that it was a robbery.

    The teller handed Brown three stacks of bill but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

    The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way.

    Brown told the police he needed the money to stay at the detox center and had no other place to stay and was hungry.

    In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.

    Fifteen years for feeling remorseful about taking a hundred-dollar bill. By that logic, 4,200-plus counts of pre-meditated murder ought to get Dubya and Dick 10 or 12 lifetimes hanging from a hook in the ceiling by their scrotums.

    Greenwald goes into shameful detail about the American criminal injustice system's ludicrous over-sentencing of the powerless and its passes for the powerful. But here's the point:

    Under all circumstances, arguing that high political officials should be immunized from prosecution when they commit felonies such as illegal eavesdropping and torture would be both destructive and wrong [not to mention, in the case of the latter crimes, a clear violation of a treaty which the U.S. (under Ronald Reagan) signed and thereafter ratified].

    But what makes it so much worse, so much more corrupted, is the fact that this "ignore-the-past-and-forget-retribution" rationale is invoked by our media elites only for a tiny, special class of people -- our political leaders -- while the exact opposite rationale ("ignore their lame excuses, lock them up and throw away the key") is applied to everyone else. That, by definition, is what a "two-tiered system of justice" means and that, more than anything else, is what characterizes (and sustains) deeply corrupt political systems. That's the two-tiered system which, for obvious reasons, our political and media elites are now vehemently arguing must be preserved.

    Read the whole thing.
              Cops: Suspect Wore Bloody Boots To Interview        
    Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office Detective Bryn Wilden said the woman wasn't suspected in the killing until detectives noticed blood on her boots.
              Hypernationalism, Islamism, and Fascism all En Vogue        
    This article appeared in Al-Monitor, where you can find the full version. 


    Since the military overthrow of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s government in early July, the rhetoric by critics of the Muslim Brotherhood has been vitriolic and relentless. The campaign has sought to delegitimize the Islamist movement, and in fact, negate its Egyptian identity. Morsi himself has been charged with espionage and serving foreign interests. The general prosecutor has accused Muslim Brotherhood supporters of hiring Syrian and Palestinian mercenaries. Partisans of the army-led government, including some familiar “democracy” activists, have repeatedly called for additional crackdowns on Islamists. More often than not, Muslim Brotherhood members are portrayed in juxtaposition to ordinary Egyptians, rather than among the people, and as a “cancer” that must be removed at all costs.

    As the Arab world continues to politically devolve following the revolutions of 2011, it seems that a new fascism is becoming en vogue. In many ways, a response to the rise of religious supremacy over the past three decades, the ideology is predicated on a foundation of hypernationalism whereby the state is paramount, and any intellectual contestation is met with rhetorical — if not legal — excommunication. As the dust settles, a shrinking political class of moderate Islamists and liberals are increasingly caught between these dueling ideologies and their proponents.

    This religious supremacy, or Islamism, has its roots in the modern Middle East in a seminal work by Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood leader imprisoned and executed in Egypt in the 1960s. In "Signposts along the Road" (or Milestones), Qutb intellectually grounds the rejection of fellow Muslims in a process of delegitimization, or takfir. This ideology went into overdrive with the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and the subsequent jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s, both of which laid the groundwork for Islamism as a modern political movement.

    The continuum of Islamism has always been expansive, so it is sometimes hard to differentiate what constitutes the extremist elements of the political community as opposed to more moderate forces. In post–Saddam Hussein Iraq, the philosophy of takfir descended to a new level with the dehumanization of other Muslim groups, with authorization to kill those deemed takfiris. Yet, Morsi, allegedly a mainstream Islamist, sat applauding the same rhetoric targeting Shiites by preachers in relation to the Syrian conflict, illustrating how difficult it can be to draw distinctions.

    With the rise of Islamism, most regimes in the region — lacking a real contesting ideology in response — felt compelled to peddle hollow exhortations of bygone regionalism, or pan-Arabism. Direct attacks on Islamism would have run the risk of alienating their Muslim populations. In this space and amid the tumult of the last two years during which Islamists have grown increasingly unpopular after ascending from the opposition to seats of power, religious supremacy has finally met its match — hypernationalism. In effect, takfir is now being opposed with takhwin, the delegitimization of opponents of the state as traitors of the national cause....

    Read the full version here: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/08/violence-arab-nationalism.html#ixzz2crhOSTyD

              U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Alabama Death-Row Prisoner in McWilliams v. Dunn        

    In a 5-4 decision released June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had unconstitutionally denied death-row prisoner James McWilliams (pictured) the assistance of an independent mental health expert. The Court wrote that its 1985 ruling in Ake v. Oklahoma, which entitles indigent defendants to the assistance of a mental health expert, encompassed a clearly established right to an expert who is "independent from the prosecution." In his opinion for the Court, Justice Breyer wrote that "Alabama’s provision of mental health assistance fell ... dramatically short of Ake’s requirements." The defense had no expert to help it prepare to examine the doctors who testified for the state, and only presented testimony about his mental condition from McWilliams and his mother. After the jury voted 10-2 to recommend the death penalty, the court scheduled a formal sentencing hearing and appointed a state neuropsychologist to examine McWilliams. That doctor prepared a report of the evaluation and consulted with the prosecution. Defense counsel received the neuropsychological report—which stated that McWilliams had “organic brain damage,” “genuine neuropsychological problems,” and “an obvious neuropsychological deficit”—only two days before his sentencing hearing. On the day of the hearing, counsel received extensive prison mental health records that contained evidence that McWilliams was being prescribed anti-psychotic medication. After denying the defense time to consult with an independent expert to develop the mental health evidence for use in mitigation, the court found no mitigating evidence and sentenced McWilliams to death. Justice Breyer wrote, "Ake clearly established that when certain threshold criteria are met, the state must provide a defendant with access to a mental health expert who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent from the prosecution to effectively 'conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.'" The Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which must now determine whether Alabama's violation of McWilliams' right to an independent expert had the "'substantial and injurious effect or influence' required to warrant a grant of habeas relief." Stephen Bright, who argued on behalf of McWilliams before the Supreme Court, said, "Today’s decision is about fairness. The adversarial process cannot function properly if the prosecution can retain mental health experts, but the defense is not even allowed to consult with an expert." He said, "James McWilliams could not have a fair trial without a mental health expert to assess his brain damage and other mental impairments and to help his counsel present that information to the sentencing court." 

    (I. Hrynkiw, "U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Alabama death row inmate," AL.com, June 19, 2017; Press Release, "Statement from Stephen Bright, Counsel of Record for James McWilliams, in re: Today's SCOTUS Ruling (McWilliams v. Dunn)," June 19, 2017.) Read the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McWilliams v. Dunn. See U.S. Supreme Court. See DPIC's background page on McWilliams v. Dunn.


              Alabama Prisoner Facing Eighth Execution Date Claims Innocence, Challenges Execution Procedures        

    Tommy Arthur (pictured), an Alabama death-row prisoner whose 35-year journey through the court system has frustrated both proponents and opponents of the death penalty, is scheduled to be executed on May 25, 2017, the eighth time Alabama has set an execution date in his case. Arthur—whose conviction and death sentence has twice been overturned by the courts and was sentenced to death by his trial judge based upon a non-unanimous jury sentencing recommendation—has steadfastly maintained his innocence in the 1982 murder of Troy Wicker. Most recently, an evenly divided U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of execution four hours after Arthur's execution was set to begin on November 3, 2016, so the Court could consider whether to review Arthur's challenge to Alabama's use of the controversial drug midazolam and his request to be executed by firing squad. The Court ultimately declined to review both that claim and Arthur's separate challenge to the constitutionality of Alabama's non-unanimous sentencing practices. Arthur has repeatedly raised innocence claims, seeking new forensic testing of evidence from his case. Judy Wicker, the wife of Troy Wicker, who was charged with hiring Arthur to kill her husband, testified at her trial that her husband had been murdered by a burglar who beat and raped her. After Ms. Wicker's conviction, she changed her testimony when a prosecutor, who had previously represented her at a parole hearing, offered her early release if she testified against Arthur. The rape kit taken from Ms. Wicker at the time of the murder was lost or destroyed without being tested for DNA and, according to Arthur's current lawyer, Suhana Han, “[n]either a fingerprint or a weapon, nor any other physical evidence connects Arthur to the murder of Troy Wicker.” Hairs found near the victim have also never been tested with modern DNA technology. Arthur has also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, and continues to litigate issues relating to Alabama's lethal injection protocol. He currently has an emergency motion pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, challenging the state's planned use of midazolam, a drug that has been linked to many problematic executions, including that of Ron Smith in Alabama in December 2016. He has also challenged the state's refusal to disclose records related to the Smith execution, which his lawyers say may provide critical evidence for his lethal-injection challenge. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals issued a preliminary ruling in Arthur's favor on a separate issue on May 23, reversing a Montgomery Circuit judge's order rejecting Arthur's claim that the legislature, rather than the Department of Corrections, should determine the state's execution method. But that procedural ruling will not delay his execution. His motion stated, "The role of the legislature is particularly critical given the controversial nature of the ADOC's current midazolam-based execution protocol. ...The choice of the first drug (midazolam) to be used is critical, because without an effective anesthetic, the second and third drugs would cause unbearable pain. But the drug the ADOC chose (in secret), midazolam, is not used in medical practice as a general anesthetic; rather, it is an anti-anxiety sedative in the same drug family as Valium and Xanax, and its use in lethal injection has been extremely problematic." [UPDATE: Alabama executed Thomas Arthur near midnight on May 25. He was pronounced dead at 12:15 a.m. on May 26. Media witnesses reported no visible indicators that the drugs had failed.]

    (A. Blinder, "Alabama Inmate Hopes to Dodge Death for an Eighth Time," The New York Times, May 24, 2017; E. Pilkington, "'It's mind over matter': Alabama prisoner faces execution date for the eighth time," The Guardian, May 24, 2017; K. Faulk, "Court reverses ruling in death-row case, but AG says execution still on," AL.com, May 23, 2017.) See Arbitrariness and Innocence.


              Federal Appeals Court Finds Alabama Prisoner Incompetent To Be Executed        

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on March 15 that Alabama death-row prisoner Vernon Madison (pictured)—who was spared execution last May when the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked at 4-4 on whether to lift a stay—is not mentally competent to be executed. The appeals court overturned an Alabama state court ruling, saying that the state court had unreasonably determined the facts when it concluded that Madison was aware of the reasons for his impending execution. “The only evidence in the record that does address this issue demonstrates that, due to his serious mental disorder, Mr. Madison does not understand the connection between his crime and his execution,” Judge Beverly Martin wrote. Under the 1986 Supreme Court ruling Ford v. Wainwright, the execution of individuals who lack a rational or factual understanding that they will be executed and the reason for their execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court found that the record contained uncontroverted evidence that Madison has "memory loss, difficulty communicating, and profound disorientation and confusion," in part caused by two debilitating strokes in 2015 and 2016. As a result, he no longer remembers the crime for which he was sentenced to death, nor does he understand why he was to be executed. He asked the prison to notify his mother of one of his strokes, but she had been dead for several years. The court noted that Madison is, "legally blind, cannot walk independently, is incontinent and has slurred speech.” Madison is one of the longest serving death-row prisoners in Alabama, having been tried three times for the 1985 murder of a Mobile police officer. His first conviction was overturned because of racially biased jury selection. His second conviction was reversed because prosecutors presented illegal evidence. At his third trial, the jury voted 8-4 to recommend that Madison receive a life sentence, but the judge overrode the jury's verdict and sentenced him to death. In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit granted Madison a stay of execution just hours before he was scheduled to die, in order to consider his incompetency claim, and the Supreme Court split on the prosecution's motion to vacate the stay, leaving the appeals court's decision in place. 

    (K. Faulk, "Federal appeals court rules Alabama Death Row inmate Vernon Madison can't be executed," AL.com, March 15, 2017; B. Lyman, "Death row inmate found incompetent to face execution," Montgomery Advertiser, March 15, 2017; "Federal Court Rules EJI Client Vernon Madison Not Competent to Be Executed," Equal Justice Initiative, March 15, 2017.) See Mental Illness.


               - Idéale FM radio station closed for refusing to reveal sources         
    (RSF/IFEX) - Reporters Without Borders condemns the 8 April 2009 closure of Idéale FM, a privately-owned radio station based in the north-western town of Port-de-Paix, by local prosecutor Jean Frédéric Bénêche for allegedly "obstructing justice." The prosecutor asked the station to identity its sources for a report about Alain Désir, an alleged drug trafficker who is being held in Florida. When the station refused, the prosecutor ordered its closure and had an official seal put on the entrance.
               - Judge in Jean Dominique murder case suspended for corruption        
    (RSF/IFEX) - The justice ministry announced on 30 March 2009 that Fritzner Fils-Aimé, the latest judge to be put in charge of the investigation into the April 2000 murder of Radio Haïti Inter director Jean Dominique, has been suspended for "serious acts of corruption." Two other judicial officials - Joseph Descharles, the prosecutor of the southwestern town of Jérémie, and Patterson Dorval, the deputy prosecutor of the southwestern town of Petit-Goâve - were suspended at the same time for similar reasons. The charges against them are to be heard by the Higher Council for the Judiciary.
              Crime Doesn’t Pay (as much as it used to) – FBI Cracks Down on Trade of Looted Syrian and Iraqi Cultural Artifacts        
    In support of the international crackdown on the black market trade of looted cultural artifacts, the FBI recently announced that art dealers may be prosecuted for engaging in the trade of stolen Iraqi and Syrian antiquities. Terrorist organizations such as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (“ISIL”) have pillaged these countries of their cultural...… Continue Reading
              Cameron Todd Willingham Guilty        
    No doubts: Those closest to case shed no tears for Willingham
    By Janet Jacobs, Corsicana Daily Sun
    published: September 07, 2009 05:08 pm    
     
    expired, original link
     
    The undeniable facts of the Cameron Todd Willingham case are these:
     
    • On Dec. 23, 1991, 2-year-old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and 1-year-old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham died in a mid-morning house fire at 1213 W. 11th Ave. in Corsicana.
     
    • Willingham, 23, the children’s father, and the only adult home at the time of the fire, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death on Aug. 21, 1992.
     
    • After five appeals and 12 years on death row, he was put to death by lethal injection on Feb. 17, 2004.
     
     Everything else is controversial.
     
     Carrying the torch
     
    To people opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, the holy grail is an innocent man who was executed, preferably in Texas, home of the nation’s busiest death row. Some argue Todd Willingham is that innocent man.
     
    The latest argument for Willingham’s innocence comes from a report by Craig Beyler, of Hughes Associates in Baltimore, Md., and submitted Aug. 17 to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a panel formed in 2005 to deal with forensic errors.
     
    Beyler was contracted to review the case following a complaint by the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project is best known for using DNA analysis to exonerate wrongly convicted men.
     
    The report claims the Texas investigators didn’t understand fire science, and didn’t use modern methods in the Willingham case. Because one of the investigators was with the Texas fire marshal’s office, the marshal’s office will have a chance to respond to Beyler’s findings, and the commission should deliver a verdict next spring.
     
    This week, the New Yorker published an article by David Grann which condemns the science and the system which sent a seemingly innocent man to his death. Part of the article is based on Willingham’s relationship with a woman who visited him on death row, and became an amateur sleuth on his behalf. Previous articles questioning the Willingham verdict have also appeared in the Dallas Morning News and the Chicago Tribune.
     
    Leaders of the Innocence Project say this is proof of a failed death-penalty system.
     
    “There can no longer be any doubt that an innocent person has been executed,” said Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, in a release. “The question now turns to how we can stop it from happening again.
     
    “As long as our system of justice makes mistakes — including the ultimate mistake — we cannot continue executing people,” Scheck stated.
     
    In Corsicana, the attempts to make Todd Willingham into a martyr aren’t well-received.
     
    “He’s not a poster child for anybody,” said Sgt. Jimmie Hensley of the Corsicana Police Department.
     
    First impressions
     
    Doug Fogg, a Corsicana firefighter for 31 years, was the first responder to arrive at 1213 W. 11th Ave. in Corsicana that Monday morning. He conducted the local arson investigation.
     
    Fogg calls Beyler an “armchair quarterback” and riles at the accusation that Corsicana and state detectives used nothing more than folklore to come to their conclusions.
     
    “A lot of this stuff (in Beyler’s report) is misspoken or misinterpreted,” Fogg said.
     
    The report accuses state arson investigator Manuel Vasquez, now deceased, of not securing the scene, of missing or mishandling crucial evidence that might have exonerated Willingham, and not using scientific fire analysis.
     
    Willingham had a lot of excuses for the fire, Fogg recalled, including that a stranger entered the house and set the fire, that the 2-year-old started it, that a ceiling fan or squirrels in the attic caused an electrical short, or the gas space heaters in the children’s bedroom sparked it.
     
    The investigators searched for electrical shorts, but found none; the gas-powered space heaters were off because the family’s gas supply had been cut off at the meter; and “we didn’t find a ceiling fan. Willingham said there was one, but we didn’t find any signs of one,” Fogg said.
     
    The other explanations just didn’t add up, Fogg said, adding: “We eliminated all accidental causes.”
     
    Evidence of accelerants was found, but Willingham had an excuse for that, too. Willingham told investigators he poured cologne on the children’s floor “because the babies liked the smell,” he blamed a kerosene lamp for any accelerant in the hallway, and said spilled charcoal-lighter fluid happened while he was grilling, Fogg recalled.
     
    Fogg agreed that there was a damaged bottle of charcoal lighter fluid on the other end of the porch away from the door, but the grill was in the side yard not on the porch when firefighters arrived. Fogg remembered four empty bottles of charcoal lighter were found just outside the front door.
     
    Beyler acknowledges that one sample did have accelerant in it, but said it was unidentified, a claim Fogg disputes.
     
    Local investigators didn’t leave the house until midnight, spending over 12 hours sifting through the debris by hand, taking videotape and more than 80 photographs of the scene, cutting up flooring for the lab, bagging and dating each sample and recording where it came from in the house, Fogg said. Samples were contaminated by melted plastic toys, fire-damaged carpet and floor tiles, but it wasn’t because of investigator’s incompetence, Fogg said.
     
    Beyler theorized it was a flashover, and said investigators didn’t see the difference between the intense heat of a flashover and an accelerant-driven fire. Fogg laughed at the notion.
     
    If it had been a flashover, it would have taken out the thin layer of sheetrock on the walls, he argued.
     
    “That house was box construction,” Fogg said. “The only sheetrock that came down was what was hit with water. The paper backing wasn’t even scorched.”
     
    As well, the fire damage was worse at the floor level than at the ceilings, which is the opposite of typical fire, Fogg said.
     
    “(Beyler) thought we were total idiots,” Fogg said.
     
    Beyond the fire
     
    Sgt. Jimmie Hensley of the Corsicana Police Department was the lead investigator on the Willingham murder case back in 1992.
     
    For Hensley, the most damning evidence came from Willingham, who told officers that 2-year-old Amber woke him up. Firefighters later found her in his bed, with burns on the soles of her feet. Yet, Willingham didn’t take the girl with him when he fled, nor did he receive burns walking down that same hallway, Hensley pointed out.
     
    Willingham was taken to the hospital where doctors did a blood-gas analysis on him, a standard test for someone who’s been inside a burning house.
     
    “He had no more (carbon monoxide) than somebody who had just smoked a cigarette,” Hensley said.
     
    Hensley has since become a certified arson investigator. In hindsight, he insists they took the right steps with the evidence in the Willingham case.
     
    “We did everything we were supposed to do,” he said.
     
    Hensley also dismisses Beyler’s report, pointing out that Beyler didn’t talk to the investigators, and reading the testimony can’t replace first-person observations.
     
    “You can find expert witnesses everywhere, and if you pay them enough they’ll testify to anything,” Hensley said. “They’re to be bought.”
     
    Willingham was tried for murder, not arson, and the guilty verdict was based on the whole picture, not just part of it, he said.
     
    “You can’t just look at a little part. Look at the whole picture, and that’s what the jury did,” Hensley said. “If a 2-year-old wakes you up and there’s smoke and fire everywhere, aren’t you going to at least get that one out? It couldn’t possibly have happened the way (Willingham) said.”
     
    Willingham’s behavior afterwards did not help his case. Todd Morris was the first police officer on the scene and he found Willingham trying to push his car away from the house to save it from the fire, while his children were inside burning up, Hensley said.
     
    Dr. Grady Shaw and his team spent an hour at the emergency room trying to resuscitate Amber while next door Willingham complained about his own suffering, Shaw said.
     
    “I remember this case very clearly,” Shaw said. “She was in Trauma Room 1, and her father was placed in Trauma Room 2, and only a curtain separated those. He was whining and complaining and crying out for a nurse to help him because of the pain from his extremely minor burns while we were trying to resuscitate this child.”
     
    Willingham’s first-degree burns on the backs of his hands and on the back of his neck were the kind that might come from accidentally touching an oven rack, or having a small ember pop up from a campfire, Shaw said.
     
    “He was not hurting that bad from these minor burns,” Shaw said. “It was clearly audible what was going on next door, but to hear him doing all that complaining and asking for attention when everybody was trying to save the little girl’s life was grossly inappropriate.”
     
    Friends of the family testified that Willingham had beaten his wife in an attempt to abort the pregnancy of the twins, and many people assumed the murder of the children was more of the same, said John Jackson, former district judge and the lead prosecutor of the Willingham case.
     
    “We really just believed the children inhibited his lifestyle,” Jackson said.
     
    Aftermath
     
    Hensley came away deeply disturbed by the case, and he’s angry that anti-death penalty proponents ignore the children’s deaths in trying to make Willingham into a martyr.
     
    “In my opinion, justice was served,” Hensley said. “And it’s a shame he couldn’t have died three times, one for each of the little girls.”
     
    Alan Bristol, who helped prosecute the case for the district attorney’s office, said Willingham was “one of the most evil people I’ve ever come in contact with in my life.”
     
    “The guy was a sociopath,” he said. Willingham refused a polygraph, tortured and killed animals as a child, abused his wife repeatedly, thought more about losing his car than his children, and clearly lied about what happened in the deadly fire, Bristol said.
     
    “None of the stories he told us panned out,” Bristol said. “He tried to make himself out to be a big hero, that he tried to go in and save the children, but there was no smoke in his lungs and he had only minor injuries.”
     
    Bristol said the science for investigating fires may have changed over the last two decades, but the accelerant was there, and that evidence remains valid.
     
    “I don’t have any doubt he did it, or was guilty,” Bristol said. “I think he would have been convicted whether we had the arson evidence or not.”
     
    Willingham appealed his case, but the verdict was upheld. In the end, he asked for clemency that never materialized.
     
    “The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit,” Willingham said in his final moments. “I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do.”
     
    The article in the New Yorker quoted Willingham’s protest of innocence as his final words, but Loyd Cook of the Daily Sun was one of three media witnesses at the execution. Willingham’s actual final words were a venom-filled curse at his ex-wife as he attempted an obscene gesture, Cook reported.
     
    “I hope you rot in hell, b—,” Willingham said before dying.
     
    Stacy Kuykendall, who still lives in Navarro County, said she doesn’t talk about the case anymore. However, she did talk to Cook shortly before Willingham’s execution.
     
    She refuted her ex-husband’s attempts to blame Amber, and came to her own conclusions that he killed their daughters. Kuykendall divorced Willingham while he was in prison, and married again. She did not have more children.
     
    “Maybe some of the fear of him will leave me, but I’ll never get over what he did to my kids,” she said in 2004.
     
    From his seat at the defense table, attorney David Martin’s job was to fight tooth and nail for Willingham. Once it was over, though, Martin became convinced his client was guilty. He dismisses the Beyler report as propaganda from anti-death penalty supporters. 
     
    “The Innocence Project is an absolute farce,” Martin said. “It’s a bunch of hype, in my opinion.”
     
    The defense team couldn’t locate an arson expert back then willing to say the house fire was accidental.
     
    “We never could find anybody that contradicted Vasquez,” Martin said.
     
    As for motive, Martin agreed with investigators about Willingham’s character.
     

    “He had no conscience,” Martin said. “Why do monsters kill? They like killing.”

              Why Death Sentences Have Dropped in Texas        
    Why Death Sentences Have Dropped in Texas
    Dudley Sharp

    Re: Texas is issuing fewer death sentences and executing fewer inmates, report says, Samantha Ketterer, Dallas Morning News, 12/15/16

    From: Dudley Sharp

    The referenced report, issued by Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP), finds that opinions and practices, against the death penalty, as well as the adoption of life without parole (LWOP) in 2005, expensive death penalty trials and better legal defense are reasons for the drop, as per Kristin Houlé, the coalition's director.

    Rob Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, finds:

    "I don’t know that that (the drop in death sentences) should surprise anybody," "The number of murders alone and the number of death-eligible cases is way lower than it was in the '80s and '90s."

    Let's look.

    Life Without Parole (LWOP) and Texas Death Penalty Reduction

    LWOP law went into effect in Texas on September 1, 2005.

    I didn't find any post 9/1/2005 capital murders that pled down to LWOP before 12/31/2005 nor any death penalty option trials that were decided prior to 12/31/2005, with a LWOP sentence.

    There was a 69% drop in death sentences, from 48 in 1999 to 15 in 2005, PRIOR to LWOP having any effect on death sentences.

    The first year that the LWOP law could have had any effect on death sentences was in 2006, with 11 death sentences.

    In 2007, death sentences rose by 36%, to 15.

    With almost total consistency, death sentences averaged a little over 10 per year from 2006-2014, which added an  additional 10% drop, to 79%, from the 69% decline of 1999-2005, with that 10%, easily, seen as part of a consistent 15 year (1999-2014)  downward trend, unaffected by LWOP, with the 06-14 drop, massively, smaller than the pre LWOP drop.

    In effect, there was no drop from 2006-2014.

    Prior to LWOP application, death sentences averaged about a 10% drop per year from 1999-2005, but about a 1% drop per year from 2006-2014, on average, after LWOP application, from 11 in 2006 to an average of 10, from 2007-2014, with 15 in 2007 and 11 in 2008 and 2014.

    Death sentences dropped in 2015 and 2016, to 2 and 4, respectively, 10 years after the LWOP law, with no reason to suggest that LWOP was the reason for those numbers, after a 10 year wait, when none of the immediate, previous 15 year, 79% drop can be connected to LWOP.

    It is important to note that juries were not allowed to be told that the previous, pre 2005 life sentences, had parole eligibility.

    Texas had a 55% drop in murders (71% drop in rate),  37% drop in robberies (60% drop in rate), from 1991-2014.

