Pat Brown & Diane Fanning on E!'S 'Fatal Beauty: 15 Most Notorious Women'

Women in Crime Ink's own Pat Brown and Diane Fanning appear on E!'s Countdown: Fatal Beauty: 15 Most Notorious Women on Sunday, May 31 at 9 pm Eastern / 8 pm Central.

No, Pat and Diane didn't make E!'s list of notorious women—they appear on the show talking about some of those who did.

It's a countdown of ordinary women whose notorious crimes have made them pseudo-celebrities. E! investigates the remarkable and tumultuous lives of women who made headlines around the globe, some by committing unthinkable crimes & acts of violence and others whose decisions left us wondering why.

Over the course of two hours it reveals their shocking stories and explores the desperate circumstances that drove them to such extremes. Plus, it’ll look at the ways these sad and horrific events could have been prevented. The show provides a new perspective and keen insight into who these women really are with the help of medical experts, psychologists, law enforcement, and even the very women at the center of these high-profile cases.

Among the fifteen notorious women included in the countdown are these familiar names: Casey Anthony (above right), Karla Homolka, Aileen Wournos, Susan Smith, Carolyn Warmus, Mary Winkler and Karla Faye Tucker left)

Every Day You Wait . . . Is One Day Longer

by Todd Matthews, Guest Contributor

If you have a missing loved one, not knowing what you can do about it is a huge challenge. Dealing with the situation on the usual day-to-day basis is overwhelming in itself. But not knowing what you can do to make sure all paths are being followed is another issue.

One thing you can do is to make sure your missing persons data is being properly reviewed.

Of course, the information contained in the missing person's NCIC case file is considered for law enforcement only. But rather than the usual phone call to the detective in charge of your missing loved one, maybe you can do some fact checking.

Normally the call consists of asking if there's any new info in regards to the investigation of the missing person. (More often than not, nothing has changed.) But since you may not have any idea of what is listed in the NCIC report, this might be a good time to do some fact checking. Ask the detective to confirm physical characteristics, height, weight, etc.

Do they have dental info listed? If not, do you have the dental info that you need to get to them for inclusion into the file? This is an extremely valuable piece of information! Have here been any DNA family reference samples taken? Mitochondrial and nuclear? Can you confirm the DNA has been included in the CODIS, the national DNA database?

Dates are important as well. There is no database in existence that is immune to human error. Why not double-check the dates involved such as date last seen and date of birth?. For example, numbers such as Social Security numbers are easy to mix up. Are there any birthmarks, tattoos, or other distinguishing characteristics that weren't noted? Do you have a photo that might be of value?

A simple-fact check review can't hurt anything, and might change everything. You are not asking for investigative information. You are asking to verify the very data you helped to provide. During the course of this conversation, it is a good time to ask your law enforcement contact to register as a NamUs user.

Now is the time when you yourself can get the ball rolling by entering your own loved one into NamUs. By doing this, a great deal of conversation in regards to your loved one's case begins.

I have seen simple human errors resolved in this manner. Some are minor and do not make an immediate difference, but they still affect the future. Some errors are fairly important and can have an immediate impact on resolution or on how the case is processed internally.

Once your loved one's case is in NamUs, you can work to help make sure all the gaps are filled with accurate information. The only thing worse that a lack of data is inaccurate data. Consider the tiniest details.

More resources:
http://missingpiecesshow.homestead.com/MissingPiecesEpisode74Archive.html

Todd Matthews' calling to be a voice for missing and unidentified persons began when he solved the identity of the "Tent Girl," Barbara Hackman-Taylor, after a ten-year journey that ended in 1998. He is also Media Director for the Doe Network, a consultant to Emmy-award winning producer Dick Wolf ("Law & Order"), and on the Advisory Panel for the U. S. Department of Justice NamUS (National Missing and Unidentified Persons System) database project. Todd also hosts a weekly radio show that publicizes unidentified and missing persons cases. A documentary featuring our guest contributor's work was recently broadcast on the BBC. A second documentary about his life is in post-production.

TV Crime Drama—the 'CSI Effect' Again and Again

by Andrea Campbell

I’ve been talking about the differences between TV crime drama and reality for about five years now. I’ve even given programs about the subject for mystery and crime novel writers with a presentation I call "The CSI Effect: 7 Key Differences between TV Crime Drama and Reality."

The live program is fun because I bring along personal protection equipment and have an audience member “suit up” while I’m talking. And of course it is a Tyvek HAZMAT type outfit; and then we compare it to what the chicks on the CSI shows are wearing.

This week I got a press release that some researchers at the Mayo Clinic who compared CSI and CSI: Miami to actual U. S. homicide data. No surprise, they discovered clear differences. Timothy Lineberry, M.D., a psychiatrist at Mayo Clinic, says, “We make a lot of our decisions as a society based on information that we have, and television has been used to provide public health messages.”

Those two particular shows, CSI and CSI: Miami, were used because of their enormous viewing audience, somewhere around 43 million viewers every year. Mainly the Mayo Clinic investigators used the Center for Disease Control’s National Violent Death Reporting System to compare data with the television portrayals. They discovered the biggest discrepancies involved relationships, alcohol, and race where characterizations of perpetrators and victims were concerned.

Apparently, actual statistics say that drugs and alcohol affect both victim and offender at the time of the crime in reality—and that was one of the differences from what the TV shows portray. The other main difference they found was regarding what race was more likely to be involved and on the television shows primarily they used Caucasians who did not know their attackers. In real life, however, whites are not the majority of offenders and, often, real victims know or were intimately involved with their attackers in the past.

"If we believe that there is a lack of association with alcohol, that strangers are more likely to attack, and that homicide doesn’t represent particular groups of people, it’s difficult to create public health interventions that the general public supports. We make a lot of our decisions as a society based on information that we have, and television has been used to provide public health messages." — Dr. Lineberry

I have a Web site blog called The CSI Effect, which I gave up writing about for lack of interest. I’ve written about these differences and have been trying to sell a book proposal on another Web site (for about four years now), not only about these very specific topics, but about the ramifications of how these misconceptions are perpetrated on the public and how they enter into real life—in the courtroom.

For example, years ago when people did not know as much about forensics they were little concerned about what types of evidence were brought into court and how they were collected. One could say that in the “old days,” the prosecutors took advantage of that notion at every turn. Obviously, we know now that the landscape has changed. Juries are more inclined to ask about a lack of evidence but, they also are more misinformed in many instances and take an unrealistic stance—such as expecting DNA evidence for car thefts—when that was never being done.

So the game has been upped. And in my last two articles, we’ve been talking about the recent denigrating reports from the National Academy of Sciences on behalf of Congress about forensic science and how the researchers found the industry lacking. It's not good, we know.

But the TV producers do do those things; take more than poetic license with drama: portray white, rich, good-looking victims—because they need the show to sell to advertisers and if we saw the real low level of most crime, we’d change the channel—not sexy or appealing enough.

So television will continue to push the entertainment envelope away from reality. Reality sucks. Ask any detective. If he has the time to talk to you. Now that we’ve ferreted out these discrepancies yet again—it’s getting real old for me as a topic—let’s support science, give the labs the manpower and funds they need, educate the juries better, and kick some criminal ass.

The Beginning of an Investigative Theory

by Pat Brown

Today I was on CNN HLN Prime News commenting on a horrific case, a double murder straight from a Hollywood movie. Davina and Brock Husted, a well-heeled California couple living on the beach in a three-million-plus Ventura home, were stabbed to death in front of their nine-year-old son. Sleeping just down the hall was their eleven-year-old daughter. Davina, a woman who gave her time to charity work, was four months pregnant. Her husband, Brock Husted, owned a wrought iron company in Santa Barbara and all who knew him said he was a quiet and unassuming man.

Yet at 10:30 PM last Wednesday night, a man climbed up the beach side steps to the back of this home in a gated community, and entered an open patio door. He passed by the young son watching television and then suddenly he was stabbing Davina to death. Brock ran to her aid and ended up dead beside her. The killer left the home, leaving the children unharmed. The horrified boy woke his sister and the two ran to the neighbors to get help.

What in the world was this double homicide all about? What, asked Mike Gelanos, the host of tonight's show, was the motive of this killer? Captain Bruce Norris of the Ventura County Sheriff's Department tried to answer the question, see-sawing between the possibility of the murder being a random homicide or the murder being committed by someone who targeted the couple. I chimed in with Norris's this-or-that scenario, pointing out how, at this point in time, the homicide could be simply bad luck or it could be a hit.

Eh? I bet some people wonder how a police detective and a criminal profiler couldn't analyze the crime more astutely and narrow down the possibilities a lot more, gee, even a speck more! Would not a random killing and a murder for hire or for profit be at opposite ends of the spectrum? Are these crime analysts so incompetent that they need to leave a such huge margin for error ?

No, this is actually not the problem. The Captain and I are truly doing the right thing; recognizing that there may be more than one avenue of investigation and not making the mistake of cutting off one theory simply because another seems more plausible at this point in time. Secondly, with so little evidence yet available, it makes sense to consider all the possibilities.

So, I ask all of you to join me to brainstorm at this early point in the investigation! What theories can you come up with that might be plausible?

Here is what we know of the killer: he came up the back steps from the beach late in the evening. He was wearing a motorcycle helmet (but no one heard a motorcycle). He was wearing a dark jumpsuit. He was dark-complected. He came through the patio door, passed the boy, made contact with Davina Husted and started stabbing her. Brock ran in and got stabbed to death as well. The killer left the knife at the scene and disappeared.

Theory One: Mentally ill man sees the light on and, like a moth drawn to a flame, climbs the hill towards the home. He is off his meds and has some delusion about the adults living in the house; maybe they are aliens or some kind of evil beings and he must kill them. He is on a mission and, once he completes it, leaves the scene. The children were not part of his delusion, so he ignores them. He has a motorcycle helmet on either because he drives a motorcycle or because he found the helmet and thinks it is part of his astronaut's suit.

Theory Two: The couple is targeted by someone who wants one of them or both of them dead. Maybe Davina is pregnant with another man's child and was going to leave her husband, forcing the man to deal with her and the baby; he didn't like this and ordered a hit on her. Maybe Brock was involved in something squirrelly and someone wanted him out of the way. Maybe a relative named in their will wanted their home and their money.

I am sure someone will post, "How horrible you are to think such things about the Husteds! They are nothing but a wonderful, sweet family and you are suggesting awful things about them!" No, I am not. I am taking you through an investigator's ruminations and a profiler's difficult questions. We do not know the Husteds. They may be the perfect family, the kind of people we all wished lived next door. They may be the most innocent people in the world. This is not the point. When one analyzes a crime, one must consider all the motives, all the possibilities, and then eliminate them.

So, why would anyone even consider that the Husteds could have been targeted? Well, let's think again about that killer. Why would someone choose the Husteds? Why would that person climb those steps to a lit house (which means someone is at home), stab these people to death, and steal nothing? Why would that person leave the kids alive? Why was the murderer dressed in a jumpsuit and motorcycle helmet? Why did he leave the murder weapon?

If the killer isn't one of those people our mental health system now leaves on street because "mentally ill and psychotic people should have the right to live where they want," then the killer had a specific reason for choosing his victims.

