Showing posts with label Kathryn Casey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kathryn Casey. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Millionaire's Wife

by Cathy Scott

On a rainy morning in the fall of 1990, a gunman, in broad daylight, caught up with George Kogan as George walked home from a Manhattan Upper East Side market. The shooter pumped three slugs into his back. Seven hours later, George was dead.

From the start, the prime suspect was the estranged wife of George Kogan, because, in part, George had $4 million worth of insurance on his life, and Barbara was the beneficiary. Yet, it would take nearly two decades to solve the murder. George, who had turned 49 the month before the killing, was gunned down as he approached the lobby doors of his East 69th Street apartment building, where he lived with his young girlfriend.

Manuel Martinez, an attorney with a small law practice who mostly handled eviction cases, once represented Barbara and eventually was charged and convicted of hiring a hit man to kill Barbara’s husband. It 's a love triangle and a hit-for-hire, and the story fascinated me.

It's also a sad story, because, in the end, everyone lost, including George's two sons, who were in college at the time of the murder, and who lost their father to murder and, ultimately, their mother to prison.

Nineteen years long years after the death of her husband, Barbara Susan Kogan was indicted for the murder of her husband, but not until she had spent every penny of the insurance payout, the last of which went toward her defense.

I’ve spent the last year piecing together this book. It’s titled THE MILLIONAIRE'S WIFE: The True Story of a Real Estate Tycoon, his Beautiful Young Mistress, and a Marriage that Ended in Murder. And while it is my eighth book, it is one of the toughest I’ve ever written.

True crime books, my friend and colleague Kathryn Casey recently reminded me, are not easy to write. As a journalist, I’ve been trained to chase the story, go to the scene, find sources, get documents, land interviews--anything and everything to flesh out the story. True crime books take real perseverance, especially in cases that are about to go to trial and when those on either side of the case are skittish about talking.

I was scheduled to interview Barbara, with her attorney, before her arrest. But, soon after, a warrant for her arrest was issued and her attorney instead arranged for her surrender. It was disappointing, and, while difficult, I love a challenge, plus I was lucky.

After I went on a radio show and talked about the case and after posting or two an article updating the case on Women in Crime Ink, family members on both sides of the case contacted me. I also was able to speak several times with the deputy district attorney as well as three defense attorneys. And a generous reporter who had covered the crime 19 years early shared with me what he recalled. And a doorman at George’s building, where George had been killed nearly two decades earlier, was particularly helpful and walked me through the crime scene. Several people at the courthouse were helpful as well, as were a couple of NYPD police officers. And E.W. Count, a crime writer in New York City, on two occasions became my eyes and ears in a Manhattan courtroom.

For the research part of books, I approach them in the same way I do news stories--digging for clues, links, and, especially, documentation and confirmations via paperwork and those I interview. For every book, I invariably contact mortuary personnel and verify college degrees with universities; this case was no different. Thank goodness the records were fairly easy to find, despite the passage of time. Fact-checking our own stories is part of the deal.

For newspaper and magazine articles, I got into Lexis-Nexis to pull up the original articles and, at the same time, stumbled on some relevant federal court documents. Early on, writer/author Sue Russell
pulled a couple of articles from Lexis-Nexis for me. After that, I did pay-as-you-go searches (a great service for research). The one thing, however, I could not find was George Kogan’s obituary. I knew there had to be one, and, ultimately, getting creative with search words (“slaying” instead of “murder” worked in this case), I found it. It was a real prize, because it was loaded with the detail I had been looking for--when and where George was buried, who officiated, who attended, and who did not.

When it came to police and court records, that got tricky. As soon as Barbara appeared in court, I filed a Freedom of Information Act form; it was ignored. So, with the help of attorneys, a defendant’s family members and a journalism student working on a class paper (and whose professor was friends with the defense), I was able to get the complete court files, trial transcripts, copies of depositions, a transcript of a surveillance telephone conversation, statements from witnesses from the scene of the crime, a list of witnesses and evidence, and a roster of jurors.

Then, the reading began. I pored through documents. It became a matter of learning who the characters and players were--and there were lots. Because two defendants were charged three years apart, it made the story more complicated. So I tried to boil it down and tell the story chronologically, as it had unfolded.