    Robbery/murder is the most common death eligible crime, which may have dropped 70-80%, during that 1991-2014 period, which may account for the entire drop.

    When I first heard the claims about Texas' LWOP law causing the death sentence drop (1), I didn't even have to fact check. I already knew about the huge reductions in violent crime rates, inclusive of murder and robbery, prior to the LWOP law, just as all Texas media and Houlé did.

    Other Alleged Causes For The Drop In Death Sentences

    Nonsense

    "Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., the author of the life-without-parole law, said "It isn't life without parole that has weakened the death penalty," "It is a growing lack of belief that our system is fair."(1)

    Lucio appears correct about LWOP and I have seen no evidence that either prosecutors or jurors have reduced death sentences because of unfairness.

    The Innocence & Exoneration Problems

    All death penalty prosecutors are aware of the massive "innocent" and "exoneration" frauds (2), by anti death penalty folks, so that would have no effect in their seeking the death penalty.

    Alan Levy, Tarrant County district attorney's office, credits the Innocence Project groups with "convincing the public that the system is much less reliable than it is." (1).

    How is the public subject to the Innocence Project deceptions? Only via the media. I am unaware of any study finding that capital cases or any jurors have been effected by these frauds.

    Costs

    "Also, in the recession, the higher costs of pursuing the death penalty have become harder to ignore, and life without parole is a far cheaper alternative." (1).

    Maybe.

    Up front costs have always been higher in death penalty cases, so that gives no reason, now, for that to cause fewer death sentences. It always has. Yes, the up front costs would be more of a challenge during a recession, however . . .

    It is the most populous counties which have, by far, the greatest number of death eligible crimes, and, within those counties, the death penalty would have the smallest percentage affect on budgets, likely, under 0.1% of the total budget. About 2% of death penalty jurisdictions have more than half of the death sentenced cases, as expected, because they have the majority of violent crimes.

    The only academic review of death penalty vs lifer costs in Texas found that life cases were more expensive (3). So, again, we may be getting the wrong information from the media (1), as they, so often, just follow the anti death penalty lead, which is that the death penalty is, always, millions more expensive than LWOP, which is complete nonsense (3).

    "Pursuing life without parole from the onset can avoid millions in legal costs and settle cases quickly."

    True. If you plea bargain to LWOP, only possible with the death penalty, the savings are huge.

    Popular Opinion

    The alleged popular opinion drop, against the death penalty, would have had little to no effect on prosecutors seeking the death penalty, unless we had a noticeably higher percentage of anti death penalty prosecutors elected, which, apparently , may not have occurred until the incoming class of 2017.

    If there becomes a high percentage of anti death penalty folks lying to get on capital eligible juries, that would, certainly have an effect, but am unaware how you would measure that.

    It has been stated that 2/3 of capital cases result in a sanction less than death. If true, we could measure if that percentage has risen. I am unaware of any such review. (see Just revenge : costs and consequences of the death penalty, Mark Costanzo, St. Martin's Press, 1997)

    I say "alleged" popular opinion drop because the media has, for at least, the past 10 years, chosen only those polls with the lowest death penalty support and excluded all others, as detailed (4).

    The highest death penalty support, ever, was 86%, in 2013, as recorded by Angus-Reid, the #1 most accurate pollster in the 2012 presidential election (4). You are, likely, unaware. Not one media outlet carried it (4).

    That's what we are dealing with.

    Other reasons

    Both upgraded defense and a series of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, limiting death penalty application, may have, both, contributed to the Texas drop, with the later much easier to quantify than the former.

    There are 6 or 7 factors they may have affected the death sentence drop in Texas, with the reduction in capital murders being the most obvious, as well as the most hopeful and welcome sign. as well as the most, commonly, downplayed or absent.

    1) one of many

    A. Batheja, "Death sentences have dropped sharply after life without parole became possible," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, November 15, 2009 with active link, found here, as directed by the reporter.
    Texas sends fewer to death row, November 28, 2009
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-28/news/0911280167_1_death-sentences-death-row-juries

    2) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
    READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

    3)  See Texas

    Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

    4) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
    World Support Remains High
    95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html
              Guilty: Glenn Ford & Marty Stroud        
    To: Senate Judiciary, Committee C

    cc: Governor John Bel Edwards and staff
    Louisiana House and Senate
    Justices Louisiana Supreme Court
    Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and staff
    Louisiana District Attorneys Assoc.
    Louisiana Sheriff's Assoc.
    Louisiana State Troopers Assoc.
    All Catholic Diocese, Bishops and staff

    Media throughout Louisiana
    Editors, Bureau Chiefs, Directors, Managers and government/crime reporters

    Subject: Guilty: Glenn Ford & Marty Stroud

    Re: How bad? Marty Stroud's Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee C, SB 142, April 26, 2017

    From: Dudley Sharp

    Preface

    The committee has an obligation to make sure that A.M. "Marty" Stroud takes personal responsibility for his testimony of April 26th. Stroud, proclaimed Glenn Ford an innocent that he, as a  prosecutor, with ill intent in his heart put on death row.

    That obligation extends to setting the record straight to show respect for Isadore Rozeman, the innocent robbery/murder victim, the Rozeman and Glenn Ford families, as well as for the committee.

    In 2015, Marty Stroud described his 1984 self as "arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic", "full of myself",  "totally wrong", interested more in winning than justice, "I was not a nice person" (1), "win, don't care about the costs","don't care about the victim" (2), "I did something that was very, very bad." "It was a train to injustice, and I was the engineer."(3), particularly, in the context of his being a prosecutor in securing the 1984 death sentence for Glenn Ford, for the robbery/murder of Isadore Rozeman.

    Unlike the 1983-84 and 1988-2012 Stroud, in "avoiding" a search for the truth, Stroud's 2017 testimony, as well as his statements, from 2014 through today, had a whole bunch of evidence which he, intentionally suppressed, in avoidance of that known evidence.


    What Stroud Left Out of His Testimony -  2017

    Stroud: "in the motion to dismiss the case, the prosecutor's office said "if we had known the evidence that they knew at the time of the prosecution he probably wouldn't have been arrested." (4)

    Sharp:  That is very odd. The evidence in the 1984 trial was overwhelming, with regard to Ford committing multiple felonies, inclusive of being a principle to the robbery, which led to the additional circumstantial evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt,  that Ford was guilty of capital murder, in the case of innocent murder victim, Isadore Rozeman.

    That same evidence exists, today.

    There is, overwhelming, support for Ford's guilt within both the 2015 (5) and 2016 (5a) reviews of the case evidence, by six judges, all of which Stroud is aware of but, intentionally, left out of Stroud's 2015-2017 statements, inclusive of Stroud's 2017 testimony.

    Even though Stroud claims he desires "all of the story that should have been disclosed" (1), his 2015-2017 examples are "hiding" all of the story that Stroud should have disclosed.

    Take a look:

    Glenn Ford's Guilt

    In 2013-14, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office stated that it had obtained credible evidence that Ford "was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman," and filed a motion to vacate Ford's conviction and sentence. On March 10, 2014, the trial court granted the state's motion. Ford was released the following day after spending nearly 30 years on death row. (5a)

    The facts are that Ford, by his own admission, was a principal participant in the robbery/murder, that he was, at the least,  guilty of second degree murder. Ford cannot be excluded from actually murdering Isadore Rozeman, that murder being a capital, death penalty eligible crime, for which he was found guilty and sentenced to death.

    (2016) Justice C.J.  BROWN,  "The evidence as presented supports Ford's guilt of second degree murder and that his connection was certainly not "tangential." (5a)

    The 2013 "credible evidence" for Ford's 2014 release came from a reliable informant, who remains anonymous.

    Reliable informants are known to be unreliable, occasionally. Informants are only as reliable as their sources, which was, allegedly, Jake Robinson, who, allegedly, stated, to the informant, that he (Robinson)  was the shooter of Isadore Robinson and that Glenn Ford was not there. Robinson is a career criminal, who no one trusts.

    Glenn Ford, at his 1984 trial, did not deny being at the scene of the robbery/murder and he cannot prove that he was not (5a) Nor can he be excluded from committing the murder.

    The record reflects that, at the time of the filing of the 2014 instant petition (to release Ford), two other individuals, Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson, were being prosecuted for the robbery and murder of Mr. Rozeman. (5a)

    Those charges, which originated from that informant, have, now, been dropped, for lack of evidence, in this case, as well as others'.

    That doesn't mean the informant was lying, although, such may be the case.  The informant's information could not be confirmed in quite a few cases.

    We know that Ford was released, based upon information that could not be confirmed.

    The evidence of Glenn Ford's guilt is overwhelming, yet, he was released.

    The iron solid case is that Ford should have been convicted of second degree murder, at least, and that with all of the other involved crimes, Ford would have been sentenced to life in prison and that Ford should never had been released.

    (2016) the five justices, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit: "The (informant's) statement of the district attorney is not evidence, nor has Ford produced any evidence that he was not concerned in the commission of this crime. We find no manifest error in the trial judge's (2015) conclusion regarding Ford as a principal to this crime." (5a)

    2016: Justice J. DREW: " . . . it is accurate to say that the trial court (2015) found that Ford committed armed robbery. Even if not present at the moment of a crime, a person can be convicted of that crime, if otherwise involved as a principal." (5a) " . . . Ford arguably committed second degree murder arising out of the facts of this case. Had he actually been convicted of that crime, in a petit jury trial conducted in accordance with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ford would have never been released from prison." (5a)

    Justice would be served had Ford remained in jail.

    Anti death penalty folks attack informants, mercilessly (6), when they report the guilt of murderers, but love them if they report the innocence of murderers.

    Stroud was very aware in 1983/1984 that the Robinson brothers were involved in the crimes, as well as all of the other facts, detailed, based upon all of Ford's statements, as well as those of other witnesses.

    There wasn't enough evidence to try the Robinsons in 1984, nor was there at any later date, through today.

    One wonders what evidence Stroud avoided, in 1983-84 and 1988-2012, that the police, the investigators and the lead prosecutor also avoided in 1983-1984.  Was there any?

    Defense counsel Stroud's prosecutorial self flagellation tour could be attributable to his ingratiation himself into anti death penalty circles, where such "self destruction" is celebrated, as with The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project honoring Stroud with its annual Champion of Justice Award in 2016.

    Justice redefined.

    Remember Isadore Rozeman

    ======
    Also see
    Glenn Ford Must Be Denied Compensation
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/05/glenn-ford-must-be-denied-compensation.html
    ======

    2) District Judge Katherine Dorroh, in her nine-page ruling (2015) denying Ford's request for compensation from the state for being "wrongfully incarcerated", concluded that Glenn Ford  (5, 7):

    ---  " knew the robbery of jewelry Isadore Rozeman on Nov. 5, 1983 was going to occur
    ---   did nothing to stop it
    ---   attempted to destroy evidence by selling items taken in the robbery and
    ---   attempting to find buyers for the murder weapon used by those he implicated in the murder." (5, 7).

    3) At the very least, Ford knew about the robbery, in advance, was involved in the conspiracy with the Robinson brothers, did nothing to stop it, was an accessory to armed robbery,  after the fact, pawned items stolen in the robbery/murder, the day of the robbery/murder, and had, additional,  items, stolen from Isadore,  in Ford's apartment, was trying to acquire a pistol the morning of the murder and attempted to sell a pistol, the afternoon, after the murder (5, 5a, 8).

    Ford admitted to all of that, and more, as Stroud well knows.

    Detective Gary Pittman who testified that Ford admitted to him that he and Henry Robinson had been at Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder (5a).

    Also found were items stolen, the month, before, from Rozeman's house/shop. Those items were connected to Glenn Ford. (9)

    Who planned the robbery? Ford was the only one involved who knew that Izadore Rozeman had valuables to steal and who knew of Rozeman's security. How? Ford worked for Rozeman (8,5,5a).

    Not only does Ford have blood on his hands, figuratively, he, likely, had blood on his hands, at some point, actually.

    Ford cannot be excluded from gaining access to Rozeman's home, to facilitate the robbery/murder, nor can he be excluded from being the triggerman (8, 5, 5a).

    Ford had gunshot residue on his left hand. The residue was of such small amount that it could neither be confirmed nor denied that he fired a weapon (8, 5,5a).

    There was a partial fingerprint on a paper bag, at the crime scene, which appeared to be used as a glove, likely to hold the gun, a method to avoid  some gunshot residue and avoid fingerprints on the weapon.  That fingerprint did not exclude Ford, but could not be matched to him (8). That partial fingerprint excluded the other suspects (8, 5,5a).

    4) Isadore Rozeman was the robbery/murder victim in the Glenn Ford case.

    All public quotes from Isadore Rozeman's family (2015). All their facts are supported by the record (5,5a).

    "We know that Glenn Ford was intimately involved in this crime that, eventually, led to the death of our uncle. Much of this was due to the relationship of Uncle Prince (Isadore) with Glenn Ford." (10,8)

    "It is undisputed Mr. Ford was involved, having sold the clocks and watches obtained from the shop during the robbery. It is undisputable Mr. Ford was shopping for a gun days before Nov. 5, 1983, and selling the weapon days after the murder." (11, 8)

    "In the compensation hearing (2015), for Glenn Ford, District Judge Katherine Dorroh found that Mr. Ford "committed many crimes, including possession of stolen goods, accessory after the fact to armed robbery, and principal to armed robbery." (11)

    The Rozeman family that found that those charges may resulted in "a sentence of 30 years to life without parole. Mr. Ford served 30 years in prison." (11)

    They are correct, as detailed, above, and here (5a).

    "What has been lost in this discussion is the real innocent victim." (11)

    Sharp: Never in his testimony nor in his apology letter, did Stroud, once, mention the name of Isadore Rozeman.

    "That innocent murder victim was our uncle, Isadore Rozeman, raised in Shreveport and served our country as a plane mechanic at Barksdale during World War II."  (11) "He had a shop in his home on Stoner Avenue and spent his adult life repairing and selling antique watches and clocks. (11).

    "On Nov. 5, 1983, (Isadore) opened the back door and people rushed into (Isadore's) home/shop. They knocked him down, broke his glasses and then put a gun to the back of his head and pulled the trigger." (11)

    Multiple witnesses had Ford near or on Isadore's property near the time of the robbery/murder (5,5a,8). Ford had, himself, in Isadore's home/shop.

    None of Ford's alleged alibis could be confirmed in court (8).

    "Our uncle (Isadore Rozeman) was an innocent victim. (11, 5, 5a)"

    Sharp:  Stroud called Ford an "innocent victim" (1). Such would be an incredible, bizarre declaration, if we were not aware of Stroud's self confessed ethical problems.

    The "innocent" and "exoneration" deceptions, by anti death penalty folks, are standard, every day occurrences (12), just as their making up false confessions are (13).

    "It is also undisputable to our family that my uncle (Isadore) did not open any of the four or five locks on his back door to anyone he did not know. We all spent the night with our uncle and knew his habits. At the time of the murder, the door was not broken down." (11)

    "We will never know for sure who got our uncle to turn the locks and open the door, but the most logical choice was someone who had a relationship with my uncle and who benefited from the robbery. " (11)

    "Glenn Ford fits both counts while the people now felt to likely be the shooters did not have a relationship with our uncle." (11)

    Sharp: It is important to note that those other people were seen with Glenn Ford both, before and after the robbery/murder (7, 5a).

    "In February police interviewed Marvella Brown, Jake Robinson's girl friend. She stated that Ford arrived at her apartment around noon the day of the offense, and asked the Robinsons, "Is you still going?" The three left, she said, returning around 3:00 p.m. with a sack containing jewelry. Ford carried a .22 pistol, and Jake Robinson had a .38 (8, 5a)"

    However, she recanted:

    Finally, when asked if she had lied to the court, she responded, "I did lie to the Court.... I lied about all of it." (8)

    The issues are that her claims of involvement fit the time line of the murder, include the stolen items, as we know was the case, and folks who were well known criminals, all of which suggest the credibility of her original witness statement.

    Brown's recantations is much more suspect, as countless people in the community were intimidated by the four Robinson brothers, which would explain the recantation. (14)

    Brown's recantation is, additionally, rebutted by the fact that Ford stated that one of the Robinson brothers asked Ford to sell the gun, which witnesses stated Ford was trying to sell, the same afternoon as the murder and also gave stolen goods to Ford to sell, those being stolen goods from Isadore Rozeman.

    Sharp: Glenn Ford has not and cannot be excluded as a participant in the actual robbery/murder.

    5) From the 2015 hearing (5):  " 14) After being asked to participate in the robbery of Mr. Rozeman by Henry Robinson, Mr. Ford went to see Mr. Rozeman and asked him if he had any work he could do (p8, 5).

    Sharp: I suspect Ford made that up to explain why he was seen in the vicinity of Rozeman's house, before, after and at the time of the robbery/murder, which, I believe,  was Ford's real job, that day.

    6) with all that evidence, what does Stroud say?

    Stroud: “The audacity of the state’s effort to deny Mr. Ford any compensation for the horrors he suffered in the name of Louisiana justice is appalling." (1)

    Sharp: Mr. Stroud, the audacity is all yours. As Stroud must be aware, for the judge to have awarded compensation to Ford would have required that judge to break the law (5). The judge would have had to find Ford "actually innocent", a finding which is, actually, impossible (5,5a).

    Mr. Stroud, what of the horror of Isadore Rozeman's death?  Stroud didn't mention it. 

    The foundation of Ford's horror was, of course, Ford himself. But for Ford, Isadore would, almost certainly, neither have been robbed nor murdered.  All of Ford's confessions, alone, should have resulted in Ford never being released from prison.

    To paraphrase Stroud: "Ford did something that was very, very bad." "It was a train to horror, and Ford was the engineer."

    To paraphrase Stroud, from his 2015 apology letter (1): "I apologize to the committee in not having been more diligent in my duty to ensure that the proper disclosures of Ford's involvement in the robbery/murder was presented to the committee."


    Defense Counsel

    Contrary to Stroud, first chair for Ford's defense, Paul Lawrence, had, previously, taken several civil cases to trial. Lawrence had, also, clerked for La. Supreme Court Justice Albert Tate, which involves both criminal and civil cases.

    Lawrence states that he "had lots of coaching before and during the (Ford) trial from experienced members of the criminal defense bar in Shreveport, including, specifically, Wellborn Jack, Jr. and his partner Rebecca Hudsmith, who is now the Federal Public Defender for the Middle and Western Districts of Louisiana."

    Lawrence: " I did work very hard to master all the evidence and to draw every possible inference that could be argued to support a reasonable doubt of Ford’s guilt and I believe I did a quite respectable job of that, the jury’s verdict notwithstanding." “It was my job to provide Ford the best defense I could provide under the circumstances, regardless of his innocence or guilt, and I believe that I did that to the very best of my ability."

    The appellate courts do not disagree with Lawrence.

    Lawrence takes no stand on the death penalty or Ford's guilt.  (All from Sharp's discussion with Lawrence, May, 8, 2017).

    Most legal folks know that civil law is much more complicated than criminal law.

    While this was Lawrence's first criminal and capital trial, it was also Stroud's first capital case, for which Stroud was second chair, not lead counsel, as some misrepresent.

    7) Note this very important context, from Stroud's 2015 NPR interview (15):

    Interviewer CORNISH: At what point did you actually really feel guilt about what happened to Glenn Ford?

    STROUD: I felt within four or five years of the verdict.

    In 1984, Stroud tells us that he could, hardly, care less. From 1988/1989-2013, Stroud, allegedly, cared and still did nothing.

    Which is worse? Neither could be called  . . . better.

    More from the Rozemans

    8) All public quotes from Isadore Rozeman's family (2015):

    "We loved our uncle as we did my daughter's husband, Clint Dobson. One was killed at the age of 54, the other at 28. They were both innocent victims. However, those involved in their violent deaths are not innocent victims." (11)

    "What our family learned from both (of these innocent murder victims in our family)  is that we live in a society where evil exists. There are people who do not have a moral compass and these events bear out that truth. Between society and this evil is law enforcement and those in the criminal justice system. We are thankful they stand in that gap." (11)

    Sharp: What does Stroud think of Louisiana prosecutors?

    Stroud: "out to win, whatever the costs." "They don't care about the victim. " "They care about their record." "The ends justified the means". (2)

    Sharp: With the exception that prosecutors MUST care about their record, my guess is that, with about 95% of prosecutors, reality would condemn Stroud's slanders. And Stroud?

    Doesn't it sound like he is describing himself?

    We want prosecutors to care, a lot, about their record. All taxpayers and all justice loving folks want prosecutors to make the correct, responsible decisions for cases to go to trial, to plea cases when appropriate and to know when best to drop charges. Prosecutors want that to be as close to a 100% accuracy record, as possible, and so do we all.


    The Rozemans continue:

    "Without the accountability imposed by law enforcement and criminal justice, we would live in chaos. Because of this, we disagree with many who describe law enforcement and criminal justice as a broken system. We differ with those who wish to lessen personal responsibility, accountability and punishment for violent criminal behavior." (11)

    "Our family believes in God's grace and mercy but neither of those things negate the multiple Bible stories that reference personal responsibility and personal consequences for individual actions." (11)

    In Closing

    The Committee should hold Stroud responsible for his testimony and should shoulder the personal responsibility that both the committee and Stroud have to Isadore Rozeman, the Rozeman and Glenn Ford families, in setting the record straight.

    Don't forget Isadore Rozeman.

    ======

    As per the Death Penalty Information Center's normal absurdities, Ford is listed as no. 144 on their "innocent" or "exonerated" from death row list.

    ======

    Footnotes

    1)  A.M. "Marty" Stroud III letter, Lead prosecutor apologizes for role in sending man to death row, Shreveport Times, 3/20/2015
    http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/20/lead-prosecutor-offers-apology-in-the-case-of-exonerated-death-row-inmate-glenn-ford/25049063/

    3) 30 Years on Death Row, CBS 60 Minutes, 10/11/2015

    4) I used this video because it isolates Stroud's testimony:

    5) RULING ON PETITION FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT, IN RE: Glen Ford, Docket #126,005 - SECTION 1, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CADDO PARRISH, LOUISIANA, March 27, 2015, http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Ford_Glenn.pdf

    5a)  STATE v. FORD, No. 50,525-CA., 193 So.3d 1242 (2016), STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, May 18, 2016.

    6) There are countless articles about distrusting informants. Just do a GOOGLE search.

    8) STATE v. FORD, No. 85-KA-1039.489 So.2d 1250 (1986)
    STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn FORD. Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 31, 1986.   Rehearing Denied May 30, 1986.

    9) from a reliable source, who stated it's "on police reports and either the bond hearing or preliminary examination testimony." I have not located the citation.

    10) Dr. Phillip Rozeman speaks out on Glenn Ford case, video interview with Vickie Welborn, Shreveport Times, 4/10/2015, http://www.shreveporttimes.com/videos/news/2015/04/10/25590423/

    11) Rozeman family: 'Glenn Ford is not an innocent victim', by Phillip Rozeman Shreveport Times, April 8, 2015 | Updated April 10, 2015


    12) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
    READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

    and

    The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense


    13) Innocence Project Invents False Confessions: 150% fraud rate in "confessions"
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-innocence-project-invents-false.html



    14) CPSO detective committed to solving cold cases, Vickie Welborn, Shreveport Times, July 21, 2014,




    15) Prosecutor Apologizes For Putting Innocent Man On Death Row, All Things Considered, NPR's Audie Cornish, March 23, 2015,
    http://www.npr.org/2015/03/23/394906514/prosecutor-apologizes-for-putting-innocent-man-on-death-row#

              Glenn Ford Must Be Denied Compensation        
    Glenn Ford Must Be Denied Compensation
    Dudley Sharp

    Remember Isadore Rozeman

    I review why Glenn Ford must be denied compensation, based upon his "wrongful release", as follows:

    I. Glenn Ford's Wrongful Release
    II. The Evidence of Glenn Ford's Guilt
    III. Ford Must Be Denied Compensation

    Nearly all comments are from:

    STATE v. FORD, No. 50,525-CA., 193 So.3d 1242 (2016), STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, May 18, 2016.

    Which is the 2016 appellate opinion upholding the denial of compensation for Ford and his immediate descendants.

    The (X) footnote refers to that opinion.


    I. Glenn Ford's Wrongful Release    In 2013, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office stated that it had obtained credible evidence that Ford "was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman," and filed a motion to vacate Ford's conviction and sentence. On March 10, 2014, the trial court granted the state's motion. Ford was released the following day after spending nearly 30 years on death row. (X)

    The facts are that Ford, by his own admission,  was a principal participant in the robbery/murder, that he was, at the least,  guilty of second degree murder and Ford cannot be excluded from actually murdering Isadore Rozeman.

    (2016) Justice C.J.  BROWN: "The evidence as presented supports Ford's guilt of second degree murder and that his connection was certainly not "tangential." (X)

    The 2013 "credible evidence" for Ford's 2014 release came from a reliable informant, who remains anonymous.

    Even reliable informants are known to be unreliable, occasionally. Informants are only as reliable as their sources, which was Jake Robinson, who, allegedly, stated, to the informant, that he (Robinson)  was the shooter of Isadore Robinson and that Glenn Ford was not there. Robinson is a career criminal, who no one trusts (1).

    Glenn Ford, at his 1984 trial, did not deny being at the scene of the robbery/murder. Nor can he be excluded from committing the murder.

    The record reflects that, at the time of the filing of the 2014 instant petition (to release Ford), two other individuals, Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson, were being prosecuted for the robbery and murder of Mr. Rozeman. (X)

    Those charges, which originated from that informant, have, now, been dropped, for lack of evidence. 

    That doesn't mean the informant was lying, although, such may be the case.  The informant's information could not be confirmed.

    We know that Ford was released, based upon information that could not be confirmed.

    The evidence of Glenn Ford's guilt is overwhelming, yet, he was released.

    2016: "The (informant's) statement of the district attorney is not evidence, nor has Ford produced any evidence that he was not concerned in the commission of this crime. We find no manifest error in the trial judge's (2015) conclusion regarding Ford as a principal to this crime." (X)

    2016: Justice J. DREW:   " . . . it is accurate to say that the trial court (2015) found that Ford committed armed robbery. Even if not present at the moment of a crime, a person can be convicted of that crime, if otherwise involved as a principal." (X) " . . . Ford arguably committed second degree murder arising out of the facts of this case. Had he actually been convicted of that crime, in a petit jury trial conducted in accordance with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ford would have never been released from prison." (X)

    ======

    False claims of "innocent" and "exonerated" death row inmates are a standard, every day anti death strategy (2).