The motorcycle helmet could have shielded his face and protected the killer from injury in the assault. The jumpsuit could have protected his clothing from blood. When he fled the scene, he could have removed this outer layer and his helmet and ditched them somewhere. He could then walk away in clean clothes and not become a suspect. He may have left the knife (some cheap, unidentifiable knife from Walmart) at the scene so he would not be caught with it. If he was hired to take out the Husteds, the appearance of the murder being "a crazy man with knife attack" would theoretically send law enforcement down the wrong path, searching for a nut who committed a random attack.

These are just two theories. The police have already been searching campsites in the area and questioning vagrants and homeless people. They are looking for evidence that might support the nutcase theory. I am sure they are also asking the Husted's relatives, friends, and co-workers about their habits, activities, and relationships. They are looking for a motive for Theory Number Two.

These aren't the only possible theories. Can anyone come up with a reasonable Theory Number Three and Four?

Dead Man Walking—Next to Me. . . .

by Katherine Scardino

For the last twenty plus years, I have been involved in representing defendants who are accused of capital murder, and in most of those cases, death was an option for the jury. I have heard the death verdict three times in that period of time—not a great number, considering I practice law in Harris County, the death capital of the United States.

I have watched our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ignore valid constitutional issues and affirm the trial court’s sentence of death. I have watched prosecutors get away with withholding exculpatory evidence. I have watched the case involving the “sleeping lawyer”—and that was on the defense side. Pretty embarrassing.

I have watched the rise in the number of death verdicts, and now I seem to be watching a fall in the number of death verdicts across the United States, and even in my state of Texas. The fall in the number of death verdicts can be attributed mainly to the passing of a statute allowing for “life without parole,” or LWOP. Texas seemed to be hesitant in adopting this law, much later than a lot of the other states in our Union. But, we have it now, and it seems to assuage many juries away from the death penalty.

I actually felt that juries were getting away from sentencing death because of the life without parole option. So, when I was called by the Federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas about two years ago to represent this man accused of murdering a fellow inmate in a Beaumont federal prison, I readily accepted, thinking that the Federal court does not generally seek the death penalty, and even if they did seek death, since we are in Texas, we would have the LWOP option.

When the discovery materials started arriving from the Assistant United States Attorney who was assigned to prosecute this case, I soon learned that this “simple” case was not so simple after all. My client had been convicted of juvenile murder at the age of 15 years in Washington, D. C.

He was sent to several juvenile detention centers across the nation, ending at a place in Brush, Colorado, which was later closed due to allegations of abuse and neglect. After being in these juvenile centers for approximately two years, he was released back to the same dysfuntional, poverty-stricken, crime-infested environment that he came from.

Given these circumstances, it is not hard to believe that at the age of 18 years, he was again accused of murder. This murder involved a dope dealer whom my client and one of his buddies believed had stolen some money from the buddy.

So, both of these young men, without a hint of morality or hesitation, found this “thief” and executed him. They were both caught, of course, and my client, at the age of 18 years, in 1999, was sentenced by a Washington, D. C. jury to 61 years to life in prison.

After a stint in prison in Lorton, Virginia, and then in Atlanta, Georgia—where he found the Muslim religion—he eventually was transferred to Beaumont.

The DC Gang in Beaumont Federal prison stuck together. Instead of an ethnic group, like the Hispanics with the Mexican Mafia or the Texas Syndicate, the DC crew consisted of young and old men who were from the DC area. They helped each other and took up for each other.

In May 2005, a man was transferred to Beaumont from Atlanta. This man had been a snitch against two of the other DC crew members. The Beaumont inmates learned he was there, with them, and conspired how and when to take him out, to “punish him.”

My client, unfortunately, became involved in this plan and was accused of putting the snitch in a headlock and holding him while another of the DC crew members stabbed him, and stabbed him, over and over—106 times. My client told me a tale that sounded believable and I actually did believe him. He seemed to be sincere. And, that was important because he was going to have to get on the stand and tell it to the jury.

The jury would know my client was in the cell after they learned about his fingerprint found inside the cell where the snitch was killed, not to mention the security videotape that shows a person identified as my client walking into the snitch’s cell along with the man who was the stabber. My client told his story to the jury; he told them he did not have any knowledge that the other guy had a shank and that he was going to kill the snitch. He tried to stop him, but could not.

Needless to say, this is a very shorthand version of this case. The reason I am relaying this to you is because a jury came back to me and said that I failed; that they did not believe any evidence I presented to them; nor did they believe my client’s testimony. The jury pronounced a death verdict for my client.

I was sitting there wondering how I was going to get over this. I wanted very much to get a life sentence for this young man. You may say, “Scardino, what is your problem? The man has now been convicted of killing three people.”

I do understand that, but this young man epitomized everything that I think is wrong with our social makeup today. He had a family who failed him; after dropping out of school in the 9th grade, no one came to his home and picked him up and made him go to school. There was no one from Child Protective Services to knock on his door and offer some type of assistance to the family, or to this child personally.

The juvenile courts took one look at him, and without more, sentenced him to juvenile life, which was supposed to mean locked up until 21 years of age. But, that did not happen. He was released at the age of 17 and some few months. After being at home and on the streets for only four or five months, he was back in trouble and the same type of trouble as before, only this time he was an adult. The sentence is a bit lengthier—like Life.

There is no parole in the Federal system. So, by getting a sentence of 61 years to Life, that meant he would serve 61 years or close to it, before he would even be considered for release.

So, even though people like the "Unabomber," Ted Kaczynski, or Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols, and other hardened criminals received life sentences—which are being served at the famed ultra-security Supermax facility in Florence, Colorado—this jury in Beaumont, Texas did not think this young man was deserving to live at all. Spending a lifetime in a facility like Supermax would not be a walk in the park.

During this jury trial, my expert witness told the jury what it would be like to live in a high security facility. He would stay in his cell, alone, 23 out of 24 hours a day. When he was allowed to see the sunlight for one hour a day, it would be in a very small wired cage about 16 feet tall but the top was open so that some sunlight could hit his white body. One hour a day of Vitamin D was about all the nutrients he would ever get.

What I do not understand is why we feel that we have to kill. Is it revenge? Why can’t the defendant be placed in a box for the rest of his life. God knows that he will be punished. No human contact for years would be enough to make me nuts. Sensory deprivation would be a big punishment. And, studies show that it costs a lot more to execute an individual than to place him in this box for the rest of his life. Don’t ask me to explain that statistic to you. I can’t. I just know that it is there. I would think that the cost of minimal care, minimal food, minimal needs all around, would not be as expensive as appellate lawyers, briefs, retrials, more appellate briefs, more lawyers, more appellate courts, etc. for years.

Here I am, one week after hearing that death verdict, and I cannot shake the sadness. Sometimes I just break out in tears. I have been told that I get too personal with my cases; that I care too much. And, this was a criticism, not a compliment.

Frankly, I do not see how lawyers can practice death penalty work unless they do get “involved.” The lawyer has to know every aspect of this person’s life, and frequently, that is not a pleasant duty. If the lawyer does not want to win, then how can he or she send a message to the jury that this client of mine is a human being—he deserves to live? He will grow out of his dangerous years and statistics show that inmates with lengthy sentences actually help the other inmates. As the inmate ages, his desire to cause trouble decreases.

But, no, that is not to be for my young client. He will be sent to Death Row. He will be appointed some hotshot appellate lawyer who will begin the appellate process that will take years. In the meantime, he will sit, alone, and have his memories. He will remember seeing his “family” during the trial after eight long years and the shame of it all was unbearable. He will remember not being able to look at his aunt—not that she did anything to help many years ago—in another lifetime—but she was his aunt and someone he cared about when he was a child. And, more shame. And, more loneliness and more hopelessness, and more waiting. And, for no reason other than 12 people said he should die, but another set of 12 people said other criminals get to live.

Dead man walking. . . . When will this insanity stop?

A Day to Honor, Memorialize, and Empower

by Robin Sax

On Memorial Day, we take the time to honor our veterans, acknowledging the men and women who have risked and continue to risk their lives in order to provide a safer America. Coincidentally, this Memorial Day has fallen on National Missing Children's Day.

May 25th is the anniversary of the day in 1979 when 6-year-old Etan Patz disappeared from a New York street corner on his way to school and has been observed as National Missing Children's Day since 1983—when it was first dedicated by President Ronald Reagan. This day is a reminder to the nation to renew efforts to reunite missing children with their families and to make child protection a national priority. So how are we doing three decades after the still-unsolved Etan Patz case?

According the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) for 2000: 85% to 90% of the 876,213 persons reported missing to America’s law enforcement agencies were juveniles (persons under 18 years of age). That means that 2,100 times per day parents or primary caregivers felt the disappearance was serious enough to call law enforcement. Also, the number of missing persons reported to law enforcement has increased by 468% since 1982. If any other segment of our population were so impacted, we would declare an epidemic! The Center for Disease Control would fund a cure; we would pass and enforce legislation and increase private and public security. But, since it is only our children, many in our society accept these appalling numbers as status quo.

Although there are no quick fixes to the problems of child safety, there are many things that we can do as adults to address and positively impact the issue. So, like everything else, the lessons start at home and that means parents need a reality check—to make time to TALK to their kids, share with their kids, and communicate about how to be safe.

The key to keeping talks about Internet safety from being scary, for both parents and kids, is for the parent to take the position that discussions of this nature are nothing to be afraid of! Just because we, as adults, are nervous about “the world out there,” we needn’t transfer our fears to our children. However, there are things kids must know before they dive into the treacherous world of independent adults.

As trite and over-used as the expression seems, “Knowledge is power.” I am not suggesting that parents need to tell kids about the gruesome details of every case in the news, or grill them with statistics. But youngsters need to have a solid understanding of how they can defend themselves in ways appropriate to their age.

On its Web site, the California Department of Justice reminds parents that “we provide safety information to our children in a number of other areas that may seem pretty scary, such as “drop and roll” if your clothes catch on fire or “look both ways when you cross the street.”

When it’s time to discuss potential or actual sexual abuse from online encounters, the best way to combat the fear associated with such talks is to just start talking! It’s never too early to begin to give children information that can help them stay safe. However, you need to treat personal safety like any other parenting lesson—finding appropriate times, not tackling too many lessons at a time, and considering the child’s personal development and ability to understand the discussion. When communicating with your child, watch for and avoid messages that are not realistic or don't make sense. Instincts rarely lie. When in doubt, trust your instincts.

A very important issue: parents must learn about and use social networking sites such as Facebook. Better yet, it’s a great idea for children to teach their parents how to navigate them, which naturally opens the communication process between parent and child or tween. Talk with them, learn what they know, have them educate you so you know where you need more knowledge.

"We know teaching children about safety works," said Ernie Allen, president and CEO of NCMEC. "It is important that parents take the time to talk to their children about safety." Safety talks are difficult for many parents to broach, as they bring them face-to-face with fear of events out of their control. However, children depend on adults to teach them how to be safe. Such talks are also a great opportunity to bond and learn from your child.

May 25th is simply one day, one reminder about our children, but use this day to remind yourself that our children depend on us to empower them, honor them and especially protect them. And on this Memorial Day, I say thank you to the men and women who have and continue to serve our country. Thank you.

