'Would You Believe...?' Why Being Truthful Matters

by Pat Brown

If you are somewhere in my age range, age 55, the phrase "Would you believe...?" will cause a grin to break out on your face because you know what silliness will follow.

Maxwell Smart, the bumbling secret agent of the long-running and well-loved television series, Get Smart, often repeated the phrase a couple times in a row when caught in a dire or embarrassing situation. To start, he would spin an outrageous grandiose lie which no one would think credible, then go on to "Would you believe... ?" ending in a slightly less ridiculous but still unbelievable scenario, and then a final, "Would you believe... ?" consisting of a completely silly bit of fiction which clearly acknowledged he knew no lie was going to work.

Captured and surrounded by 10 KAOS agents and informed by their leader, Siegfried, Smart's evil nemesis, that he was about to die, Max would tell them to lay down their weapons, because just outside the building were 50 government agents with machine guns and army tanks ready to attack and rescue him. Siegfried would look at Max, raise an eyebrow and say, "I don't believe you." Then Max would look chagrined and say, "Would you believe five security guards with stun guns?" to which Siegfried would respond, "I don't think so." Then Max would say, "Would you believe one Boy Scout with a peashooter?" The gag was a frequent joke in the series and never failed to get a laugh.

Not telling the truth and trying to fabricate a believable story often ends badly, even if the purpose is to avoid telling a painful or a damaging truth. The fact is, if the lie is exposed, trust is eroded. Even if the lie is intended to eventually do some good, and even if it does eventually do some good, there will remain a question as to whether one can trust that person or agency again in the future. If the lie is told because one simply doesn't have an answer and doesn't want to look stupid, when the truth comes out he will look like a bumbler or someone with an ego problem. Giving half-truths or bits of information with no supporting facts will also raise red flags as to the veracity of the information given, often leading to massive speculation about what is being hidden. Finally, making promises one does not know can be kept is a form of lying as well and leads to future distrust of anything that person or agency says from that point on.

There is only really one good option when it comes to answering questions: Tell the truth. Telling the truth can mean giving up everything one knows, or it can mean saying, "I don't know" if you don't know, or "I cannot release that information at this time" if doing so is damaging to a particular situation or person (and one should be able to explain why it is damaging).

Telling the truth can apply to personal relationships, police departments, and government agencies. A husband lies about having drinks with his buddies at the bar by saying he has to work late at the office. When his wife finds out he wasn't at the office, she immediately suspects he is having an affair. He isn't, but now he has proven to be a liar and untrustworthy and is going to pay for that lie for years to come. No police department should come out and say, "We are going to catch this man," when they have no idea if they will or not. I can't tell you how often I have cringed when I see a sheriff or police chief stand behind the podium at a press conference and make this claim, especially in a serial killer case (which is the most difficult of all cases to solve). A good portion of the time no one is arrested and the department looks like a bunch of blowhards or incompetents. Wouldn't it have been better to say, "We are going to put forth our best effort to identify the killer and get him off the streets." You can't go wrong with a statement like that.

In the case of missing Holly Bobo down in Tennessee, which I wrote about in my last post, we see law enforcement tossing out a dozen statements that make no sense and refusing to explain why they are doing so. First we hear the family members have been cleared, and then that no one has been cleared. One can't have it both ways; one of these statements is a lie.

At one point, the public was told Holly was dragged from her house, and later it was stated she was walked away from her house. One of these statements is not true; which one? Then, to further erode one's trust in what law enforcement is telling the citizens or that they are competent, it is stated that "Holly was in fear of her life as she was led away." How would anyone know this if they did not see her terrified face and tears running down her cheeks? Someone is making stuff up and it is not inspiring confidence that the case is being handled properly.

And, just in the last few days, we see many Americans questioning the veracity of the President of the United States and its agencies because President Obama and the spokespersons for various government organizations have released conflicting facts about the raid that allegedly killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Now, I am not pointing out the following issues to encourage conspiracy theories, nor am I trying to bash the President; we have seen similar behaviors in other administrations. But, I want to point out the damage caused by not telling the truth or not supporting the facts with anything verifiable. Yes, I know, one can question anything ad nauseum, but there are mistakes our government agencies should not make lest one wants to be accused of a cover-up or incompetence.

The first mistake came quite quickly after the raid went down. We heard that there was a forty-minute firefight at a compound in Abottabad, Pakistan, and I pictured Osama's men on the roof and behind the walls with AK-47, guards leaping to their feet to fight the highly trained SEALS and losing to their surprise attack. I could see Osama, hearing the cacophony outside his bedroom walls, grabbing his own weapon and shooting at the first of our men who burst through his door. If Osama bin Laden was in that house and in that kind of a fight, I could see why he got killed.

Then, we hear, well, not so much of a fight. In fact, "Would you believe..." there was one man outside with a gun and Osama was reaching for a weapon? Maybe, but, now I kind of wonder if we will ever hear the real story because no evidence of the event is going to be released, so we are told.