    =======



    II. The Evidence of Glenn Ford's Guilt


    Detective Ashley testified that a neighbor of Mr. Rozeman's had told investigating officers that he had seen Ford and Mr. Rozeman having a discussion a few days before the murder and that Ford appeared to have been upset over a debt related to the lawn mowing service. (X)

    "From (Deming, a friend of Ford's), the police also learned that Ford had discussed purchasing a handgun, the night before or morning of the robbery/murder)." (X)

    Alice Smith, Ford's landlord, also testified. On the morning of the robbery and murder, Ford advised Ms. Smith that he would be able to pay her rent later that day. Sometime in the late afternoon, Ford brought the rent to Ms. Smith. (X)

    Ford stated that he and O.B. (Henry Robinson) went to Mr. Rozeman's neighborhood, the morning or early afternoon of Nov. 5. (X)

    Ford stated that he saw Rozeman at 1:20 the day of the robbery/murder (X).

    "Heidi and Spring James, two young neighbors of Mr. Rozeman, had seen Mr. Rozeman's yardman (Ford) in an alley adjacent to his property at approximately noon. Another neighbor placed (Ford) in the vicinity at between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m." (X)

    Detective Ashley confirmed that there were several witnesses who placed Ford within one city block of Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder (X).

    Ford stated " . . . that the Robinson brothers had told him of their plan to rob Mr. Rozeman and asked him to join them, but that he declined to do so." (X)

    That is contradicted, by Ford, who admitted going into the neighborhood, with Robinson, the day of the robbery/murder (X),

     . . .  further confirmed by  Detective Gary Pittman who testified that Ford admitted to him that he and Henry Robinson had been at Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder . . .

    and that Robinson had asked him about selling a gun, with Ford having spoken with two potential buyers about the .38. (X), the caliber used in the murder and presumed to be the murder weapon.

    "In February police interviewed Marvella Brown, Jake Robinson's girl friend. She stated that Ford arrived at her apartment around noon the day of the offense, and asked the Robinsons, Is you still going? The three left, she said, returning around 3:00 p.m. with a sack containing jewelry. Ford carried a.22 pistol, and Jake Robinson had a .38." (X).

    ".  . . (customer) Ebrahim had spoken to Mr. Rozeman, he said, at approximately 2:30 p.m. (Nov. 5, 1983) and had arranged to meet him later that afternoon. (X) The timeline suggest he called him earlier.

    The timeline indicates that Ebrahim discovered Isadore Rozeman's body around 2:45 pm.

    The testimony of Heidi James, Chandra Nash, Joseph Nash and James Spring placed Ford at or near Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the robbery and murder", inclusive of Ford still in the neighborhood when the ambulance arrived to pick up Rozeman's body. (X)

    "Jake Robinson's girlfriend, Marvella Brown also testified at trial. She stated that Ford (who she called "Long Hair") was at her house the evening of the crime. Ford asked the Robinsons "if they were going," or "are we going?" Ms. Brown then testified that she saw the three men together a few hours later. She then stated that she saw Ford with a gun, that was not a .22 caliber. Ms. Brown then related that Jake Robinson showed her items of jewelry and a pocket watch and let her keep two of the rings, which she said she "was hiding" after she found out Mr. Rozeman was dead." (X).

    In the punishment phase of the trial, Brown recanted all her testimony, stating that she had lied about everything. Based upon all the other evidence, including her original witness statement, above, it is most likely, that she was, originally, telling the truth and that her recantation was perjury. There was no reason for her to lie in the first place and very good reasons for her to lie in the second, as all knowing people were, rightly, afraid of the Robinson brothers (1). In addition, Brown's original statements fit with the timeline and the evidence.

    The 5 appellate judges, in this 2016 opinion (X) didn't even mention her recantation. Why? They viewed it as having no credibility. They did, however, mention both her original witness statement and her testimony, confirming their belief in it.

    Shortly after the robbery/murder, pawn shop receipts confirmed Ford had sold jewelry, confirmed as that which was stolen from Mr. Rozeman's shop (X). "(Ford) said he received these items from O.B. (Henry Robinson) and pawned them at his request." (X)  "(Police) found demitasse spoons, a cross, gold chains, a pill box and shirt studs, all similar to items customarily sold by Mr. Rozeman.",  later confirmed as those stolen from Rozeman (X).

    The pawn tickets dated the day of the robbery and murder were introduced at trial and handwriting exemplars matched Ford's signature. Detective Gary Alderman testified that a search warrant executed on Ford's hotel room produced an antique spoon, gold chain, cufflink and four studs, which bore the same markings as studs found in a bag belonging to Henry Robinson. Richard Moore, an employee of the pawn shop, identified Ford as the individual who sold certain items (determined to have been from Mr. Rozeman's shop) at 5:00 p.m. on the day of the robbery and murder. (X)


    Detective Ashley confirmed that Ford had stated that Henry Robinson  asked Ford to sell items connected to the robbery — which Ford then sold to the International Pawn Shop, at approximately 5:00 p.m., just two hours after Mr. Rozeman's body was found. (X)

    From "Pouncey and White (friends of Ford's)",  . . . "the police also learned that Ford had attempted to sell a handgun that afternoon (the day of the robbery/murder)". (X) " (Ford) admitted to trying to sell (a gun) on behalf of O.B. (Henry  Robinson). (X) Alvin White and Clarence Pouncy each testified at trial that Ford approached them after the robbery and murder about purchasing a .38 pistol (X), the caliber of pistol used in the murder and, presumed, to be the murder weapon.

    Ford had gunshot residue on his left hand. The residue was of such small amount that it could neither be confirmed nor denied that Ford fired a weapon (3).

    There was a partial leaving fingerprints on the weapon.  That fingerprint did not exclude Ford, but could not be matched to him (3). That partial fingerprint excluded the other suspects (3).

    "On November 11th Ford gave a fourth statement, implicating Henry and Jake Robinson in the murder." (X)

    "In January of 1984, Donnie Thomas, a co-defendant's brother-in-law and Ford's cellmate, related to police that Ford had discussed with him the details of the robbery and murder. According to him, Ford was able to gain access to Mr. Rozeman's shop because he was recognized by his employer." (X)

    The Rozeman family, as well as customers, confirmed that Isadore Rozeman used multiple bolted doors for security.

    Trial commenced on November 26, 1984. The defense was alibi (X).

    None of Ford's alibis could be confirmed.

     Ford testified at his trial. Ford did not deny (X):

    -- "being with the other perpetrators of the crime, either before or after the murder; 

    --  being at Mr. Rozeman's shop at the time of the murder/robbery;

    --  attempting to sell a .38 caliber pistol;

    --  pawning items taken in the robbery.

    Ford told the jury that he did not commit 52 prior burglaries to which he pled guilty (X) . . . , likely, destroying any credibility that he may have had. (X)

    Depending upon jurisdictions, only about 3-20% of burglaries are solved, indicating, by average, that Ford may have committed 472 burglaries at the time of his guilty plea. 

    ==================
    Also review   
    Guilty: Glenn Ford and Marty Stroud


    =================


    III. Ford Must Be Denied Compensation

    Ford has to prove his "actual innocence". Such is impossible. Ford is included in 3-4 felonies in this cases, which could, easily, have resulted in a life sentence and Ford cannot be excluded from being an actual participant in the robbery/murder.

    And folks think Ford deserves $330,000? Incredible. If anyone deserves it, it is the Rozeman family, if justice means anything to you. 

    "It is clear from a reading of the statute that the burden of proof in this case is on the petitioner. Ford must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence." " . . . the entire burden is on Ford to prove that he did not commit any crime based upon the same set of facts used in the original conviction." (X)

    "The argument that Louisiana's statute is inherently unfair is misplaced and misleading, especially when comparison is made to the other jurisdictions that have analogous statutes." (X)

    Read this carefully, from the 2016 ruling:

    " . . . at the (2015) compensation hearing, Ford did not refute or explain these assertions (against him)  . . .   glaringly significant  . . . an adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify.  . . .   Ford's failure to testify, and potentially explain that he was not involved in other criminal activity on the day of the murder, and for some time before and after it, corroborates Ford's actual commission of other crimes. Ford had no privilege against testifying, constitutional or statutory . . . Ford committed other crimes . . . confirmed by Ford's resounding silence at the compensation hearing." (X)

    Ford failed to disprove that he committed the crimes of possession of stolen goods, accessory after the fact and being a principal to the armed robbery. In fact, he admitted to them.

     "  . . .  the overwhelming evidence of Ford's knowledge of and involvement in the criminal activity that day and night: his participation in selling the stolen property from the robbery; his acting as a lookout; meeting with Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson before and after the crime; and his attempts to procure buyers for the probable murder weapon." (X)

    "The testimony of Ms. Brown that Ford was with the Robinsons prior to the robbery and murder and asked if the three "were going to go," coupled with his presence at Mr. Rozeman's on the day of the crime and activity around the shop, could be construed as "casing" the shop. These actions could easily be construed as showing Ford's knowledge of the planned crime." (X)

    Ford admitted his prior knowledge.

    "The evidence clearly establishes that Ford took the stolen items and sold them at the pawn shop. Ford's argument that there is no evidence as to how he came into possession of the items is without foundation. . . .  Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was not in illegal possession of stolen things." (X)

    "Ford was aware of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman. . .  agreed to sell some of the stolen items in his name, which he did  . . . agreed to procure buyers for the .38 caliber pistol  . . . the trial judge concluded that the evidence "clearly established" that Ford was trying to help the Robinsons avoid arrest. Accessory after the fact, which — in this case concealed the identity of murderers — may well be the type of crime which the legislature contemplated as a crime unworthy of compensation. She stated that Ford's "willingness and attempts to find a buyer for the weapon used in the crime" added to the fact that he was assisting the Robinsons. These conclusions are well supported by the record and we agree with the trial judge that Ford's assertion that he did not know the items were stolen is unbelievable. We find no manifest error in the finding that Ford failed to carry his burden of disproving his commission of accessory after the fact." (X)

    "Henry Robinson had told Ford of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman. Ford also emphasizes the state's assertion, in its motion to vacate, that he was "neither present nor a participant in the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman." First, the overwhelming evidence in the record before us supports the conclusion that Ford was concerned in the commission of this crime. Despite his purported absence, Ford aided in its commission in several respects." (X)

    " . . . the evidence also supports a finding that Ford was engaged in a criminal conspiracy . . . the uncontroverted evidence shows that Ford knew of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman and committed an act in furtherance of the crime by his presence around the shop prior to and after the crime and agreeing to sell the stolen items and murder weapon . . . Ford committed criminal conspiracy. Yet, Ford presented no evidence whatsoever to rebut such a finding." (X)

    " . . .  Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit any crime based upon the facts used in his conviction, as required . . . the trial court was clearly correct in finding that Ford is not entitled to compensation for wrongful conviction under the subject statute." (X)

    "As a final note, in light of our holding that Ford is not entitled to compensation, we pretermit any discussion of the heritability of the wrongful conviction compensation cause of action." "For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court denying the petition of Glenn Ford, through Andrea Armstrong, the executrix of the estate of Glenn Ford, for compensation under La. R.S. 15:572.8 is affirmed at the cost of petitioner/appellant." (X)

    Justice J  DREW:  "In this civil case, the trial court ruled that Mr. Ford was not entitled to compensation, finding that he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit multiple felonies emanating directly from the facts of this robbery/murder. The burden here was on Ford, not the state." (X)

    "The (2015) trial court produced sound and organized reasons for judgment . . .  The court's hard work, diligence, and fairness are noted and appreciated." (X)

    "This record reveals that the defendant committed at least two felonies arising from the facts of the robbery/murder: illegal possession of stolen things and accessory after the fact to first degree murder. Besides these two crimes, the compensation court also found that Ford was a principal to the crime of armed robbery." (X)

    Why would, anyone, find that this career criminal deserved compensation? It's just foul.

    Give the money to the most deserving Rozemans and/or to some of Ford's 52 known burglary victims.

    Remember Isadore Rozeman

    ======

    As per the Death Penalty Information Center's normal absurdities, Ford is listed as no. 144 on their "innocent" or "exonerated" from death row list.


    ======


    1) CPSO detective committed to solving cold cases, Vickie Welborn, Shreveport Times, July 21, 2014, 

    2)  a) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
    READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST

        b)  The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense

       c)  Innocence Project Invents False Confessions: 150% fraud rate in "confessions"?

    3) STATE v. FORD, No. 85-KA-1039.489 So.2d 1250 (1986), STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn FORD. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 31, 1986. Rehearing Denied May 30, 1986.

    ================

    Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
    www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html


              Dead Man Walking Opera        

    Part of the "Dead Man Walking" Opera Community Interaction, Kansas City/Lyric Opera

    Re: False & Omitted Information Dominates "Eye For An Eye":
    An Eye for An Eye: Re-evaluating the Death Penalty: A Kansas City Week in Review Special, March 3, 2017, KCPT, 
    video here:  http://americanpublicsquare.org/1045-2/

    To: American Public Square
    Tricia Bushnell, Director, Midwest Innocence Project
    Nick Haines, Executive Producer, Public Affairs, KCPT reporter
    Reporters KCPT Flatlands
    Stephen Steigman KCUR news & other producers & reporters KCUR
    Rev. Adam Hamilton, Senior Pastor, Church of the Resurrection
    Ambassador Allan Katz
    Terry Nelson, Consultant, Republican Strategist and Founding Partner of FPI Strategies
    Eric Zahnd, Prosecuting Attorney for Platte County, Missouri 

    CC: Parents of Murdered Children, Kansas City Chapter
    Sean O' Brien  law professor, U of Missouri (KC) & other law professors
    Rev. Thomas B. Curran, S.J., President of Rockhurst University
    William Everett, at the Kauffman Foundation
    SuEllen Fried, founder of Reaching Out From Within
    All Kansas City Library Book Clubs,
    All members of the FYI Book Club
    All Management & Staff, Kansas City Public Library
    Kaite Mediatore Stover, the Kansas City Public Library’s director of reader’s services
    Board & Staff, The Lyric Opera of Kansas City and 
    Linda Ade Brand, education director 

    From: Dudley Sharp, death penalty expert 

    I have detailed some of the most obvious errors and omissions from the "Eye for an Eye" (EFE) symposium, with the hope that one of the many entities taking part will make a public presentation of this, as I have requested, so that some balance may be restored. 

    I hope this will lead to a greater understanding of the death penalty debate. 

    If you have any questions or comments, I am at your service. 

    Fact checking is crucial. 

    1) The Innocent Murder Victims 

    The EFE presentation left out the innocent murder victims, in death penalty cases, from Missouri and Kansas, and the vile crimes committed against them. Such is the primary reason for the death penalty, but was absent.

    I hope that you will visit both the Missouri and Kansas death row, government pages and review the cases and consider what happened to those innocents and the people who loved them. 

    Please visit this site, as well, and read their stories (1). 

    Tragically, the innocent victims are, very often, forgotten.

     Justice is the reason we seek the death penalty, as with all sanctions. 


    2) Balance 

    Of all the people who spoke, throughout EFE, live or on tape, only one out of about fifteen can be confirmed as pro death penalty.
     


    3) Tricia Bushnell, Director, Midwest Innocence Project       

          a) Bushnell states:"there has been 150 people exonerated on death row". 

    Sharp reply: The "innocent" and "exonerated" from death row has been a well known fraud, since about 2000 (2). 

    Anti death penalty folks redefined both "exonerated" and "innocent", as if they had redefined "lie" as "truth", and shoe horned a bunch of cases into those fraudulent definitions, as detailed  (2). 

    Depending upon review, possibly 26-46 cases have proof of actual innocence (2), reflecting a 70-83% error rate in those anti death penalty claims. A good example of this is to look at those states which have passed laws to prove actual innocence. For example, the anti death penalty folks claim 12 death row inmates have been "exonerated" in Texas. 

    Only one has been found actually innocent under Texas law (2). 

    Bushnell claimed to have been working on an "innocence" case, now, up for re trial,  for 11 years.  Obviously, if the case is up for retrial it is not an "innocence" case. That's how, commonly, anti death penalty folks misuse the terms "innocent" and "exonerated". 

    A great example of intentional fraud in this area is the documentary "A Murder in the Park" (2014). Watch it.      

          b) Bushnell states:   "68% of death penalty cases are overturned". 

    Sharp reply:  Untrue.  Of the 5555 sentenced to death, from 1973-1995, the period of the study, 1648 cases, or less than 30%, had their conviction or sentence overturned (3). Looking at only true error cases, it is closer to 25%, as detailed (3) 

    The errors in and criticisms of the study, used by Bushnell, are overwhelming  (3). 

         c) Bushnell states: "27% of false confessions are proven by DNA"  and in murder cases "67% falsely confessed because they were afraid of the death penalty" 

    Sharp reply:  The Innocence Project has confessed to making false claims of false confessions (4), which indicates that the 27% is closer to 10%, as detailed (4). 

    Sharp reply: I could find no confirmation for Bushnell's 67% claim.  I sent an email to Bushnell on 3/9/16 (5), so she could produce the study. So far, no reply. 

          d) Deterrence - Bushnell asserts that the proof of no deterrence is stronger than the proof of deterrence. 

    Sharp reply: Not only is that not true, it cannot be true. 

    Never has it been proven that a sanction, a negative prospect or a negative incentive has not been a deterrent, for some (6). Never. It can't be. 

    Why do nearly 100% of murderers do all they can to avoid the death penalty and get life, instead?  No, those murderers were not deterred, at least not that time, but they reflect the same basic nature that potential murderers and the rest of us do, which is: 

    Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. What we prefer more deters less. What we fear more deters more. Basic. 

    Death penalty/executions save innocent lives in three ways more than a life sentence does -  enhanced incapacitation, enhanced due process and enhanced deterrence (6). 

    Since 1997, there have been 28 US studies finding for death penalty deterrence (6). None have been negated, although such efforts have been attempted. 


    4) Eric Zahnd, Prosecuting Attorney for Platte County, Missouri       

          a)  Eric Zahnd:  When referencing the reduction in executions and  death sentences the DA stated that prosecutors were being more selective and that defense attorneys are doing all the can to make the death penalty so expensive and impossible to carry out. 

    Sharp reply: Prosecutors have always been very selective -  about 1% of murders result in a death penalty and we execute 0.2% of murderers -- and defense attorneys have always acted in that fashion, only because judges allow it. 

    The reduction in death sentences is, overwhelmingly, due to the reduction in murders and more so, with capital murders.  Texas is a good example: Texas had a 55% drop in murders (71% drop in rate),  37% drop in robberies (60% drop in rate), from 1991-2014. 

    Robbery/murder is the most common death eligible crime, which may have dropped 70-80%, or more, during that period, which may account for the entire drop.

    A series of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions and 5 states that have repealed the death penalty, have contributed to the drop, but only to a minor degree.        

          b)   Zahnd states: "(the death penalty) is not going to deter crimes of passion." 

    Sharp reply:  Nearly all people, no matter how enraged,  have learned to restrain their passions and to stop, prior to the point of no return. This is very well known. If our death might be the end result of our passion, the overwhelming majority of us would have no problem reining in our passions. Most of us restrain our passions at a much earlier point, refusing to visit physical harm, much less murder, upon those who are the subject of our harmful passions.

    Of the post 1997, 28 US studies finding for death penalty deterrence, one, specifically, looked at crimes of passion and found that some could be and were deterred.



    5)  Rev. Adam Hamilton, Senior Pastor, Church of the Resurrection      
          
          a)   Rev. Hamilton   states "here is one of those people (one of my associate pastors),  who could have, very easily, been put to death". 

    Sharp reply: "Very easily" is, absurdly, false.

    There is no indication that Darryl Burton's case was a death penalty eligible crime and, if it was a death penalty crime, it would have been a very difficult, long road to execution, as every knowledgeable person knows, making it curious why the reverend made that, blatantly, false statement. 

    NOTE: Darryl Burton has claimed a lot of corruption in his case. That has not been the finding (7).        

          b)   Rev. Hamilton: Paraphrase: death row inmates are, overwhelmingly, poor. 

    Sharp reply: Overwhelmingly, those who commit capital murders are poor.       

          c) My reply to the Reverends biblical death penalty review. 

    Sharp reply: Within the Reverend's biblical review, he only mentions crimes for which we have no death penalty in the US. It would have been much more relevant for the symposium had he spoken of murder, for which we  find that execution for murder is part of the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:5-6) , which is for all peoples and all times, and that murder is the only crime/sin for which one cannot get a reduced sentence from execution (Numbers 35:31) (8). 

    The Reverend thinks there is a good case, biblically, for either side of the death penalty debate. 

    There was no main stream Christian church that had turned against the death penalty, until the 1950s. The Catholic Church didn't make their efforts until 1997, but even then, the death penalty is still a moral sanction. 

    One wonders did the bible, suddenly, change in the 1950s or in 1997? Of course not. 

    Through today and for more than 2000 years, there has been Christian New Testament support for the death penalty, from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians that, in breadth and depth, overwhelms any teachings to the contrary (8). 

    What actually occurred was a social shift, not a biblical one. 



    6)   Terry Nelson, Consultant, Republican Strategist and Founding Partner of FPI Strategies 

    Terry Nelson's review of the polling data for the death penalty misses a great deal. 

    Sharp reply: The media picks and chooses which death penalty polls they present to the public and will, across the board, refuse to publish polls that show higher death penalty support, when lower support is found in another poll, as detailed (9). 

    For example, Nelson mentions 80% death penalty support in 1994, but leaves out 86% death penalty support in 2013. Why? Media refused to publish the 2013 poll (9), so Nelson never heard about it. 

    Even in the well known Gallup death penalty polls, the media will show us only the lowest support numbers, even though, in every Gallup death penalty poll, there are several, separate different polling questions and answers included, usually showing 5-10% higher support, which the media does not reveal. (9). 

    We also know with Gallup, that when they ask about specific, true and horrendous death penalty cases, as the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing case, that death penalty support rises, dramatically, just as death penalty opposition drops (9). 

    I suspect that Nelson is unaware of these details.
     


    7)  Sean O' Brien  law professor, U of Missouri (KC)       

          a)  O'Brien states: "it's a crime in 38 states to use a paralytic to euthanize animals". 

    Sharp reply: That is untrue. It is only a crime to use a paralytic, without an anaesthetic, first, and I have found no vet who approves of using a paralytic, by itself, anywhere, in the veterinary literature (10).  There aren't any.

    In other words, we put our beloved pets to death in the same thoughtful, kind and peaceful manner as we do some of our worst human murderers (10).      

          b) O'Brien wrongly stated that we have the paralytics to hide our mistakes.
     
    Sharp reply: That is incorrect. Convulsions and body movements, as well as other movements and noises, are all part of the reactions to the drugs and/or the overdosing of drugs, used in executions. The paralytic is, most certainly, used to make it much easier on the witnesses, viewing murderers executions, just as it is when we put our beloved pets to death (10). 

    That is why it is used. Not to hide mistakes.

           c) O'Brien says there have been cases where murderers could have felt like they were being burned alive, that some had convulsions some had multiple needle pricks and had to have cutdowns. 

    Sharp reply: The "burned alive" allegation is based upon a complete failure of the first drug, the anesthetic, for which there is no case or reason for the first drug, of its own accord to, all of a sudden, not work, in complete contradiction to the drugs known overdosing characteristics. 

    Convulsing, jerking, sighing, wheezing, etc., are all well known effects of the overdosing characteristics of the drugs used as with the normal respiratory distress caused by the drugs (10,11). 

    Multiple needle pricks and/or cutdowns are normal, every day, occurrences, millions of times per day, in medical IV procedures and are required with some death row inmates when there are problems locating solid, secure veins. They are efforts to avoid "botched executions" not a sign of botched executions, as is well known. 


    8) Unknown book club member: "people who are well off aren't on death row" 

    Sharp reply: There are, but they are very rare, because capital murder by wealthy people are very rare. 

    "99.8% of poor murderers have avoided execution. 

    It may be, solely, dependent upon the definitions of "wealthy" and "poor", as to whether wealthy murderers are any more or less likely to be executed, based upon the very small number and percentage of capital murders that are committed by the wealthy, as compared to the poor (12)." 

    SUMMARY 

    This is a fairly typical "Dead Man Walking" Opera Community interaction - spreading the normal anti death penalty nonsense, while having a single pro death penalty voice for "balance", with that pro death penalty voice being an excellent prosecutor, but not a pro death penalty expert within the death penalty debate, none of which have I ever known to have been invited to these community symposiums, which is why this review is important, if community knowledge is important. 

    Wherever Sister Helen Prejean is involved, it is what you should expect (13). 

    Fact checking is crucial. 

    ================== 

    FOOTNOTES 

    1)  Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
    http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html 

    2) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
    READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html 

    3)  James Liebman's "A Broken System": Review of A Broken Study, ]http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/broken-study-review-of-broken-system.html 

    4)  Innocence Project Invents False Confessions
    150% fraud rate in "confessions"?
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-innocence-project-invents-false.html 

    5)  From: Sharpjfa@aol.com
    To: office@themip.org
    Sent: 3/9/2017 12:30:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time
    Subj: for Tricia Bushnell

    Tricia: 

    During the March 3rd "eye for an eye" presentation, you stated that 67% of confessions in death penalty eligible cases were false. 

    Can you provide a link to the study, please? 

    Sincerely, Dudley Sharp 

    6) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html


     7)  United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, No. 12-2524, Darryl Burton, Plaintiff - Appellant   v. St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners et al, Defendants - Appellee, Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis, Submitted: March 12, 2013, Filed: September 24, 2013,
    http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/13/09/122524P.pdf 

    8)  New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html

    9) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
    World Support Remains High
    95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html

    10)  Veterinary Claims a Distortion of Reality: Human Lethal Injection

     12) Is There Class Disparity with Executions?
    13) Sister Helen Prejean: Does Truth Matter?

              JUDGES AS JACKASSES: DEATH PENALTY        
    NEBRASKA JUDGES AS JACKASSES: THE DEATH PENALTY

    To:  Governor Pete Ricketts, his cabinet & staff
            Nebraska Catholic Bishops, staff and parishes

    Nebraska Supreme Court
    Nebraska Legislators & staff
    Nebraska County Sheriffs
    The Police Officers' Association of Nebraska
    Attorney General Doug Peterson & staff        
    Nebraska County Attorneys Association
    Nebraska Crime Commission
    U of Nebraska Law School
    Colleges & Universities Throughout Nebraska

    Media throughout Nebraska 

    Distributed 11/4/16

    Re:  "We Nebraska judges support retaining repeal of the death penalty", Local View, Lincoln Journal Star, 10/31/16  (1)

    Subject: More Anti Death Penalty Nonsense: Clueless and/or Willful Ignorance? Nebraska Judges 

    From: Dudley Sharp 

    Judges As Jackasses 

    Nationally, many (hopefully most) of us have been appalled by the series of judicial sentences, over the last few years, wherein we have witnessed  judges giving extremely light sentences for rapists (2) and for a 16 year old drunk driver, who killed four innocent people, injuring 9 more, 2 severely, with that judge giving no jail time, based upon the judge honoring the "affluenza" defense, that being incarceration being too harsh for someone who grew up spoiled and rich (3). 

