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

The Biggest Election Crime of All

Hunt for Justice by Cynthia Hunt

President-elect Obama & a Bright Moment in History

We have a new president-elect, and now we will rally and support him. This underdog candidacy turned historic win is a time for all Americans to unite as Senator John McCain urged in his concession speech last night. Senator Barack Obama ran an inspirational race and clinched a monumental win to become the 44th President of the United States of America.

Post-Election Crime Investigations

Despite the hope of our new leader, there are serious questions to answer in the wake of this campaign. There are investigations in more than a dozen states into ACORN for alleged voter fraud. No doubt there will be investigations into the online fundraising efforts of the Obama and McCain campaigns. Many believe the fundraising over the Internet allowed individuals to give the campaigns more than the federal limit by using prepaid credit cards. Also, there were no mechanisms in place to stop foreigners from donating online and trying to influence the U.S. election.

The Election Crime that Will Go Unpunished

Any election crime is serious, but they all pale in comparison to what I believe in the biggest election crime of all. This crime was committed by that all-important 4th branch of government—the press. The crime—bias.

Our founding fathers instituted crucial First Amendment rights to ensure we had a free press to be the watchdog over government. Sadly today, the watchdog is often akin to a collegiate mascot cheering on one side.

Independent Research Proves Media Coverage is Biased

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, an independent research group, found that voters overwhelmingly believed that the media wanted Barack Obama to win the presidential election by a seventy percent margin. When voters believe the press is biased, the press has no credibility. Without credibility, the reporter’s ink is useless.

In another study, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found McCain received significantly more negative than positive coverage while the press treatment of Obama was somewhat more positive. When researchers studied all political stories during a certain time period, they found MSNBC to be the most biased for Senator Obama of any network or cable news station. (see graph)

SNL as the National Ombudsman?

The executive producer of Saturday Night Live didn’t need an independent study to tell him the press was blowing the election coverage. Lorne Michaels said in a recent interview “it did seem to us that the media were in something of a swoon for Obama.” During the primaries, SNL did a parody of the media’s love affair, uh-hum I mean coverage, of Obama. After that, the press buckled down a bit and started producing more revealing stories about Obama and his policies.

Has the world gone mad when SNL has to right a wrong media? I admit I am a bit old fashioned and idealistic about journalism, but when journalists must be shown how to do their job by comedy writers, I think it’s time for journalists to take a good long look at our work. (SNL parody of Obama Clinton Debates)

The Press Should Join Republicans in the Unemployment Line

President-elect Obama delivered a powerful and humble speech last night asking Americans to “summon a new spirit of responsibility.” I suggest journalists turn the spotlight on themselves.

News reports today will say that voters have given President-elect Obama a mandate for change and repudiated President George W. Bush and the Republicans. While those stories are valid, journalists should consider how we are doing our very important job in this democracy. If voters could have weighed in, they would have fired us too.