No problem. You say the SEALS killed Osama that night. I am sure his body is being brought back to the United States and analyzed by experts, viewed by those who would know the man, and the photographs and scientific tests will settle the issue. Oh, no, that is not going to happen because his body has been secretly buried at sea. This is like telling the police all those flat-screen televisions you have stacked in the garage didn't "fall off a truck" but were bought, except you lost all the records of your transactions.

But, no matter, we have the DNA of Osama matching to a near 100-percent level of proof. The DNA is purported to come from a half-sister-who-has-no-name who reportedly died of brain cancer at a Boston hospital. Well, Osama has a football stadium of half-sisters and only one half-sister from whom the DNA would be of any use at all, the only half-sister with whom he shares a mother. We are not being told if this is the half-sister who died in Boston or even if that half-sister is even dead. Complicating this matter is the scientific fact that even DNA from this half-sister doesn't prove Osama bin Laden was the man who died in the raid in Pakistan, only that it was a bin Laden of that particular maternal lineage.

Whew! Now my head is spinning. Then to make matters worse, President Obama comes out on "60 Minutes" to tell us that there was only a 55/45 probability that Osama bin Laden was in the targeted compound and he was sweating bullets that the US wasn't storming the home of a prince from Dubai! Are you off your rocker, Mr. President, making a statement like that? Are you telling the American public that you had no substantial proof Osama was inside the home but you were willing to kill totally innocent people in another country on the off chance Osama might be there? What kind of military operation would we be running to do that kind of thing? Can you imagine the police invading your home, killing half your family because they heard a gang leader might be visiting there but really were only going on a rumor? It would have been a much better story (hopefully, a truthful story) that intelligence was of 100-percent certainty that this was an Al Qaeda hideout and was worth attacking; if Osama isn't there, we still got bad guys, and, if he was, we got a big bonus! This story would have made me pretty happy.

But the whole convoluted story given by our President is extremely concerning. Either you had the intelligence to storm the compound or you didn't. Obama is saying we didn't and yet we did. Something doesn't ring of the truth here, and this is why some are going crazy trying to figure out what the truth actually is. Some think Osama wasn't in there and they are just saying that to cover a bungled operation and get the glory of killing Osama bin Laden. Others argue this is ludicrous because if Osama is still alive, this would be the height of stupidity; if he shows up tomorrow with a newspaper in front of him speaking in a video, wouldn't the administration be in a bad way. I agree, Osama, is dead.

The other theory is that Osama has been dead for almost a decade of kidney failure and Al Qaeda knew it and kept quiet to keep the threat of him out there and the United States knew it and kept quiet for the same reason. Then, when a bin Laden (or some Osama look-alike) was killed in the raid, the administration took the opportunity to spin it as Osama has been finally found and taken care of. I find this a more plausible scenario. However, if Osama was alive and living anywhere, Pakistan was an excellent choice considering their history--at least that of the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency --which has in the past been accused of harboring other terrorists and gangsters such as Dawood Ibrahim (pictured left), a mob kingpin from India connected to Osama and numerous terrorist attacks.

In reality, we will probably never know the truth of exactly what happened and the delay and sketchiness of the evidence being presented to prove the dead man dumped in the ocean was bin Laden will never satisfy many. In my opinion, this was a bad mistake by our President and our agencies. I believe if Osama was there, he should have been captured and tried, or, if there was no way to avoid killing him, the burial--wherever it eventually would be, on land or at sea--should have been delayed until identification was unquestionably completed and thoroughly attained. Finally, Obama should have said only what was necessary until he could be sure that what he said was the absolute truth and he had the facts to back it.

I look forward to your thoughts on speaking the truth and presenting only facts, and, please, let's not get political about this. Telling lies and twisting truths and hiding facts is a human quality, not a party-related trait.

Tweet

Get Ready for the New Year

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

I am writing this from the front porch of a cottage in beautiful Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. We've been fortunate to have three days of gorgeous sunny weather. I've ridden bikes, walked the beach, been kayaking on a lake, and rested. Rest is not something I ever get enough of and it's a luxury. It's been easy to put the anxieties and traumas of 2008 aside and just be in the moment.

I must admit I am dreading the ten-hour car ride back home to Houston with four children and luggage crammed into two back seats. Fortunately we left the exuberant black lab at home with good-natured friends. We hope they are still good natured—and still our friends—when we retrieve her. And I am praying that the good time we all had in Shangri-la will make our drive home a little kinder and gentler than the trip here.

As I think back on 2008 with some perspective I can see it's been a hard year. We've all suffered from the economic roller coaster, though I am grateful that I am one of those that have been least affected by the chaos. I have never been rich, so I haven't had much to lose. I am not retiring tomorrow so hopefully my 401K will have a chance to rebound. I have a good career and I am my own boss so I know I won't be fired as the company downsizes. It is difficult though to watch parents or neighbors or friends suffer with the uncertainty and fear about their financial futures.

Houston was hit by Hurricane Ike, and I realized a VERY little bit what those of New Orleans must have struggled with after Katrina. I was only without power for eight days but those eight days felt like a ring of hell. I can't even imagine what it must feel like to have lost your home (though some of my friends and patients did) or loved ones. Houston is still struggling to recover normalcy and Galveston will never be the same.