Will the Real Susan LeFevre Please Stand Up

by Donna Pendergast

The past caught up to Susan LeFevre last year. On April 24, 2008, thirty-two years of freedom came to an abrupt end when federal authorities, acting on an anonymous tip, arrested LeFevre outside her suburban San Diego home and dragged her away from her life of prestige and privilege. She had been running and hiding from the law since escaping from a Michigan women's prison in 1976.

Back to the Beginning

Susan LeFevre was 19 years old when she was arrested in Saginaw, Michigan in 1974 for selling drugs to an undercover police officer during a heroin sting. Prosecutors dropped a charge of Conspiracy to Deliver Heroin as a part of a plea agreement and LeFevre was sentenced to a 10-to 20-year prison sentence on the drug charge. She began to serve her sentence in a minimum security womens' prison in Michigan on February 25, 1975. She completed nearly one year of that sentence before walking away from the prison and making her getaway in her grandfather's waiting vehicle while on her way to a work assignment on February 2, 1976.

LeFevre moved to California shortly thereafter and began a new life. She adopted her middle name Marie as her name and began using the last name of Day. She also began using the social security number of an individual who died in 1981, a number which LeFevre claims to have made up.

By all accounts LeFevre led a model life in California. In 1985, she married a waste management executive, Alan Walsh, and led a privileged life as Marie Walsh while raising three children in Del Mar, California, an affluent suburb of San Diego. Alan Walsh would later claim that he and his children knew nothing of LeFevre's criminal past and were blindsided by her arrest. After her arrest, LeFevre was taken into custody and eventually extradited to Michigan to serve the remainder of her sentence on the drug charge.

News of the arrest garnered international attention. People were fascinated with the story of the one-time escaped drug dealer—now a mother of three—who was outed, arrested, and carried away from her affluent lifestyle. The media hype was immediate. TV shows wanted interviews, Web sites calling for her release sprang up and talk of book rights swirled in the air.

A Legal Dilemma

After arriving in Michigan, LeFevre hired two well-known attorneys. One lawyer was charged with the task of fighting the original drug charge sentence. The other attorney was hired to defend the charge of escape from prison. He contended that LeFevre escaped because she feared for her safety.

While her attorneys were fighting her legal battles, LeFevre was fighting battles of her own. She racked up 11 misconduct tickets in prison, mostly for disobeying orders from guards and for arguing with another inmate. She also was found responsible of hiding medication under her mattress rather than taking it out in the hospital area.

After a series of legal machinations and hearings, LeFevre received two years probation for her escape. The drug charge would prove more difficult. LeFevre's attorney had to convince a Circuit Court Judge that the original judge abused his discretion by imposing an excessive sentence of 10-to-20 years for a first-time offender. In an unusual move, the judge transferred the case to the Michigan Parole Board without making a decision. The Parole Board unanimously voted to release LeFevre citing her thirty-two years as a model citizen. LeFevre was released this past Tuesday into the waiting arms of family and friends to return home to Califonia.

Reaction to LeFevre's release has been mixed. Supporters say that she deserves a second chance and that her model life as a productive citizen reflects the rehabilitation that the corrections system aspires to have prisoners emulate. They argue that she is not a menace to society and that it would be counterproductive to waste taxpayer dollars on a non-violent offender for an incident that occurred over three decades ago. They ask why Michigan should spend $33,000 a year on an individual who has paid her debt to society.

An equally vocal faction asks what sets LeFevre apart for special treatment. They argue that the only reason that LeFevre was released is because she was wealthy and Caucasian and cite similarly situated individuals who did not receive the same deference that LeFevre did. They feel that LeFevre "beat the system" by escaping and ask whether the passage of thirty-two years excuses the behavior. They also worry about the precedent that this release sets. The Saginaw County Prosecutor Michael Thomas wrote this statement in a court filing: "What does that say to the 51,000 people serving a sentence in the state? You don't have to serve a sentence if you escape?"

John Cordell of the Michigan Department of Corrections has stated, "She effectively did what we want our offenders to do—live a crime-free life after they leave us. . . . Of course, she did commit a crime in order to live that crime-free life."

Hence lies the dilemma.

Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Dissecting Cindy Anthony's Statement: What "Maggots in the Trunk" Could Tell Us

by Karen Chabert, RN

When Casey Anthony’s car was found, her father went to pick it up at the impound lot. George Anthony stated to the FBI that the smell was immediately identifiable as decomposition. He said he was praying that it would not be the body of his daughter Casey or granddaughter Caylee in the trunk. He should know that smell. He was a law enforcement officer and has smelled that unmistakable odor before. As a forensic nurse death investigator, I can tell you, the smell is one you never forget.

As pieces of information in the disappearance of toddler Caylee Anthony came forward, we heard her mother, Cindy Anthony, cry out to reporters, "There was a bag of pizza for what, twelve days in the back of the car, full of maggots. It stunk so bad. You know how hot it's been. That smell was terrible."

If you take her statement and dissect it (no pun intended), there are many small bits of information that may raise more questions:

· "There was a bag of pizza for . . . twelve days . . ."

If there had been a bag of pizza in the trunk for 12 days, wouldn’t the pizza have been dried up by then, making it no longer tasty to our forensic friends, the hungry maggots?

· ". . . full of maggots. It stunk so bad. . . ."

What is the life cycle of a maggot? From what I have read, the life cycle of a maggot is around 10 days, and by that time, the maggot is now a fly. Cindy didn’t say anything about flies emerging from the trunk. Given the timeline, I would imagine flies would have emerged from the trunk in a small swarm.

· "You know how hot it’s been."

This takes in to consideration the ambient temperature and the temperature in the trunk and the effect of the environment on decomposition. Hotter temperatures cause more rapid decomposition.

So, now that we have considered the maggot theory, I pose the question: What if there were maggots in the trunk?

OK, let’s say the maggots were still in their customary feeding frenzy. Did you know that while maggots are in a feeding frenzy, you can hear them? I’ve read that it sounds like Rice Krispies. Like the smell of decomposition, that would be one sound I would never forget! Talk about goose bumps!

Take it one step further and if we may now presume there were maggots in the trunk, there is a wealth of information that can be gleaned from analyzing those maggots.

Toxicology or drug screens can be performed to test for the presence of any drugs in the body of the maggots' host at the time of death. In my reading, there was a person who died of a cocaine overdose and maggots were feasting in a very speedy fashion. With that said, depressant ingestion by the deceased prior to death would induce the opposite in terms of speed of maggot activity, i.e., they would slow down considerably.

If Caylee was given chloroform as her mother’s chemical babysitter, there might just be a way to tell: Maggots!

Also, DNA analysis of the maggots can be done to determine just who were they feasting on. Yes, human DNA can be extracted from maggot guts to identify the body.

However, I haven’t heard anything about the maggots except from Cindy Anthony. Did she inadvertently let something slip?

Therefore, I submit the question: If there maggots in the trunk, were they collected as the important evidence they have the potential to be? And if so, were they analyzed?

Such evidence could be significant for the Anthony prosecution. If the stomach contents of maggots collected from Casey Anthony's trunk revealed the maggots were feeding on a host with Caylee's DNA . . . that would place the child's dead body in her mother's car.

You may never look at maggots in the same way again. Let's hope you don't have to see them . . . or smell them . . . or hear them. Yikes!

Known as a "Crime Fighting RN," Karen Chabert is a Forensic Nurse Death Investigator, a Legal Nurse Consultant, and a licensed Private Investigator. She is the director of the Legal / Forensic Department of a national consulting firm and President of Dynamic Nursing Associates, LLC. She has been a Forensic Nurse Liaison to Law Enforcement and has worked as a Death Investigator for an urban level one trauma center. Based in New Orleans, Louisiana, she has lectured around the United States and in Canada.

Drew Peterson: A View From Two Perspectives

by Susan Murphy-Milano

Part 2: "The Violence Expert's Perspective" (Read Part 1: "The Prosecutor's Perspective," here.)

Twenty years as a violence expert was never an intended career choice. It did not evolve from sitting behind a desk, researching the subject, blogging or reading journals from a crime periodical. It was harvested like a crop in the fields. Like adding another candle on a birthday cake every year, the violence escalated in my home and the screams for help turned into an important lesson in survival.

My own Mother died on my watch, so to speak. After years of violence by my father, a Chicago police detective, they finally divorced. Within 6 months of my mother’s false belief she was safe, I discovered her dead body in the kitchen of the former marital home she and my father once shared.

Similar to Drew Peterson and other perpetrators of violence in the home, my father was not going to allow my mother to benefit in any way from the divorce. This included her own personal freedom which he owned like the title to a car, until the day she died.

We have not heard much about Kathleen Savio other than she died of an accidental drowning in a bathtub. Her body exhumed 4 years later only because Stacy Peterson had vanished after a botched investigation.

In 1992, Kathleen Savio was an accountant in her late twenties when a mutual acquaintance who happened to be a police officer’s wife set up a blind date for her to meet Drew Peterson. Friends and family members recall how happy Kathleen was with Drew. A few short months after the couple began dating Drew popped the question. Kathleen felt safe and secure knowing she was marrying a man who made her feel safe and secure. Shortly after the couple’s second child was born, the marriage began to crumble. Drew was beginning to shout the national anthem, a theme used among most abusers maintaining power and control. “Bitch,”, you “whore.” "You look like a dog." You f..king slob.” When that did not have the affect Drew was looking for, with his open hand he punched and slapped her as evidenced by medical reports and photo’s taken after a violent outburst.

Similar to other abusers Peterson began setting the stage with his fellow officers in his department, and later on, under his command. Carefully strategizing how “crazy” Kathleen had become in an effort to minimize police response just in case she called and tried to report him for threatening and physically harming her. Obviously his plan worked because when officers from the Bolingbrook police department responded to the 19 documented calls and another 78 calls magically removed from the police log as responding officers did nothing more than as if someone was trying to "band aid a boo boo.” This case is just one example of the clear reluctance on the part of responding officers to use their police powers in the homes of fellow officers. The hesitation to deal professionally with this crime in my opinion increased the danger to Kathleen’s life. Looking the other way enabled Drew Peterson to increase his threats and violence to his then wife.

Once the couple filed for divorce, Drew continued his threats of violence and terrorism. Kathleen took out an order protection and was pressured into dropping it. And she did write in her own words on more than one occasion that Drew had “threatened to kill her.” He was furious at the thought of splitting his hard earned assets with Kathleen. This included the bar jointly owned in Montgomery, IL, sold for $325,000 and the martial residence sold at $287,000, half of his pension and shelling out monthly child support payments for his children.

Peterson had a history of abuse from undocumented allegations from Vicki Connely, wife #2 to a serious relationship with a girlfriend who claimed Peterson was stalking her. It is a fact, many officer related cases where violence erupts during the marriage dies with the victim similar to Kathleeen Savio.

Drew Peterson’s motive in 2004 for murder fell on deaf ears after the coroner’s inquest ruled “accidental death,” silencing, Savio’s family members from providing information or ever speaking out. Or the facts of the bogus hand written Will emerging after this healthy mother of 2 “accidently” drowned in a tub she never used when she was alive.