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

Women in Crime Ink Welcomes Diane Dimond

Women in Crime Ink is proud to announce the latest addition to our lineup, Diane Dimond. You might recognize the famed crime reporter, author, and cable news anchor as a regular fill-in for CNN’s Nancy Grace. Diane Dimond may be best known for exposing and then explaining to the world the child molestation charges against Michael Jackson. Diane's coverage of Jackson’s criminal trial was seen by millions on Court TV, NBC’s The Today Show, MSNBC, Larry King Live and news outlets worldwide.
Her book on Jackson, Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case, is an explosive tome that details Diane’s exclusive revelations from when she first broke the story in 1993, to the case 10 years later when, once again, she was the first to report the latest charge of molestation.
Diane has been at the center of countless other major news stories as well. She stood in the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman the day their bodies were discovered. A few years earlier, Diane was the first to report the story of rape at the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach, Florida and to identify William Kennedy Smith as the accused. And Diane has been praised for her hard-hitting interviews with a number of infamous prison inmates including: Pamela Smart, a school teacher serving a life sentence for enticing her high school lover to kill her husband; James Earl Ray, the convicted assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Jeffrey McDonald, the convicted killer and subject of Fatal Vision; Kenneth Bianchi, the convicted “Hillside Strangler”; and Diane is the only reporter to have interviewed Richard Allen Davis, the convicted killer of Polly Klaas.
Diane began her broadcasting career in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At KKOB News Radio she wrote and anchored the morning newscasts and her investigative series on corruption within the local sheriff’s department earned her the prestigious Silver Gavel Award for Media and the Arts from the American Bar Association. In 1976, Diane moved across the country to Washington, DC to anchor newscasts for National Public Radio's “All Things Considered.” In 1980, she became Correspondent for RKO, the world's first satellite radio network, where she was assigned to cover Capitol Hill, the White House, and various Washington agencies. Diane became the network's National Political Correspondent and covered the campaigns of both President Ronald Reagan and his challenger Walter Mondale. Finally making a move into television in 1986, Diane’s first TV news job was at the flagship CBS Station in New York. At WCBS, Diane earned several awards for covering such groundbreaking stories as the “Baby M” surrogate mother case. Diane went into syndicated television in 1990, when she became the investigative reporter for the program Hard Copy. Diane's continuing coverage of the Michael Jackson story made the cut for TIME magazine's “Best TV of '93." Diane also made headlines when she acquired and aired the actual interrogation tape of O. J. Simpson being questioned by the Los Angeles Police Department. She then anchored the nationally syndicated program EXTRA and made headlines with her exposé of the deceptive practices of the Jerry Springer Show, among other investigative reports. In 1998, Diane moved to NBC and partnered with Geraldo Rivera to co-anchor CNBC’s nightly newscast, UpFront Tonight. Among other top-shelf stories, she anchored extensive live reports from Washington on the impeachment proceedings against former President Bill Clinton. After moving to MSNBC, Diane hosted the series, “Missing Persons,” anchored major news blocks and, among other stories, covered the historic 2000 Presidential campaign, traveling with three of the candidates, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and Ralph Nader. Diane also became known as the correspondent who spent 35 straight days outside Vice President Gore's residence in Washington as the nation awaited the final, controversial recount of the vote. In 2001, after the September 11th terror attacks in New York City, Diane anchored live programs on the Fox News Channel where she specialized in the network’s continuing coverage of the War on Terrorism. Her live interviews with military and policy newsmakers were often quoted by other news organizations. In 2003, Diane hosted "Hollywood at Large" on Court TV. More recently, Diane has been branching out on multi-media platforms to tell the stories she finds so fascinating. Last year, Diane was picked by the all-women GreenStone Media group to co-host their syndicated morning radio talk show and she can often be heard filling in on other major radio talk shows. She also writes a weekly crime and justice newspaper column. Diane has staked her place in the blogosphere with her own blog as well as a regular column with The Huffington Post.
Now Diane has joined Women in Crime Ink as our newest contributor. When there is a breaking crime story, you can read Diane's take here and you can follow her coverage on CNN, Fox News, truTV (formerly Court TV) and other cable outlets. Please join Women in Crime Ink in welcoming Diane Dimond. Look for Diane's first WCI post tomorrow, on Election Day. Diane will be writing on the one thing missing from this election. We're betting our readers can guess the topic. Feel free to leave a comment below for Diane. She would love to hear from you!

Tweet

Desperate Times Lead To Desperate Measures . . . Or Is It Just a Poor Excuse for Murder?

by Robin Sax

As the financial times and the economy continue down a very slippery slope, people are becoming more panicked than ever. Just last week I was at the airport and overhead a businessman calming his wife on the phone, explaining to her that “we’re almost there, it’s going to turn around.”