I know that many of us feel disoriented and confused by these times. I hear it from patients in my office every day. Our houses used to be worth more than we bought them for, and we could imagine buying something bigger and better when we decided to sell. Vacation plans were extravagant and credit seemed endless. If I wanted to go on a biking trip to Italy, then I could put it on a credit card and know that there was more where that came from. Having more and more seemed to be the goal and we could all feel good that we were prospering. Then the sense of endless attainment fell apart and the rules changed.

As I face into 2009, what do I see? I see hope. There is hope that with a new administration real change will happen. Common sense will prevail and we will scale back to a more reasonable economic climate. Poor Barack Obama. Whether you voted for him or not, you have to feel compassion for the man who is taking over our country at one of the worst of times, and feel hopeful that he can accomplish even some of the changes he envisions.

I feel hopeful that the stock market will recover, and my retirement fund will regain some of what it lost. I am hopeful that eventually falling housing prices will allow those who could never own a home to enter the market. And I truly hope that the middle class will prosper and we will be a country with a middle class again; not just a country of the rich and the poor.

And then I have those dreams I've had for a long time. Dreams that there will be no poverty, child abuse, domestic violence, or mothers who kill their children because of treatable mental illness. I wish for the abolition of the death penalty, and a change in our penal system from one of harsh punishment to a focus on rehabilitation. I hope that everyone who wants a job can find one, and that children are loved and cared for by their parents.

Yep, you have now pegged me as a liberal, soft-hearted, fool. Some of you may be thinking worse of me. But in the job I do, sitting with those who have suffered loss, trauma, and pain, I have to believe that good things can arise from hard times. And it is our humanity that allows us to take hardship and learn from it to make our lives better, more fulfilled, and more human. Without that belief and that hope, we should all give up and go home because none of us are fortunate enough to be spared pain.

So I am looking forward to 2009 with hope for better things to come. I am grateful to be part of this great group of intelligent and accomplished women who write for this blog. Although we don't always agree with each other (I'm waiting for my anti death penalty comment to take some heat), we all like and respect each others' knowledge and accomplishments. How much fun it is to be included.

As I shut this down for the night and get ready to post, I wish all of our bloggers and readers many blessings and good things for the new year. Please wish for me safe travels, quiet children, limited bathroom stops, and a dog who is welcome back at our friends' house.

Peace.

Tweet

Growing up with the Secret Service

by Diane Dimond

They’ve already had a taste of Secret Service protection during the 21 months of the long campaign. But as the old seventies song says, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

I dialed up a pal of mine the other day, Scott Alswang, a retired Special Agent with the Secret Service. From 1984 to 2004, he guarded all the Presidents, from Regan to “W” and almost all of the foreign heads of state who visited them in between. Alswang walked me through what the two Obama girls can expect.

First, they’ve already gotten their new monikers. You know, those pithy code names Secret Service agents use when they refer to those they protect? Ten-year-old Malia Obama’s shortcut name is Radiance. Seven-year-old Sasha will be referred to as Rosebud. (By the way the new President is Renegade, First Lady Michelle is Renaissance.)

Before they go to their first day in their new school the Secret Service will have run background checks on the school’s staff and maybe some of the students and their families. Agents will accompany the girls to and from campus everyday. They may, depending on space, set up a small command center inside the building. If not, they’ll set one up outside. They may tap into the school’s closed-circuit camera system if there is one.

How many agents will be assigned to the girls? “The appropriate number to get the job done,” according to my still secretive friend, Agent Alswang.

When Malia and Sasha want to have new friends over to the White House to play, those friends and their families will probably have undergone a discreet background check. And on the actual day of the play date . . . what happens when the child arrives? As Agent Alswang put it, “No one gets inside the White House without passing through a name check and a magnetometer.”

What if the two Obama daughters (pictured right) want to go on a typical sleepover at a friend’s house? You guessed it. The Secret Service will go too. Agents will conduct a site survey ahead of time and figure out where in the house the children might spend time. Escape routes will be devised just in case. The agents will either stay outside in a command vehicle or if there’s room they’ll set up inside the house.

“We’re not there to intrude on others' privacy,” Alswang told me. But the Secret Service protection duties are three-fold. “Observe and sound off, that is, yell ‘GUN’ or whatever the threat is. Cover the protected person and evacuate them from the problem area.”

If President Obama wins a second 4-year-term, the girls will be of prime dating age. Then what happens with his daughters? Answer: There won’t be a hand held, a first kiss or a high school dance that the Secret Service won’t attend.

The agents do try to be unobtrusive. If they have to protect someone at a school dance, for example, they’ll show up in formal wear and try to blend in. But, come on – how many prom-goers wear squiggly ear pieces and talk into their shirt cuffs?

I had to ask Agent Alswang what might happen if the Obama girls misbehave as the Bush twins, Barbara and Jenna, did when they were caught drinking at age 19? That 2001 incident at a Tex-Mex bar in Austin resulted in the twins being slapped with misdemeanor charges.

Does the Secret Service discipline presidential children? Do they tattle to the parents if the kids act out in a major way?