    All, horrendous decisions, contrary to any basic understanding of justice. 

    Irresponsible judges have been a problem, as long as there have been judges. 

    How Irresponsible Are the Non-Magnificent 7 (NM7)? 

    Enter the referenced anti death penalty op/ed, by 7 retired Nebraska judges (4), the NM7,  presenting their own level of irresponsibility , contrary to justice.

    This NM7 represent 4% of the state District Court and state Supreme Court justices who have served in Nebraska, in the post Gregg v Georgia (1976) era, generally viewed as the beginning of the modern death penalty era in the US. 

    Let's see how irresponsible the NM7 are: 

    Keep two things in mind . . .

     1) There is one constant  -  Judges are the case managers,  in charge of both timing and costs, pre trial, trial and on appeals. 

    2) These jackass NM7 judges never mentioned the innocent victims murdered - a common anti death penalty "oversight" (5).  

    3) The NM7 state, "Our legal experience has led us to conclude that the death penalty is an unworkable and failed policy." 

    Proof of the NM7's irresponsibility: 

    Most know this to be false, as I suspect the NM7 do, as well. 

    One wonders: Are the judges clueless and/or willfully ignorant? Ask them. 

    The NM7 blame the death penalty, when we all know that it is not the policy that has failed, but those, like the judges, who have failed to responsibly manage that policy. Governors, attorney generals, legislators and correction officials, also share, in that responsibility, or irresponsibility  . . . as do the citizens who allow such incompetents to continue being paid with their tax dollars. 

    There is no legal nor rational reason why death penalty appeals, should take longer than 2-3 years, on average,  within each of the state supreme court, the federal district and circuit courts - or 6-9 years, total, on average. Cases, rarely, go to SCOTUS. 

    The NM7 are the case managers, denying their own responsibility for failing both justice and the citizens they work for. 

    It seems, nearly, always the case, that government officials, employed by the citizens, blame everyone or everything, but themselves, for their own irresponsibility. These NM7 judges and the death penalty are no different. 

    ====== 

    It has been nearly 20 years since Nebraska's last execution, while the other death penalty states have executed nearly a thousand murderers.  Why? Irresponsible Nebraska officials, inclusive of the judges.  

    Nationally, from 1984-1988, when double digit executions began, it took 6.6 years of appeals, on average, prior to execution, nationally (6).

    6.6 years. 

    ====== 

    4) The NM7 state: "In the four decades since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, states have tinkered with death penalty statutes, repeatedly promising that they can fix them. The evidence is clear that they cannot." You cannot design an efficient system of capital punishment, which delivers punishment swiftly, while also avoiding the risk of executing the innocent.  States that hold onto the death penalty end up with a government program that fails on both these fronts – it is inefficient and makes mistakes."

    Proof of the NM7's irresponsibility: 

    The NM7's statements are, blatantly, false. 

    Since 1976, Virginia has executed 112 murderers, representing 70% of those so sentenced and has executed them within 7 years of full appeals on average, with not even a hint of an innocent executed (7) - very efficient, no "mistakes". 

    Virginia's last execution, Oct. 1, 2015, was after 5 years of FULL appeals. 

    If Virginia can do it so can all states. 

    The roadblock? Most often, irresponsible judges (6), as well as others, who have all failed both their citizens and justice. 

    Innocents are better protected, in three ways, by the death penalty than with a life sentence (8). 

    One wonders: Are the NM7 clueless and/or willfully ignorant? Ask them. 

    ====== 

    Pennsylvania judges/jackasses, both state and federal, are very obvious in their efforts to stop the death penalty in that state. With some 420 death sentences since 1973, there have been only 3 executions. Why? Because the judges will only allow murderers who waive their appeals to be executed. 

    Any murderer, sentenced to death in Pa. will never be executed as long as they continue appeals, because the judges will not allow appeals to end or they will overturn the sentence. 

    It is a blatant and obvious fight against the law, by the judges, aka dictators in robes. 

    ====== 

    5) The NM7 state: "The death penalty prolongs and adds uncertainty to the legal process, often harming murder victims’ families. More death sentences are overturned than end in an execution. For those few death sentences ending in an execution, the average wait between conviction and execution is more than 15 years, and sometimes much longer (as we have seen in Nebraska)." 

    Proof of the NM7's irresponsibility: 

    The NM7 dead wrong, again. 

    The death penalty does not prolong itself nor does it add uncertainty to itself nor does it harm murder victims' families, by itself - it takes the judges, like these NM7, as other of the citizens' employees, to do all of those irresponsible, harmful things. Government policies are managed - or mismanaged - by the employees of the citizens, inclusive of the judges, as the NM7 jackasses well know.

    95% of murder victims families support the death penalty (9). 

    One wonders: Are these NM7 judges clueless and/or willfully ignorant? Ask them. 

    ====== 

    California judges/jackasses --  Since 1977, California has executed 1.4% of their death row murderers, after an average of 18 years on death row.The last 5 murderers executed have averaged  22 years on death row. 

    It will only get longer, based upon the horrendous irresponsibility of Ca judges, a continuing disaster usurping the law . . .  unless folks stand against them. 


    California's jackass judges are, obviously, trying to kill the death penalty. 

    ====== 

    6)  The NM7 state: "Despite promises to the contrary, politicians cannot dramatically expedite this process. Because of past mistakes, death penalty cases must go through a complex federal appeals process, which state lawmakers can't change. Death penalty cases thus force murder victims’ families to endure a prolonged and uncertain legal process. For them, the death penalty is a false promise." 

    Proof of the NM7's irresponsibility: 

    This is, clearly, false. Politicians, with earnest resolve, as Gov. Ricketts, can work with judges, the attorney general, legislators, prosecutors, defense counsel and citizens to produce a responsible death penalty system, as we all know and as occurs in other states. 

    We also know that irresponsible anti death penalty politicians and judges will do all they can to drain as much time and money out of their citizens, in order to make sure that our worst murderers live, as detailed, throughout.

    As with Virginia and Texas, if those states can produce responsible death penalty protocols, so can Nebraska, as can all states.

     With or without mistakes, all cases must go through the federal courts, so the NM7 statement is bizarre.

     One wonders: Are these NM7 judges clueless and/or willfully ignorant? Ask them. 

    ====== 

    Colorado -  "A Colorado study in 2013 found that death penalty cases took more than five years on average to complete, compared to 1 1/2 years for cases involving life without parole." (10) 

    Understand, that is 5 years for pre trial and trial, only, not appeals. How irresponsible are Colorado judges/jackasses? 

    In contrast, we have: 

    John Allen Muhammad , the DC sniper, was arrested on October 24, 2002, his Virginia trial began on October 14, 2003, he was sentenced to death on November 24, 2003 - 13 months after arrest . . .

     and the prosecution called more than 130 witnesses and introduced more than 400 pieces of evidence. (10) 

    and this mass murderer was executed in Virginia on November 10, 2009, after 6 years of FULL appeals. (10) 

    and then we have  Colorado judges and many other irresponsible state judges/jackasses doing all they can to increase costs to destroy the death penalty, as is obvious. 

    ======

     7) The NM7 state: "The death penalty wastes resources that should go to measures that actually reduce crime. Death penalty cases are more complex, take more time, require more lawyers, and therefore cost more money. There is no valid evidence that the money spent on the death penalty impacts murder rates. It is imperative, then, to dedicate our law enforcement dollars to measures that – unlike the death penalty – actually reduce crime." 

    Proof of the NM7's irresponsibility: 

    We can see why the NM7 jackasses blame the death penalty as a waste of resources, when it is the judges, themselves, as others, who create that waste - not the death penalty, as easily known and demonstrated, as herein. 

    There is no legal nor rational reason for the death penalty to cost any more than life without parole (7), as demonstrated. 

    Never has it been shown that any criminal sanction, any negative prospect and any negative outcome did not deter some. Never. (8) 

    One wonders: Are these NM7 judges clueless and/or willfully ignorant? Ask them. 

    ====== 

    Kansas -   "The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the last seven attempts by (The Kansas Supreme Court)  to reverse the convictions of murderers and predators. If the nine robed jurists in Washington consistently overrule Kansas’s highest court, it’s not only embarrassing to the state—it’s evidence that these justices are making up the law." (11)

    " . . . the U.S. Supreme Court found the Kansas Supreme Court had misapplied the Constitution. But each of these cases is emblematic of a broader pattern of lawlessness that merits voting against retaining these justices." (11) 

    "As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote just weeks before his untimely death, “Kansans ... do not think the death penalty is unconstitutional and indeed very much favor it, which might suggest that a retention election that goes before such people would not come out favorably for those justices who create Kansas law.” (11) 

    When justices " . . . thwart the application of criminal law by rewriting the laws the people's representatives passed, they undermine the sovereignty of “we, the people” and replace it with “we, the enlightened judges.” Removing them from office does not politicize the courts — the justices’ choice to impose their politics already did that. Voting them out is the only way to restore impartiality and the rule of law . . ."  (11) 

    " . . . vote corruption out and the law back in." (11)

    ====== 

    8) The NM7 state: "The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk of execution. As judges, we strove to ensure that the innocent were protected and the guilty held accountable. At the same time, we recognize that judges and others in the criminal justice system are fallible. It is simply too much to expect perfection in any human institution – which is what the death penalty demands, since it is impossible to bring back the wrongfully executed. The more than 155 death row exonerations nationwide, and wrongful convictions of the Beatrice 6 here in Nebraska, make clear that the death penalty should have no place in our fallible justice system." 

    The jackass NM7 avoid reality: 

    There is no proven actual innocent executed in the US, after the 1930s (8, 12). 

    Just since 1973: 

    Some 16,000 actual innocents have  been murdered by those known murderers we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers (8); 

    Some 400,000 actual innocents have  been murdered by those known criminals we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals (8). 

    The 155 "exonerated" has been a very well known fraud (12) since 1998, when the numbers started at 69. Basic fact checking reveals there might be 36 removed from death row based upon actual innocence, that being about 0.4% of those sent to death row in the modern era - none were executed.

     Did the NM7 fact check, anything? 

    It appears unlikely that the jackass NM7 can tell us where innocents are at risk in our "fallible justice system". 

    Maybe they could hazard a guess?! 

    One wonders: Are these NM7 judges clueless and/or willfully ignorant? Ask them. 

    ====== 

    ". . .  in California, appeals attorneys are not appointed (by judges) for three to five years. (Those attorneys, then, allowed by judges) to take four years to learn the case and file their appeal. Attorneys for habeas appeal (through the federal courts) are not appointed (by the judges), on average, until eight to 10 years after the death sentence." (6) 

    California judges/jackasses are, obviously and intentionally, killing the death penalty, in conflict with the law. 

    ======

    In 1996, the US Congress passed the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), part of which was supposed to quicken death penalty appeals. 

    Every year since then, the average time of appeals, until execution, has been  greater than in 1996 (10.4 years), with the longest being 16.5 years, (2011) (6). 

    Apparently, judges didn't like the AEDPA and have taken a stand in conflict with the law -

    The judicial move against the death penalty became even more obvious. 

    ====== 

    THE END.  


    1) Found here: http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/local-view-we-nebraska-judges-support-retaining-repeal-of-the/article_f8977528-c3b7-5f83-b02b-cf6ecd61f4cf.html 


    2) https://www.google.com/#q=horrible+judges+sentencing+rape+cases 


    3) watch the video
    What Is Ethan Couch's 'Affluenza': An Explainer, Gillian Mohney, ABC News, Dec 30, 2015, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ethan-couchs-affluenza-explainer/story?id=36011293 


    4) Retired judges/jackasses:  Nebraska Supreme Court Justice William Connolly, District Judge Stephen A. Davis, District Judge Sandra L. Dougherty, District Judge Patrick Mullen, Douglas County; District Judge Ronald Reagan, District Judge John Hartigan, District Judge Merritt C. Warren. 


    5) Anti Victim: Anti Death Penalty Movement
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-victim-anti-death-penalty-movement.html 



    6) Judges Responsible For Grossly Uneven Executions
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/judges-responsible-for-grossly-uneven.html 


    7) See Virginia Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html  


    8) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html  


    9) 95% Death Penalty Support by Loved Ones of Capital Murder Victims
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2016/03/95-death-penalty-support-by-capital.html  


    10)  see paragraph 3, sections B. Judicial Roadblocks and C.2. 128% INCREASE IN APPEALS TIME and paragraphs 4 and 6, within 

    Courts, states put death penalty on life supportDeath Penalty: 
    HOW MEDIA MURDERS THE TRUTH
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/09/courts-states-put-death-penalty-on-life.html 


    11) Kansas' Judges Should Be Recalled Before They Do Any Further Harm BY T. ELLIOT GAISER, PJ Media,  AUGUST 24, 2016,
    https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/08/24/kansas-judges-should-be-recalled-before-they-do-any-further-harm/?singlepage=true 


    12) a) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty StrategyREAD SECTIONS 3&4 FIRSThttp://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html 
        
         b)  The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense

              BISHOPS HIDE TRUTH FROM THEIR FLOCK: DEATH PENALTY        
    BISHOPS HIDE TRUTH FROM THEIR FLOCK: DEATH PENALTY

    THESE ARE COMMON PROBLEMS FOR MANY BISHOPS, NOT JUST THOSE FROM NEBRASAKA

    For Presentation To All Catholic Parishes/Congregations  in Nebraska

    10/16/2016, updated and resent 10/28/16, with email titled Death Penalty Errors: Bishops Double Down

    To:  Most Rev. George J. Lucas, Archbishop of Omaha
    Most Rev. James D. Conley, Bishop of Lincoln
    Most Rev. Joseph G. Hanefeldt, Bishop Grand Island


    cc:  Governor Pete Ricketts, his cabinet & staff 
    Nebraska Legislators & staff
    Nebraska Supreme Court
    Nebraska County Sheriffs
    The Police Officers' Association of Nebraska
    Attorney General Doug Peterson & staff
    Nebraska County Attorneys Association
    Nebraska Crime Commission
    U of Nebraska Law School 
    Colleges & Universities throughout Nebraaka

    Media throughout Nebraska


    Subject: UPDATE
    Nebraska Catholic Leadership: Their False Teachings & the Death Penalty


    From : Dudley Sharp

    Catholic leadership, in Nebraska, as elsewhere, keep the death penalty truth away from their flock.

    That claim is supported, in detail, below and here (1) and has been sent, repeatedly, to the Bishops, their staffs and/or parishes, for months.

    The Nebraska Bishops are presenting error after error, week after week (1). It is long overdue to end it.

    1) The Truth:  All Catholics May Support the Death Penalty

    All good and faithful Catholics may, now,  support the death penalty, may support more executions and may, faithfully and thoughtfully, disagree with the Church's 1995/1997 death penalty restrictions.

    The Bishops False Teachings:

    With the title of  "3. Prudence, schmrudence…” (2), the Nebraska Bishops, immaturely and disrespectfully, accuse Catholics of "acting like two year olds", when those "two year old" Catholics say that the post 1995/1997 Catholic teachings on the death penalty are matters of prudential judgment and, because of that, such "two year old" Catholics find that all good Catholics may support the death penalty and more executions based upon prudential judgment (see The Proof, just below), as well as over 2000 years of Church teachings (1). 


    The Proof:

    The Evidence Against the Bishops

    Let's look at the blatant errors  and insulting language of the Bishops and who they call "two year olds":

    The most prominent of the "two year olds" are three members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) , the most authoritative voice for valid teachings within the Church:

    --  Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of CDF

    --  Cardinal-Prefect of CDF Joseph Ratzinger (1981-2005), currently Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

    --  Cardinal-Prefect of CDF William Levada (2005- 2012), who, currently, serves as Prefect emeritus of CDF

    --  as well as all good and thoughtful Catholics who find the death penalty just and appropriate (1), while also finding that it saves more innocent lives (6).

    All identified by the Bishops as "two year olds".


    Prudential Judgment:

    These first two were delivered to the US Catholic Bishops, but have not been presented by the Nebraska Bishops to their congregations - an intentional  and major error of omission.

    Cardinal-Prefect Ratzinger (2004), now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:

    "3.  ". . . if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
    "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from a memorandum sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, made public in the first week of July 2004.

    confirmed by Cardinal-Prefect William Levada (2004):

    ". . .  if a Catholic were to disagree with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment… he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion... While the Church exhorts civil authorities… to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible… to have recourse to capital punishment.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about… applying the death penalty, but not with regard to abortion and euthanasia." “Theological Reflections on Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion,” a United States Conference of Catholic Bishops document.

    Bishops Double Down on Their Errors

    The Bishop's write: "The Church’s doctrine is that if there are “non-lethal means” of protecting society from a bad dude then the State must limit itself to those non-lethal means. That’s not up for negotiation. That’s the teaching."

    --- This is not doctrine and cannot be, as the Bishops well know (1).

    ---  The Bishops, also, know it is up for "negotiation" by any thoughtful Catholic who disagrees with the Church's prudential judgment -- that is the actual teaching, as detailed and not rebutted, as opposed to the Bishops' fiction by omission and commission.

    ---  The Church alternates between "non-lethal" and "bloodless" means, with the later being the current official language at the Vatican site.

    Although they mean the same, the huge problem with "bloodless" is that it, so blatantly, has this conflict:

    Within the current Catechism, CCC 2260, "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." "This teaching remains necessary for all time."

    This eternal command is from Genesis 9:6, within the Noahic Covenant, which is for all peoples and all times, and is God's Word that the death penalty shows the greatest of respect for innocent life, the opposite of the Bishops' claims, as is very well known.

    The Bishops' chosen prudential judgement of "bloodless" and "non-lethal" are both secular determinations which contradict the eternal teaching of Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" and the Bishops pick  . . . the secular.

    2) The Truth:

    This is another non-disclosure by the Nebraska Bishops, undermining the truth and their flock:

    In reference to the death penalty errors by Pope John Paul II in his Evangelium Vitae (EV - 1995) and the wrongful inclusion of those errors into the amended Section 2267 of the CCC, Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor CDF, writes:

    “The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II (within Evangelium Vitae -  EV)." (3).

    That EV restriction was the foundation for the recent (1997) error filled amendment, CCC 2267, to Church teaching on the death penalty (1, 4) and without that foundation those recent changes can be found invalid.

    Flannery continues: “The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment — vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.” (3).

    A review of some of the problems within the amended CCC 2267  (4).

    NOTE: Flannery was appointed by Pope John Paul II.


    3)  More Bishops' False Teachings:

    The Bishops state:

    "According to Catholic teaching, the state may impose the death penalty if this punishment is the only available means to protect society. Therefore, this option should not be exercised when, other, non lethal means, more respectful of human life are available." "This principled Catholic response is shaped by our commitment to the life and dignity of every human person and the common good." (5). 


    Additional False Teachings of the Bishops:

    a) As already established (4), there is no such prior Catholic teaching as "the state may impose the death penalty if this punishment is the only available means to protect society." (3,4).

    b) The Bishops, again, intentionally leave out important Catholic teachings, paragraphs (1) and (2), above, and footnote 1, below, misleading their flock.

    c) Establishing a false and irrational standard, that being: if the death penalty "is the only available means to protect society" -  which should not be accepted by anyone.

    d) "This principled Catholic response (in support of the death penalty) is shaped by our commitment to the life and dignity of every human person and the common good.", which was used as the support for the death penalty for 2000 years and still is. It is as if the Bishops had never reviewed Church tradition with the death penalty (1). 

    In addition, within the most recent Catechism, in CCC 2258-2266 the standard is a requirement to protect innocents from unjust aggressors: 

    CCC 2265: "the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm." 

    Now, within CCC 2267, the Bishops and the CCC redefine "common good" requiring us to do everything we can "not to render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.", or, to put it another way "the unjust aggressor must always be able to harm, again" -  the opposite of 2258-2266.

    Using reason and tradition the standard is:

     1) what is the most just sanction for the crime committed, reasserted as the primary objective, as "redress", in the most recent CCC:


    The primary objective of sanction is to "redress the disorder caused by the offense" (CCC 2266), not protection . . .  yet, even then  . . . 

    2) which sanction will, after the primary objective, protect society to a greater degree than other sanctions (6), the important, secondary consideration?

    The Bishops know that to be the death penalty, as previously reviewed (1,6).

    The additional reason that "the only available means" is a false teaching is that it, intentionally, avoids reality.

    For example, for decades, the Church thought there was another available means to protect children from sinful, sexual predator priests. The Church was wrong, then, as everyone, now, knows, just as She is, now with Her "only available means", again, sacrificing more innocents.

    Reality, you see, matters.  

    In the predator priest cases, it is easy to see how the Church can make very non prudential judgments, over 40 years, observe those bad prudential judgments, sacrificing more and more innocents with Her, wrongly, selecting Her chosen available means.

    It is hard to see how She is so, obviously, making that same error, again, with her newest, error filled death penalty position, and . . . again, sacrificing more innocents (6).

    How the Bishops and the Church are, utterly, clueless to that is simply astounding, in light of the priest sex scandal, which was in full public mode at the same time these amendments were made, again, putting many more innocents at risk.

    For example, there is the "means" of the state of the criminal justice system, in the US and, then, there is reality, since 1973:

    Some 16,000 innocents have been murdered by those known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers (6) and

    Some 400,000 innocents have been murdered by those known criminals we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals. (6)

    Neither the Church nor Nebraska Bishops will acknowledge known reality (6), thereby sacrificing more innocent lives  . . .  again.

    The Bishops look the other way, insisting on the fictional standard - "only available means", in opposition to reality,  thereby sacrificing more innocents.

     The Bishops state: "It just so happens that in our time the Church has assessed the options and has come to the prudential conclusion that in our modern era non-lethal means are present practically everywhere. Therefore, the use of the death penalty should be “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (2).

     . . .  which is all rebutted by very well known reality, over and over, again, in the US, as elsewhere, as detailed above and here (6), as the Bishops are aware.


    c) As is well known by many, inclusive of the Bishops, the foundation for 2000 years of pro death penalty Catholic teaching is based upon "respect for human life", a "commitment to the life and dignity of every human person and the common good."

    What the Bishops and other anti death penalty Church leadership are, now, saying is that for 2000 years the Church supported a sanction, the death penalty, that did not respect human life, was against life, against the dignity of every human person and against the common good.

    Thoughtful Catholics understand that such is not true and cannot be true.


    4) The Bishops Four "FALSE" Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty (5)

    a) "Re-instating the death penalty would risk innocent lives". - False

    Bishops' false teachings:

    --  As the Bishops well know and have never rebutted (1), innocents are better protected with the death penalty, in three ways, than with life without parole (LWOP) (6).

    The Bishop's death penalty repeal position will sacrifice more innocent lives.

    --  Bishops: "Take for example the story of Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk spent nearly 9 years on death row in Maryland after he was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of Donna Hamilton." " . . . more than 150 people sentenced to death have been released from death row because they were acquitted, dismissed from prosecution or pardoned based upon evidence of innocence." (4)

    More false problems for the Bishops

    Bloodsworth was never at risk of execution. He was on death row for 2 years, not 9, and then 7 years serving a life sentence, prior to release.

    In the modern era death penalty, post Gregg v Georgia (1976),  Maryland has executed four murderers, who appealed their sentences and were executed, averaging 12 years from sentence to execution, with the shortest being 9 years.

    Three time Maryland murderer, Thanos, waived his appeals and was executed in 1994, 2 years after  his sentencing.

    Thanos, to the victim's families:  "(your murdered childrens') cries bring laughter from the darkest caverns of my soul. I don't believe I could satisfy my thirst yet in this matter unless I was to be able to dig these brats' bones up out of their graves right now and beat them into powder and urinate on them and then stir it into a murky yellowish elixir and serve it up to their loved ones".

    Thanos murdered Billy Winebrenner, 16, and his girlfriend, Melody Pistorio, 14, during a robbery and murdered  Gregory Allen Taylor, 18, in another crime, for which he was, also, sentenced to death.

    --  The 150 (now 156) represent, maybe 36 actually innocent people sent to death row (0.4% of the total), all but one of which has been set free, with that one dying on death row, from cancer, just as he would have serving LWOP.

    It is a remarkable record of accuracy.

    There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since the 1930s.

    Yet we have:

    Some 16,000 innocents have been murdered by those known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers (6) and

    Some 400,000 innocents have been murdered by those known criminals we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals (6).

    A rational assessment would be that the Bishops real concern is not innocents at risk, but only sparing murderers.

    Exactly as Catholic theologian Steven Long assessed:

    "The misbegotten application of categories of speech appropriate in regard to the murder of innocents to the vastly different application of just penalty for grave evil, is symptomatic of a society that can garner more support to spare the guilty than to save the innocent."

    "The crowd still wants Barabbas." (1b)


    b) "Reinstating the death penalty would be cruel to victims' families." (4). - False

    The Bishops' hypocrisy and false teachings:

    1) As per the video (5), because of long appeals times, the Bishops contend that the death penalty harms the victims' families. The Bishops, constantly, use false, secular anti death penalty rhetoric, as they do, here. How about reality:

    These problems are not the death penalty's fault. It is the fault of the sanction's managers - the legislature, governor, attorney generals, judges, etc.

    As the Bishops are well aware:

    --   There have been nearly 1000 executions in other states, over the last 20 years, when Nebraska has had none and

    --  Virginia has executed 112 murderers, since 1976, and has done so within 7 years of appeals, on average.

    The Bishops are very aware that Nebraska has the "means available" to duplicate those two examples, but chose a less responsible path, instead.

    2) From the 168 victims in the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Bishops use only one anti death penalty voice, Bud Welch, whose daughter Julie was murdered in that bombing, to speak in opposition to the death penalty.

    The Bishops also presented Mariam Thimm Kelle, whose brother, Jim,  was, gruesomely, tortured over a long period of time, then murdered in  a capital crime, by murderer Michael Ryan, Her complaints were that appeals go on and on and that way too much attention is paid to the murderer but not to her brother.

    The Bishops act as if they just missed it. How?

    Reality Opposes the Bishops, Again.