I have spoken to parents who have dutifully opened college savings plans 18 years ago, only to be stressed about how they are going to pay for their kids’ college education. The money’s just about gone, and people have lost their homes, their jobs, and their life savings. And then there are those who have lost their minds.
In the last two weeks alone, stories of desperation have made headlines throughout the country. In Los Angeles, there was the case of 45-year-old Karthik Rajaram, a guy who appeared to live the “picture-perfect life” with all the accoutrements of a successful life: a beautiful home, a career, a family, luxury cars. When he lost his job as a financial advisor, he pulled a gun on his 39-year old wife, his three sons (ages 7, 12, and 19), his 69-year-old mother-in-law, and then himself. He left a suicide note saying that his financial troubles had led him to conclude that this was his only option. All he left behind were his possessions, which are now packaged by crime-scene tape (above).

Meanwhile, in Ohio, a 90-year-old woman attempted suicide after facing eviction from her home of 38 years. In despair, she actually shot and wounded herself.

Just a few weeks ago, my post was about the bigger picture of how economy and crime went together like peas and carrots. I looked at the presidential candidate platforms for guidance, understanding, and hope. But neither John McCain nor Barack Obama inspired me or gave me answers to who was going to fix this mess. However, I was certain of and continue to know that our economy has a direct correlation to our crime rate.

I am not alone in my opinion. Richard Rosenfeld a sociologist at the University of Missouri – St. Louis said, “Every recession since the late ’50s has been associated with an increase in crime and in particular, property crimes and robbery, which would be most responsible to changes in economic conditions.” He does point out, however, that “there is typically a year lag between the economic change and crime rates.”

But as the economy continues to plunge and homes continue to foreclose, do we face increased risk of murder and suicide? Can economically hard times really lead someone to kill? I look to my colleagues—profiler Pat Brown and psychiatrist Dr. Lucy Puryear for answers. While fascinated with why people can do the things they do, as a prosecutor I know the answers are not necessarily elements of a crime that I must prove.

For example, in a murder case, I need to show that a defendant had the specific intent to kill, but I don’t have to prove motive, even if I know there is one.

As a human being, an American, and a prosecutor, I feel it is my obligation to understand how the conditions in our country can trigger this type of desperation. Is it what others suggest—a poor excuse to kill? According to Rich Paul, a vice-president of Virginia-based Value Options, Inc., which handles mental health referrals, calls about stress-related foreclosures and financial hardships have gone up 200% in California in the last year. Rates of depression increase as the economy worsens. Stress and depression are one thing. . . . Murder is another.

Since the economy affects everyone, we all need to understand how it works and come to grips with it. And perhaps, even more important, we all need to know that there are options, help, and resources for everyone in these most difficult and stressful times.

Tweet

Is Casey Anthony Another Susan Smith?

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

I am often asked by the media to comment on cases where mothers have harmed or killed their children. I frequently am called by attorneys asking for help in their cases where a mother has killed her child.

Because of my work in the Andrea Yates case it is hoped that I may be able to offer some psychiatric defense for other defendants. If the alleged murderer was suffering from psychosis then a verdict of Not Guilty by reason of insanity may be successful. Many attorneys wrongfully assume (or hope against hope) that if the mother they represent has killed her child then she must be "crazy." I am sure she is "crazy" in some form, but not always in a way that mitigates her responsibility for the crime.

It is impossible for me to forget the case of Susan Smith. It was October of 1994, and I was a second-year resident in psychiatry at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston. I was learning how to diagnose psychiatric illness and treat psychiatric emergencies. We were also being trained in detecting whether someone was fabricating or exaggerating their illness for some secondary gain. It was not at all unusual to interview persons who were trying to get prescription medications from naive young doctors, or who wanted to be admitted to the hospital for a warm bed and three free meals.

But as I watched Susan Smith on television tearful and begging for the lives of her children, I felt tremendous sorrow and grief for her. I could only imagine how devastating it would be if I had been accosted and my children kidnapped. Her grief felt in sharp contrast to the drug addict trying to convince me they were terribly anxious and needed me to prescribe Valium. I knew one women was in real pain, and the other just trying to manipulate me.