Silence behind the blue wall is also a common theme across the country. Back in 1989, had I not been spared by fate or divine intervention, I too, would have been killed that night. In working to solve cases where a woman has been murdered by an ex-lover or husband each case has characteristics specific to the relationship and the alleged crime. In creating a detailed work- up on a case, often I am able to pin point a direction not considered by police or a Prosecuting attorney to determine motive. And not every case has intent or motive. Each time a woman is murdered I do not assume anything about anyone until information and documents are provided to me. Sometimes relatives or police ask me to review a file on a missing person or murder case and I do not always have the answers.

I take what I do very seriously and it has saved many lives. My training and expertise began with a teacher with whom I studied under and feared for many years. As a seasoned veteran Chicago police detective, my father had two professional career’s one as Police detective, the other as a serial abuser.

Over the years of studying and working these types of cases, I have been able to develop specific procedures that work well to take a woman safely from a violent situation and to help get her abuser behind bars. My success rate has been phenomenal.

Drew Peterson: A View From Two Perspectives

by Robin Sax

Part 1: "The Prosecutor's Perspective"
(Tomorrow, The Violence Expert, Susan Murphy Milano, in Part 2)

What a great relief it was to all justice seekers to see that the grand jury finally handed down an indictment against Drew Peterson. You heard it here first; there is no way that this case will settle. Drew Peterson is probably one of the most narcissistic (self loving persons) out there. He will never take responsibility for the years of domestic abuse against all of his wives, the abuse of power by using his police knowledge and power to murder at least one and probably two of his wives, and the child abuse; for not only killing his children’s mother but also for subjecting his children to the lies and cover-up that have become the symbol of this case since the onset. Drew Peterson is incapable of accepting responsibility and a trial will give him the opportunity to do what he loves best—to be in front of a camera and to talk, talk, talk.

So, what are we likely to see as his defense? In the words of Joel Brodsky on the Today Show, “This is a weak, circumstantial case at best.” All I have to say is SO WHAT? Most cases are proved by circumstantial evidence.

In order to understand what a big nothing relying on circumstantial evidence is, you must attend my short class on evidence. So, welcome, here we go. Basically everything presented to a jury is considered evidence, except for the statements and questions from the lawyers. The testimony of fact witnesses and the opinions of expert witnesses are evidence. Documents are evidence. Physical objects, like murder weapons, are evidence. Tape recordings, police reports, and photos are all evidence. Just about everything submitted to the jury that proves or disproves the charges against the defendant is evidence. Before we take a look at the rule of evidence, for a good review of the state of the evidence in this case, I highly recommend taking a peak at the Justice Café Blog which has followed the key pieces of evidence, history, and key people in this of Drew Peterson.

Now back to our lesson. In law evidence that is not drawn from direct observation of a fact can be drawn from events or circumstances that surround it. If a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial, since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.

Circumstantial evidence is the bread and butter of criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about the defendant’s guilt in a criminal case, including the defendant’ statements to police, statements made publicly (i.e. statements made in a television interviews, press conferences, newspaper articles, etc.) inconsistencies of any above statements, the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the defendant’s presence at the time and place of the crime or at the discovery of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused, other prior bad acts including history of domestic violence, character evidence, etc. In addition, much scientific evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

There will be circumstantial evidence against him and Drew Peterson will try VERY hard to get jurors to buy into the theory (which books, movies, and television perpetuate) that somehow circumstantial evidence is not as good or may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is FLAT OUT WRONG. In most cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence” (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). In other words, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

And if you don’t believe me that circumstantial evidence is used all the time and brings about convictions, I direct you to some of the more newsworthy cases where convictions were based largely on circumstantial evidence: Scott Peterson, Timothy McVeigh, Phil Spector, Michael Skakel, David Westerfield – the list goes on.

Perhaps no one says it better than Norman Garland, professor of Law and author of several books including Criminal Law for the Law Enforcement Professional, “...Circumstantial evidence is nothing more than what we live by on a daily basis as a matter of common sense.” And my common sense says Drew Peterson is guilty as hell.

Criminal Selfishness

by Diane Fanning

When does standing up for your own best interests become a criminal act? Danny Dorrian seems to have found that line and crossed it. He publicly admitted he was a liar last week in New York courtroom.

The subject of his dishonesty was an horrific crime in New York City in late February 2006. An anonymous called led police to a body in a swampy area of Brooklyn--an area once a common dumping ground for the 1930's killing syndicate, Murder Incorporated. The victim was identified as Imette St. Guillen, (right) a 24-year-old graduate student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. A white athletic sock was forced down Imette's throat. Her wrists were bound with plastic ties, her ankles tied with wire. She had been sexually assaulted, strangled, suffocated, wrapped in a quilt and left like garbage in a marshy refuge overlooking the sour waters of a Jamaica Bay inlet.

The crime was sickening, disgusting and even perverse. Danny Dorrian made it all even worse by lying to the cops about the victim.

Danny told law enforcement that Imette left The Falls bar alone. Actually, Danny told her killer, a bouncer at The Falls, to escort her out. And he heard an argument between them that ended in a scream.
Not only did he ignore that cry for help, he hid his apathy a blanket of dishonesty. His lie allowed Darryl Littlejohn (left) to roam free for a week--seven days of opportunity to victimize someone else. His dishonesty gave Littlejohn an additional week to dispose of evidence. It gave him days to possibly flee the area.

Fortunately, Littlejohn was brought before the bar of justice and now faces a trial for the murder of Imette. But Danny didn't know that when he lied. And he didn't care.

There was only one thing Danny cared about: the business. He didn't want to risk the bar's liquor license. He didn't want to risk a scandal. He didn't want to be bothered.

You see, Danny's family owned The Falls. And his family also owned Dorrian's Red Hand, the bar connected in 1986 to the infamous Preppy Murder. Robert Chambers and Jennifer Levin drank rum and cokes at the Red Hand--the same drink Imette was served that fatal night at The Falls. Jennifer left the bar with bar regular Chambers. Her bruised body--sexually assaulted and strangled--was found just hours after her death in Central Park. Chambers claimed the death was an accident occurring during rough sex. He plead guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 15 years in jail.

So, Danny lied. He didn't want the scrutiny that fell on his family and its business in 1986. He didn't want to be involved. But, he was involved--he brought the perpetrator and victim together. And he wants to sit this one out?

Sure he did change his story and admit his knowledge a week later. Was that from a guilty conscience or a desire to be a good citizen? Probably not. Most likely, he realized the truth would out and he'd look worse if he stuck with his original story.

The district attorney's attitude to his prevarication was disturbing. In a press conference announcing the indictment of Darryl Littlejohn, in March 2006, Charles Hynes said, "Oh, I've been lied to before. I've gotten over it. When that becomes a crime, I think we should all get out of this business."

I guess you could call it practicality or pragmatism, but I call it a shame. Those self-serving lies were an obstruction of justice, a violation of human decency and a crime against the humanity we all share.

Danny Dorrian deserved to be labelled as a lying "drug-addled loser who relied on daddy's connections to get himself out of trouble," by Littlejohn's attorney in court last week. He deserved the humiliation of having to respond to questions about drug use, alcohol abuse and sexual promiscuity on the stand. And he deserves more than that--he's earned our eternal scorn.

Mary Jane's Grave

by Women in Crime Ink

If you've been wondering how life for fictional detective CeeCee Gallagher could possibly get any more difficult, the wait is officially over. Mary Jane's Grave, the highly anticipated second novel of the CeeCee Gallagher detective series is in bookstores now. The follow-up to The Devil's Closet, WCI's own Stacy Dittrich continues taking the reader down a road filled with unknowns, romance, and mystery.

Summary of the book:

“Long known for its history of being haunted by a witch who was hanged and buried there, Mary Jane’s Grave has been a teenage staple for decades. Local historians have since disproved the area as mere folk lore, but when a local teen is found brutally murdered at the grave, Detective Sergeant CeeCee Gallagher is forced to re-investigate the history, and find its link to the teen’s murder. With the aid of her powerful co-workers, Naomi and Jeff Cooper, CeeCee is thrown into the depths of a secret so horrifying; locals have kept it hidden for over a hundred years. Finding the chilling connection between Mary Jane, and an eighteenth century murderess, Ceely Rose, CeeCee refuses to believe in the supernatural occurrences that witnesses claim are taking place at the grave. CeeCee’s investigation takes her across the country in her hunt for the true killer while she tries to keep her relationship with FBI Agent, Michael Hagerman, from unraveling. CeeCee takes readers along with her to face their darkest fears, while holding their breath until the secret of the grave, and the identity of the killer, is revealed.”

Extremely detailed, Mary Jane's Grave tends to be one of those novels that the reader will get lost if one page is missed. Mixing history with modern day policing, the research on this book took Stacy the longest of the entire Gallagher series, as she had to delve into 18th century writing and history. Stacy also had complete access to the case files (investigated by her police department) of some of the crimes that occurred at the actual grave; some of which are depicted in the book.

The novel revolves around the local folklore that surrounds a real grave in Stacy's area in Richland County, Ohio. She combined the myth with a true case of an 18th century murderess whose crimes occurred at Pulitzer Prize winning author Louis Bromfield’s farm-Malabar Farm. (This also happened to be the location of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall’s wedding and is just a mile or so down the road from the grave). For over 5 decades, people from all over the state have flocked to the “real” Mary Jane’s Grave in Lucas, Ohio (pictured right) to see the burnt cross on the famed witches tree, and to indulge in possible paranormal experiences. Although there is much written about the myth on web sites, there has never been a book written about it, or the murderess Ceely Rose, until now.

Most Recent Reviews:

“A creepy ghost story lies at the heart of Dittrich’s second thriller starring detective CeeCee Gallagher. The crime is horrific and puzzling, and Dittrich does an excellent job laying out a clever procedural that is hauntingly laced with eeriness. A book to send true chills down the spine! Four and a half stars!
--Romantic Times Book Review

“In March 1898, four men killed her infant son, raped her and her daughter Madeline, and burned her as a witch. With her last breath, Mary Jane Hendrickson, using her gift, cursed the men and the grounds where they committed their atrocities. The sexual assault of Madeline left her pregnant. In the present, the grave of Mary Jane was buried by a tree in the middle of an old cemetery where teens fool around scaring one another.

Sergeant CeeCee Gallagher is called to the Mount Olive Cemetery because the murdered body of Keri Sutter was found on Mary Jane’s grave. She had been separated from her friends who swore they saw an old woman and heard the scream of a baby crying though no infant was seen. CeeCee assumes one of the students killed Keri and used the Mary Jane witch tale to frighten the others. Elder Walter Morris suggests CeeCee look up the history. The detective does and learns that twenty years ago another teen was stoned to death on the grave-site; the culprit got away with murder. CeeCee continues investigating into Mary Jane’s life and death tracking ancestry and descendants onto the present in order to prevent more homicides.