    It appears that in excess of 95% of the murder victims' survivors, from that bombing, are in favor of the death penalty (7), reflecting other examples, with similar huge support percentages, from other specific death penalty eligible murders (7).

    Did the Bishops show any interest in the opinions of those loved ones, who, overwhelmingly, support the death penalty? None.

    Such is common for anti death penalty folks, who often cause more harm (8) to those victim survivors, who support the justice of the death penalty, as well as its uncontested ability to protect additional innocents, to a higher degree than any other sanction (6).

    Thimm Kelle is right to complain, but Nebraska, as other states have the means necessary to shorten appeals, as detailed and as the Bishops well know.

    Anti death penalty folks and the media, overwhelmingly, concentrate on the murderers and not their victims (8). It would be great if the Bishops would start a public campaign to help change that.  Possibly, the Bishops could start with this group (9).


    c) The Bishops say the death penalty is too costly:  "It is well established that pursuing the death penalty results in considerably greater costs than life imprisonment. The non partisan Death Penalty Information Center concluded, in 2013, that Nebraska had spent $100 million on death penalty cases since 1976."

    More Bishop False Teachings

    --  The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) is a very well known anti death penalty group, which perpetrates some of the greatest deceptions in the death penalty debate (10).

    --  The Bishops are, completely, unaware, because they do not fact check.

    --  The proof for the $100 million cost claim? It doesn't exist.

    --  If the Bishops did fact check, they would know that some studies find the death penalty is less costly than life without parole (LWOP) (11) and that many of the studies finding the death penalty more expensive than LWOP are, completely, unreliable (11).

          But, the Bishops will not fact check.

    ---  The Bishops are well aware that in Nebraska's last legislative session, that three fiscal notes found no state savings in death penalty repeal.

    Such non disclosure reflects, again, very poorly, on the Bishops.

    As far as I know, there are no details to support the fiscal notes, which were, allegedly, based upon inquiries to all those state agencies which deal with the death penalty, all of whom, allegedly, stated that with death penalty repeal there would be little to no effect on their budgets.

    d)  The Bishops find that the death penalty less humane than LWOP.

    The Bishops should review the eternal reasons for the death penalty, detailed in 2000 years of Catholic teachings (1), as opposed to relying upon the secular.


    1) a) Catholic Bishops: So Wrong on Death Penalty, 9/3/16,
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2016/09/catholic-bishops-so-wrong-on-death.html


        b) Four Catholic Journals Indulge in (anti death penalty) Doctrinal Solipsism, 
    Stephen Long, THOMISTICA, March 5, 2015, 
    http://thomistica.net/commentary/2015/3/5/mutationist-views-of-doctrinal-development-and-the-death-penalty

       
        c) The Bishops, constantly, invoke secular anti death penalty errors, without fact checking.  Fact checking is required. This is my basic pro death penalty introduction, countering all basic anti death penalty claims used by the Bishops. Fact checking welcome.

        The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html

    d)  "Why the Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment", Part 1, Edward Feser , Joseph M. Bessette, Catholic World Report,  July 17, 2016,http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4928/why_the_church_cannot_reverse_past_teaching_on_capital_punishment.aspx

          "Why the Death Penalty is Still Necessary", Part 2, Edward Feser, Joseph M. Bessette, Catholic Word Report,  July 21, 2016,
    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4939/why_the_death_penalty_is_still_necessary.aspx


    e)  Rebuttal of Four Catholic Publications Call For End to Capital Punishment,
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/03/rebuttal-catholics-call-for-end-to.html


    f)  New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html


    2) 3 WAYS CATHOLICS MISUNDERSTAND THE DEATH PENALTY, Archdiocese of Omaha, August 23, 2016,
    http://archomaha.org/2016/08/3-ways-catholics-misunderstand-death-penalty/


    3) “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University(Rome) and Permanent Research Fellow -  Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (University of Notre Dame)
    http://lr.avemarialaw.edu/Content/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf


    4)  Catholic Church: Problems with Her Newest Death Penalty Position:
    The Catechism & Section 2267
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/03/catechism-death-penalty-problems.html


    5)  Watch the video first.

    VIDEO: ARCHBISHOP LUCAS ON THE DEATH PENALTY, Archdiocese of Omaha, 8/3/16,  http://archomaha.org/2016/10/video-archbishop-lucas-death-penalty/


    6)   The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

             The Catechism and State Protection
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html


    7)  95% Death Penalty Support by Capital Murder Survivors
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2016/03/95-death-penalty-support-by-capital.html


    8) Anti Victim: Anti Death Penalty Movement
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-victim-anti-death-penalty-movement.html


    9)  Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
    www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html


    10) See DPIC in Sections 3&4
    The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html


    11) Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

              Catholic Bishops: So Wrong on Death Penalty        
    Catholic Bishops: So Wrong on Death Penalty

    THESE ARE COMMON PROBLEMS FOR MANY BISHOPS, NOT JUST THOSE FROM NEBRASAKA

    sent 9/3/2016

    To:  Most Rev. George J. Lucas, Archbishop of Omaha
    Most Rev. James D. Conley, Bishop of Lincoln
    Most Rev. Joseph G. Hanefeldt, Bishop Grand Island

    cc:  Governor Pete Ricketts, his cabinet & staff  
    Nebraska Legislators & staff 
    Nebraska Supreme Court 
    Nebraska County Sheriffs
    The Police Officers' Association of Nebraska
    Attorney General Doug Peterson & staff
    Nebraska County Attorneys Association
    Nebraska Crime Commission
    U of Nebraska Law School

    and Tom Venzor, of The Nebraska Catholic Conference, which represents the mutual public policy interests of the three Catholic Bishops of Nebraska.

    Media throughout Nebraska

    RE: Complete Rebuttal: "Local View: The real cost of the death penalty". Tom Venzor, Journal Star, 8/24/2016

    From: Dudley Sharp

    Since the 1997 death penalty amendment to the Catechism, the Church has presented error after error, over and over, again (1), on the subject of the death penalty.

    Added - Bishops, worldwide, repeat these falsehoods. At some point and after 20 years, one must wonder if they know, exactly, what they are doing.

    Nebraska's Catholic Bishops have chosen willful ignorance, again.

    All the Bishops have done is parrot the, easily, rebutted anti death penalty falsehoods. It is long past due for Catholic leadership to be more responsible.

    "Bishops" is the quote by the Bishops.  "Sharp" is my reply

    1) Bishops: "(The death penalty) costs us our human dignity. Execution costs us the opportunity to achieve justice without taking life, to overcome our penchant for vengeance, to build a culture that values all human life, and establish a civilization of mercy. The death penalty coarsens our sense of life’s value and dignity."

    Sharp:  Not only is this not true, it cannot be true.

    For more than 2000 years, there has been Catholic New Testament support for the death penalty, from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians (2) that, in breadth and depth, overwhelms any teachings to the contrary, particularly those wrongly dependent upon secular concerns such as defense of society and the poor standards of criminal justice systems in protecting the innocent (1, 5).

    What the Bishops are saying, now, as many others in Church leadership, today, is that for 2000 years the Church has supported a sanction which opposes justice, supports vengeance, takes away human dignity and life's value.

    All responsible Catholics know that to be false.

    The Church's teachings on the sanction, for over 2000 years, are the exact opposite of what the Bishops are, now,  saying, which anyone familiar with Church teachings would know (2).


    2) Bishops: "The cost of the death penalty can be measured by the lives of those unjustly put to death for crimes they didn't commit."

    Sharp reply:  The Bishops are oblivious to reality.

    There are no proven actual innocents executed in the US, at least since the 1930s (3).

    Since 1973, some 16,000 innocents have been murdered in the US by known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers (4).

    Since 1973, some 400,000 innocents have been murdered by those known criminals that we have released from prison or chosen not to incarcerate (4).

    Virtually, none in the leadership of the Church has voiced any acknowledgement for those innocents murdered or the reality of the huge errors in criminal justice systems that allow such massive harm to innocents (5).

    In fact, the Church, incomprehensibly, parrots, over and over, again, this huge error within CCC 2267:

    "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

    The reality of the "means at the State's disposal" are the countless cases of additional harm to innocents, detailed above, as the product of the State's criminal justice systems, extremely well known (4,5) by anyone who cares to be concerned, but never by Church leadership.

    The Church's willful ignorance is astounding, even more so as it occurs within the huge shadow of the priest sex scandal, whereby the "means" of the Church did nothing, for decades, to stop harm to innocents.

    The Church is making the same error, again.

    Will the Church and the Bishops ever even show that they care? How many more years will it take?

    3) Bishops: "Since DNA testing has made new methods of investigation possible, hundreds of people across the country have been exonerated of criminal convictions. Nebraska’s own “Beatrice Six” were exonerated by DNA in 2008. The death penalty costs the lives of innocent people."

    Sharp reply:  As detailed, above, and not rebutted, innocents are much more at risk when we allow murderers to live. This is not in dispute.

    Because of DNA, the death penalty and all other sanctions are more likely to confirm the actually guilty and to free or never prosecute the actually innocent, as with the Beatrice Six.

    4) Bishops: "The cost of the death penalty can be measured in the inequality of sentencing.  The race and social status of criminals has frequently shown to be a factor in sentencing. So has the location of the crime, and the social status of the victim. Justice is supposed to be blind."

    Sharp reply:   Justice:

    Overwhelmingly, the factor in sentencing the murderer to death is the commission of a capital crime.

    The Bishops, completely, left that consideration out, a sad commentary on how the Bishops have avoided the moral wrong of capital murder and the plight of the innocent murder victims, as the Bishops, instead, forget those and just parrot the standard anti death penalty playbook.

    Tragic.

    On to the additional errors by the Bishops:

    Race:

    White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers. 56% of those executed are white, 35% black (6).

    For the White–Black comparisons, the Black level is 12.7 times greater than the White level for homicide, 15.6 times greater for robbery, 6.7 times greater for rape, and 4.5 times greater for aggravated assault (6).

    For the Hispanic- White comparison, the Hispanic level is 4.0 times greater than the White level for homicide, 3.8 times greater for robbery, 2.8 times greater for rape, and 2.3 times greater for aggravated assault (6).

    For the Hispanic–Black comparison, the Black level is 3.1 times greater than the Hispanic level for homicide, 4.1 times greater for robbery, 2.4 times greater for rape, and 1.9 times greater for aggravated assault (6).

    As robbery/murder is, by far, the most common death penalty eligible murder, the multiples will be even greater.

    From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively. ( Table 12, Executions and other dispositions of inmates sentenced to death, by race and Hispanic origin, 1977–2012, Capital Punishment 2012, Bureau of Justice Statistics, last edited 11/3/14)

    "There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing." (6)

    Class:

    "99.8% of poor murderers have avoided execution."

    "It is, solely, dependent upon the definitions of "wealthy" and "poor", as to whether wealthy murderers are any more or less likely to be executed, based upon the very small number and percentage of capital murders that are committed by the wealthy, as compared to the poor. (7)"

    Location:

    The majority of murders, robberies and rapes occur in about 2% of US counties, exactly reflecting why death penalty cases come out of a tiny minority of locations, as one would suspect, facts, apparently, completely unknown to the Bishops.

    When will Church leadership learn to fact check anti death penalty claims and to once, again, care about the truth?

    It's long overdue.

    5) Bishops: "The death penalty is needed when execution is the only way to keep a community safe from a persistent threat." " . . the death penalty is a panacea: it provides the illusion of security and deterrence . . .".

    Sharp reply: As detailed, the Bishops' anti death penalty position puts more innocents at risk. Why the Bishops choose that known, unmerciful position, particularly,  in the huge shadow of the priest sex scandal, is a very sad mystery.

    As detailed in the most recent CCC, justice must be primary, safety secondary. The Church cannot replace an eternal teaching with a secular one (1,2).

    The death penalty protects more innocents, in three ways, than do lesser sanctions (5).

    The Bishops anti death penalty position harms more innocents.

    6) Bishops: "Economist Dr. Ernie Goss reported this month that the death penalty costs Nebraska $14.6 million annually."

    Sharp reply: As the Bishops well know, Goss has declared his own study unreliable, just as basic fact checking does. It's much worse than unreliable (8). Just more anti death penalty nonsense parroted by the Bishops.

    When will the Bishops become more responsible?
    ======

    Why the Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment, Profs. Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette, The Catholic World Report, July 17, 2016, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4928/why_the_church_cannot_reverse_past_teaching_on_capital_punishment.aspx

    3) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
    READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

    6) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.html

    8) Ernie Goss' Nebraska Death Penalty Cost Study: How Bad Is It
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2016/08/nebraskas-death-penalty-cost-study-how.html

              Nebraska's (Goss') Death Penalty Cost Study: How Bad Is It?        
    Ernie Goss' Nebraska Death Penalty Cost Study: How Bad Is It?
    Dudley Sharp

    Anti death penalty folks never cease to amaze.

    How bad is Retain a Just Nebraska's (Retain) death penalty cost study?


    1) Retain spent $16,000 on a study found unreliable by the study's primary author, Ernie Goss,  who states:

    "As I indicated in the (Nebraska cost) study (1), due to the small sample size (n=19), the margin of error was too large produce reliable results on the annual costs of the death penalty." (Goss email -  , RE: More Clarification: The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State of Neb, dated 8/18/2016 5:15:12 P.M. Central Daylight Time)

    2) Did anyone see Goss' claims of unreliability in his study or news conferences? No. Odd.

    There are near countless variables, other than the presence or absence of the death penalty, which could have caused the cost differences between and within the states.  Death row inmates make up 0.16% of all state prisoners.

    Of course Goss' results are unreliable.

    But, it gets even worse for Goss and Retain.


    3) Economist Anthony Yeser finds:  "(Goss') model and its results are meaningless because they are a classic example of putting the con into econometric analysis that has been disparaged in the economic literature . . . ". (2)

    4) Yes, No?

    Goss presented a number of problematic cost studies from other states (3), which Goss stated were 1) essential to the cost calculations, then that 2)  they had not even been used for the cost calculations, then that 3) he didn't even fact check (vet) those cost studies then that 4) the study involved "sorting (those cost studies) conclusions based on the methodology used, and identifying the data that are suitable for analysis."

    What a mess.

    If Goss depended on the, also, unreliable cost studies from other states, to establish Nebraska's death penalty cost (as he said he did . . . or did not), it must be unreliable, as Goss confirms, and has zero relevance to Nebraska.

    If Goss didn't depend on the, also, unreliable cost studies from other states (as he said he didn't . . . or did), why would he include them?

    5) Goss states: "As I said , the other studies quoted in my study had nothing to do with my estimated annual cost of $14.6 million." " I used ONLY U.S. Census Data to perform my estimates."  (Goss email -  Subj: RE: More Clarification: The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the Stat..., 8/19/2016 2:22:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time)

    In fact, the Goss study says the exact opposite:

    "Based on other studies examining the cost of a DP prosecution versus a LWOP prosecution: • Each DP prosecution cost the Nebraska taxpayer almost $1.5 million above and beyond the cost of an LWOP prosecution. - $740.1 thousand of post-conviction costs over the life of the prisoner. - $619.4 thousand of maximum security costs over the life of the prisoner. - $134.0 thousand of in-kind payments, or opportunity costs, over the life of the prisoner. ((1) p 3)

    Goss is saying that the other cost studies, which he admits he did not fact check, were the exact studies that made up  the entire death penalty excess cost claims by Goss, in total contradiction to his email.

    6) Then this: "The present study brings the results of nearly all the relevant studies conducted in the United States together to determine the cost of the DP in Nebraska." ((1) p 26, 27)

    Goss tells us that "all the relevant studies conducted in the United States" were used "to determine the cost of the DP in Nebraska."

    Which Goss contradicts, again,  with this:

    "As I (Goss) said , the other studies quoted in my study had nothing to do with my estimated annual cost of $14.6 million."  "I (Goss) used ONLY U.S. Census Data to perform my estimates." (Goss email,  RE: More Clarification: The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the Stat..., 8/19/2016 2:22:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time)

    Got that?

    7) Goss continues: "In order to undertake a meta-analysis, a systematic review was conducted to select and review all studies relevant to the subject area, sorting their conclusions based on the methodology used, and identifying the data that are suitable for analysis." ( (1) p 26)

    Just more contradictions:

    Goss: "I quoted the findings from other studies (but did not rely on them)."  (Goss email -  RE: More Clarification: The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State...8/19/2016 1:03:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time)

    In total contradiction to Goss' study.   Could Goss contradict himself, anymore?

    8) As Goss quotes:

    “Reviewers often cite the conclusions of previous reviews without examining those reviews critically,” (Rudner et. al., 2002). ( (1) p26).

    Just as Goss states he fact checked none of the studies he presented and/or relied upon: 

    "To think that I (Goss) would fact check the findings from a peer-reviewed  published article indicates a lack of understanding about the peer review process." (Goss email -  RE: More Clarification: The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State..., Sent: 8/19/2016 1:03:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time)

    Just to think that Goss might lower himself to fact checking (vetting)! Goss didn't fact check (vet) them, but fully relied upon them  . . . or not.

    9) Then there is this: 

    Goss "allegedly" used a quote from Kent Scheidegger -  Goss' "quotation" of Scheidegger was the factual opposite of what Scheidegger actually stated.(4). Scheidegger, actually, found that plea bargains, made possible by the presense of the death penalty, do save money for the states.  . . . 

    Later, this:

    Scheidegger: "For (Gross) to allow this egregious error to continue in the "corrected" version of his paper is gross negligence and academic malpractice at best. At worst, it is intentional deception.(5)"

    A surprise?

    and Goss' study just gets worse - another mess for Retain.
     
    ======

    1) The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State of Nebraska: A Taxpayer Burden?, Produced for: Retain A Just Nebraska, August 15, 2016, Goss & Associates Economic Solutions, Ernest Goss, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Scott Strain, M.S., Senior Research Economist, Jackson Blalock, Research Assistant

    2) 1) Anthony Yezer, professor, economics, George Washington University, from
    "How much does the death penalty cost Nebraska?", Gray Washington News Service,10/28/16,
    http://www.graydc.com/content/news/How-much-does-the-death-penalty-cost-Nebraska-399093391.html

    3) Compare these to the corresponding studies used by Goss

    Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html 

    4) Author: Goss told “Bald-Faced Lie” on the Cost of the Death Penalty*AUGUST 19, 2016, http://leavenworthst.com/2016/08/19/author-goss-told-bald-faced-lie-bald-faced-lie-on-the-cost-of-the-death-penalty/ 

    and 

    A Bald-Faced Lie on the Cost of the Death Penalty v. LWOP, Kent Scheidegger, Crime and Consequences Blog, August 18, 2016 http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/08/a-bald-faced-lie-on-the-cost-o.html


    5) "Deceit (or Reckless Disregard of the Truth) Continues in Nebraska Cost Paper"
    August 20, 2016 12:53 PM | Posted by Kent Scheidegger,
    http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/08/deceit-or-reckless-disregard-o.html
              Judge Michael Luttig's victim impact statement         
    Judge Michael Luttig's victim impact statement
    Upon the sentencing of the two men who murdered his beloved father in front of his mother.
     
    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LUTTIG
     
    May it please the Court.
     
    It is one of life's ironies that I appear before the Court for the reason that I do. But I do so to represent my dad -- who is not here -- and his wife, and daughters. His family, my family.
     
    More than anything else, I do this to honor him, because if the roles were reversed, he would be standing here today. Of this I am certain.
     
    I also owe this to the other victims of violent crime who either stand silently by, or who speak and are not heard. I owe it to the public. I owe it, as well, to Donald and Cedric Coleman, who may yet not understand the magnitude of the losses they inflicted on the night of April 19.
     
    Words seem trite in describing what follows when your husband is murdered in your presence, when your father is stripped from your life. The horror, the agony, the emptiness, the despair, the chaos, the confusion, the sense -- perhaps temporary, but perhaps not -- that one's life no longer has any purpose, the doubt, the hopelessness.
     
    There are no words that can possibly describe it, and all it entails. But being the victim of a violent crime such as this is at least these things. Exactly these things in my family's case; the equivalent of these things in the countless other cases.
     
     
    While it is happening and in the seconds and the minutes thereafter . . .
     
    ....it's the sheer horror of half-clothed people with guns storming up your driveway toward you in the dark of night, when you are totally defenseless
    ....it's what must be the terrifying realization that you are first about to be, and then actually being, murdered
    .... it's perhaps seeing in your last moment what in your mind you know was the murder of your wife
    .... it's crawling on the floor of your own garage in the grease and filth, pretending you're dead, so that you won't be shot through the head by the person who just murdered your husband
    .... it's realizing your husband has been gunned down in your driveway on your return from the final class you needed to complete your education -- an education that had been the goal of both of you since the day you were married
    .... it's knowing that the reason that your husband was with you -- indeed, the reason that you were in the car that night at all -- is that his Christmas gift to you the previous year was the promise that you could take the class and that he would take you to and from, so that nothing would happen to you
    .... it's mercilessly punishing yourself over whether you could have done something, anything at all, to have stopped the killing.
     
     
    Moments later, across a continent . . . 

    .... it's being frightened out of your mind in the middle of the night by a frantic banging on your door -- calling the police, then canceling the call -- and then answering the door. Your body goes limp as you see one of your best friends standing in the doorway. No words need even be spoken. For you know that the worst in life has happened. Then, he tells you: "Your mom just called. Father was murdered in the driveway of your home."
    .... it's realizing that, at that very moment, the man you have worshipped all your life is lying on his back in your driveway with two bullets through his head.Across the globe. .
    .... it's your husband taking the emergency international call, pulling down the receiver, fumbling for the words, as he starts to deliver the news. "This is the hardest thing I will ever have to tell you," he begins. Then, it is the calls home, or at least to what used to be home, first one, then the other. In eerie, stunned calmness, you hear your mother utter the feared confirmation: "Yes, your dad was just murdered. You better come home." Now you believe.
     
     
    Within hours . . .
     
    .... it's arriving home to television cameras in your front yard, to see your house cordoned off by police lines; police conducting ballistics and forensics tests, and studying the place in the driveway where your father had finally fallen dead -- all as if it were a set from a television production
    .... it's going down to the store where your dad had always shopped for clothes, to buy a shirt, a tie that will match his suit, and a package of three sets of underwear (you can only buy them in sets of three) so your dad will look nice when he is buried
    .... it's being called by the funeral home and told that it recommends that the casket be closed and that perhaps your mom, sister, and wife should not see the body -- and you know why, without even asking
    .... it's walking into the viewing room at the funeral home and having your sister cry out that that just can't be him, it just can't be.
     
     
    In the days that follow . . .
     
    .... it's living in a hotel in your own hometown, blocks away from where you have lived your whole life, because you just can't bear to go back
    .... it's packing up the family home, item by item, memory by memory, as if all of the lives that were there only hours before are no more
    .... it's reading the letters from you, your sister, and your wife, that your dad secreted away in his most private places, unbeknownst to you, realizing that the ones he invariably saved were the ones that just said "thanks" or "I love you." And really understanding for the first time that that truly was all that he ever needed to hear or to receive in return, just as he always told you
    .... it's carefully folding each or your husband's shirts, as you have always done, so that they will be neat when they are given away
    .... it's watching your mother do this, in your own mind begging her to stop
    .... it's cleaning out your dad's sock drawer, his underwear drawer, his ties
    .... it's packing up your dad's office for him, from the family picture to the last pen and pencil
    .... it's reading the brochures in his top drawer about the fishing trip you and he were to take in two months -- the trip that your mother had asked you to go on because it meant so much to your dad.
     
     
    In the weeks thereafter . . .
     
    .... it's living in absolute terror, not knowing who had murdered your husband and tried to murder you, but realizing that often such people come back to complete the deed, and wondering if they would return this time
    .... it's furiously writing down the license number of every Ford Probe for no reason other than it was a Ford Probe, hoping that through serendipity, it might be, and sometimes fearing, that that is exactly what might happen
    .... it's never spending another night in your own home because the pain is too great and the memories too fresh
    .... it's all day every day, and all night, racking your brain to the point of literal exhaustion over who possibly could have done this. It's questioningly looking in the corners of every relationship, to the point that, at times, you are almost ashamed of yourself. Yet you have no choice but to continue, because, as they say, it could be anyone
    .... it's thinking the unthinkable, that perhaps the act was in retaliation for something you had done in your job. You ask yourself, "If it was, should I just walk away?"
    .... it's watching the re-enactment of your dad's, your husband's murder on television, day and night, and every time you pick up the newspaper
    .... it's reading the "wanted" poster for the people who murdered him, while checking out at the grocery store
    .... it's telling your family night after night that it will be all right, when you don't believe it yourself.
     
     
    Then they are finally found, and . . .
     
    .... it's collapsing on the kitchen floor when you are told -- not from relief, but from the ultimate despair in learning that your husband was indeed killed for nothing but a car, and in an act so random as to defy comprehension
    .... it's watching your mother collapse on the floor when she hears this news and knowing that she will not just have to relive the fateful night in her own mind, now she will have to relive it in public courtrooms, over and over again, for months on end.In the months that follow. .
    .... it's putting the family home up for sale and being told that everyone thinks it is beautiful, but they just don't think they could live there, because a murder took place in the driveway
    .... it's the humiliation of being told by the credit card companies, after they closed your husband's accounts because of his death, that they are unable to extend you credit because you are not currently employed
    .... it's receiving an anonymous call that begins, "I just learned of the brutal carjacking and murder of your father," and that ends by saying. "I only wish your mother had been raped and murdered, too."
    .... it's the crushing anxiety of awaiting the trauma and uncertainties of public trials.The day arrives, and. .
    .... it's listening, for the first time, to the tape of your mother's 911 call to report that her husband, your father, had been murdered. Hearing the terror in her voice. Catching yourself before you pass out from the shock of knowing that, through that tape, you are present at the very moment it all happened
    .... it's hearing the autopsy report on how the bullets entered your father's skull, penetrated and exited his brain, and went through his shoulder and arm
    .... it's listening to testimony as to how long he might have been conscious, and thus aware of what was happening -- not just to him but to the woman that he had always said he would give his life for
    .... it's looking at the photographs of your dad lying in the driveway in a pool of blood, as they are projected on a large screen before your friends and family, and before what might as well be the whole world
    .... it's having to ask your son what the expression was on your husband's face
    .... it's listening to a confession in which the person says that he just thought your dad was "playing possum."
    .... it's listening to your own mother, a lady of ultimate grace, testify publicly as to how she crawled under the car, in the grease and the filth, to avoid being murdered
    .... it's hearing her say that the only thing she could think of was what it was going to be like to be shot through the back of the head
    .... it's watching her face as she relives that night, time and again.
     