Alswang says agents always try to “bring some common sense to the situation but if it’s bad enough” they might have to resort to telling the First Parents. And, he told me, “It goes the other way too. . . . The Bush girls tattled on the agents they thought were too aggressive, especially in the beginning.” He says Jenna and Barbara’s Dad was “always happy to get the complaints. He knew we were doing the job.”

It is tradition at the end of an Agent’s lengthy assignment to the First Family to get a personal send off from the President and First Lady. When the detail around the twins (pictured left) finally rotated out after a long tour, the President is reported to have called them in and said, "Laura and I would like to thank you for letting us sleep every night while you were up every night watching the girls. I’m trying to figure out a way to award you the Medal of Freedom!”

Welcome to Washington, Malia and Sasha . . . have a great childhood!

Bonus: Get ready to wow your friends with your knowledge of Presidential Trivia!

Used to be that Secret Service radio communications could not be encrypted. And because agents worried about eavesdroppers, they used code words over the radio to talk about the President and his family as they moved from location to location. That subterfuge is no longer needed but the tradition of giving pithy monikers to the First Family stuck.

Did you know these nicknames? I knew President Ronald Reagan was "Rawhide," but most of the rest were news to me:

President-elect Barack Obama: Renegade

Michelle Obama: Renaissance

Malia Obama: Radiance

Sasha Obama: Rosebud

Vice President-elect Joe Biden: Celtic

Jill Biden: Capri

President George W. Bush: Tumbler

First Lady Laura Bush: Tempo

Bill Clinton: Eagle

Hillary Clinton: Evergreen

Chelsea Clinton: Energy

George Bush: Timberwolf

Barbara Bush: Tranquility

Jimmy Carter: Deacon

Rosalynn Carter: Dancer

Amy Carter: Dynamo

Ronald Reagan: Rawhide

Nancy Reagan: Rainbow

Gerald Ford: Passkey

Betty Ford: Pinafore

Richard Nixon: Searchlight

Pat Nixon: Starlight

Lyndon Johnson: Volunteer

Lady Bird Johnson: Victoria

Lynda Bird Johnson: Velvet

Luci Baines Johnson: Venus

John F. Kennedy: Lancer

Jacqueline Kennedy: Lace

Caroline Kennedy: Lyric

John F. Kennedy Jr.: Lark

Dwight Eisenhower: Providence

Harry Truman: General

Ted Kennedy (during 1970 campaign): Sunburn

Kitty Dukakis: Panda

Scott McClellan: Matrix

Tweet

Candidates and Crime

by Diane Dimond

When you go into the voting booth today to cast your ballot for the next President of the United States, ask yourself why neither of the nominees is talking about crime in America.

Maybe I have a one track mind – crime – but why is it that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have made even the tiniest mention of what all of us worry about on a daily basis?

Will the kids get to and from school okay? Will that far-away parking space prove to be dangerous when you go back to your car late at night? Has your late-for-curfew teenager been the victim of some random criminal act? Is it safe for your spouse to work that overnight shift?

Yes, yes – I know, there are many pressing issues facing America like national defense, the economy, and health care. But this campaign has gone on forever and I haven't heard either candidate say what they plan to do to make me feel safer. Where's the anti-crime bill proposal to go along with their ideas to wrap up in Iraq or fix the housing market?

Earlier this year a stunning report from the Pew Center for the States concluded 1 in every 100 American adults is now behind bars. In total more than 2 million people are currently incarcerated in America costing states and the federal government (read that: you and me) combined billions – yes, BILLIONS - of dollars every year.

How bad does it have to get, how much higher will those numbers go before our leaders start addressing this thing that plagues and drains us all?

The mainstream media, of which I was a part for many years including coverage of several presidential campaigns, has lost its way somehow. They've forgotten to pepper the candidates with questions about issues that cause voters daily distress. They've forgotten to dig hard for substantive answers. They've forgotten to ask either McCain or Obama what they plan to do about those among us who prey on others – from hardened criminals to corporate bad guys.

Think of the way we're forced to live our lives now. We're consumed with working enough hours to pay our mounting bills, including ever-rising burdensome tax bills. We fret about the possibility of violent crime, white-collar crime, auto theft, child molesting, home invasion, elder abuse, identity theft – the list is long. Among the items we think we must buy are home security systems, car alarms, insurance policies, and cell phones for each of our children, just in case something awful happens and they need to call us. We design our daily routines around regular calls to the vulnerable senior citizens in our lives, we shell out money for expensive security for our small businesses, and we pay more in school tuition to make sure the children are safer.

It's as though there's a built in anti-crime tax to everything we do.

Is this OK with you? Is this the way you want to spend your money? Well, steel yourself because things could get worse.

A recent report by Third Way, a liberal think tank based in Washington DC, concludes there is an upcoming convergence of events that will make our modern day worries about crime seem miniscule. Among the dangerous trends ahead?

First, a huge number of baby boomer convicts are set to be released from prison in the next five years. Let's hope their rehabilitation and re-training sticks - but don't count on it.

In addition, as our economy tanks, there is a bloated group of young people entering their so-called "high crime years."