A CeeCee Gallagher police procedural is always a treat (see THE DEVIL’S CLOSET) as the sergeant gives her readers a deep look at how she runs an investigation and why she takes some of the key steps that she does. The audience also receives glimpses of her love affair with FBI Agent Michael Hagerman while he deals with a treacherous former wife who will do anything to get him back. The who-done-it is terrific with its ties to the late nineteenth century atrocities as Stacy Dittrich provides a unique voice with a fresh brisk thriller starring a heroine who resonates with readers.” --MidWest Book Review

"...Mary Jane's Grave provides a fast-paced storyline with a ghostly flair, emotional turmoil and multi-generational twists."--Fresh Fiction Book Review

Mary Jane's Grave is available in bookstores and online now. Stacy will be at BookExpo of America in New York City May 29th and May 30th for signings and also June 6, 2009 at the Barnes and Noble in Ontario, Ohio.

Teacher Gets an F in Exclusive Interview Trying to Defend Herself of Sex Charges

Hunt for Justice
by Cynthia Hunt

A former Tennessee High School math teacher is hitting the TV news airwaves in Nashville saying she is the victim, not the predator. Sandy Binkley is charged with statutory rape by an authority figure. Investigators say she had sex with one of her students in the classroom during school hours.

In an exclusive interview with the CBS affiliate in Nashville, Binkley says the 17-year-old student sexually assaulted her. "There was one incident with one student who was one month from being 18. He is bigger than me. He forced himself on me." Binkley told NewsChannel 5.

Watch the interview. If you were really raped by a student is that how you would talk about it with a reporter?

The student was a teacher's aid at Portland High School. During a hearing, court transcripts show the student testified, "She laid down on the desk and I began to have intercourse with her...she said her tubes were tied, which is why I didn't wear a condom. She said this isn't what you expected when you signed up for teacher's aid."

A grand jury indicted Binkley after hearing from that student and from investigators. After Binkley was charged, two other students came forward saying they also had sex with her. Binkley says the other students are lying to cover up for their friend. (Binkley's Mug Shot After Arrest in 2008)

What is unusual about this case is that Binkley's attorney is allowing his client to go on TV and defend herself months before her trial. He says he hopes someone in the community knows something about this he-said-she-said case to help clear his client.

As a viewer and a journalist, I watched the first part of the exclusive interview which aired last night. In my opinion, it didn't help the defense. Binkley did not come across as credible. She sat there holding her supportive husband's hand and talking about how this has devastated her life, but she didn't seem upset.

When you compare her interview with the student's testimony in court where the 17-year-old says Binkley told him she had her tubes tied, she looks even worse. Teenage boys just don't talk that way, which immediately leads me to believe she said what he claims she said.

Binkley also distrubed me when she smiled during the interview when saying she doesn't see herself as one of those attractive teachers like Pam Rogers who has victimized students. If she isn't guilty, then her attorneys made a categorically bad decision to let this woman go on TV. She should not smile about anything that relates to teachers molesting students.

Pam Rogers was a former beauty queen turned Tennessee teacher who is in prison after she was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old student in 2006. (Pam Rogers in 2006)

She did make one good point in her disastrous interview. She said people often assume because a teacher is charged that he or she is guilty.

What frustrated me with the reporting on NewsChannel 5 and in The Tennessean newspaper is not one reporter has answered a blaring question: How did police find out about this case? Did Binkley, who says she is the victim, go to the police or did the rumorville around school lead police to investigate if this teacher was molesting her students? I would like to know how this investigation started. I am not saying I believe Binkley is guilty if she did not go to police. Many rape victims do not. However, it certainly hurts her case if she didn't since this does involve a student.

I am glad that Binkley can speak out and defend herself. That's her First Amendment right. I've seen it work well for many defendants, but I don't know what Binkley's attorneys were thinking in this case. I do know I will watch the second story to further test my theory that she isn't telling the truth.

Now it's your turn. Here's the link to her interview, what do you think?

DNA Matters, Except When it Doesn't?

by Laura James

"DNA ought to humble us. But it doesn't humble some people."

--Attorney Jed Stone

The Chicago Tribune ran a story by Steve Mills recently about some pending murder cases in Lake County, Illinois that ought to put the voters of that county on notice: your local department of justice has a moron on staff. If you have more integrity than your local prosecutor's office, you need to elect someone else.

In four rape - murder cases - involving female victims who were eight, nine, eleven, and sixty-eight - the DNA from the semen did not match the man charged with the rape and murder.

The prosecutor is pursuing these cases anyway, waving away the DNA evidence and the science upon which it is founded as a "red herring."

You read that right - these girls, this elderly woman were raped and some also murdered. Semen was recovered in each case. It did not match the suspect. The suspect was charged anyway, despite the fact that the prosecutor offers no logical explanation for the presence of semen that does not match. If there were evidence of two assailants, this might make sense. But there's not. And it doesn't.

Despite these DNA results, despite the fact that the source of DNA is semen, the prosecutor is getting convictions. How? He claims that the semen/DNA is from "contamination." That argument was not only permitted but was successful in the case of Juan Rivera, convicted of murdering Holly Staker again last month, even though DNA testing proved that he was not the source of semen found in the victim's body.

Where is the flipping judge, I'd like to know - how could he let this case get to a jury in the first place? How could he let the prosecutor make such specious arguments? From here he looks like yet another empty robe sucking up an unearned paycheck.

Some observers - like the Daily Kos, Mothers on a Mission to Stop Violence, Chicago Lawyer Magazine, Reason Magazine, and Northwestern University law faculty - are rolling their eyes at the ludicrous dismissal of the DNA evidence. But they don't have a vote, and jurors are buying it.

As one observer notes, it's "very rare" for a prosector to continue with a case when DNA excludes a suspect.

Unfortunately, I know it's not really that rare. A DNA exclusion did not prevent Michigan authorities from imprisoning Nathaniel Hatchett for rape. Twelve years is what it took before someone who knows something about DNA refused to accept the prosecutor's flimsy arguments. Shame, shame on the judges who permitted this man to go to prison for rape when the seminal DNA excluded him as the rapist!

And it happened in Toledo. I watched it happen on television in 2006 when Father Gerald Robinson was convicted of murder despite the fact that a male DNA profile obtained from the victim's clothing and bloody fingernails did not match him. The prosecutor's argument? The DNA is from "contamination." But there's some good news in that case: The Ohio Innocence Project just joined his defense team.

I am seeing more and more of these cases - representing more and more prosecutors who won't let a lil' ol' thing like DNA get in the way of a conviction. Alas, some juries are willing to accept this. Indeed these cases are becoming so common I wish someone would coin a term for it. "DNA non-match" cases isn't very catchy.

For many years, lawyers and journalists have lamented what is sometimes called the "CSI Effect" -- the expectation by jurors that cutting-edge scientific techniques will give them a definite answer in every case.

What can we call it when jurors ignore DNA that doesn't match the man on trial?

Antiquated Drug Laws Cost Us Plenty

by Diane Dimond

Come sit down with me. Let’s have a chat - a meaningful and productive chat. You comfortable, you want some tea?

Here’s what I’m thinking. With all this change in the air, this idea that we really can shake up the status quo and attack our nation’s problems from a different angle - we probably should take a look at our drug laws. Don’t you think?

Remember back in 1969 when President Nixon declared a “War on Drugs”? We were going to wipe out the illegal drug trade that stopped so many of us from being productive citizens! Wow, that sure sounded like a great plan. But, here we are 40 years later and we’re still struggling with what to do about those who either sell or get addicted to illegal drugs.

It’s important to make the distinction here. Drug addicts vs. drug dealers. The first are surely breaking the law but no one aspires to become an addict, right? They’re sick and in need of medical and mental health attention. The dealers, of course, are felons making loads of money off the weak. Yet we lock up both groups as if they are the same kind of criminals. That doesn’t seem right.

Now, I don’t want to make this a political conversation, you know, Democrats vs. Republicans, liberal vs. conservative. I want to talk about what’s best for our country, our economically strapped country.

Since that “War on Drugs” declaration we’ve gone way past the billion dollar mark to somewhere in the trillion dollar area. I read the other day that it costs us a collective 69 billion dollars each year to keep up this war. Why do we keep doing the same things over and over if it’s not getting rid of the problem?

It costs society so much in terms of court and prison costs, lost productivity and damage to families. So sad, isn’t it?

We’ve spent years tinkering with prison rehabilitation for convicted addicts. There’s been no great breakthrough. Maybe we need special hospitals just for them. I wonder if we could do that for less than 69 billion a year? As for the drug dealers, well, we keep slapping them with mandatory and harsh sentences and as fast as we lock ‘em up there are more arrested every day. Our prisons are bursting at the seams!

We’ve got a federal Drug Enforcement Administration and each state has a drug task force, and local law enforcement has undercover operations to try to smoke out the bad guys. Drugs continue to stream across our borders, mostly from Mexico but also from Canada. Countless homegrown drug labs dot the country’s landscape. The problem never seems to end. We don’t have a handle on it – it has a handle on us!

You know, there’s a group of 11 thousand law enforcement types, called L.E.A.P., Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, that says if we just legalized all drugs the massive profit margin would disappear. They liken it to 1933 when the prohibition on booze stopped and put Al Capone out of the bootlegging business. L.E.A.P. thinks drug kingpins would find the government taxes and regulations so stiff they’d just fold their tents.

I’ll have to have another cup of tea and think about that. I don’t think I’m for legalizing all drugs. But, it sure would be a tempting new tax revenue stream, wouldn’t it?

Look, I don’t pretend to be smart enough to figure out the whole big national drug problem but, you know, we’ve got to start somewhere. I’ve been thinking that one way to cut down our costs is to weed out (pardon the pun) those 872,720 Americans who the FBI says were arrested for marijuana in 2007. There might have been a million marijuana arrests last year – the figures aren’t in yet.

I mean who are we kidding? Millions of Americans admit they’ve smoked grass, ganja, pot - whatever you want to call it – including at least two of our Presidents, CEO’s of top companies, Olympic athletes and countless other productive members of our society. Spending all this money to arrest and prosecute these cases seems to be getting us nowhere. Isn’t it weird that we approve using marijuana for medical purposes but not for those who’d like to substitute it for a glass of vodka once or twice a week?

Yep, that’s what I’m thinkin’. We have to start somewhere and so we might as well de-criminalize things for all those Americans who, despite the law, are smoking marijuana anyway.

It sure is nice to be able to chat about this without someone going off accusing the other of being a kook or a commie or some other name. Want some more tea?

Now, let’s talk about changing the I.R.S. …

Drew Peterson: From Cathouse to the Big House?

by Pat Brown

I can't think of more than a handful of people (seriously deluded ones) who wouldn't like to see the smirk wiped off of Drew Peterson's face. Surely some folks cheered in front of their television sets when they learned "I'm So Sexy" Peterson lost his opportunity to be a star of "Cathouse," the HBO reality brothel show filmed at the Nevada brothel known as the "Moonlight Bunny Ranch." Cops showed up at near Peterson's home today, stopped his vehicle, and carted Drew off to the much less entertaining venue known as jail.

"Nobody Actually Thinks You're Sexy" Peterson will be cavorting with lifers instead of hookers if the prosecution succeeds in convicting him of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, the wife who was found dead in the bathtub (not the wife who went missing in 2007 . . . or the one who had her car brakes tampered with . . . or the one who says he wasn't really that bad a character when she was married to him).

I hope Drew Peterson gets what's coming to him. I think he is guilty as heck of making Stacy Peterson, Wife Number Four disappear. I think he is likely guilty as heck of the bathtub death of Wife Number Three. But, I also hope he does not get convicted without solid evidence even if I think he deserves a bum deal.