The nation and I were shocked to learn that while Susan Smith sobbed, her children were strapped in to their car seats, at the bottom of a lake. The person responsible for their deaths? Their mother.

In the Casey Anthony case we have a mother who allegedly killed her child, stored her daughter's body in the trunk of the car, and then began to party. Only when questioned did she report that her daughter had been missing for some time.

Unlike Susan Smith, we never saw her on television begging for her child's return. We did see her at the disco and at Target, acting as if life couldn't be better. Even if she didn't murder her cute-as-a-button daughter, why is she acting so blase about the fact that her daughter is missing? Unexplainable.

What are the possible reasons a mother could kill her child? From a psychiatric point of view, I think there's something seriously wrong with someone who murders her own child. It doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be punished, but I also think that a diagnosis of some type can be made. Let's start with the "easier to make the connection" psychiatric disorders:

1. Psychosis: A person hears voices telling them to harm their child or has a delusion that makes them believe their child needs to be saved from evil or their child is evil and the world needs to be saved. This was true in the Andrea Yates case; she believed her children were being taken over by Satan, and in order to save them from hell she had to send them to heaven while they were still innocent enough for God to take them. This can happen to women who become psychotic for the first time after delivery, or in patients who have previous diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. This can be prevented with appropriate psychiatric intervention and medication. Mothers can be treated and children do not have to die.

2. Depression: A mother can become so severely depressed that she wants to kill herself but feels that her children would suffer without a mother. She kills the children before she attempts to kill herself. Sometimes she is unsuccessful at taking her own life and must face the emotional and legal consequences of her choice. This can happen in severe postpartum depression or in cases where a mother is depressed due to financial or marital stresses. She believes she is protecting her children from being left behind to suffer. Depression can also be identified and treated and lives saved.

3. Borderline Personality Disorder: This is a complicated diagnosis and varies in severity from individual to individual. The characteristics of this diagnosis are mood lability with terrible feelings of depression, loneliness, emptiness, and despair. This mood symptoms are often accompanied by substance abuse, risk-taking behavior, and suicidal thoughts with less serious attempts. These attempts are often seen as cries for help. Persons with BPD form intense chaotic relationships which are often passionately good early on and then become disappointing and passionately bad later on. This disorder usually occurs in people who have histories of childhood abuse, abandonment, parents with disorder, or other chaotic, "not safe," inconsistent attachments to caretakers. Borderline Personality Disorder is hard to treat. The treatment consists of long-term psychotherapy and medication.

Although I have not personally interviewed Susan Smith, this is most likely her diagnosis. She was raised by a violent alcoholic father who later committed suicide when her mother divorced him. Her mother remarried a man who molested Susan for many years without reprisal. Susan began to engage in relationships with married men while she was in high school and was in the middle of a divorce and rejected by her lover when she released the parking brake in her car and watched her children drown. She knew what she was doing was wrong, but at that moment was feeling such despair and hopelessness that it felt like a way to make life less complicated. She also believed that without her two children her boyfriend might take her back. She was terrified to be alone without a man in her life to allow her to feel complete.

4. Narcissitic Personality Disorder: This is an unfortunately common personality disorder that often does not cause the person who has it much discomfort. Persons with this type of character have little regard for needs or feelings of others, but use others to meet their own needs and desires. Often those with this type of disorder are successful in their business or careers and can appear outgoing and charismatic, but they draw people to them for their own personal gain. If a loved one or colleague stops being useful to them then they can be easily disposed of without much pain. If there are problems in their lives, they are blamed on the inadequacies of others. Narcissistic individuals have a hard time taking personal responsibility. The causes for this disorder are not entirely clear, but often there is a childhood history of being highly adulated by parents, not made to take responsibility for mistakes with parents often helping to cover-up or fix problems, and having things given without having to learn the value of hard work and disappointment.