The report also states that organized criminal gangs are recruiting illegal aliens like there's no tomorrow.

Finally, the Internet is increasingly being used for criminal enterprise and the Third Way report concludes more criminals will certainly be using it in the future.

Yet the candidates don't seem to see the road ahead. The reporters who dog the candidates all day long never shout out any questions about crime. This is strange to me.

About a year ago, the firm Cooper & Secrest Associates released a study that asked Americans which threat they took more seriously: international terrorism or home-grown violent crime. Sixty-nine percent said they worry more about what's directly outside their front door. Only 19% worried about another terrorist attack.

Yeah, I guess I have a one-track mind. I've written about this in the past and I will continue to write about why our leaders don't put crime prevention on the front burner. Criminals have reached their slimy tentacles into nearly all aspects of our lives. I want to know how the occupant of the White House plans to address the national security situation right here at home.

Tweet

Economy and Crime Go Together Like Peas and Carrots

by Robin Sax

November 4 is creeping up on us, and in 47 days voters will elect the next leader of the United States. Who will it be? Barack Obama or John McCain?

Both candidates say they offer change, both tickets recognize our country is need of a serious overhaul, both think they are the one to run our country. When you look through elections past, crime, abortion, gun control was a key issue, along with the economy. Now according to the latest Gallup Poll (September 17), the “Top voter issue this year is the economy, gas prices, Iraq, healthcare, and terrorism.” So, what does this have to do with crime?

As I mentioned in my previous post, neither candidate is going to say he is soft on crime. And the true differences that we can glean from voting records may be minor in the grand scheme of things, with the major differences (based on their prior voting records) between the candidates being:

Gun Laws

John McCain: No gun restrictions for law-abiding citizens

Barack Obama: Some restrictions on certain guns

Death Penalty

John McCain: Keep death penalty as it exists

Barack Obama: Supports death penalty in certain circumstances

Drug Laws

John McCain: Tough drug sentencing, except for first-time offenders; no medical marijuana

Barack Obama: Ease some drug sentencing requirements; undecided on medical marijuana

National Security

John McCain: Increase border security before other reforms

Barack Obama: Increase border security, including fencing

Punishment

John McCain: Increased penalties and stiffer sentencing

Barack Obama: No extra punishment for gang association

The bigger difference, however, the bigger unknown and potentially the most significant way crime can be affected is in how the candidates will “change” the economy. Face it, people, the economy is in trouble! It’s been a gloomy week here in the United States and it’s only going to get gloomier until one of our change-minded future leaders can actually do something about it!

Crime is affected by the economy. In 2002, according to a report in USA TODAY, “major crimes increased slightly in the first half of 2002, with modest spikes in murder, burglary and car theft.” At the time, the numbers represented the second consecutive year in which crime rose. Analysts believe the trend is being driven primarily by a faltering economy.

So how does a faltering economy contribute to crime?

1. Financial desperation and unemployment lead people to turn to illegal ways to make money, including burglary, robbery, and other theft-related crimes.

2. Unemployed people have more time to commit crime.

3. People have less means to purchase medications (like anti-psychotics or anti-depressants) that may help control behavior.

4. People who lose their homes and are already being supervised by courts or similar government agencies are less likely to stay in touch with probation, police departments, and social services departments to ensure that they are maintaining their responsibilities and obligations. Less supervision = less accountability.

5. City and county budgets are affected, as there are increased layoffs and hiring freezes of law enforcement personnel.

6. Drug use increases in tough economic times, thus leading to more violent crimes as people become more desperate to get drugs and money.

7. Poor economic times lead to more family strife, thus increasing incidents of domestic abuse and child abuse.

8. Neighborhoods decline, and with lack of upkeep fewer people take pride in where they live, thus bringing crime into their own neighborhoods.

9. Teen pregnancies increase when the economy is weak. This leads to more children growing up in poverty.

Though economists and social scientists may take issue as to what effect the economy truly has on crime, the statistics are very telling. The bottom line is that a sustained weak economy leads to unemployment, loss of homes, and greater crime. And if you don’t believe me, look at the decreased crime that occurred during the economic surge that occurred for almost a decade in the 1990’s—the Clinton years.

So in order to really evaluate the nominees on crime, you need to take a peek at their stances on the economy. There’s no better time to see what the candidates have in store for us than this week when the financial markets have wrought havoc, caused chaos, and have many people wondering if their money is really safe.

So what did the candidates say? Both said that we are in crisis. We need to do something. We need change. And what exactly is that I ask, Senators? I have been trying to figure that out all week, as neither White House hopeful offered any fresh ideas for turning things around. Instead each relied on the same vague, though vastly different, pitches they have offered over the past few months for fixing what ails the country.

Probably the best summary of their positions was written by Liz Sodti of the Associated Press in noting the key differences between the candidates: “In line with historical positions of Democrats and Republicans, Obama generally supports stronger consumer protections, better regulatory oversight and more government intervention, while McCain broadly prefers a market system of less federal involvement and red tape."

Both advocate tax cuts, though to different degrees and toward different ends. Obama seeks to cut into inequality between rich and poor by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and giving breaks to the middle class and lower-income people. McCain wants to spur the economy and create jobs by keeping tax rates low for higher-income taxpayers and slashing rates for corporations.