Why am I so concerned about what happens to a creep like Drew Peterson? I will tell you. The law is supposed to be impartial, the jury is supposed to be impartial, and if we allow the courts to convict people simply because the jury (and the community) doesn't like the defendant, then we are allowing our justice system to become a mockery.

Most "wrongful conviction" news in recent years has involved the Innocence Project, a group that is more interested in getting rid of the Death Penalty than getting innocent folk out of jail. This is why they don't bother with lifers. They also focus strictly on DNA evidence and, regardless of an often overwhelming pile of evidence proving guilt of the convicted felon, they work to get the killer freed on some DNA screw-up, technicality or irrelevant point (like the semen belonged to the victim's last date before the killer broke in and murdered her, or the semen belonged his partner-in-crime who was never identified). I don't see them taking up cases where the convicted man got life for being unlikeable.

Michael Skakel was one of those unlucky schmucks. Sure, he did masturbate in trees as a teenager and he was an arrogant member of the Kennedy clan and he had a big mouth he should have kept closed. Maybe he should have shut up, but he shouldn't have been convicted of killing Greenwich, Connecticut teenager Martha Moxley decades ago (1975) on less evidence than connected original suspect Ken Littleton to the crime. Littleton, a pretty creepy character who failed the polygraph test more than once, continued living with the Skakel brothers even though he had to "know" one of them committed the crime. But, no matter—Skakel was a Kennedy and Mark Fuhrman made him the villain, and the jury decided Skakel was creepier than Littleton. Guilty.

And what about Paul Dubois who supposedly gunned down Linda Silva in Cape Cod in 1996? He got convicted because his ex-girlfriend said she once saw a gun of Paul's that could have been the gun used in the murder and she wrote down the serial number on some toilet paper. Dubois may be a shady character that the community won't miss but if he didn't kill Silva, someone else did.

In Tennessee in 2003, James David Johnson got convicted of killing 73-year-old Florence Jean Hall in her garage purely on his confession. It didn't seem to matter to the jury (or maybe the prosecution withheld the information) that not one bit of physical evidence existed in the case. Although Johnson supposedly killed Mrs. Hall late in the afternoon, the woman had gone missing early in the morning, never showed up for any of her appointments and she never came home for lunch as she routinely did. The family apparently didn't feel the need to call and see if Mom was dead in a ditch (or dying on the floor of the garage since morning). Sure, Johnson is no stranger to crime, but if he didn't commit this one, someone else should be sitting in his place.

Which brings me back to Drew Peterson, no nominee for Boy Scout of the Month. In the case of Kathleen Savio, I tend to believe if a jury does convict Peterson without anything more than innuendo and some curious circumstantial evidence, they have the right man. But setting a trend of convicting people for being unlikeable rather than convicting them on sufficient evidence is not a good thing; an innocent (at least of that crime) guy goes to prison and the guilty party remains on the street to kill again.

I am waiting to find out what the probable cause was to arrest Drew Peterson. Something has to link Peterson to the Savio's home that night and to a violent assault on her. I doubt physical evidence exists so we can eliminate that. This leaves witnesses and/or confession.

Just in time to benefit the Will County prosecutors, Illinois amended the hearsay law, which will now allow the "testimony" of a dead person into court. This means the letter Savio left stating Drew might kill her could be allowed into court. I don't have a problem with a statement of any deceased person being brought into court if it is written in her handwriting, tape recorded, or authenticated by enough credible witnesses.

But, I do have a problem with such a statement being proof that Peterson killed her. Just because someone says another person is out to get them doesn't mean that this was the person who showed up and did the deed. It could be a new boyfriend (maybe Savio has bad taste in men), it could be a serial killer, or maybe a burglary gone bad. It could even be possible that Peterson entered Savio's home that evening with a machete in his hand, ready to lop off her head but found, Happy Day, that someone had beat him to the punch.

So, now I am only left with confession. A pastor said that Wife Number Four, Stacy Peterson, confided that Drew admitted killing Kathleen. Is this the telephone game? Is this good enough to convict Peterson without solid supporting evidence? Not in my opinion. To me, the only evidence that should convict Peterson and the only evidence I think would be good enough for probable cause to even arrest this sorry-excuse-for-a-man would be Drew's own words. I hope someone, sometime, somewhere, was wearing a wire and Drew bragged that he killed Kathleen and got away with it. I hope.

Over the next several days, we ought to have a little light shed on what probable cause the police had to bring Peterson in. I am keeping my fingers crossed they have something more than a good theory. A good theory alone may result in a conviction, but if juries keep convicting without evidence (and sometimes oddly refusing to convict in spite of overwhelming evidence), our court system will become nothing more than a popularity contest. This scares me more than Drew Peterson getting away with murder.

While I have never been fond of this saying: "It is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted" (doesn't that mean the ten guilty men go on to kill fifty more people and therefore we murdered fifty to save one?), I do object to the concept of allowing the guilty man the freedom to kill yet more people because we put the wrong guy away.

Worse yet, I would hate to see Drew Peterson laughing at us as he walks back out of jail a free man.

Can We Overhaul Forensic Science?

by Andrea Campbell

In my last article we talked about the report compiled by the National Academy of Sciences on behalf of Congress, that issued a sweeping critique about how forensic science methods were found lacking. As part of the diatribe the report also suggested that a federal agency should be created to guarantee independence between labs and law enforcement; and that lack of standardization, training, techniques and so forth be remedied. Hear, hear, I say, good idea.

But it’s a lot to fathom. Evidence, ever since crime has wielded its ugly head, has always been subject to criticism and the legality of evidentiary proof is generally taken up by the courts, one case at a time. There is no doubt that this industry is run on a budget that, in another field—say construction—you could say that structures have been built with Popsicle sticks and bailing wire. We get it. Forensic science grew up in its own inherent way as needed. There was no great plan. Innovative scientists crafted techniques that worked and were applied successfully over and over again with the same result. And that is largely the premise of science—to repeat a test that remains consistent with theorized results.

But if we use fingerprints in our theory, it's true: No two people look at fingerprints the same way because it is largely a subjective business relying first on the expertise of the examiner.

With fingerprints, basically the print is examined by human eye under magnification and a matching takes place. A friend of mine who worked at the state crime lab here, told me stories about the old days where prints were stored on cards and separated out by hand and put into metal filing cabinets. Granted, technology has entered into the methodology improving some of the ease of handling exemplars but, still, it remains a business of a human being making a call as to whether the prints match. Now obviously a print that matched in 12 points (12 different areas) would be better matched than one that only had 8 similar points and standardization would help in that regard. But, you know what? fingerprints don’t come in neatly, 100% on a clean card. They arrive as partials, smudges, half-prints and so on, which is more realistic.

Let’s talk about another of the sore spots in the report: bitemarks. Bitemarks are impressions evidence and they are found on a variety of substances—skin, of course, but also in duct tape, car weather-stripping, cheese, and heaven only knows what else. It’s true that a bitemark should be examined by someone who is an expert in bitemarks and that would be a forensic odontologist. He is a person who is probably a practicing dentist or dental surgeon and knows teeth in his sleep. But can you make a guess as to how many actual “forensic” odonotologists are available in the U.S.? I have no real idea personally, and do not want to be nailed to a guesstimate, but I would venture to say, it’s probably under a couple hundred who avail themselves to this type of work. Yes, there’s a lacking there. But does that mean that a lab-trained forensic scientist who specializes in impressions evidence, footprints, tire tracks, etc., would not be able to recognize a similarity between a bite mark and a human impression? I would hope they would be able to suss it out.

In 1928, a report came out from the National Academy of Sciences that basically said that the coroner system in the United States was an “anachronistic institution,” and that coroners should be given the heave and be replaced by medical examiners, men and women who have doctorates in pathology. That may be a righteous goal, but today, more than half the states have county coroners pronouncing death and giving determinations. The recommendation didn’t happen. Why? Apathy, lack of funding, no regulatory board, no consensus and hey, guess what? crime moves on and waits for no stinkin’ regulation. Now I am a fan of regulation and doing things the right way. But I have a friend who is a coroner in Hot Springs proper (I live in the Village, another community) and he was an EMT for many years. Now I’d say that my friend as an Emergency Medical Technician has seen more than his share of near-deaths, the dying, and the fully dead. Should he be able to say if something looked suspicious? I would hope so. The autopsy would be done by a medical examiner as the result of his call anyway.

This is not a subject that is going to have simple answers. Of course, we don’t want people accused of crimes they didn’t commit. But I have a ton of friends at the Arkansas State Crime Lab in all disciplines, and I do not for a minute think that they are slackers, unqualified, or that they nudge the evidence in favor of law enforcement.

But, YES, let’s fund the crime labs better. Hire more qualified people. Have standards for the various disciplines. All the components the laboratories need are years and years to put new procedures into action, more money than we care to know about, and dedicated overseers who have all the time in the world. And what do we do in the meantime? Put a hold on courtroom evidence? The defense attorneys among us are shouting “Yes!”—I know it. And would you or I in their same position disagree? probably not. They have their own duty to uphold to their client, the accused.

Feel free to weigh in here.

YOUR TURN: "The Secret Life of Patsy Ramsey"? What Literature Might Reveal About the Crime Scene of a Beauty Queen

by Mark Soukup, Guest Contributor

When the murder of JonBenét Ramsey hit the news I thought the 6-year-old pageant princess's father John Ramsey was some kind of pedophile and guilty of the crime. I wasn't very interested in the case. But I had just switched to an early shift at work and listened to local talk radio where the case was covered extensively. But when the autopsy report and ransom note were made public, I saw Patsy Paugh Ramsey, the former Miss West Virginia, as the perpetrator.

I also saw the killing as a type of sacrifice. For years I had been reading books on the psychological interpretation of mythology. From what I'd studied, many of the odd and seemingly incomprehensible aspects of the crime could be seen as having symbolic meaning known only to the offender.

This type of attachment to myth and dream symbolism is typical of psychosis. In some cases a psychotic will take destructive action as a means to manifest their psychotic fantasy. I brought this up to the local talk-radio host but the idea was dismissed. I was curious if the idea had come up before, but back then I had no access to the Internet. So I started reading about the case.

Small Sacrifice

The first book I got was Andrew Hodge's A Mother Gone Bad, and in it I found a reference to the Seraph report. That small group of investigators was commissioned by the Boulder police for an assessment of the ransom note and crime. They concluded Patsy Ramsey had sacrificed her daughter. Their interpretation of sacrifice was different from mine but at least I knew the subject had been brought up to police. At this point the case was two years old.

My line of reasoning came from an approach to dream analysis that is used by Jungians called amplification. I took the theme of literature that is prevalent in the case from the ransom note to John Douglas's Mind Hunter to The Bible and looked for common elements. The common elements, if found, would indicate a "complex," a behavior-centering force in the mind of the perpetrator.

A Sacrifice of Biblical Contortions

For example, the role of the Psalms in the case was well known with a possible connection between the ransom amount and a common interpretation of Psalm 118 that mentions sacrifice. Also, the Ramsey family Bible (NIV study version) was open to a passage that has four lines beginning with the letters C, T, B, S—the reverse of the cryptic ransom note sign-off: S.B.T.C.