     
    As the trauma of the trial subsides . . .
     
    .... it's getting down on your hands and knees and straightening your dad's new grave marker and packing the fresh dirt around it, so that it will be perfect, as he always insisted that things be for you
    .... it's sitting across from each other at Thanksgiving dinner, each knowing that there is but one thing on the other's mind, yet pretending otherwise for their sake
    .... it's telling your wife that the meat was great, when you could barely keep it down and hardly wait to finish
    .... it's trying to pick out a Christmas gift for your mother that your dad would have picked out for her
    .... it's sitting beside your father's grave into the night in 30-degree weather, so that he won't be alone on the first Christmas
    .... it's putting up, by yourself, the basketball goal that you got last Christmas so that you and your dad could relive memories as you passed the years together
    .... it's finishing by yourself all of the projects that you have not an idea how to do, and that your dad had said, "Save for the summer and we'll do them together. I'll show you how."
    .... it's hearing your 2-year-old daughter ask for "Pawpaw" and seeing your wife choke back the tears and tell her, "He's gone now, he's in heaven."... it's having the clothes your dad was most proud of altered, so you can wear them in his honor
    .... it's wondering whether your wearing the clothes will be too painful for your mother.
     
     
    In the larger sense . . .

    .... it's shaking every time you drive into a darkened driveway
    .... it's feeling your body get rigid every time that you drive into a garage
    .... it's being nervous every time you walk to your car, even in the open daylight
    .... it's being scared to answer any phone call or any knock at the door at night (or, for that matter, during the day) because another messenger may be calling.
     
     
    Finally, it's the long-term effects . . .
     
    .... it's the inexplicable sense of embarrassment when you tell someone that your husband or your father was murdered -- almost a sense of guilt over injecting ugliness into their lives
    .... it's going out to dinner alone, knowing that you will be going out alone the rest of your life
    .... it's that feeling -- wrong, but inevitable -- that you will always be the fifth wheel
    .... it's living the rest of your life with the fact that your husband, your father, suffered one of the most horrifying deaths possible
    .... it's never knowing, yet fearing that you know all too well, what those final moments must have been like
    .... it's constantly visualizing yourself in his place that night, moment by excruciating moment
    .... it's realizing that you will never even get the chance to repay your dad for making your dreams come true
    .... it's living with the uncomfortable irony that he lived just long enough to see to it that your dreams came true, but that his never will
    .... it's knowing you never had, and will never have, that one last time to say thanks for giving me, first, life itself, and then, all that it holds.
     
     
    And . . .

    .... it's knowing that this is only the beginning and the worst is yet to come
    .... The haunting images
    .... The emptiness
    .... The loneliness
    .... The directionlessness
    .... The sickening sense that it all ended some time ago, and that you are but biding time.
     
     
    Of course, for my mother, my sister, my wife and I, the sun will come up again, but it will never come up again for the real victim of this crime. Not only will he never see what he worked a lifetime for, and was finally within reach of obtaining. That would be tragedy enough. But, even worse, he died knowing that the only thing that ever could have ruined his life had come to pass -- that his wife and his family might have to suffer the kind of pain that is now ours -- and he was helpless to prevent it even as he saw its inevitability.
     
    We live by law in this county so that, ideally, no one will ever have to know what it is like to be a victim of such violent crime. If I had any wish, any wish in the world, it would be that no one ever again would have to go through what my mother and my father experienced on the night of April 19, what my family has endured since and must carry with us the rest of our lives.
     
    Crimes such as that committed against my family are intolerable in any society that calls itself not only free, but civilized. The law recognizes as much, and it provides for punishment that will ensure at least that others will not suffer again at the same hands, even if it does not prevent recurrence at the hands of others. On behalf of my dad, and on behalf of my mother and family, I respectfully request that these who committed this brutal crime receive the full punishment that the law provides.
     
    Three people were needed to complete this crime. Each of the three was as instrumental to its success as the other. There were no passive bystanders among the gang that executed my dad.
     
    Thank you, Your Honor.
     
    ======
     
    Napoleon Beazly was executed May 28, 2002, for being the triggerman in this murder, attempted murder and carjacking
     
    ======
     
    This victim impact statement can be found throughout the web, inclusive of here:
     
     

     

              Death Penalty Costs: Utah        
    Problems: Utah Death Penalty Cost Study
    Dudley Sharp, 3/4/2016

    To: Governor Gary Herbert and staff
    Utah House, Senate and staff
    Attorney General Sean Reyes and staff
    Utah Prosecution Council
    Utah Sheriffs' Association

    Media throughout Utah

    Re: Problems: Utah Death Penalty Cost Study

    From: Dudley Sharp

    Utah's death penalty cost study (1) has some problems.


    1) No Evaluation of Actual LWOP or Death Penalty Costs

    The study is based upon calculating the differences in costs between the death penalty and life without parole, without establishing the specific costs of either the death penalty or of life without parole ("LWOP", being the relevant capital murder cases).

    The study did this by, allegedly, looking at all the things that Utah has to do in a death penalty case and in a LWOP case and calculating ONLY the costs of the, alleged,  differences between the two, wherein this study found $1.6 million more costs in a death penalty case.

    Because of errors in methodology, we know this to be, wildly, inaccurate.


    2) How Problematic

    This process had several identifiable problems:

    a) Gary Syphus, the fiscal analyst who did the death penalty vs LWOP cost study, stated: "To be clear I did not estimate LWOP costs" (2).

    We are precluded from fact checking a detailed look at both death penalty and LWOP costs, which are, totally, absent from the study, thereby lowering any confidence in its conclusions

    added 11/21/16 --  To be very clear, the methodology of the study, as detailed, and Syphus' conclusions must be very inaccurate;

    b) confidence, further lowered, because the study excluded 1) the increased costs of medical and geriatric care,  for LWOP and  2) possibly excluded an increase of costs of higher security for LWOP capital murderers; 3) excluded the increased costs of the additional appellate LWOP costs; and 4) the cost savings of plea bargains to LWOP, only possible with the death penalty option and a cost credit which is applied to the death penalty side of the ledger and which can be a huge number, dramatically lowering death penalty costs, depending upon the number of LWOP pleas.

    This study provides zero information for all of those calculations, wrongly excludes them, because none were looked at, establishing  many errors, undermining any confidence in the study.


    3) UNDERESTIMATING LWOP COSTS

    According to Syphus, the "study" used the average incarceration costs per year for THE ENTIRE PRISON POPULATION and applied those to LWOP (2).

    Such underestimates LWOP costs.

    a) Medical Costs

    LWOP murderers will die in prison and will have a higher average costs for medical care, because, as per Syphus, the average Utah LWOP inmate will live to 76, which incurs geriatric care costs, WHICH Syphus averaged out over the ENTIRE PRISON POPULATION, instead of applying it to LWOP, only (2).

    As an example, the study averages costs inclusive of, say, a 20 year old, healthy inmate who gets a 1 year prison sentence for assault and has $0 medical costs per year and an 85 year old inmate, on kidney dialysis, who received a LWOP sentence for capital murder, at age 45, with medical costs at $348,000 per year.

    This methodology destroys any confidence in the study and results in, totally, unreliable numbers, as is conceded.

    In 2012, in Utah Dept. of Corrections (UDC) found that:

    "About 9 percent of the state's total prison population is older than 55. (UDC) estimates health care costs of those inmates are 12 times more expensive than those of younger inmates." (3)

    Syphus averaged out those 12 times more expensive geriatric LWOP cases, over the ENTIRE PRISON POPULATION, lowering the real, true geriatric LWOP medical costs and destroying any confidence in the studies findings, as all reality was destroyed, as conceded.

    Based upon Syphus' average expected age of 76, the average LWOP prisoner will have about 26 years of geriatric care  which for prisoners starts at ages 50- 55, and, in Utah, averages about additional $22,000 per year (4), or $572,000 per inmate for those additional 26 years, costs which Syphus nullified by averaging the costs over the ENTIRE PRISON POPULATION.

    Added to that will be 5 more years of increased medical care, maybe an additional $11,000 or so per LWOP prisoner/yr., $55,000, total, to add up to the 31 years Syphus calculated as the additional years for LWOP over a death row inmate, or an estimated $627,000 total, more per LWOP inmate (4), which was excluded in the study (4).

    Because of the way Syphus calculated the study, it is possible that this error could be double, or $1.254 million, as the $627,000 was excluded from the baseline of LWOP, as would apply to all other cost issues, to follow.

    Utah's medical/geriatric prisoner costs are at a low level compared to many other states, as detailed (4).

    For example, the renal failure unit at the Federal Medical Center (Devens)  costs $348,000/PER YEAR/PER INMATE for their 115 aging inmates, at $4 million per year for that unit, EXCLUDING MEDICATION COSTS (5).

    b)  Higher security costs

    As a rule, LWOP capital murderers will be in higher security than general population inmates, and such will be more costly. 

    However, the spokesperson for UDC, unofficially, says that increased security in Utah does not cost more.

    Such is an astounding management of costs, if accurate.

    For example, one of California's maximum security units costs $172,000/PER YEAR/PER INMATE (6).

    As per Syphus, Utah's average prisoner cost is about $27,000/yr/inmate (2).

    It appears that Utah does a better job at controlling incarceration costs than most states. But we will still have to wait on UDC's specific cost statement, which I have been waiting on since 3/1/16 and, as of 6/2/16, have not received.

    c) Inaccurate Appellate Costs

    Syphus states that the legal appeals costs are within the average for the incarceration costs for the ENTIRE PRISON POPULATION, as with medical costs, which indicates a highly inaccurate and strange way to arrive at very wrong numbers for LWOP costs (2).

    Syphus claims that appellate costs are part of the incarceration cost average (2), which makes no sense, further lowering our confidence and, if true, indicates the same problem of averaging over the ENTIRE PRISON POPULATION and, again, dramatically,  lowering LWOP appellate costs.

    For example, one would be averaging appellate costs of all inmates who plea bargained and have $0 appellate costs with those LWOP capital murderers who did not plea and have years of appeals, again, an averaging which, vastly, underestimates LWOP appellate costs, again, a lost cause for confidence.


    4)  OVERESTIMATING DEATH PENALTY COSTS

    Plea bargains to LWOP

    With no detailed pre trial, trial and appeals costs of the LWOP cases, there is no way to calculate the actual cost credit of a LWOP plea, a cost credit only possible with the death penalty option and a plea which can create significant cost savings, which shows as a cost credit to the death penalty and which was not calculated in this study.  further destroying any confidence in the study.

    No death penalty = no plea to LWOP.

    Depending upon 1) how many LWOP cases are the result of a plea; 2) the cost savings of those pleas and 3) how many death row cases a state has, there is a scenario whereby the plea cost savings eradicate any alleged excessive costs of the death penalty, if there are any, and/or which would make the death penalty less costly than LWOP.

    But, we are left guessing, as the study leaves out all of those important details.

    Conclusion

    The death penalty debate is rife with horribly inaccurate and/or misleading death penalty costs studies, some intentionally and obviously fraudulent (6), and Utah's is, not unexpectedly, just another example of that major problem.

    The many problems with Utah's study cannot be clarified and/or corrected without a detailed review of both death penalty and LWOP costs, wherein, LWOP costs will rise, possibly dramatically, just as death penalty costs will go down, also possibly,  dramatically.

    NOTE: These study problems are not the fault of Syphus, but of the parameters given to him by the authority requesting the study. It is unfortunate he didn't detail the problems of the study and that I had to do so.

    ALTERNATE STUDY PARAMETERS

    1) The easy route:

    Ask all relevant entities how many people they will lay off with death penalty repeal. Likely, none, meaning death penalty repeal will have no known budgetary effect, nullifying the need for a specific, detailed cost review.

    2) Detailed route:

    A complete, detailed, specific  study of all financial and cost aspects of both death penalty and LWOP cases, inclusive of only capital murderers in the LWOP category.

    Here is a suggested protocol for such a study (7).

    UTAH'S DEATH PENALTY MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

    I have been told that Utah averages about 20 years of appeals, prior to execution.

    That is not a death penalty problem. That is a management problem.

    The average time for appeals, prior to execution, is 11 years, nationally, and 7 years, in Virginia.

    Virginia has executed 111 murderers, since 1976, within an average of 7 years of full appeals. Their last execution, 10/1/2015, occurred after 5 years of full appeals (see Virginia within footnote 6).

    If Virginia can do it, Utah can.

    As a rule, there is no legal or rational reason for appeals to take longer than 6-10 years, on average, that being 2-3.3 years , each, at the state supreme court, federal district court and federal circuit court levels. Cases accepted by SCOTUS are rare.

    Utah needs to fix her mismanagement problem.

    Sincerely, Dudley Sharp

    1) see page 2 of document, titled "Incremental Impact for One Death Penalty Offender to Execution -  State and Local, http://le.utah.gov/interim/2012/pdf/00002860.pdf
    sent to me by Gary Syphus, Utah Fiscal Analyst, on 2/10/16

    2) From email correspondence between myself and Gary Syphus, 2/15/16

    3) "Utah one of 4 states whose inmate health care costs doubled",  Brooke Adams, The Salt Lake Tribune, October 29, 2013

    4)  My cost numbers are based upon UDC published material in footnotes 3 and 4 and are, most likely, very close to the real numbers.

    I have estimated $22,000/yr for geriatric LWOP prisoners (10% of prisoners) and a $1800/yr average for all those younger than geriatric (90% of prisoners), for an average cost of about $3700/yr/inmate, as per UDC (link, hereto) and an approximate 12 times greater cost for geriatric inmates than for the younger prisoners, also as per UDC in (3).

    See Health Care Costs, Costs in Comparisons, UDC,
    http://corrections.utah.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=2&Itemid=119&limitstart=60

    5) "The Painful Price of Aging Prisons", Washington Post, May 2, 2015

    6) See Death Penalty Costs: California within
    Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html


    7) Death Penalty Costs vs Life Without Parole Costs: Study Protocol

              North Carolina Death Penalty Costs (2004)        
    Update: North Carolina Death Penalty Costs (2004) (1):
    More Nonsense from Philip Cook

    From Cook's more recent cost study (1).

    1) Cook: " . . . the goal here is to estimate the hypothetical financial and in-kind consequences of abolishing the death penalty on July 1, 2004."


    "Lacking a crystal ball, I make estimates for the recent past and offer the result as a best guess about the flow of savings in the future, with the proviso that there is considerable uncertainty around this steady-state assumption."

    Sharp: "crystal ball" "estimates" "best guess" "uncertainty" "assumption" "to estimate the hypothetical". 

    Let all that sink in. That's the "study".

    Cook doesn't provide any "assumptions", "best guesses" and "hypotheticals" as to how North Carolina's death penalty can save money over life without parole (LWOP). He wouldn't.


    Since 1976, Virginia has executed 111 of her murderers, 70% of those so sentenced, within 7 years of appeals, on average (2), a protocol that would save money over LWOP, in all jurisdictions.


    Cook is aware but not interested. 


    On death penalty issues, Cook appears to be an anti death penalty activist, who happens to be an academic.


    2) Cook: "If the death penalty had been abolished on July 1, 2004, state government expenditures for processing murder cases would have fallen by $10.8 million per year." (pg 28).


    Sharp: The $10.8 million "hypothetical estimate" cost savings of ending the death penalty would be $0.09 (9 cents) per month per North Carolinian.

    9 cents per month   --    1/3 of a penny per day - $0.003/day


    For some perspective, the cheapest cup of coffee at Starbucks is $1.75, or 525 times per day as expensive.

    My hypothetical estimates are different than Cook's. 


    The social and economic costs attributable to ending the death penalty are just too high.

    Cook's latest study has many problems, as does his previous one (3).

    3) Cook: "Note that the bottom line of this analysis rests on certain "assumptions" about how the relevant actors would respond to the abolition of the death penalty." pg 29 "The "estimates" of potential savings from abolition are developed here as follows." pg 3

    Sharp: Cook has no clue as to those responses, for which he assumes and estimates.


    4) Cook: "I assume that the number of courtrooms, judges, prosecutors, and support staff would not be affected by the abolition of the death penalty, nor would the budget of the NC Supreme Court." "The abolition of the death penalty would have other consequences that are unlikely to be reflected in agency budgets."  p8


    Sharp: In fact, Cook cannot state that there will be any net reduction in the state budget, which would be attributable to elimination of the death penalty. 


    Cook finds a cost savings of $0.003/day/North Carolinian  -  a "hypothetical estimate".

    Can Cook tell us that his 
    "hypothetical" end to the death penalty will not result in net additional costs to North Carolinians, as costs accrue, as:

    a) defense specialists would turn their attention to fighting against LWOP, for which there is a well observed movement to end LWOP, a movement which mirrors the attack against the death penalty, as Cook well knows; and 


    b) there will be no more plea bargains to LWOP, which, previously, saved the cost of trials and appeals, as Cook concedes; with 


    c) all potential LWOP cases will now, all, have to go to trial, dramatically increasing total LWOP case costs, as Cook concedes,  and 


    d) causing a huge social cost problem, whereby some cases that would have, previously, resulted in LWOP, will, now, be given life WITH parole, by either plea bargain or trial, as Cook concedes; and


    e) the case that the death penalty/execution is an enhanced deterrent over LWOP is solid (7) and, therefore,  the reality of the social and monetary costs of more innocents being murdered far outweighs Cook's "hypothetical estimates" of saving money by ending the death penalty.

    5) Cook: "Certainly, the debate in other states that have considered ending the death penalty has included a discussion of cost. That was true in the two states that actually did decide to abolish, New Jersey and New Mexico, and elsewhere. For example, the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment recommended abolition of the death penalty in 2008, arguing its conclusion in part on the cost study by the Urban Institute (Roman et al., 2008)."  pg 2-3


    Sharp: This reflects on Cook's lack of fact checking and/or his anti death penalty bias.


    New Mexico's Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) used Cook's previous, misleading study on costs in North Carolina, not New Mexico's costs. So it had no effect on any cost debate in New Mexico, as Cook's study actually showed that LWOP was more expensive than the death penalty . . . in North Carolina  . . .  not New Mexico (4). The LFC didn't fact check Cook's study.


    The New Jersey Death Penalty Commission NJDPC) found "The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole, but it is not possible to measure these costs with any degree of precision." (5).


    The NJDPC never looked at LWOP costs so it is hard to imagine how they reached that conclusion. Regardless, there is no savings amount identified. Plus, NJDPC made the same obvious error as other studies have, that is stating that death row incarceration costs are higher than general population cells. Capital murderers are most likely going to be in increased security cells, not general population. There is no evidence they looked at the costs savings of plea bargains to LWOP parole.


    The Urban Institute (Maryland) made significant accounting errors in their study, errors, which when fixed, may have revealed no increase in costs with the death penalty (6).


    Cook was, somehow, unaware? Did he not fact check?


    INCREASED COSTS OF DEATH PENALTY REPEAL

    THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

     The death penalty saves more innocent lives, in three ways, than does life without parole (LWOP) (7,8).

    6) Cook:"There is reason to believe that some of those defendants would have pled out to a lesser offense—second-degree murder, say—if the district attorney had lacked the leverage provided by the death penalty."  pg 2

    Sharp: Precisely. Put plainly, more murderers will be released, increasing the costs of additional harm to innocents.  Murderers and other anti death penalty folks, like Cook, may cheer, but I suspect most North Carolinians would happily spend an additional $0.003/day to keep murderers on death row or serving LWOP, as opposed to being released, a huge additional cost.

    Sharp: Since 1973, there have been 14,000 - 28,000 actual innocents murdered by those known murderers that we allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers (two different recidivism studies from different years) (7).

    Obviously, the death penalty provides increased incapacitation protection over lesser sanctions, thereby protecting more innocent lives.

    7) Cook: "(deterrence) was set aside on the grounds that there is no basis for predicting whether abolition of the death penalty would increase or reduce the murder rate, and good reason to believe that the effect in either direction would be small." pg 31

    Sharp: Deterrence is not measured by murder or crime rates. If it was then we would conclude that no potential crimes were deterred in all other countries, simply because, for example, Iceland has the lowest crime and murder rates and, therefore, no criminals in all other countries were deterred by sanction, because all other countries had higher crime rates than Iceland. 

    Absurd, of course.

    Deterrence is measured by there being lower net crime rates  than there, otherwise, would be without sanction. For example, if we ended all sanctions, would crimes and the crime rates go up? No rational person has any doubts.

    Cook is in error by asserting that there is no greater probability of deterrence.



    The evidence that the death penalty.executions deter some is overwhelming (7,8).

    The evidence that the death penalty/executions deter none does not exist (7,8).


    Death is feared more than life. Life is preferred over death. What is feared more deters more. What is preferred more deters less.

    It is not up to death penalty supporters to prove deterrence.  The evidence is on our side.

    It is up to deterrence naysayers to prove that the death penalty/executions deter none, which they have never and can never establish.

    All sanctions, all negative prospects and all negative incentives deter some, all truisms and all well known, with the death penalty/executions being the harshest sanction, the worst negative prospect and the greatest of negative incentives.


    Cook also avoids the risk to innocents, if we are unsure about deterrence. There is no balance in the sparing of innocents.


    If we are unconvinced and there is death penalty/execution deterrence and we don't execute, we sacrifice more innocents.


    If unknowable, we must execute, if innocent lives matter.


    -------

    Rebuttal to follow on these two:

    Deterrences (Donohue and Wolfers, 2006a, 2006b). p 10-14


    "Isaac Ehrlich’s research in this regard has received the most attention, motivating the creation of an expert panel of the National Academy of Sciences—whose report was skeptical of Ehrlich’s findings (Blumstein et al., 1978)." 13
    ======

    1)  Potential Savings from Abolition of the Death Penalty in North Carolina, American Law and Economics Review (Advance Access) published December 11, 2009, Philip J. Cook, Duke University

    2) See Virginia within
    3) "Duke (North Carolina) Death Penalty Cost Study: Let's be honest"
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/06/duke-north-carolina-death-penalty-cost.html


    4) New Mexico's Death Penalty Cost Study
    5) Issue 2, page 39, NEW JERSEY DEATH PENALTY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT, JANUARY 2007, http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/dpsc_final.pdf

    see also

    "DEAD WRONG: NJ Death Penalty Study Commission", Dudley Sharp, 2007,



    7) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html


    8) OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
    and
    MURDERERS MUCH PREFER LIFE OVER EXECUTION
    99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

              New Mexico Death Penalty Costs        
    New Mexico Death Penalty Costs: Another Adventure Into Deception
    Dudley Sharp

    The anti death penalty folks just can't stop.

    Not only did the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) fail to look at either their own death penalty or LWOP costs, instead, they used North Carolina's  misleading cost study (1), which had zero relevance to New Mexico, and the LFC failed to fact check that NC study, which actually found LWOP to be more expensive than the death penalty (1), the opposite of what the LFC stated.

    Just another anti death penalty norm (2).
    LFC:

    "Although a study has (never) been done in New Mexico on the total costs of a death penalty case to the state (including the prosecution, the public defender, and the extensive drain on court resources.), a recent Duke University study done on North Carolina’s costs found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million dollars per execution over a system that imposes life imprisonment." (2)

    Complete utter nonsense, of course.

    The North Carolina study (1) found LWOP to be much more expensive than the death penalty.

     1)  "Duke (North Carolina) Death Penalty Cost Study: Let's be honest"


    2) F I S C A L  I M P A C T  R E P O R T, HB 285, Abolish Death Penalty, Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) , New Mexico Legislature, 1/31/09,
    http://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/09%20Regular/firs/HB0285.pdf

              Identify And Assist: Supporting Human Trafficking Victims        
    This story originally aired during Morning Edition 4-29-15 Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals often treat victims of human trafficking. But if people in the medical fields don’t know the warning signs or how to help someone who is being trafficked, an opportunity to save a life could be missed. To keep that from happening, Via Christi Health in Wichita has an unique training programs for employees. KMUW’s Abigail Wilson has more... A few hundred medical personnel wearing scrubs and tennis shoes and I.D. badges clipped to their breast pockets, are seated in a conference hall at Via Christi St. Joseph Hospital. Emergency room nurses, surgeons and even hospital administrators are here to learn how they can help identify and assist victims of human trafficking right here in Wichita. Stepping up to the podium is Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett. He prosecutes human trafficking cases and is here to provide a law enforcement perspective. Bennett says the U.N.
              Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Two Men Involved In A Sexual Assault Case At A KU Residence Hall        
    Prosecutors have dropped charges against two men accused of raping two women in a University of Kansas residence hall during homecoming weekend. The Douglas County prosecutor's office said in a statement that evidence initially suggested a crime occurred. However, the office said there was no longer sufficient evidence to proceed after more people were interviewed and cell phone and medical records were reviewed. One former suspect is from Lawrence and the other from Olathe. Police say one of the men is a KU student. Court documents had said the 21-year-old men knew the victims and had sex with them without consent. The charges had stated that that the victims were incapable of giving consent because of either mental deficiency or the effect of alcohol or drugs.
              Mark Steyn: “There are three kinds of leak…”        
    Mark Steyn writes:What we are witnessing is a slow-motion coup against a duly elected government by people determined to use whatever they have to hand – national-security leaks by the permanent bureaucracy, money-no-object fishing expeditions by hopelessly conflicted prosecutors, domestic surveillance of political opponents by Obama officials, and indifference to most of the preceding by […]

    Kathy Shaidle's NEW book, Confessions of a Failed Slut, is available HERE.