I don't know Casey Anthony's history, but her behavior certainly fits one who has little regard for others, is primarily interested in her own welfare and happiness, and will go to great lengths to escape consequences or punishment. Susan Smith confessed to what she had done and felt remorse. Casey Anthony continues to lie and deceive.

5. Antisocial Personality Disorder: These are the people who fill our jails. People without conscience, morality, or the ability to live within societal norms. I can give too many examples of this. . . . Mothers who drown their kids to get back at cheating boyfriends . . . Mothers who leave their kids alone to go hang out at the crack house . . . Mothers who abuse and torture their children for . . . enjoyment. At the moment there is no treatment for this disorder. Therapy as an adult doesn't work. Early childhood intervention is most likely the key. There has been one study published that links those in jail to having had mothers who had postpartum depression. By the time someone reaches jail it is mostly too late.

Mothers will continue to kill their children. Jail may most certainly be appropriate for some individuals, but it is not a deterrent to other mothers. Fortunately there are some causes of maternal filicide that are very treatable with proper screening, identification, and treatment.

The Mother's Act in Congress failed but will be brought out again for another vote. This law would require more money be earmarked for the recognition of, treatment for, and research of postpartum psychiatric disorders. (If only it been part of the "pork" in the bailout, like the Parity bill which mandates insurance companies pay equally for psychiatric illnesses.)

Early childhood intervention to prevent child abuse, neglect, ensure quality education and day care, and support for single mothers could go a long way towards decreasing the incidence of antisocial personality disorders. Susan Smith could have benefited from intensive therapy and intervention by someone to stop the abuse by her stepfather. We have the means and the knowledge to stop some of these heinous crimes.

Casey Anthony? There was a book written in 1954 called The Bad Seed. A good read.

Tweet

Wishing We Could Send Congress to Federal Prison Over the Financial Crisis

Hunt for Justice by Cynthia Hunt

A joke in Washington goes like this: "What's the difference between Enron and Fannie Mae? Answer: The guys at Enron have been convicted.”

That's no new joke. In the beginning of a Wall Street Journal editorial from June 2006—that's right, two years ago—the WSJ wrote 20 editorials starting all the way back in February 2002, and continuing through June 2006, warning of the impending mortgage crisis.

Again and again, the WSJ described the disaster that was being created, a building crisis that could endanger our entire financial system. In 2004, a top FBI official also warned that the mortgage boom made the market ripe for shady operators, but he said the FBI was on top of it.

Convictions aren’t the only difference between Enron and the current crisis. If you remember, Enron executives fooled everyone for a long time with their voodoo accounting. A special investigative committee worked for months to unravel and explain how Enron executives cooked the books. The committee released its findings in what was called the “Powers Report.”

The current financial crisis is no surprise. A WSJ editorial in October 2004 said Fannie has been “cooking the books. Big time.” (at left: NYSE traders yesterday after the Dow plummetted 800 points).

Repeated warnings were sounded.

Our elected government do-nothings did nothing.

And yes, greed on Wall Street contributed too. As a matter of fact, there's plenty of blame for us all to be sickened as taxpayers with Congress and with Wall Street.

Here's what you need to know. Fannie and Freddie are the two biggest mortgage holders in the country. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored entities that were designed to help with the noble goal of allowing more Americans to own a home. Congress gave Fan and Fred special privileges long ago. They were allowed the benefits of completely private companies but not required to follow the same rules. They don't have to register their securities or file insider trading forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In other words, they don't have to disclose how they are running their business to investors.

This exemption from the rules allowed Fannie and Freddie to pile up massive debt knowing there was an implicit guarantee by the American taxpayers. To make matters worse, this accounting funny business with Fan and Fred allowed their executives to manipulate numbers and make huge bonuses.