Which approach do you prefer? That’s one thing to ask yourself when you’re contemplating who you want to see in the White House.

POSTS BY ROBIN SAX DO NOT REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THIS POST AND OTHERS ARE THE PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE OF ROBIN SAX AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Tweet

Mystery Man - Bill Clutter

by Bill Clutter

In June of 2000, I was contacted by an attorney. The lawyer explained that she represented a woman who was the target of an upcoming grand jury "investigation." Her client, Julie Rea-Harper, was a graduate student and Ph.D. candidate at Indiana University. Julie had already lost her child, and now her life was threatened.

Convinced that Julie had murdered her 10-year-old son Joel, prosecutors were planning to seek the death penalty.

For three years, the case of the Joel's death had gone unsolved, but the local sheriff and Julie’s ex-husband singled her out as the only suspect. The crime happened in Lawrenceville, a small town in southern Illinois on the Indiana border.

Julie (pictured below with Joel) described being awakened at 4 a.m. by her son’s scream. She went into Joel’s room, she said, where she was beaten by the man who broke into her home and stabbed her child to death using a knife from the kitchen butcher block. She described him having a “jerky” gait as he fled.

After hearing the news of Joel’s murder that morning, a citizen of Lawrenceville rushed down to the Sheriff’s office to report he had seen a “drifter” in town who was at a local diner. The stranger had made disturbing comments to his eleven-year-old son. “I think I saw your suspect,” he told the Sheriff. The citizen described the drifter as having “real jerky” movements when he walked. But the Sheriff told the witness that he was busy with a murder investigation and disregarded the information. The Sheriff did not even take the time to write a report.

The case of Julie Rea Harper is classic tunnel vision—when police are so locked in on one suspect, in this case, the mother, that they totally disregard other evidence that may lead them to someone else. This crime, after all, happened at the very time when Boulder, Colorado police were pointing the finger at the parents of JonBenet Ramsey. We now know there was compelling evidence that an intruder committed that crime.

Julie’s attorney had been referred to me because she was in need of a private investigator with experience in capital and criminal defense. She had been informed about a new program in Illinois called the Capital Litigation Trust Fund that just went into effect. The Fund was created after private investigator Paul Ciolino uncovered evidence that exonerated Anthony Porter, who was at one time 48 hours away from execution.

Hearing the details of Julie’s description of the assailant, I told her attorney about a drifter by the name of Tommy Lynn Sells who was facing capital murder charges in Texas for killing a child after he broke into a home at 4 a.m.--his M.O. in many other crimes. I told her that Sells would be the starting point of my defense investigation. Sells was known to travel and commit murders in Southern Illinois.

A few months after this conversation, Julie was indicted by a special prosecutor, charged with a capital offense. Julie by this time was unrepresented by counsel because her Indiana attorney was not licensed to practice law in Illinois. So Julie filed a pro se motion requesting the appointment of two capital-qualified attorneys, citing new Supreme Court rules that require the appointment of two attorneys, well qualified and experienced in criminal defense, to represent anyone facing the death penalty.

Prosecutors responded by declaring that they no longer wanted the death penalty—not because they opposed capital punishment—but because their decision made it more likely that they could win a conviction. Prosecutors were willing to abandon their intent on taking Julie’s life because it made the odds of taking her liberty more likely.

Their decision meant that Julie would not have equal protection under the law. State funding that was designed to hire experts, such as my services as a private investigator, were no longer available to her. Two years later, Julie’s family contacted the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project to request our assistance. Our Project was just beginning, and depended on private donors. We had no State funding. Julie had been convicted of Joel’s murder by a jury in Fairfield County.

Although there was no direct evidence she committed the murder, her ex-husband and chief accuser gave testimony that Julie once entertained the idea of having an abortion upon hearing news that she was pregnant with Joel. It was an allegation that should never have been allowed to influence the jury’s decision, and one that Julie vigorously denied. The daughter of a Methodist minister, she was opposed to abortion based on her religious beliefs. However, her attorney did not resist or refute the testimony of her ex. The impact of this emotionally charged testimony on the jury was unfairly prejudicial. The effect it had on the jury is best demonstrated by examining the election results of the 2004 senate race between two African-American candidates: Barack Obama and Alan Keyes. A single-issue candidate, Keyes' one difference was his opposition to abortion. Keyes won Fairfield County with 72% of the popular vote--by the same margin Obama carried the entire state.

Within a year of being convicted, true-crime author Diane Fanning published a book detailing the crimes of child serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells (pictured right). In the book, Sells described killing a boy in southern Illinois after he was released from prison in 1997, as well as his struggle to get away from the child’s mother. The details of his confession mirrored the facts of Joel’s murder.

It was the investigation of our Project that corroborated Sells' confession, leading Texas Rangers to conclude that Sells’ confession was genuine. One would have expected prosecutors and police in Illinois to seek justice when presented with evidence exonerating Julie. But they persisted in trying her again after the appellate court reversed her conviction. This time, with the presentation of the new evidence, she was granted a fair trial. Julie-Rea Harper was acquitted.