              Murder trial starts in Fla. foster child case        
    The foster parent of 4-year-old Rilya Wilson abused the girl for months before finally smothering her, and then lied to child welfare workers who failed to discover the girl had been missing for more than a year, a prosecutor said Monday.
              By: Lysistrata        
    Why do we need any change at all? The Geneva Convention allowes detaining, interrogating and prosecuting prisoners, in or out of uniform. Only harsh and inhumane treatment is unlawful. The young enlisted soldiers who are in prison now were said to be just bad apples, young, uneducated and poor, just trailer trash. Are we governed by the best educated trailer trash??? Watching and listening to Hadley today I truely believe that. Morally they are much lower than any poor kid from a trailer park. What do they teach in Harvard and Yale? One point not mentioned is the effect torturing people has on the torturers. I would not want my child being used by my government to mistreat another human being. But Bush and his ilk don't do dirty work, that is left for others to do.
              Naffe v. Frey        

    Threat Type: 

    Lawsuit

    Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

    John Patrick Frey; Christi Frey; Steve Cooley; County of Los Angeles

    Type of Party: 

    Individual

    Date: 

    10/02/2012

    Status: 

    Pending

    Type of Party: 

    Individual
    Government

    Location: 

    California

    Disposition: 

    Dismissed (total)

    Location of Party: 

    • Florida
    • Massachusetts

    Jurisdiction: 

    • California

    Location of Party: 

    • California

    Source of Law: 

    • United States
    • California

    Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

    N/A

    Legal Counsel: 

    Kenneth P. White; Paul B. Beach

    Court Name: 

    U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    Court Type: 

    Federal
    Nadia Naffe accused a colleague of sexual assault and filed a criminal harassment complaint. John Patrick Frey, a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County, raised questions about plaintiff's allegations on his blog and Twitter account which he maintained in his personal... read full description

    Case Number: 

    CV 12-8443-GW (District Court); No. 13-55666 (Court of Appeals)

    Relevant Documents: 

    Content Type: 

    • Text

    Publication Medium: 

    Blog

    Nadia Naffe accused a colleague of sexual assault and filed a criminal harassment complaint. John Patrick Frey, a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County, raised questions about plaintiff's allegations on his blog and Twitter account which he maintained in his personal capacity. Naffe sued Frey, his wife, the former District Attorney for Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County under the theory that the defendant was acting in his official capacity as Deputy District Attorney while writing on his private blog, and that his actions violated her First Amendment and due process rights.

    In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Naffe asserted the following causes of action:

    1. violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    2. public disclosure invasion of privacy
    3. false light invasion of privacy
    4. defamation
    5. intentional infliction of emotional distress
    6. negligence
    7. negligent supervision

    Naffe subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint naming only Frey and the County as defendant. Frey moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, both for failure to state a claim (as to counts 1-6) and for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims (counts 2-7); the County filed its own motion to dismiss and also joined Frey's motions. Frey also filed a special motion to dismiss the state law claims under California's anti-SLAPP law. Naffe opposed all four motions.

    In a tentative ruling (later confirmed), the district court found that it did not have independent subject matter jurisdiction over Naffe's state law claims because she had not sufficiently demonstrated a claim for relief exceeding the sum of $75,000. Accordingly, the court focused on whether Naffe had properly asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

    The court held that to state a claim under Section 1983, Naffe was required to allege facts sufficient to show that Frey's action related in some meaningful way either to his governmental status or to the performance of his duties, but found that Naffe had merely offered allegations that were conclusory or speculative. The court further held that merely "mentioning the fact that [Frey] [wa]s a deputy district attorney or prosecutor... does not transform everything he says on his blog or on Twitter into state action." Accordingly, the court dismissed Naffe's Section 1983 claim without leave to amend and dismissed her state law claims without prejudice. The court did not address the merits of Frey's anti-SLAPP motion.

    Naffe appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In her appellate brief, Naffe focused on a comment Frey had made on his twitter account, in which he states: "@NadiaNaffe My first task is learning what criminal statutes, if any, you have admitted violating." Naffe interprets this tweet to be a threat by a state prosecutor to investigate her for alleged criminal violations and offers it as evidence that her allegations are not merely speculative. Frey, in his appellee's brief, responded that such musings could not be deemed an official act, and that the factual context proves that the comment had nothing to do with anything over which a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney such as Frey could have jurisdiction.

    The Digital Media Law Project ("DMLP") filed an amicus brief in support of Frey arguing that there are over 20 million Americans working for the government and that, even when those individuals speak on matters that relate to government activity, their ability to speak in their personal capacities must be preserved in order to ensure that these individuals' valuable viewpoints are part of public discussion.

    Subject Area: 

    • Defamation
    • False Light
    • Blogs
    • Publication of Private Facts
    • Government Speech

              Revised DOJ Regs Protect "Members of the News Media," But What Does That Mean?        

    On February 21, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice released its long-awaited revisions to 28 C.F.R. § 50.10, the DOJ's regulatory guidelines (the "Guidelines") regarding investigations and prosecutions of members of the news media. The prior version of the Guidelines came under fire last year, when it was revealed that the DOJ had, without prior notification, obtained two months of telephone records from 21 phone lines used by the Associated Press. These records had the potential to reveal confidential sources and other sensitive information relating to ongoing journalistic investigations. At that time, I wrote about weaknesses in the Guidelines' protections against unwarranted interference with journalism.

    In the wake of these revelations, the DOJ announced that it would revise the Guidelines to provide significant new procedural protections for the press. I'll let others review the provisions of the new Guidelines in detail; for now, I want to point out one critical omission. Although the Guidelines extend certain protections to "members of the news media," they (like the prior version) still contain no affirmative definition of that term.

    Instead, the only way in which "members of the news media" are defined is through exclusions. A number of these exclusions (predictably) relate to persons acting as agents of a foreign power, plotting terrorist activity, et cetera. More problematic are the implications of the following provision:

    A Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division may authorize, under an applicable [Privacy Protection Act] exception, an application for a warrant to search the premises, property, or communications records of an individual other than a member the news media, but who is reasonably believed to have "a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication."

    28 C.F.R. § 50.10(d)(6). The phrase "person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication" is how a journalist is defined in the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. The Privacy Protection Act was passed in response to concerns about the use of search warrants to invade newsrooms, and the inadequacy of Fourth Amendment standards for issuing warrants in the face of the special concerns raised by government investigations of journalists. Wisely, the Privacy Protection Act did not attempt to define journalists in terms of their organization or employment, but instead in terms of their function; this has enabled the Act to be flexible in responses to changes in technology and the journalism industry.

    We still do not know what "members of the news media" means in the new DOJ Guidelines, but (by the way the above provision is phrased) we know that it is more restrictive than the functional definition of the Privacy Protection Act. This should give independent journalists significant pause. When government agencies attempt to define a journalist, they tend to adopt either an employment-based approach or a functional approach; the DOJ now seems to be eschewing a functional definition (or at least one as broad as in the Privacy Protection Act).

    Moreover, apart from the single provision quoted above, the new Guidelines do not protect anyone who is not a "member of the news media"; in particular, they do not protect against the use of legal demands to third party carriers for communications records. This leaves journalists unaffiliated with a news organization on potentially unstable ground with respect to the security of their communications against secret government inquiries.

    Jeff Hermes is the Director of the Digital Media Law Project.

    (Image courtesy of Flickr user Peter Eimon pursuant to a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.)

    Subject Area: 

    Jurisdiction: 


              Lawyers in the Vortex: When Attorneys Become Public Figures        

    There was substantial media coverage of the defense verdict in the recent "twibel" (i.e., libel via Twitter) case against singer Courtney Love. Although the case attracted attention for the medium in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made, the dispositive issue was a long-standing element of libel law that did not depend on Love's use of Twitter.  Specifically, the jury found that plaintiff Rhonda Holmes, a lawyer who briefly represented Love in disputes stemming from the estate of Love's husband Kurt Cobain, had not proved the degree of fault on Love's part necessary for Holmes to win the case.

    Curiously, the level of fault that the court required Holmes to prove was "actual malice," i.e., knowledge on Love's part that the statement was untrue, or reckless disregard by Love for whether it was true or not. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the actual malice standard is applied when the plaintiff is a public figure.

    There are two types of public figure plaintiffs: "general purpose public figures," who are so prominent and well known that they are public figures for all purposes; and "limited purpose" or "vortex" public figures, who become -- usually voluntarily -- involved in a particular public issue to the extent that they become public figures for statements regarding that public issue, but not for other matters. If a plaintiff is neither of these types of public figure, then s/he is considered a private figure, who does not have to meet the stringent standard of actual malice. (Private figure plaintiffs must still demonstrate fault on the part of the defendant in order to win a defamation case, but the specific level of fault that a private figure plaintiff must show varies from state to state.)

    Meanwhile, the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals is facing a similar issue in another case involving a lawyer as defamation plaintiff. In that case, the court is considering the attorney's status in connection with a decision as to whether her suit against anonymous Wikipedia editors should be blocked under the District's anti-SLAPP statute.

    We are used to the idea of celebrities and government officials being treated as public figures, but should their attorneys fall into that category as well? As it turns out, courts have long struggled with the question of when an attorney's involvement in a prominent case or controversy makes him or her a public figure in the defamation context; this post examines some of these decisions.

    U.S. Supreme Court

    The U.S. Supreme Court has considered three cases in which a lawyer's involvement in a prominent case led to questions about the lawyer's status as a defamation plaintiff. In all three cases, the Court held that the lawyer was not a public figure.

    In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), the Court held that a lawyer who was a prominent member of local society did not become a public figure due to his divorce by a court in Palm Beach, Florida. The Court found that the plaintiff did not voluntarily choose to make aspects of his life public by electing "dissolution of a marriage through judicial proceedings," since the court procedure was required for the divorce, and that the divorce itself was not a public controversy which made the plaintiff a public figure.

    Similarly, the Court held in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 (1971) that a lawyer who represented a convicted criminal on appeal was not a public figure. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Court held that the lawyer for a family involved in controversial civil litigation was not a public figure.

    But since determinations of public or private figure status are highly fact-specific, these decisions are not necessarily determinative in subsequent cases. So state courts and lower federal courts have issued a variety of rulings on the public or private figure status of lawyers who are plaintiffs in defamation cases.

    Involvement in Prominent Litigation

    Despite the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Rosenbloom and Gertz, other courts have held that an attorney's representation of a party in a prominent case can, under certain circumstances, justify a finding that the lawyer was a public figure.

    • In Della-Donna v. Gore Newspaper Co., 489 So. 2d 72 (Fla. App. 1986), the Florida Court of Appeals held that an attorney involved with a millionaire's estate became a limited public figure when a bequest to a university became a public controversy.
    • In Ratner v. Young, 465 F. Supp. 386 (D.V.I. 1979), a federal district court held that defense attorneys in a highly publicized murder trial were public figures because they had come to the Virgin Islands from New York to represent the defendant for free, thus injecting themselves into the case, and held press conferences to generate support for their client.
    • Similarly, in Hayes v. Booth Newspapers, Inc., 97 Mich. App. 758, 295 N.W.2d 858 (1980), a Michigan appellate court held that an attorney who had turned a criminal trial in which he represented the defendant into a cause célèbre was a public figure.
    • In Bandelin v. Pietsch, 98 Idaho 337, 583 P.2d 395 (1977), a lawyer prosecuted for contempt of court stemming from a probate matter was held by the Supreme Court of Idaho to be a public figure in a subsequent libel suit over coverage  because of the prominence of that prosecution.  The Idaho court discounted the lawyer's prominence in local politics several years before as a factor, after which he had gone into relative obscurity.

    Public figure status due to involvement in a prominent case does not necessarily last forever, however. In New York, a lawyer who once represented a notorious criminal was held to not be public figure years after the representation. Polakoff v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 3 Media L. Rep. 2516, aff’d, 67 A.D.2d 871, 413 N.Y.S.2d 537 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div. 1st Dept. 1979), appeal dismissed, 48 N.Y.2d 714, 422 N.Y.S.2d 378, 397 N.E.2d 1182 (1979).

    Other courts have held that a lawyer's involvement in a prominent case did not, in itself, make the lawyer a public figure. The Michigan Supreme Court took this stance regarding an attorney in a publicized criminal trial, Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, Inc., 364 N.W. 2d 600 (Mich. 1984), as did the Arkansas Supreme Court is a case involving a lawyer who represented a witness in the 1990s “Whitewater” investigation, Little Rock Newspapers v. Fitzhugh, 330 Ark. 561, 954 S.W.2d 914 (1997). Even a prominent lawyer such as Gerry Spence, who advocated for famous and controversial clients, can be a private figure. Spence v. Flynt, 816 P.2d 771 (Wyo. 1991).

    Involvement in Political and Public Controversies

    Lawyers who work for the government -- as judges, prosecutors and public defenders, for example -- have often been held to be public officials who must show actual malice in a libel suit. But non-government attorneys have also been held to be public figures due to their involvement in political issues, at least for purposes of the specific public issue in which s/he was involved.

    Thus a former city attorney and counsel for a local redevelopment agency who had initiated a recall of local public officials was found to be a public figure. Weingarten v. Black, 102 Cal. App. 3d 129, 162 Cal. Rptr. 701 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). So was a prominent private lawyer who represented many public school districts. Schwartz v. Worrall Publications, Inc., 258 N.J. Super. 493, 610 A.2d 425 (1992).

    A politically connected law firm was held to be a public figure when the firm sued a county legislator who accused it of over-billing the county and trying to hide a county official's miscounduct. Crowe Deegan v. Schmitt, 12 Misc. 3d 1152(A), 819 N.Y.S.2d 209, 2006 NY Slip Op 50870(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau County Apr. 14, 2006) (unpublished), aff'd and modified in part on other grounds, 38 A.D.3d 590, 832 N.Y.S.2d 242 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div. 2d 2007).

    But some courts have ruled the other way. In ZYZY Corporation v. Gloria Hernandez, 345 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011), a lawyer who spoke publicly as representative of an Indian tribe, which client constituted 10 percent of her business, was held not to be a limited purpose public figure. 

    Involvement in Other Legal Matters

    While an attorney's involvement in a prominent legal case can be sufficient to make the lawyer a public figure, courts have not generally held that attorneys' involvement in other legal matters gives them public figure status. 

    Accordingly, in Denny v. Mertz, 100 Wis. 2d 332, 302 N.W. 2d 503 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981), aff'd, 106 Wis. 2d 636, 318 N.W.2d 141 (Wis. 1982), an attorney who thrust himself into the forefront of a corporate stockholder battle was held to not be a public figure because the corporate matter was not a public controversy which affected the “general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way.”

    This also applies to administrative matters regarding attorney admission and discipline. Controversy over a lawyer's suspension and subsequent taking of the bar exam for re-admission to the bar was not sufficient to make the attorney a public figure in Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. v. Dodrill, 281 Ark. 25, 660 S.W. 2d 933 (1983). Neither was discipline of an attorney for practicing law in violation of his probation. Littlefield v. Fort Dodge Messenger, 614 F.2d 581 (8th Cir. 1980). 

    Local Prominence

    Aside from being involved in a prominent case, a lawyer -- like any other member of the public -- can become a public figure by his or her general prominence in the community.

    In Durham v. Cannan Communications, Inc., 645 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Amarillo 1982, writ dismissed), the court held that whether a lawyer's noteriety in the community made him a public figure was an issue for the jury to decide. Other courts have been more certain. In Partington v. Bugliosi, 825 F.Supp. 906 (D. Haw. 1993), aff’d on other grounds, 56 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1995), the court held that a well-known criminal defense lawyer was a public figure. The court in Steere v. Cupp, 226 Kan. 566, 602 P.2d 1267 (1979), held a lawyer to be a public figure because of his prominence as a social activist.

    Public figure status for a prominent attorney can also last for some period after the prominence recedes. In Lewis v. Coursolle Broadcasting of Wisconsin, Inc., 127 Wis.2d 105, 377 N.W. 2d 166 (1985), the court held that an attorney and former legislator who was still well-known in the community three years after leaving office remained a public figure.

    Lawyers as Public Figures

    Lawyers tend to be prominent in their communities, and are likely to be held to be public figures if they are are involved in local politics or community efforts. But in most situations, an attorney's representation of a client in a prominent case is not, in an of itself, sufficient to make the attorney a public figure.

     

    Eric P. Robinson is co-director of the Program in Press, Law and Democracy at the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University. He has taught media law and ethics at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, Baruch College, and the University of Nevada, Reno, where he was also Deputy Director of the Donald W. Reynolds Center for Courts and Media. He has also been a  staff attorney at the Media Law Resource Center and a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. In addition to his posts here, he maintains his own blog at bloglawonline.com.

    (Image courtesy of Flickr user RyAwesome, pursuant to a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license.)


    Subject Area: 

    Jurisdiction: 


              Montesquieu, Come Back! (The French Police Already Know Where You Are)        

    On December 19, 2013, the French Loi de Programmation Militaire (the Military Program law, or "LPM"), was enacted. Article 20 of the LPM, which will come into force on January 1, 2015, authorizes the government to require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and web hosts to provide "information and documents processed or stored," including geolocation data and metadata in real time, without having to first ask for an authorization from a judge. The new law raises serious questions regarding separation of powers and the extent of administrative authority in France.

    A Surveillance Law Both Broad and Vague

    Article 20 of the LPM allows the Prime Minister to authorize specially designated agents from the ministers of police, defense, economics and budget to issue demands to ISPs for:

    "information or documents processed or preserved by their networks or electronic communications services, including technical data relating to the identification subscription or connection to electronic communications service numbers, identification of all the numbers subscription or connection to a designated person, the location of the terminal equipment used as well as a subscriber's communications on the list of dialed numbers and callers, duration and timing of communications"

    The Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), France's data protection authority, issued a statement following the enactment of the LPM noting that "information and documents" was so vague a term that "it appears to allow intelligence services to have access to content data, not only connection data." Ironically, the law was purportedly enacted to make surveillance laws more precise, following a 2010 European Court of Human Rights decision, Uzun v. Germany, where the court had warned Member States that "[i]n view of the risk of abuse intrinsic to any system of secret surveillance, such measures must be based on a law that is particularly precise, especially as the technology available for use is continually becoming more sophisticated" (at 61).  

    A Not-So-Precise Geolocation Surveillance Law

    So how did a law purportedly intended to clarify the use of surveillance technology wind up with such foggy language? When the LPM was first presented to the French Senate in August 2013, the explanatory memorandum about the section that would become article 20 presented it exclusively as an anti-terrorism measure. The memorandum indicated that the section would authorize police in charge of preventing terrorism to access geolocation information and communications metadata in real time. The new provisions were originally intended to become part of a 2006 anti-terrorism law that is currently set to lapse the last day of 2015, and would be limited by the scope of the 2006 law.

    But then came the sleight of hand. Senator Jean-Pierre Sueur argued that article 20 of the LPM should not become part of the 2006 law, but instead should become part of an updated general administrative communications interception law. "If geolocation is inserted in Article L.34-1-1, it is confined to anti-terrorist purposes, even though the intelligence services might need it for much broader purposes," explained Senator Sueur. In fact, the senator quoted the ECHR's decision in Uzun to justify this expansion of administrative authority, noting that the Court had found that using a geolocation device "could be acceptable under the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, provided that the law is very specific in its description of the device" (p.47).

    Sueur's argument succeeded, and article 20 of the LPM became articles L. 241-1 et seq. of France's Homeland Security Code -- an entirely new chapter VI broadly named “Administrative access to data connection.”

    So Much for the Judiciary

    The main problem with Senator Sueur’s invocation of Uzun was that he conveniently forgot to mention that Uzun involved authorization by a German judge, not the administration, for police to place the GPS device at issue in that case.

    In Uzun, a German prosecutor had placed Bernhard Uzun and "S.," one of his presumed accomplices, under surveillance, as they were suspected to have participated in bombing attacks carried out by a terrorist organization. The police had placed a GPS device in S.'s car and monitored Uzun and S.'s whereabouts for three months until their arrest. Uzun was subsequently found guilty of having carried out a bomb attack and, on appeal to the ECHR, argued that using a GPS device as a surveillance tool had been an unjustified breach of his privacy, as protected by article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. But the ECHR held unanimously that there had been no violation, as installing the GPS device had been done in accordance with the law, to pursue the legitimate goal of protecting public safety, and had been a proportionate measure to accomplish this goal. 

    The fact that Uzun involved judicially authorized surveillance is critical. French law explicitly separates administrative police power, which is exercised preventatively to limit crime and maintain public order, from judicial police power, which is exercised to enforce law and investigate crime. The administrative police power is under the control of the administrative/executive authority, while the judicial police power is under the control of the judicial authority. Only the judicial authority is deemed to be the “guardian of individual freedom” by article 66 of the French Constitution.

    So while the ECHR in Uzun had unanimously found no violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting privacy, it was considering an exercise of judicial police power under the oversight of a judge in the active investigation of a terrorism suspect. It was not a case about administrative police power.

    The French Conseil Constitutionnel (Constitutional Council), which is in charge of reviewing the constitutionality of laws, had found in 2006 that it is also permissible for administrative police officers to have access to stored electronic communication data without a warrant, but only when acting to prevent acts of terrorism. The LPM, however, contains no such limitation in its text and, once placed in the Homeland Security Code instead of the 2006 terrorism law, lost any limitation that could have been drawn from context.

    The New Process: Collecting Geolocation and Metadata in Real Time Without a Warrant

    So now the LPM authorizes the collection of geolocation and metadata in real time without a judicial warrant and not only for terrorist crimes. This is how it works: under the new article L. 246-3 of the Homeland Security Code, the ministers of homeland security, of defense, of economy, and of budget may ask for authorization to have access in real time to the "information and documents" subject to the LPM (the definition of which now appears in article L. 246-1 of the Code). The authorization is not granted by a judge, but by the Prime Minister (who heads the government under article 21 of the French Constitution). The authorization may be granted initially for a maximum time of thirty days, but can be renewed for the same amount of time.

    The Prime Minister‘s decision is communicated within forty-eight hours to the President of the Commission Nationale de Contrôle des Interceptions de Sécurité (the National Commission to Control Security Interceptions, or "CNCIS"). The CNCIS was created by a July 10, 1991 law, following the European Court of Justice's condemnation of France in 1990 in two cases, Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France. These cases noted France's lack of a precise communication surveillance law, holding that since "[t]apping and other forms of interception of telephone conversations represent a serious interference with private life and correspondence [they]... must accordingly be based on a 'law‘ that is particularly precise. It is essential to have clear, detailed rules on the subject, especially as the technology available for use is continually becoming more sophisticated" (Kruslin at 33).

    If the President of CNCIS does not believe the legality of the Prime Minister's authorization is "certain," he is to meet with the whole CNCIS, which must make a decision about the legality of such authorization within seven days.

    But even forty-eight hours, and possibly seven days more, is quite a long time for potentially illegal surveillance to take place. Also, the control is only a posteriori and is only made by the CNCIS, which is an independent administrative authority, not a judicial authority. Geolocation and metadata surveillance in real time are thus left entirely in the hands of administrative authorities with no judicial oversight.

    Is it Constitutional?

    This new scheme seems unlikely to fare well with France's Supreme Civil Court, the Cour de Cassation. The day the Senate bill was sent to the Assemblée Nationale, France's lower chamber, the Cour de Cassation ruled in two geolocation cases. The court quoted, in full, article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and concluded that "geolocation technology constitutes an interference with privacy of such gravity that this requires it to be executed under the supervision of a judge."

    Therefore, there is a real chance that the LPM will eventually be declared unconstitutional. In fact, opponents to the LPM tried to have the law found unconstitutional by the Conseil Constitutionnel before its enactment, but could not gather the signatures of sixty Representatives or sixty Senators necessary to petition the Conseil Constitutionnel. The LPM may now only be declared unconstitutional if a party to a lawsuit argues that the LPM infringes on her rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution. If the conditions of admissibility would be met, the Cour de Cassation would refer the question of constitutionality of the LPM to the Conseil Constitutionnel, which could then repeal the law. 

    Conclusion

    Even though the LPM had been presented as the law which would put France in compliance with Uzun, Christine Taubira, the Minister of Justice, announced on December 23 that the government had presented another geolocation surveillance law to the Senate intended "to bring French law into conformity with the requirements laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in its Uzun v. Germany judgment ... and the October 22, 2013 decisions of the Court of Cassation."

    The French Senate adopted this bill on January 20, and it will be debated at the lower Assembly next month. It adds a new article to the French criminal procedure code which would authorize the police to put in place geolocation surveillance without requesting a warrant, if investigating a crime punishable by at least five years imprisonment, or at least three years imprisonment for crimes against property.  

    Hopefully, the new bill will give France another chance to publicly debate whether it is advisable for a democracy to authorize real time surveillance without judicial oversight. For now, it is hard to believe that France was the home of Montesquieu, who famously wrote in The Spirit of the Laws about the tripartite separation of powers: legislative, judicial and executive.

    Marie-Andrée Weiss is a solo attorney admitted in New York, and her admission is pending in France. Her practice focuses on intellectual property, privacy, and social media law. She frequently writes on these topics and on European Union law. 

    (Image of Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu on 1989 200-franc note cou

              United States v. Brown        

    Threat Type: 

    Criminal Charge

    Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

    Barrett Brown

    Type of Party: 

    Government

    Date: 

    09/12/2012

    Type of Party: 

    Individual

    Status: 

    Pending

    Location of Party: 

    • United States

    Location: 

    Texas

    Location of Party: 

    • Texas

    Jurisdiction: 

    • Texas

    Source of Law: 

    • United States

    Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

    N/A

    Legal Counsel: 

    Douglas A Morris (Federal Public Defender - Dallas); Ahmed Ghappour (University of Texas Law School), Charles D. Swift (Swift & McDonald, PC), Marlo P Cadeddu (Law Office of Marlo P Cadeddu)

    Court Name: 

    United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas: Dallas Division

    Court Type: 

    Federal
    The U.S. government filed three indictments, consisting of seventeen charges, against Barrett Brown, an independent journalist. The charges arose out of Brown's online publication of a link to data obtained by hacktivist collective Anonymous and his alleged subsequent conduct. Anonymous hacked Stratfor,... read full description

    Case Number: 

    3:12-cr-00317-L; 3:12-CR-413-L; 3:13-CR-030-L

    Relevant Documents: 

    Content Type: 

    • Text

    Publication Medium: 

    Forum
    Social Network

    The U.S. government filed three indictments, consisting of seventeen charges, against Barrett Brown, an independent journalist. The charges arose out of Brown's online publication of a link to data obtained by hacktivist collective Anonymous and his alleged subsequent conduct.

    Anonymous hacked Stratfor, a global intelligence firm, in December 2011, obtaining millions of e-mails, some of which included credit card and personal identity data. WikiLeaks published a large collection of these emails in February 2012, and Brown linked to a zip file of the leaked data on his IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channel, #ProjectPM. In response to these events, in March and September 2012, the FBI raided Brown and his mother's residences. Brown responded with YouTube videos, including one entitled "Why I'm Going to Destory FBI Agent [RS]," and similar commentary on Twitter. 

    The federal government filed a complaint against Brown in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on September 12, 2012. According to the docket, the complaint alleged that Brown "knowingly counseled, commanded, and induced other individuals to make restricted personal information about a Special Agent (SA) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) publically available with the intent to threaten, intimidate, and incite the commission of a crime of violence against that SA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 119." (The full text of this complaint is not available.) The first indictment included counts related to Brown's responses to the FBI raids on his social media accounts (on Twitter and YouTube), which the government alleged to be threatening the FBI Agent and exposing private information. Specifically, the three counts were: Internet threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c); conspiracy to make publically available restricted personal information of an employee of the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371; and retaliation against a federal law enforcement officer under 18 U.S.C. §§ 115(a)(1)(B) and (b)(4). Brown pled not guilty to all three counts on November 15, 2012. 