While Fan and Fred were engaged in their bad business, Wall Street investment firms were buying up subprime mortgages and bundling them as investments so complicated that few understood what they were. When the housing bubble burst, the firm's investments were in deep trouble.

In 2003, The Bush White House tried half-heartedly to impose regulation and stop the runaway train. But the president never took his case to the American people so that he could rally support and force Congress's hand. In 2004, the mighty Alan Greenspan said Fannie and Freddie must be reformed or they posed a risk to the entire financial system. However, the bipartisan Fan and Fred defenders in Congress, who were lining their pockets with campaign contributions from the duo, defended and protected the ugly couple.

Now the FBI and SEC have launched more than 75 investigations into this debacle to find out if laws were broken. Government lawyers are already warning that the current crisis is so complex that it may be impossible to prove that a crime was actually committed.

Two WSJ editorials in 2002 and 2004 were entitled "Fannie Mae Enron" in an attempt to show the scary similarities between Enron and Fannie Mae. The losses in the current banking crisis dwarf those of Enron, and it took government investigators five years to make their complicated case against the Enron executives. One wonders if they'll ever figure this one out.

Years ago when I covered the Enron cases, I sat in the beautiful Houston mansion owned by former Enron Executive Jeff Skilling (pictured left) while he meticulously presented his case to me that he committed no crime at Enron. Bad business decisions are not necessarily crimes. But in 2006, a jury convicted him of fraud saying he intentionally misled investors. He is in federal prison appealing his case and is scheduled to get out in 2028.

I remember Skilling describing the collapse of Enron as an "old-fashioned run on the bank" when investors lost confidence in that business. I am struck now as I am already starting to hear some use that same phrase in the current crisis. Remember, Skilling didn't plead the Fifth. He went before Congress and answered all their questions because he was and still is convinced that he did no wrong.

The current crisis makes Enron look like a hiccup. Common sense says that someone should be put in a federal jumpsuit over this. Perhaps the most deserving culprit is the body of Congress. If Jeff Skilling misled investors, then Congress not only misled Americans but was a willing accomplice to this horrific crime.

I believe this is the real "crime of the century," and like O. J. Simpson after his first trial, I predict Congress members will spend the next few years feigning disgust in congressional hearings and on beautiful golf courses while looking for the "real killers" of our economy.

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

Upholding Legal Rights of Mentally Ill Defendants

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of the U.S. issued a decision in which it held that a higher standard must be used to determine defendants' competence to represent themselves in criminal cases than the test used to determine the accuseds' competence to stand trial. Plainly speaking, this means that while a mentally ill defendant can be found competent to stand trial it does not necessarily follow that they can competently represent themselves as their own counsel.

Fundamentally this could be viewed as a negative decision for the mentally ill. One of our constitutional rights is self-representation in court. We are allowed to tell our story the way we want it told and to plead our case in a manner that we believe is in our own best interest. Now most of us would do a pretty terrible job of maneuvering ourselves through a court case, but sometimes taking your lawyers advice doesn't turn out as you'd hoped. I have heard defendants ask, "Why didn't my lawyer do this, or why didn't they say that?" Sometimes juries will express, "Why didn't we hear from the defendant, I want to hear his version of the story." Not speaking for yourself is not always the right decision.

It becomes very complicated in a case where the defendant is floridly psychotic (hearing voices, speaking in gibberish). Nothing useful will come from that defendant trying to conduct his own trial. The court process becomes derailed and nothing good is accomplished for either the defense or the prosecution. Often the defendant by his very mental state convicts himself with little effort by the prosecution.

But does it make sense to allow someone to be competent to stand trial and yet too ill to represent themselves? Most courtrooms are all too ready to allow a mentally ill defendant to be tried. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States said yes in the Indiana v. Edwards decision. (Facts of the case excerpted from the NAMI newsletter.)