Further reading of the Psalms revealed a repeated use of words, phrases, and ideas that are common to the crime and to mother Patsy Ramsey's life in general. After careful study, I thought I had the key to not only the identification of the single perpetrator but an indication that the death of JonBenét was not due to an accident, as was the prevalent theory, but was the intentional act of a person in the grip of a psychosis.

By this time I had access to the Internet. I hit the forums with my ideas and was both lauded and rebuffed. The lack of acceptance made me dig even more. I went back to the trail of literature left by Patsy herself and fixed on Muriel Spark's The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie since Patsy had chosen to perform a soliloquy from the novel/play in the talent portions of her pageants. Again, I was looking for an indication of a complex. I started with the movie and found three uses of the word "sacrifice" by Jean Brodie (in film still, above). I thought sacrifice was the centering theme in Patsy's psychosis, which she found unavoidably attractive in Spark's work.

JonBenét and Fruit from the Poisoned Case

It took me several months before I read the book. Just a few pages in was a description of a tea party with two members of the Brodie set where pineapple was served. The appearance of pineapple in JonBenét's digestive tract along with the Ramseys' denial of having served it to her—and the use of pineapple by Spark in her novel—was the first mythic connection for me between the crime and a work of literature Patsy was known to have been intimately familiar with.

A few pages more and the question of the spelling of "possession" came up in the novel. The misspelling of possession in the ransom note was part of the heated conversation of the case on the radio and Internet. A detailed study of the book, play, and movie revealed many, many items common to both the crime and to Patsy and the literature she was known to have been associated with, including the chillingly titled Death of Innocence.

Many, many aspects of the case seemed strange and incomprehensible to investigators and to the public and were attributed to panic, amateurism, desperation with the possible source of ideas for staging found in crime books and movies. My investigation into this theme of literature, to me, has revealed coincidence after coincidence between the death of JonBenét Ramsey and the life of Patsy Paugh Ramsey. A preponderance of coincidence rules out coincidence and out of what seems to be a random jumble comes a pattern; the use of one person by another as an object in a personal psychotic fantasy.

A person in psychosis often sees themselves as either a mythic figure or related to one in some way. They also may see themselves as part of a mythic storyline. They may exhibit behaviors that have a high degree of structure but with a low degree of rationality as they follow the mythic storyline. This story may be self created and/or part of an existing, archetypal, or well- known story that can be easily found in popular literature. It is my opinion that the death of JonBenét Ramsey is the result of just such a psychosis and the evidence for it can be found in the products of the creative life of Patsy Ramsey—her writing, her artwork, her correspondences, her pageant performances, the ransom note and even what was done to the body of JonBenét.

Women in Crime Ink reader Mark Soukup is an amateur art historian who has studied symbolism and the creative process. He is owned by two sheep dogs and lives in Colorado.

THE OUTLAW IS IN!

Women in Crime Ink is pleased to announce today's release of contributor Laura James' first book: The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son: Murder, Sin, and Scandal in the Shadow of Jesse James. (Laura is not related to the James Gang.) In this dual biography of Dr. Zeo Zoe Wilkins and Jesse James Jr., our true-crime historian and attorney Laura James lays out the evidence that the son of Jesse James followed in his father's footsteps to lead a life of train robbery, terrorism, and perhaps even murder. The book contains some big surprises for students of the James Gang.

Below, the publisher has given Women in Crime Ink readers an exclusive peek at what true-crime master Gregg Olsen has called a "mesmerizing book, brilliantly researched and compellingly written." We agree with Olsen's assessment that this story is "classic American crime: a toxic brew of love, lies, mystery and murder." Women in Crime Ink is pleased to bring you this exclusive intro to The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son. Congratulations, Laura!

PROLOGUE

On March 15, 1924, snowdust coated staid Park Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri. The street was quiet for a Saturday night. There were no wild parties on this frigid evening. Around ten p.m., an exceptionally beautiful woman unlocked the front door of her home at 2425 Park.

She must have known him. She let him in the house. But before long something alarmed her. It could have been the late hour or the reek of alcohol, though she was a stranger to neither. She numbed herself that night, as she usually did, with most of a bottle of Jamaica Ginger. Did she see the man lock the door as he turned to face her? Maybe a snarled threat or a flash of steel warned her that he was not there to make love to her. Instead, her premonition of a violent death was coming true. She surely thought–if she could form a complete thought–of all the friends and lovers to whom she had turned for help in her last few days. She told them someone wanted to murder her. She’d even said it would happen that weekend.

No one was there to help her. Nobody believed her.

She fought for her life. She threw every object within reach. She eluded death with “a terrific fight.” At five feet eight and a hundred and thirty pounds, she could have held her own for a while. But the man was stronger. He chased her into a corner, punched her in the chest, and knocked the telephone from her hands. Chairs were smashed in their duel. In her desperate resistance she got the worst of it. He pummeled her and tore at her plaid dress and underwear. If she cried out in pain and terror, the only one who heard her screams was the man killing her.

It must have been a thunderous blow that sent her spinning into a metal stand. She struck her forehead and collapsed onto the oriental carpet in the living room.

The man grabbed her slender throat and squeezed. He gouged her left eye, blackening it and nearly severing her eyeball from its socket. Perhaps she fainted. But she rallied at the last when he brandished a small, rusty pocketknife. As she held out her hands to protect herself, he slashed them. The face that had aroused the passions of so many men now felt the sting of the blade. He sliced open her cheek and jammed the point of the knife into the side of her neck—once, twice—the deep stabs slitting her jugular. Zeo’s blood gushed forth. Within a few heartbeats she was dead.

The blood-drenched killer dropped his knife. It fell onto the rug a few inches from her dead hand. He assured himself she was irretrievably dead.

Without pausing to wipe himself off, he strode to her dining room. He lifted a large metal strongbox onto the dining table, opened it, and tore through her personal papers. Her blood dripped from his hands onto her letters and documents as he rifled through the box for what he sought.

Papers, books, clothes, and bags were heaped onto the floor as her killer ransacked her house, plunging through the closet, roving through the kitchen, smearing blood on drawers and cupboards, leaving crimson tracks throughout the first and second floors. He pulled up the tacks holding down the corners of her carpets. He pulled letters from envelopes. He searched most of the closets, chests, and shelves.

And yet he did not touch many pawnable items, such as her designer clothes and household items. This man was after particular valuables, things he knew she kept in her home. Nothing less was worth even a moment.

His search completed, he entered a downstairs bathroom and washed away her clotted blood. He found a hand towel and dried himself on it as he returned to the living room. Standing near the dead woman, he threw the towel on the rug. He wadded some papers, put a flame to them, and started a fire near her head. He stuffed a strongbox filled with treasure under his arm.

Maybe he looked at her one last time.

Then it seems he yanked open a window, crawled through, leapt several feet to the ground, and fled the scene of his perfect murder.

It was perfect not because of how he did it. He was an amateur killer. He left bloody prints everywhere, and the fire never caught. It was perfect because of the woman he killed. For no matter who cut down Zeo Wilkins, no matter why, newspapers across the country declared on moral grounds that her brutal death was a fitting end for a vampire. They proclaimed that the case would never be solved, officially or otherwise. Their wishes were granted. A lot of folks would come right out and say it: the bitch had it coming to her, and by golly, she sure got it.

Constitutional Rights of Students

by Katherine Scardino

Do minor students have any fundamental constitutional rights, or do they lose those at the schoolhouse door? Students in school as well as out of school are “persons” under our Constitution and have fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. This month the Supreme Court will be hearing the case of young, 13-year-old Savana Redding and her lawsuit against the Safford (Arizona) Unified School District #1.

The incident involved a female student informing the counselor that she had gotten some pills from Savana. The counselor asked the school nurse to identify the pill, and the nurse informed the counselor and ultimately the principal that the pill was a 400 mg Ibuprofin. (Advil and Motrin are 200 mg tablets.) Based on this information from another student, school officials strip searched Savana, by placing this young girl in a locked room with two females, the school nurse and a secretary. They asked Savana to take off all her clothes except her bra and pants. She was asked to pull the bottom part of her bra away from her body and shake it, exposing her breasts. She was then asked to pull her waist band away from her body and shake it, exposing her pubic area. No drugs were found. At no time did anyone call either of her parents.

This one incident has caused a wave of public concern over the authority of school officials to authorize this type of behavior. Schools are generally acting in loco parentis - meaning that when they have minor students in their custody, they are acting in the place and stead of a parent.

A 1985 Supreme Court case (New Jersey v. T.L.O.) stated the proper standard for evaluating the constitutionality of a search. It must be (1) justified in its inception and (2) reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Further, it has been held that student tips alone are insufficient to support a constitutionally permissible strip search. In other words, an uncorroborated “tip” may justify additional inquiry or investigation, but it does not justify a strip search. Strip searches are among the most intrusive searches; they are demeaning, dehumanizing and terrifying, and especially for a 13-year-old girl.

But what makes this incident so questionable is that the school officials were well aware from the beginning that the pill was a 400 mg Ibuprofin, hardly a “controlled substance." The parents of Savana were appalled, and not surprisingly, they sued the school district. They lost at the State appellate level, but continued their battle all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

So our Supreme Court gets to hear argument on this issue. I am waiting to hear whether the strip search of a child may be constitutionally justified on the basis of uncorroborated rumor and as such, a violation of the student’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Survivor's Story: Delivered from a Living Hell

by Dori Wheeler, Guest Contributor

I grew up in a violent atmosphere. Abuse of all kinds, physical, verbal, emotional, and as I got a little older, I was molested at school. I started to drink at the tender age of 11 to kill the pain. A few short years later, I was an alcoholic. A real party girl.

Since my dad was a police officer for New York State, I had to "prove" myself, party hardier and hang out with the older kids to gain their trust. In the mean time, I had destroyed the trust at home. I remember coming home at sunup when I was 15 and my dad calling me a "drunken slut." To this day those words still burn.

When I was out one night, drinking with an acquaintance, he started to manhandle me—groping and pawing. I tried to fend him off, but he was much stronger. I screamed, "NO! Please, no!" But it didn't faze him. I was raped.

I was devastated. I didn't know what to do. So I got myself cleaned up the best I could and snuck back into the house. I didn't dare tell a soul. If this got back to my father, I knew he'd blame me because I was drinking. So it was my "dirty little secret" for many years.

As with many people who grow up in violence, I sought out violent men. When I was 29 I got sober. I still didn't say a word. Finally, I couldn't bear the pain of the secret—feeling filthy, disgusting, and ashamed. I was 35 and pregnant with my last child when I finally told my husband. That was the beginning of the healing. Up to that point, I had been a victim. From that day forward, I was a survivor!

But because of the abuse I endured throughout the years, I am 100% disabled. I have severe depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I also have four herniated disks from being beaten. Please don't let this happen to you! No child, man, or woman should ever have to endure abuse of any kind—especially sexual. No matter what you think might happen, tell someone! It's a terrible crime! You didn't do anything to ask for it. It is not your fault! For your own sanity, you MUST tell someone you feel you can trust. Please don't live the shame, the hell, and the guilt that I lived!