In the twenty plus years I have worked as a criminal defense investigator, the greatest satisfaction is being able to witness an innocent client walk out of prison. That satisfaction overcomes the despair one feels in the years of working on these cases, when the word justice seems at odds with what is happening to your client.

Tweet

CLINTON v. OBAMA and McCAIN, TOO: Where Do They Stand On Crime?

by Robin Sax

Decision 2008 consumes television 24/7. From CNN to FOX to Comedy Central, it’s all election all the time. It is not the typical Republican vs. Democrat or Democrat vs. Republican mudslinging (at least not yet). For now it is all about who is going to take the Democratic party. Will it be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Who will take on the Republicans? Who can beat John McCain?

Who knew that the primaries could be so exciting? It’s no wonder that the talking heads are talking their heads off. This is big stuff. It’s bigger than political parties. It’s bigger than gender, it’s bigger than race. It’s all of it in one election and then some. Will our country continue to break new ground in creating political history?

For most Americans, crime is a key issue. And no wonder. This is the day of missing (and dead) co-eds, cops who kill girlfriends and wives, students who shoot on college campuses, moms who drown their kids, and Internet sex scandals to name just a few. And if it were not for these elections these crime stories are what the pundits would be pontificating about.

So, what is Barack’s stance on crime? What is Hillary’s platform? Just how conservative is John McCain? I, myself, had no clue until I began writing this article. I could tell you their differences on the economy, health care, the war, and immigration, but have not heard a thing about crime.

Granted, crime is not usually the defining issue in the primaries. But with the election in only 223 days wouldn’t you like to know what your candidate thinks about gun control, sex offenders, Three Strikes, juvenile crimes, drugs, defendant’s rights, and gangs? I certainly would. For now we are supposed to be satiated with a few throwaway sound bites. And why do we have to wait until it’s McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton, to know which candidate wants to take a bite out of crime?

Clinton has been described as more prosecution oriented and leans toward more law and order than her counterpart Obama. According to Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle, “The two differ on crime-related issues that have a lower profile but affect many thousands of prisoners, most of them minorities - the disparity between sentences for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine, and the merits of federal mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. On both, Clinton lines up with the prosecution, Obama with the defense.” Interestingly, both favor capital punishment, in certain circumstances.

So here’s where they stand on crime:

ISSUE	CLINTON	OBAMA	MCCAIN
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT	Supports death penalty but has tilted her campaign to focus on Innocence Protection Act to divert attention away from her support of capital punishment by legislating that all people executed would participate in DNA testing.	Believes death penalty does little to deter crime, but there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--that warrant it. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated.	Supports the most broadened use of the death penalty. Has voted “YES” to limit death penalty appeals.
GUN CONTROL	Supports sensible gun control legislation. In her words: “We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.”	Respects 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. In 2000, co-sponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.	Believes that the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. “We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens," he said. "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law- abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.”
DRUGS	Favors a distinction between crack and powder cocaine in order to minimize racist impact of current laws. No retroactive application.	Favors a lower sentencing guideline for crack-related crimes, and bring them closer to sentences for powder cocaine. Favors applying the new terms retroactively to current prisoners. Wants to establish a DEA office in New Orleans to stop drugs along that region.	Wants to increase penalties for selling drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts. He said the Clinton administration was “AWOL on the war on drugs” and he would push for more money and military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.
REPEAT OFFENDER SENTENCING	Believes mandatory sentencing is too widely used. Thinks we need more diversion programs. But supports "Three Strikes" laws, particularly for violent offenders.	Seeks to promote fairness in the criminal justice system. Wants to ban racial profiling, eliminate disparities in criminal sentencing.	Stricter sentencing for repeat and violent offenders.
GANGS	Hillary was one of 44 Democrats who voted for the anti-gang bill—increased penalty for gang association.	Voted against anti-gang bill due to concern about racist effects of its use. Therefore, no extra penalty for gang association.	Supports programs that provide job training and placement services for at-risk youth.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS	Spend more money on programs to help identify and work with “at risk” kids. Need more hotlines and workers to identify early warning signs for homicidal or suicidal kids.	Wants to provide funding for military-style "boot camps" for first-time juvenile felons.	Supports prosecuting more children as adults who commit violent crimes. Believes in increased penalties for crimes committed on school grounds. Believes in prosecuting youths accused (unless extremely young) of a felony as adults.
HATE CRIMES	Clinton sponsored the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Under this act the government would provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any violent crime that is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or is a violation of hate crime laws.	Wants to strengthen the enforcement of hate crimes legislation.	McCain agrees that funding should be increased for community policing programs. “Increases should be implemented with state and local government commitments,” he says. With regard to “hate crimes”: “All but 13 states have hate crimes statutes. Federalizing all such crimes will simply obstruct justice by forcing them into clogged federal courts.”
SEX CRIMES	Favors a national coordinated effort of the Amber Alert. Supports stricter sentences for sex offenders.	Supported bills with greater restrictions on sex offenders.	McCain sponsored the Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act Establish a national database at the FBI to track each person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or a sexually violent offense; or is a sexually violent predator.
DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS	Mandatory sentencing has been too widely used. Clinton says: “We have to do all of these things:  We do have to go after racial profiling. I've supported legislation to try to tackle that.  We have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.  We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.”	Believes in legislation to videotape defendant interrogations and confessions. Wants to recruit more and better public defenders by initiating loan forgiveness programs	Supports programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released. Supports programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment.