In July 1999, Ahmad Edwards was discovered trying to steal a pair of shoes from an Indiana department store. After being discovered, he fired a gun at a store security officer and wounded a bystander. He was charged with attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, criminal recklessness and theft. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state psychiatric hospital for further evaluation and treatment. His competency and mental status fluctuated over the course of five years and he was not found competent to proceed to trial until July 2004.

In June 2005, Edwards stood trial. He asked to represent himself but the trial court rejected this request and the jury found him guilty of criminal recklessness and theft but failed to reach a verdict on the charges of attempted murder and battery. The State decided to retry him on the attempted murder and battery charges and he was retried in December 2005. The trial court again found that he was competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself.

Despite being represented by counsel at his retrial, the jury convicted him on both counts. Edwards appealed, arguing that he had been wrongfully deprived of his constitutional right to represent himself. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which addressed the legal question of whether the standard for allowing defendants to represent themselves at trial should be higher than the standard for finding defendants competent to stand trial.

The Court decided that there was a higher standard for representing yourself than the standard for competency. To be found competent to stand trial you must be able to consult with your attorney with a "reasonable degree of rational understanding." This means in general that you are able to know what you have been charged with, be able to consult in formulating your own defense, and be able to explain the nature of the pleas involved. (In an interesting aside, Andrea Yates was found competent to stand trial although she initially wanted to plead guilty so that she would be executed by the state which was the only entity who could kill Satan inside of her. She understood the plea but her psychosis was unable to initially allow her to follow her lawyer's advice.)

The Edwards decision states that to be competent to represent yourself you must have the ability for "organization of defense, making motions, arguing points of law . . . questioning witnesses and addressing the court and jury." The court is stating that those that are mentally ill may be well enough be found competent but still not be able to represent themselves. While this may appear to be taking away the rights from persons with a disability it may be ultimately in their best legal defense. The Court also comments on the humaneness of the decision, "A right of self-representation at trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote. "To the contrary, given that defendant's uncertain mental state, the spectacle that could well result from his self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling."

The United States has long struggled with the treatment of the mentally ill. From locking them up in sanitariums for years to locking them up in jails. No one knows quite what to do with the mentally ill defendant who, although it may be obvious that they've committed a crime, it's also obvious that they are seriously disturbed. In Houston alone it is estimated that some 50% of the inmates in the juvenile justice system are seriously and chronically mentally ill. Jail is not a great treatment for a psychiatric disorder.

Texas in particular has struggled with the death penalty and the mentally ill criminal. We have had a history of executing those with known, documented, and profound psychotic illness. This is an embarrassment for our state and a terrible example for respecting human rights. This ruling by the United States Supreme Court is a very small step forward in assuring that those who commit crimes and are suffering from mental illness have both their rights protected and receive fair trails. What to do with a mentally ill defendant after conviction is the topic of another blog. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on a very complicated issue.

Tweet

Mystery Man:Kerry Max Cook (Part 4 of 4)

For Independence Day, Women in Crime Ink presents a four-part series written by Kerry Max Cook, a man who struggled for twenty-two years to regain his freedom. This is the fourth installment. Read Part 1, Part 2 , and Part 3 .

by Kerry Max Cook

After I’d lost everything that mattered to me most in the world my freedom, my self-respect, the person I loved the most, I came face to face with the fragility of humankind. And I dedicated my life to forgiveness: of myself, of those I had wronged, and those who had wronged me. I began living the truth that hate only hurts the person who is doing the hating.

In my heart I built a shrine that represented the love I had for Doyle Wayne and I promised him–and myself–that I wouldn’t give up, no matter what.

In defiance of my lawyers, I resumed a media campaign to the press. My lawyers had strenuously advised me against this, saying the press would distort my story and use it against me.

But I had nothing to lose now.

I’d been in prison for over ten years now, with no progress. I’d seen what happens when you let other people control your destiny. It was time I controlled my own, completely.

I wrote to David Hanners, a reporter at the Dallas Morning News. I told him that if he found anything untrue about my story, I would voluntarily walk into the execution chamber to be executed.