    The government filed a second indictment, case number 3:12-cr-00413-B, on December 4, 2012, arising out of the hyperlink to the leaked Stratfor data that Brown posted on his IRC channel. The government asserted that sharing this link constituted a transfer the credit card account information contained therein; accordingly, Brown was charged with: traffic in stolen authentication features under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(2), (b)(1)(B), and (c)(3)(A); access device fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and (c)(1)(A)(i); and ten counts of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). On December 17, 2012, Brown made a plea of not guilty to all of these charges. This second indictment was replaced by a superseding indictment on July 2, 2013, which made no substantive changes to the charges. 

    During the 2012 FBI raids, Brown denied the presence of any laptops at his or his mother's residences, though two were later found. For this, he was charged with obstruction of justice in a third indictment on January 23, 2013 (case number 3:13-cr-00030-B). The indictment included two counts: concealment of evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 1519; and corruptly concealing evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). According to the case docket, Brown entered a not guilty plea on January 30, 2013. 

    On January 30, 2013, the court held a hearing to determine Brown's competency to stand trial in his criminal cases, focusing on his mental health. In an order filed February 4, 2013, the court declared Brown competent to stand trial in all three pending cases.

    On August 7, 2013, in the course of opposing a motion by Brown for a continuance of his trial date, the government asserted that Brown had repeatedly solicited "the services of the media or media-types to discuss his cases," and thereby demonstrated an "intent to continue to manipulate the public through press and social media comments, in defiance of the admonishment by the United States Magistrate Judge." Asserting that such "extrajudicial commentary" would undermine a fair trial, the government asked the court "to instruct the parties to refrain from making "any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record."

    Brown opposed the government's request for a gag order in pleadings filed on August 9 and September 4, 2013, arguing that the government had not established a need for a gag order or that less restrictive measures were not available to responf to pretrial publicity. The defense pointed out that since appointment of counsel on his behalf, Brown had made no statements to the press, his counsel had made no statements except with respect to matters in the public record, and any statements made by associates of Brown could not be attributed to Brown himself. The defense further argued that cases supporting gag orders required evidence of statements by the defendant, and not merely a claim that the defense had condoned or attempted to coordinate media coverage. The defense also objected to the government's attempt to rely, as a basis for a gag order, on Brown's own journalistic work product unrelated to the pending charges against him. 

    On September 4, 2013, the court entered an "Agreed Order Re: Extrajudicial Statements" signed by the judge and by counsel for Brown and the government. The order prohibits Brown and all attorneys for the government and the defense from making

    any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record, that could interfere witha fair trial or otherwise prejudice Defendant, the Government, or the administration of justice, except that counsel for the Defendant may consult with Mr. Kevin Gallagher regarding the finances needed for Mr. Barrett Brown's defense.

    The parties are further prohibited by the order from avoiding its effect through indirect, but deliberate, means. The order states that Brown is permitted continue to make statements and publish on topics not related to the counts on which he was indicted.

    Two trials are set in the case. The first trial, relating to the threats allegedly made by Brown, is set to begin on April 28, 2014. The second trial, relating to the charges regarding hyperlinking to stolen data and obstruction of justice, was set to begin on May 19, 2014; however, on March 5, 2014, the Department of Justice voluntarily moved to dismiss the hyperlinking charges.  It is not clear whether this will affect the schedule of the second trial.

    Subject Area: 

    • Linking
    • Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

              Comment on Trade, Currency, and International Cooperation by Karen Hudes        
    Dear Professor Shaviro, I enjoyed your review on trade, currency and international cooperation. Your statement about the preeminence of the dollar as international reserve currency has missed entirely what the BRICS' proposal for a new development bank means for the dollar. These countries account for more than 25% of international trade, and they are jettisoning the dollar to finance their trade. There is alot to be said about gold at the moment, perhaps Lars Schall's latest article says it best. German / US gold in Hong Kong refineries? Juli 13th, 2013 You may have heard about William Kaye’s assertion that Western central bank gold is being recast for purchase in Asia. However, when asked about it in order to investigate the matter, Mr. Kaye seems to be a “NATO“ member: No Action, Talk Only. http://www.larsschall.com/2013/07/13/german-us-gold-in-hong-kong-refineries/ The National Taxpayers Union has a blog on my case at http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/government-reform/whistleblower-protections-a1220.html I am still waiting to hear back from NYUJILP on the attached submission. We are on track for a currency war, downgrade in the US credit rating, and dissolution of the North Atlantic trade alliance unless we combat the corruption that I have been reporting. At least the total censorship in the corrupt media is now beginning to crumble. For a current update, see https://t.co/kD0slcRk7F Sincerely, Karen Hudes Washington Square College Class of 1970 www.kahudes.net 202 316 0684 The best article on my story is at http://www.larsschall.com/2013/05/08/governance-issues-at-the-world-bank-a-security-risk-to-the-world-order/ Asia Times refused to run it Eric Holder's prosecution of me http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/trumped-up-charges-and-thinly-veiled-threats-against-world-bank-whistleblower-karen-hudes-2/ For more background see: 6/21/13 RTTV, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7E9SUwlooE House of Commons International Development Committee, Written Evidence for the inquiry into The work of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, published July 7, 2012 available here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmintdev/writev/402/contents.htm House of Commons Public Administration Committee, Written Evidence for the inquiry into Public engagement in policy making, published November 2, 2012 available here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/writev/publicpolicy/m03.htm The European Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control Hearing on Whistleblowing May 25, 2011 available here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201105/20110518ATT19540/20110518ATT19540EN.pdf My Ripoff Report about this corruption is at: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/world-bank/washington-dist-of-columbia-20433/world-bank-gave-inaccurate-financial-statements-washington-dc-1050418
              Court orders death penalty for South Korean ferry captain        
    The South Korean Prosecutor´s office requested on Monday, October 27 the death penalty for the captain of the ferry that sank in April, killing more than 300 people, when considering that his negligence and failure to provide assistance to passengers caused serious casualties, according to the media...
              Prosecutor: Arkansas Teen Pointed BB Gun At Officer Before Shooting        
    A black teenager pointed a BB gun that looked like a handgun at police before he was fatally shot by officers outside an emergency youth center in eastern Arkansas, a prosecutor said in announcing no charges would be filed against the officers.
              Republican Party In Palm Beach Lauds GOP Anti-Environmental Crusader ... by gimleteye        

    Alfie Fanjul (l) and Pepe Fanjul (r), top Palm Beach County Republican donor. The brothers head a billionaire dollar empire carved out of federal subsidies and corporate welfare programs protecting Big Sugar, the primary polluter of Everglades wetlands

    The Republican Party of Palm Beach County has invited James O'Keefe to be its keynote speaker at its mid-summer event.

    A press release describes O'Keefe as "an award winning journalist". In fact, he is better known as a right-wing activist who infiltrated ACORN and an office of Planned Parenthood and also invites legal action against himself.

    In 2010, O'Keefe was convicted of breaking into the offices of Sen. Marie Landrieu:

    Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine after he pleaded guilty on Wednesday to misdemeanor charges stemming from his involvement in a break-in at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office. In January, O’Keefe and three others were arrested by federal authorities at Landrieu’s office on allegations of phone-tampering. Prosecutors initially said they caught four individuals in the process of committing a felony, but the charges were later reduced to misdemeanors."

    O'Keefe and the Florida GOP meant to time his visit to Palm Beach County -- where virulent anti-environmentalism is coordinated through the Fanjul & US Sugar Corporation cartel -- with revelations of his incursion into the League Of Conservation Voters; an attack rebuffed yesterday by LCV with the California Attorney General.

    The local GOP press release crows, "O’Keefe was ultimately credited with having a significant impact on the 2016 presidential elections for his October Surprise video series."

    In "Has James O’Keefe Accidentally Stung Himself Again?", New Yorker writer Jane Mayer -- who chronicled influence peddling of the nation's largest polluters in "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" -- writes:
    In the latest chapter of his strange career, the League of Conservation Voters, a national environmental-advocacy group, has filed a complaint against three individuals who infiltrated its operations, at least two of whom, the group alleges, “could be associated with” O’Keefe and have past ties to him. The group’s leaders recently began to suspect that they were being scammed, and decided to go to the authorities before O’Keefe or his alleged associates released any material on their own.
    The timing of the Florida GOP conspiracy with O'Keefe occurs within context of a massive erosion of environmental rules and regulations by the Trump White House.

    It is the identical strategy Florida polluters are planning to blend into the important 2018 political races where Big Sugar's main apologist, Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam, is poised to be the GOP candidate to replace Gov. Rick Scott.

    Scott, who counts on campaign financial support from Big Sugar, will likely aim for the senate seat held by incumbent Democratic Bill Nelson.

    Overshadowing Florida's nasty, anti-people and anti-environmental politics is a recent report by federal scientists to the Trump administration calling climate change a greater, current threat to economic and national security than earlier estimates. According to the New York Times:
    The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
    The Trump White House has not released or commented on the report and was hoping, perhaps, that a titillating "explosive" revelation against LCV would help its cause in climate change denial.

    Governor Rick Scott has prohibited state agencies and staff from using the words, "climate change", although Florida's economy, real estate and tax base is most vulnerable to its impacts in the nation. Recently, the US Department of Agriculture ordered "climate change" to be similarly deleted from its communications.

    In the New Yorker report, Mayer contacted O'Keefe for comment. He responded:
    “I don’t comment on investigations real or imagined, or work with mainstream reporters who operate in bad faith,” he told me. In 2016, I wrote an article for this magazine about O’Keefe’s bungled attempt to sting George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, a liberal nonprofit group that O’Keefe had targeted.

    O'Keefe, in his role feeding the beast of disinformation through channels like Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars and Rush Limbauch, will dine on lobster tails at the Palm Beach GOP anti-environmental love-fest at the Polo Club of Boca Raton, 5400 Champion Boulevard, Boca Raton at 6:30PM on August 17.

              JD Cloud Overlay Bundle 3 & 4        


    Add to Cart


    JD Cloud Overlay 3 and 4 Bundle Pack Includes:

    • 72 Clouds total (36 clouds, each with 2 versions) 

    • 2 Versions of Each Overlay: One "Clean" one with Subtle Color Editing. (This pack does not incorporate Textured Skies like in Cloud Packs 1& 2)

    • Many clouds include additional vertical space added to the bottom for easy cloud incorporation and additional placement choices when editing. Many of the files are large enough that one image can have multiple uses depending upon how it is placed.



    BONUS:

    • 23 Actions to help you enhance, integrate and customize your clouds to best fit the mood of your photo. (These actions are identical to the Bonus Actions in Packs 1 & 2).

    • 3 Sky Fill Actions that simulate a soft blue, soft golden and soft sunset sky for instances where adding a cloud overlay doesn't make sense but you want to soften a blown out background.

    ʉۢ 4 More Cloud Overlays than JD Cloud Overlays Packs 1 & 2 (2 unique clouds, 2 different versions)

     â€¢ Access to Video Tutorials 



    Technical Notes: 
     
    • This product works for CS 2 and above Elements 7 and above.

    • The Cloud Overlays and Bonus Actions, Overlays, and Birds will not work work in Lightroom.

    • While the Clouds Overlays and 3 Bonus Color Overlays WILL work for all versions of Photoshop, the Bonus Actions ARE NOT compatible with anything prior to CS2 or Elements 6.

    • Payment is required via Paypal and once your payment clears, you will automatically be redirected to a site where you can download your textures.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.

    • Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.


    Legal Information:


    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.






              JD Cloud Overlays Pack 4        





    Add to Cart




    This Pack Includes: 

    • 36 Clouds total (18 clouds, each with 2 versions)

    • 15 Horizontal, High-Resolution Cloud Overlays. 3 Vertical, High Resolution Overlays.

    • 2 Versions of Each Overlay: One "Clean" one with Subtle Color Editing. (This pack does not incorporate Textured Skies like in Cloud Packs 1 & 2)

    • Many clouds include additional vertical space added to the bottom for easy cloud incorporation and additional placement choices when editing. Many of the files are so large that one image can have multiple uses depending upon how it is placed.



    BONUS:
    ʉۢ 23 Actions to help you enhance, integrate and customize your clouds to best fit the mood of your photo.

    • 3 Sky Fill Actions that simulate a soft blue, soft golden and soft sunset sky for instances where adding a cloud overlay doesn't make sense but you want to soften a blown out background.

    ʉۢ 4 More Cloud Overlays than JD Cloud Overlays Packs 1 & 2 (2 unique clouds, 2 different versions)

    ʉۢ Access to Video Tutorials



    Technical Notes: 


    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution 300 dpi jpegs. Some may even be larger than your canvas size -- this is to provide you with additional editing options for moving the clouds around to best fit an image without having to try to rez the clouds up, which can create printing issues. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.

    Legal Information:


    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.


              JD Cloud Overlays Pack 3        
    Release August 1, 2013


    JD CLOUD OVERLAYS PACK 3




    Add to Cart



    This Pack Includes:

    • 36 Clouds total (18 clouds, each with 2 versions)

    • 14 Horizontal, High-Resolution Cloud Overlays. 2 Vertical, High-Resolution Cloud Overlays

    • 2 Versions of Each Overlay: One "Clean" one with Subtle Color Editing. (This pack does not incorporate Textured Skies like in Cloud Packs 1 & 2)

    • Many clouds include additional vertical space added to the bottom for easy cloud incorporation and additional placement choices when editing. Many of the files are so large that one image can have multiple uses depending upon how it is placed.



    BONUS:

    ʉۢ 23 Actions to help you enhance, integrate and customize your clouds to best fit the mood of your photo.

    • 3 Sky Fill Actions that simulate a soft blue, soft golden and soft sunset sky for instances where adding a cloud overlay doesn't make sense but you want to soften a blown out background.

    ʉۢ 4 More Cloud Overlays than JD Cloud Overlays Packs 1 & 2 (2 unique clouds, 2 different versions)

    • Access to Video Tutorials



    Technical Notes: 


    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution 300 dpi jpegs. Some may even be larger than your canvas size -- this is to provide you with additional editing options for moving the clouds around to best fit an image without having to try to rez the clouds up, which can create printing issues. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.

    Legal Information:


    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.




              Force of Nature, Pack 1: Weather Effects        
    Technical Information:

    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution jpegs sized at 40 x 60 inches at 72 dpi. This translates to 14.4 x 9.6 inches at 300 dpi or 4320 x 2880 pixels. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail. I personally have used these textures to print on large (40 x 60") canvas with no issues with dpi resolution.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.


    Legal Information:
     
    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.

    Add to Cart

              JD Force of Nature: Bundle Pack (1 & 2)        
    Add to Cart

    $70 USD (a price savings of $20 if purchased simultaneously).* 

    * Sorry, I cannot make this deal retroactive if you purchase a second pack later. Thank you for understanding.  

    Both Packs Include:
    • 111 Overlays to Create and Enhance Weather & Light Effects
    • 9 Weather Effects Actions
    • 7 Light Leak Actions
    • 5 Color Editing Actions

    BONUS:
    • 10 Integration Actions
    • Grass overlay - A transparent PNG file to place over the bottom area of an image
    • PDF Tutorial
    • Access to Video Tutorials


    Technical Notes:


    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution jpegs sized at 40 x 60 inches at 72 dpi. This translates to 14.4 x 9.6 inches at 300 dpi or 4320 x 2880 pixels. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail. I personally have used these textures to print on large (40 x 60") canvas with no issues with dpi resolution.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.


    Legal Information:

    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.




              JD Force Of Nature, Pack 2: Light Effects        

    Add to Cart

    Light Effects is bold. Unpredictable. Unique. These overlays are chock full of drama, attitude, and artsy appeal, and will pump up even the simplest of images. Discover the magic of the rainbow spectrum, the playfulness of lens flares, and the unique aesthetic light leaks add. This pack is perfect for urban and vintage processing, teen sessions, edgy boudoir shoots, and anything else that might require a powerful punch of personality. Join me in recreating the fun of “artful accidents” as I harken back to the days of the Diana camera. Take the plunge. Discover the Force of Nature: Light Effects. 

    To see detail on the overlays in the pack, please click here

    Technical Notes:


    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution jpegs sized at 40 x 60 inches at 72 dpi. This translates to 14.4 x 9.6 inches at 300 dpi or 4320 x 2880 pixels. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail. I personally have used these textures to print on large (40 x 60") canvas with no issues with dpi resolution.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.



    Legal Information:


    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.




              JD Force Of Nature, Pack One: Weather Effects        
    Add to Cart

    Weather Effects will take your artistic shots to places they have never been. Discover the detail of snow, the motion of wind. Enhance the beauty of rain, add mood and mystery with fog, create something out of your wildest dreams with lightening bolts. These textures and actions are here to make what you see in your head come to life in a perfectly believable way. The only limit is your own mind. Push your imagination to the extreme. Expose yourself to the elements with Force of Nature Weather Effects. 

    Technical Notes:

    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution jpegs sized at 40 x 60 inches at 72 dpi. This translates to 14.4 x 9.6 inches at 300 dpi or 4320 x 2880 pixels. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail. I personally have used these textures to print on large (40 x 60") canvas with no issues with dpi resolution.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.




    Legal Information:

    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.




              Cloud Packs Release April 2.        


    To Buy Both Packs and Save $$

    Both Packs Include:
    • 32 Clouds total (16 clouds, each with 2 versions) 
    • 14 Horizontal, High-Resolution Cloud Overlays 
    • 2 Vertical, High-Resolution Cloud Overlays 
    • 2 Versions of Each Overlay: One "Clean" one "Dirty" (with light texture editing) 
    • Many clouds include additional vertical space added to the bottom for easy cloud incorporation and additional placement choices when editing. 


    BONUS: 
    • 23 Actions to help you enhance, integrate and customize your clouds to best fit the mood of your photo. 
    • 4 Transparent PNG files of birds for placement. 
     â€¢ 3 JPEG Color Overlays to enhance sunsets and color in the clouds. 
     â€¢ Access to Video Tutorials 

    Technical Notes: 

    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution 300 dpi jpegs. Some may even be larger than your canvas size -- this is to provide you with additional editing options for moving the clouds around to best fit an image without having to try to rez the clouds up, which can create printing issues. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.

    Legal Information

    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.


     Add to Cart
              JD Cloud Overlays - Pack 2 releases April 2        
    Add to Cart

    To view additional details on this pack, including cloud names, please click here.

    JD Cloud Overlays - Pack 2 features:




    Video Demonstration:

    Both Packs Include:

    • 32 Clouds total (16 clouds, each with 2 versions)
    • 14 Horizontal, High-Resolution Cloud Overlays
    • 2 Vertical, High-Resolution Cloud Overlays
    • 2 Versions of Each Overlay: One "Clean" one "Dirty" (with light texture editing)
    • Many clouds include additional vertical space added to the bottom for easy cloud incorporation and additional placement choices when editing.


    BONUS:
    • 23 Actions to help you enhance, integrate and customize your clouds to best fit the mood of your photo.
    • 4 Transparent PNG files of birds for placement.
    • 3 JPEG Color Overlays to enhance sunsets and color in the clouds.
    • Access to Video Tutorials

    Technical Notes: 


    • Overlay files work with all versions of Elements, Photoshop, and GIMP (a free editing program, click here to check it out).  This product is not compatible with Lightroom.

    • The Bonus Actions will work ONLY in CS2 and up and PSE 6 and up.

    • All overlay files are high-resolution 300 dpi jpegs. Some may even be larger than your canvas size -- this is to provide you with additional editing options for moving the clouds around to best fit an image without having to try to rez the clouds up, which can create printing issues. As I former graphic designer and art director in charge of producing printed boxes and advertisements, I am extremely picky about resolution and detail.

    • Payment is required via Paypal or a credit card. Once your payment clears, you will receive an email with a link where you can download your textures. Due to the nature of this digital product, all sales are final.

    • The files come compressed in .zip format and must be unzipped to work. There are many free unzip programs for both Mac & Windows that will allow you to expand the files once they've been downloaded.

    Legal Information: 


    By purchasing or acquiring this product (contest winner, product tester, etc), you must agree to abide by the terms of the End User License Agreement / Terms of Use.

    Here are the simple rules for using my overlays and actions:

    1) These textures / actions are licensed to one user only for their personal and/or professional use. I work hard to make them pretty inexpensive to discourage "sharing". Each download comes with a unique watermark. Please be respectful and do not share with others. Should your unique watermark appear on a piracy site, I reserve the right to seek financial damages for any / all illegal downloads.

    2) These textures may not be re-sold, re-purposed, re-used, or redistributed in any way whatsoever without expressed written permission of Jessica Drossin. You may not use my textures to make "new" textures, actions, or overlays, should you do this, I will seek damages. It also a violation of my copyright and this license to use my textures, overlays, actions, etc., in anyway to re-create items such as textures, frames, vignettes, or brushes for redistribution or resale. Any repurposing or redistribution is illegal and is subject to prosecution.

    3) You must use these textures integrated with your own artwork and photography -- ie. do not post them as they currently appear to Flickr, etc., unintegrated with your art as this would make them easy to steal. You may use these textures in client work, but may not post or redistribute them "as is" on your blog, in your mentoring class, etc.

      Add to Cart
              #ChinaVsJinping : Military Reforms, PLA Trimming and New Operational Head        

     Source : NewsBharati  Date : 04-Aug-2017

     Vinay Joshi

    WhatsApp

    12

    In first two parts of China Vs Jinping, we have analysed fallouts of Jinping’s anti-corruption purge of politico-military leadership and his merciless crackdown on Military Business Empire of People’s Liberation Army including huge human organ trade and transplant industry. Both steps have created much uproar in China as those arrested and prosecuted in the sweeping campaign were powerful in their respective fields. After assuming the office, Jinping had vowed to catch “Tigers and Flies” engulfed in corruption, which was veiled reference to all ranging from “Top to Bottom” irrespective of their position, fame, persona and honour in public and party life.

     

    In this paper (3rd in a series) we will go through Jinping’s ambitious structural reforms in Chinese armed forces on command and organizational level, integration of all services into one, cohesive, tri services integrated theatre command abolishing supremacy of PLA commanders, dominated by infantry officers. These reforms are similar to US reforms of its armed forces which were based on United States’ The Goldwater–Nichols Act-1986, to solve the problems caused by inter-service rivalry and operational failures leading caused by such rivalry. Though these reforms are going to increase the efficiency of Chinese armed forces, it has generated resentment and backlash from mighty commanders of PLA.

    One more and probably most significant factor of Chinese military reforms are proposed a sharp cut in PLA strength. The containing PLA strength from 2.4 million to 1 million over a period of time is biggest and boldest step taken by Jinping immediately after taking over as Chinese President. There are many angles to this move and many theories propped up from a Western and American analyst. The most significant and logical conclusion was, fear in Jinping’s mind about PLA’s wealthy and powerful generals! We will try to find out whether the fear has anything to do with reality or not.

    PLA Openly Attacked Jinping’s Military Reforms

    China is the country governed by a single party. The Chinese media is only state run newspapers and TV channels pouring in information which party wants to disseminate. Every word and case is being strictly monitored and censored. Utmost care is taken not to transmit any information which is detrimental to party’s image. But, the scale of Jinping and PLA is such a high and tensions between two camps are unprecedented that PLA’s mouthpiece daily People’s Daily blatantly attacked Jinping over reforms in armed forces.

    In November 2015, when structural reforms were already declared and the majority of the Chinese including PLA, were yet to judge Jinping’s capacities People’s Daily- the mouthpiece of PLA committed a serious offence. The two authors associated with PLA Academy, Mr Sun Kejia and Mr Han Xiao lashed out in clear words at proposed military reforms. They warned of serious consequences if proposed military reforms were pushed through. Later the article was pulled down from the website after much uproar.

    Surprisingly, even after taking on practically omnipotent Jinping, no one could harm any one of the two authors, which launched a scathing attack on Jinping. The reason behind the immunity which both authors enjoyed is not known but it is not impossible to judge. Though publicly just two authors were visible attacking Jinping’s policies on military reforms, everyone in China knows that they were voicing the opinion of thousands of PLA ranks against the possible axing of their jobs and stripping them of various privileges which they were enjoying these days.

    In China, such direct public expression of opinion was unusual and hard to believe!

    The Military Reforms and Trimming PLA

    Military reforms envisaged by Jinping would see the slashing of PLA strength from 2.4 million to just 1 million within next few years. It means half of the PLA troops would lose their jobs. Moreover, new theatre command structure will take down army’s supremacy within armed forces. Though these reforms; if actually executed successfully, would convert Chinese armed forces in lethal, formidable and most professional fighting machine in the world. The initial indications and structural, psychological and practical deficiencies in the system suggest that reforms are going to hit hard rock.

    The central theme of military reforms is converting military from “quantitative” to “qualitative” force. But what is going actually going to be on the ground is huge cuts in infantry combat troops and a simultaneous increase in naval strength, rocket force and strategic support forces. Obviously, infantry is the biggest loser in this exercise.

    The New Joint Theatre Commands consisting Eastern, Southern, Western, Northern, and Central commands will rearrange troops and resources in respective areas and merge it within the single homogeneous structure to boost mobility, pace and proficiency of the troops by integrating all resources into one cohesive unit.

    The theme is based on American Goldwater–Nichols Act-1986, which would continue to appoint three services chiefs, but none of the three chiefs would have any operational power. They would cease to be the advisers of Central Military Commission and President. This whole power will be consolidated in the hands of CMC head and Commander-In-Chief.

    The Unrest in Demobilized Soldiers

    As an ultimate fallout of demobilized Chinese soldiers after the restructuring of PLA, the large scale unrest growing among those who lost the jobs. In October and November 2016 two protest marches were called at powerful Central Military Commission HQ in Beijing to demand compensation and penalties for snatching their jobs in new military reforms. On October 11, 2016, near about 30,000 demobilized troops took part in a protest at CMC headquarters in Beijing. Another protest on November 01, 2016 vanished under media blackout as the government imposed stringent prohibition orders on covering the protests fearing its spread.

    Why Jinping Reminded Army of Party Supremacy?

    Xi Jinping reviewed military exercise to mark the 90th anniversary of People’s Liberation Army this week. While addressing the troops he reminded the military of “Gutian Congress” Principle of party’s supremacy over the military. He told PLA to ‘uncompromisingly follow Communist party leadership and it shall march wherever Party points too’. Many believed that deep sense of mistrust and insecurity