So, what does this mean? If crime is YOUR one and only issue, then McCain is your man, but not by much. Neither Clinton nor Obama are soft on crime. But in the end, as a fellow blogger Jeralyn on Talk Left said, “To say Obama is more progressive on crime issues or that he takes the defense line while Hillary toes the prosecution line, is not accurate. Neither one is particularly progressive or defense oriented. Their minor differences are just that, minor.” The ultimate question is, will any of the nominees turn into a president that will pave the way as a leader in crime and punishment? That, ladies and gentleman, remains to be seen.

*Update: See Cynthia Hunt's post on Republican V.P. nominee Sarah Palin's stance on crime: http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/09/republicans-rock-star-barracuda-cut-her.html

Tweet

All is Fair in Love, War, and Politics . . . including Murder

by Pat Brown

On that fateful day of March in 44 B.C., Julius Caesar, the Roman "dictator for life," met his stunning demise: assassination by just about every one of his colleagues. Every one, that is, except Mark Antony, his right-hand man. Antony was outside the Senate building involved in a “long enough” conversation. It is said that the conspirators purposely distracted Antony so that he would not take his seat next to Caesar and thereby interfere with the assassination.

I guess it was possible for sixty men to plot against Caesar without Antony getting wind of it. (It is said Caesar heard rumors but because his health was not all that good, he simply didn’t care to fight back – a form of suicide by “closing one’s eyes to danger.”) Perhaps it was true Caesar did not care much for his life at that point--he was fifty-eight--but if Caesar knew something of the plot and ignored the rumblings out of exhaustion or arrogance, then it is hard to believe that Mark Antony was totally in the dark about the conspiracy. It is a stretch to believe Antony would blithely allow himself to be chatted up by Caesar’s guard whilst the leader of the country was being stabbed to death just a few yards away.

Not much has changed in 2000 years. One cannot necessarily take what one sees and hears at face value. As I sat watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the course of the recent months, I noted how they trade barbs and then compliments and then barbs and then more compliments. I thought how superficial were both the positive and negative comments, that neither carried any definitive level of “truth,” and as soon as one of these candidates wins the Democratic nomination, we will see a new and total “respect” surface between Clinton and Obama as one assumes the role of Presidential candidate and the other is selected as his or her running mate. But just because they become running mates does not mean the one who ends up as Vice President on the Democratic ticket might not wish the presidential candidate to disappear from the picture at some point in time.

Politics attracts egomaniacs who want to win at all costs and, quite often, any appearance of humility or cooperation is merely a requirement of survival rather than any real sense of decency or fairness. In other words, actions speak louder than words. When someone is back stabbed, or as happened on the 15th of March that day in Rome - truly stabbed in the back (and just about every other part of the body), we may not get clarity as to the true motive behind the crime without doing a bit of serious analysis of previous behaviors of those involved, especially when it comes to achieving their desires in life. In analyzing the murder of Julius Caesar, we should ask, “Who truly had the most to gain by his death and whose behavior raises red flags?” The answer is, unquestionably, Mark Antony.

While many might gain something from Caesar’s death, two men had quite a bit more to gain: the very young Octavian, nephew to Caesar, who was to inherit his fortune and his position (but prior to death of Caesar even Octavian had no inkling he was to be his heir), and, Caesar's top general, Mark Antony, who may well have thought he himself would inherit Caesar’s fortune and position. Mark Antony was at that age of now or never, a man just over the age of forty, and if Caesar lived, then Antony was doomed to a subservient role for the rest of his life. Every year that ticked by would increase Octavian’s age, power, and relationship with Caesar while Antony would steadily continue to lose more and more ground as he aged.

So, there Mark Antony stood while Caesar was being stabbed to death, an "innocent man unaware of what was happening inside the Senate building." When the deed was done, Antony gave an impassioned speech on the terrible loss of Rome’s great leader and then he hurried on to have Caesar’s will read.

What a shock it must have been when Antony heard Octavian’s name read and watched as “his” country was effectively handed over to that hardly-of-age upstart! No doubt Octavian knew Mark Antony was not terribly happy over this turn of events, and, if Antony was not nearly so ignorant of the plot to kill Caesar, he would always be a threat to Octavian.

Sure enough, Octavian and Antony eventually had their showdown. Rome was doomed to get its "king"; it just remained to be seen which one would be left standing alone. In the end, it was Octavian.

Will there be an Ides of March (figuratively speaking one would hope) in the next U.S. election? It will be a fascinating year of politics and history may repeat itself in our country in some form or fashion. Rome and Washington DC may not be so far apart in either political thinking or time as we think. Beware the Ides of March, my fellow countrymen, and cast your votes well!

Tweet