I wrote this poem of my experience in hopes that it might help at least one person. If I can help one person, my pain wasn't all in vain. . . . This is my story:

The Tear

Face hidden in shame.

A lonely tear drips off her nose.

For who else can she blame?

Dignity gone with her torn clothes.

Society tells us how to look, how to dress.

No matter how beautiful they say she is

From inside her mind, she's a huge mess.

She hears, Don't do this, Don't do that.

Get good grades, read your books.

She fears the wrath if she tells.

So damned alone, nowhere to turn.

What to do, what to say?

Nobody will believe her anyway!

Innocence taken in the name of love

Even though she's black and blue

She looks to the sky, to Heaven above.

Abandoned she feels

No one has a clue.

He didn't listen as she screamed, "NO!"

Battered, bruised, innocence gone.

What can she do, where does she go?

It's all your fault, surely they'll say,

You've been asking for it anyway.

She carries this alone and close to her heart

Never saying a word to anyone.

Time goes on, years they fly,

Then one day she just falls apart.

Lonely tears roll down her chin.

He cares enough to ask her, "Why?"

Can she trust him with what lies within?

Years of guilt, years of shame,

No matter how she dressed or what she wore

She carried all the blame

Just so Daddy would not call her Whore!

In that moment, day and time

She decided she must tell.

She stopped right there, stopped on a dime

To let go the years of her living Hell.

He wiped the tears from her chin

He felt her pain, ever so sad.

He said, "Now your life can really begin."

The shame she carried, thinking she was bad,

She could finally let go and let him in!

A Teenager's Story - Part II

by Tivona, Age 14

Click here to read Part I of Tivona's story.

My uncle, who sexually abused me, has "explained away" most of his actions with excuses. When approached about his inappropriate behaviors, he responded by being insulted and became extremely defensive. Although never acknowledging the abuse, he never once denied it either. His response to the police, and I quote, “If that’s what she said happened, then it must have happened. . . . I just don’t remember.”

During my short time in therapy, I have learned that pedophiles are like any other predator. They stalk and hunt children as their prey. Many predators, like mine, will spend weeks, months, and even years grooming their victims. They are calculating, manipulative, and very, very patient when it comes to achieving their goal. Molesters are charming. They get along with everyone and are usually popular. They can be upstanding members of the community and tend to present a perfect image. Like my uncle, they are “great guys” and “everybody’s friend.” They are charming and intimidate other adults into believing they are above reproach. Their behavior is a controlled public image–for I know all too well about their private behaviors.

My counselor says she has never met a “child molester she didn’t like.” Today, I wonder if he is capable of feeling, let alone harbors a conscience. And did he, in all those years of wonderful memories, ever really love me? Is he sorry for the destruction he has caused in all of our lives, even though he refuses to admit it? I'd like to know WHY? Why did he chose to cross that line of trust? And HOW? How could he show up year and year, event after event, just pretending, never showing how he was hurting me and how he had hurt my aunt and his granddaughter before me (those who chose to harbor that pain internally for years until I told).

How could he torture us all like that with his "games"? Yes, I know I will never get the answers that I want or deserve but I continue to silently wonder. . . . Like any other addict, when asked, he creates excuses for all around him to explain his behavior and he has placed the blame for his behavior solely on me (just like he said he would). He has made me lose faith in myself, all in an attempt to control me.

There are mornings when I wake up that I don’t recognize the “girl in the mirror.” I feel as if my spirit has been surgically extracted. There are days I act like a wounded animal: crying, attacking, and retreating. I am working to understand this is not my fault.

I ask for reassurance that my perpetrator was a liar when he said that I had control and could stop it anytime. I agonize over the line of appropriate touch at the same time my hormones are throwing me into that “time of my life.” I am filled with confusion, anger, and premature sexualization at a time when I’m already battling those issues.

Talk about the “straw that could break the camel’s back.” I struggle with the fact that my uncle made me feel as an accomplice in this whole lie. The pain is similar to jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. I mourn the loss of my relationship with my aunt. I have bad dreams; break into tears for no reason and battle anger–at my perpetrator and my extended family for letting this happen to me.

I can say: I take it day by day. Sometimes minute by minute. Sometimes I have to remember to breathe.I want consequences for my uncle’s behavior. Today, the reports have been filed, the secrets are out. So how can he be free to just roam about? Don’t I have the right to be Safe, Strong and Free? (Don’t so many other victims have that same right?)

The Prosecuting Attorney refuses to file charges because there were no witnesses and they can’t see my broken heart and soul. It’s his word against mine. Without formal charges, his name will NEVER be on a sexual predator list. Many others aren't either because only 1 in 16 offenders are actually prosecuted if you can believe that! And only 6% of those people will ever spend time in jail! Are your kids safe?

There has been no justice. Even after justice is served, this case will be over for those of you reading and those who have worked on my case, but for me and my family, this is still just the beginning–a new beginning, I hope, but a part of our lives we will never forget.

My advice to you? Educate your children. Set “rules.” We like rules and it’s easier to tell when a rule has been broken. Teach your children age-appropriate information about their bodies. Tell them it is OK to say “NO.” And, that it’s OK to break a promise they might make about sexual abuse.

Teach your children that a person who sexually abuses a child can be anyone and that they need to tell even when the offender is someone they like, love or even live with. Finally, let your child know that if sexual abuse happens to them, they are still a good person, they are still lovable and that you believe them and will love them no matter what!

Instead of just responding to the aftermath of abuse, why not focus on prevention? This is a widespread illness that requires new attitudes and change. I know that first-hand from my own experiences.

Child sexual abuse is an adult problem–the responsibility shouldn’t all be placed on us as children. Sometimes, even if we know it’s “OK and right” to tell, it is still hard for us to do. Please watch out for us. . . . Look for the signs and report them. . . . Education is a powerful tool–let’s use it! I am hoping that the America I grow up in will be better for my children.

A Teenager's Story - Part I

by Tivona, Guest Contributor

I’m not a famous author, model, or actor. I’m not Super Girl trying to save the world or Super Villain trying to destroy it. I’m not anyone special except to my family. I’m just an ordinary, fun loving, moody teenager. I’m just trying to grow up and live an average life like everyone else. I’m 14 and looking forward to high school.

Yet, there are days when I wake up and feel like I can’t relate to anyone else in the world. I want to be a ghost and disappear. . . . There are days I wish I weren’t here. During the day, I maintain A’s in school, I sing, draw in my journal, hang out online with my friends, and play the saxophone. I am an avid hunter and am a half back on my soccer team. Yet at night, when I crawl into my warm bed–surrounded by my soft blankets, my cats and more stuffed animals than you can count, I feel so alone. So isolated. Like no one else in the world knows how I’m feeling. It’s at this time that I have to deal with my own private monsters and demons.

In the dark, I feel like no one could understand me. I’m not worried about the typical teenage stuff because my life over the last four years hasn’t been really ordinary. It’s been conventional on the outside while pain and guilt raged on the inside. Quietly, I’ve suffered. How could I tell anyone that I was a victim of sexual assault? Who could I tell and who would believe me?

As the daughter of someone in law enforcement and the niece of an attorney, I have always been told, and led to believe, that if you do something wrong, you are punished. There are consequences for your behavior. Today, as I write you my story of sexual abuse at the hands of a loved one, my abuser is free to roam the streets of our town because the Prosecuting Attorney refuses to follow up on my claims of abuse.

I know it is hard to listen to these accusations. I know it is hard to comprehend that “this” person can do “these” things but there is a “silent epidemic” occurring in this country and it is harming those of us you have “sworn” to protect! Please take a minute to listen to our “cries for help.” They are not false or “made up.” They are very real. In some of our lives, there are truly monsters who hide “under our beds” and “in our closets” at night just waiting for the darkness so they can “attack.” We rely on you to help and we need you NOW more than ever!

I truly believe that society has the resources to put an end to this epidemic. At the very least, we can drastically reduce it. Why don’t we? Are we too afraid it can happen in our own homes and that’s scarier to acknowledge than believing it is the horrible monster we see on "Law and Order” that is causing this destruction? Perhaps you misread the statistics?

Talking about sexual abuse of children is crossing into frightening, unfamiliar territory for many people. We live in a very confusing society with hypocritical views on sex and sexuality. We are uncomfortable talking about sex, but we are willing to have it sold to us through songs, magazines, TV and advertisements.

I know that healing is a process, a journey. I know I will never forget the assaults and abuse but I hope to grow from this experience and I want to help others “escape” and grow too.

PLEASE JOIN ME AND USE YOUR VOICE TO HELP STOP THIS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY.

Child sexual assault is the world’s deepest, darkest, best-kept secret. How many are out there, I guess we will truly never know. I am asking, pleading with you to take a stand. Remind all those who choose to seek out the children, that their behavior will not be tolerated no matter who they are. I believe I did the right thing by finally “telling.” I truly hope that my openness can save other children. I told the police. I was open and honest, even though it was extremely embarrassing to retell my story to one stranger after another. I believed in the process of the justice system.

All I am asking is that the justice system “believes in me too!”

Here’s my story, it began in 1994: People talk about “Princesses.” Royalty really isn’t my thing– I enjoy the “supernatural”–vampires, really. Nevertheless, for years, I was truly a “Princess” in my family. The “first born” for both sides of extended family, I entered this world in grand fashion (an emergency C-section because I had stopped breathing). For my loved ones, I truly was a miracle and a blessing. I grew and thrived from the attention and you can truly say I was "spoiled rotten.”

So many camera flashes have gone off in my face over the years it’s amazing I am not blind. As an avid hunter, my grandfather had me appreciating nature as soon as I could walk and follow in his footsteps. Even my name, Tivona, means a “love for the outdoors." This man was my “hero.”

When I was 10 years old, my perfect, innocent “happily-ever-after-fairytale-princess” life and childhood began to crumble. That was the year my grandfather died. That was the year that my whole world began to shatter into small pieces and fall apart around me. It was at that time my uncle would also begin to “groom” me for his own sexual pleasures and means of “control.”

It began with slow rubs and touches and progressed from there. During this time, my uncle gradually eroded our appropriate adult-child boundaries, built a wall of secrecy around us and finally established compliance through my fear. Over the next three years, I was repeatedly reminded that this was “our little secret” and I mustn’t say a thing. He told me that I would be to blame if anyone discovered our secret little game. He repeatedly told me: “This would really hurt your mom if she knew” and he emphasized that he would go to jail if I told. Each time he said that, a part of me died.

I betrayed what I knew was the “right thing to do” because I was afraid “no one would believe me” and because I didn’t want my close knit family to fall apart. It just seemed easier to close my eyes, retreat to the darkness in my head and “go along” than upset anyone. My life became a fraud and a fiction.

Do you know how much energy is consumed to keep a secret hidden from ourselves and our families? As a family member, he had seduced us all. He had our devotion and love. He was trustworthy and “above reproach.” His popularity within our family covered behaviors that should never have been tolerated. He was a trusted friend and relative; a pillar of the community. He would never do anything “shady” or inappropriate. That is what he hoped everyone would believe if I ever told our “secret.”

By creating an untarnished image, he has convinced my beloved aunt and his children that he is innocent and that I am lying and trying to destroy his pristine image in our lives and our community.

Click here to read Part II of Tivona's story.