My persistence with David Hanners and the Dallas Morning News produced a gigantic break by bringing me and my story out of the darkness and into the light with the headline “Inmate Was Railroaded" splashed across the front pages.

For the next two years I worked exclusively with David Hanners, and this alliance produced over 40 front-page stories, such as “Convicted Man Called Innocent,” “Key Evidence in Cook Case said to be False" (the aging of the fingerprint) and many, many more.

This helped save my life.

My second break came when I persuaded Jim McCloskey (left) of Centurion Ministries to take on my case.

Centurion is a New Jersey-based, non-profit organization that investigates an inmate’s claim of innocence, and if they find evidence to support the inmate’s claims, they hire an attorney and go into the field to collect the hidden or undeveloped evidence.

I had written Jim McCloskey before, but had only been sent a form letter.

Armed with the Dallas Morning News’ front-page investigative stories, I stuffed an envelope full and again wrote Jim McCloskey.

This time, Jim McCloskey wrote back:

“Before I commit to any case, I require an honest, detailed account of your life and a detailed description of your conviction. An innocent man named Matt Connor once wrote us 60 pages. I know that is a lot, and that was an extraordinary case. I look forward to reading your story.”

All during the day, and well into the night I worked on my response. Finally, I wrote:

“Dear Mr. McCloskey: Enclosed please find my 61-page autobiography. I am one page more innocent than Matt Connor was.”

Jim McCloskey took my case. He hired a Houston attorney named Paul Nugent (on left with Kerry and attorney Scott Howe to his right) and for ten grueling years, it was a David and Goliath-like fight, but we prevailed as a united front.

Paul, Jim, and the Dallas Morning News literally saved my life.

So . . . who DID rape and murder Linda Jo Edwards? Twenty-two years lter, a law-enforcement crime lab discovered semen on a long overlooked piece of evidence and tested it in an effort to answer that question.

The DNA belonged to none other than the original suspect–Linda’s married ex-lover, James Mayfield.

But police and prosecutors had so corrupted their case against him in their blind pursuit of me for over two decades, it made it impossible to legally charge him–even in the face of his genetic fingerprints at the crime scene.

Those who prosecuted me were politicians first. They never admitted their mistake. The truth in this case was never as important as their careers. And their careers blossomed.

District Attorney Jack Skeen was nominated “Prosecutor of the Year” by the Texas State Bar, which is made up of county and district attorneys. Jack Skeen is now a District Judge overseeing justice in Tyler, Texas.

Doug Collard, the policeman who started it all by aging my fingerprint and making it the killer’s calling card? Years later, Collard told a fingerprint licensing board—in addressing a complaint filed against him by a fellow member, after the Dallas Morning News publicized his perjury regarding the "aging" of my fingerprint—he shouldn’t be held responsible for his perjury because the District Attorney’s Office made him do it. He finished out his career with honors and retired a few years ago.

It’s worth noting that Detective Collard’s Response to the Complaint filed against him was deliberately hidden while prosecutors fought up the appellate ladder to have me executed.

District Attorney Jack Skeen argued all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that the guilt of the accused was beyond any doubt because Doug Collard testified that the my fingerprint could only have been left on the patio door of the victim at the time she was raped and murdered, making it the “killer’s calling card.”

I did finally get an apology but it didn’t come from the police or the prosecutors–even in the face of DNA exoneration. Ironically it came from the only person involved in my case that had the courage to admit he really was a criminal: Shyster Jackson.

The most significant lesson I learned serving 22 years of a wrongful conviction is the power of forgiveness. The ability to forgive gave me the power to be free.

I was imprisoned on the worst death row in America and now I was free. Death row might have had my body, but it didn’t have my mind. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. “

I never let go of mine.

Read Kerry's complete story in his book, CHASING JUSTICE: My Story of Freeing Myself After Two Decades on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit

Tweet