Deciding where to start a book is always a challenge. With The Murder of Biggie Smalls (a k a Notorious B.I.G., I began with Biggie, at age 15, sitting in a Brooklyn police precinct, crying for his mother after an officer detained Biggie and a friend for questioning to see if they were witnesses to a murder in a Bed-Stuy neighborhood. To me, that scene at the precinct spoke volumes about Biggie, whose real name was Christopher Wallace. He was not the street thug, like Tupac Shakur, who came of age on the mean streets of the Jungle housing project in Oakland, Californai. Biggie, conversely, was a mama’s boy, and his mother was a school teacher who sent Biggie to Jamaica every year to spend the summer with his grandfather, an ocean away from Brooklyn.

In Murder of a Mafia Daughter, after I went to victim Susan Berman’s Beverly Hills home, in Benedict Canyon, and met a neighbor who’d been the one to alert police that something was awry next door, I began the book with the neighbor awakening to Susan’s dogs running loose, on Christmas Eve morning, in his front yard.

With the Kogan case,  after traveling to New York City several times, the way the killer stalked George as he made his way home from a neighborhood market became a vivid picture to me, and I began the book with the morning he died.

I love the cover of this book, because it captures the feel of that fateful morning. So, it is with pride and pleasure that I give you, the reader, a sneak peek at the cover of The Millionaire’s Wife, released here, on Women in Crime Ink. When the book comes out later this year, I’ll give you a heads up.


Monday, September 13, 2010

Interview with Kathryn Casey about her latest true crime book: Shattered

by Andrea Campbell

I am happy to share this interview with my friend and Women in Crime Ink colleague Kathryn Casey about the release of her new true crime book: Shattered

Q: Kathryn, for WCI readers who don’t know you that well, can you tell us a little about your background?


KC: I began as a magazine writer in the mid-eighties, and wrote for a lot of the national magazines, Reader’s Digest, TV Guide, Ladies Home Journal, MORE, Seventeen, and Rolling Stone. As a reporter, I profiled celebrities, wrote about all kinds of subjects, including lifestyles and health. But from the beginning, I had a knack for investigating and writing about criminal cases. In the mid-nineties, I began writing true crime books, and I’ve done that ever since, adding crime fiction two years ago with the debut of Singularity, the first in my Sarah Armstrong mystery series.

Q: Since today we're talking about Shattered, would you give us the set-up or a brief synopsis?


KC: The murder took place in 1999. David Temple was a former Texas football star, high school and college, working as a teacher and coach in a Houston subur
b. He and his wife, Belinda Lucas Temple, were college sweethearts. She was bright, beautiful, and a beloved teacher, and they had one child, a toddler named Evan. To those on the outside, they appeared the perfect, happy family. But behind the scenes, that was far from reality. Belinda was eight months pregnant with a baby girl, Erin, on that January morning David called 911, claiming he’d discovered her shot through the head in the master bedroom closet. From the beginning, the investigators suspected David was the killer. There were too many signs at the home that the scene had been staged. Then, they focused even more tightly on him after discovering that he was carrying on an affair with a beautiful young English teacher. But this was a complicated and frustrating case. In the end, it would take nine years to bring David Temple into a courtroom.

Q: Kind of a two-part question here: How do you choose your projects, and what elements do you look for? Also, have you started working on a book project that fell through for any reason?


KC: When it comes to true crime, I look for cases with lots of twists and turns, ones that will resonate with my readers. I spend a year on each book, often conducting a hundred or more interviews, so it’s a long road. With that in mind, I look for a case that will hold my interest, one I care about, and one, I hope, that will explore something about our society or the human condition. I strive to see the big picture through the lens
of the case I’m studying. The Temple case, for instance, sheds a light on intimate partner homicide, particularly involving pregnant women. This is a horrendous problem, one virtually ignored until this past decade, with the sensational Scott Peterson trial. I can’t say that I’ve had a book fall through. I guess I’ve been pretty lucky.

Q: What type of background work do you do to begin, and how do you find your interview subjects?


KC: It’s a big commitment, but I go to the trials. Sometimes this can translate to six weeks or more living in a hotel room and long days in the courtroom, but for me, it’s necessary. I want to be there, with the families and jurors and the defendant, listening to the evidence. Once the trial is over, I use what I’ve learned as the foundation to begin my own investigation, seeking more evidence from those who’ve taken the stand. These people, connected with the case, often suggest others, and I fan out, talking to everyone willing to talk to me, finding out all I can about those involved and the events that fell into place leading up to and following the murder.


Q: Obviously you are digging into the lives of victims and those accused, their families, and the criminal justice professionals involved. How do you get
cooperation? Also, do you let their emotions change your point of view or the way the story is told?

KC: I’ve found over the years that most people involved in such tragedies want to tell their stories. I never assume that someone won’t talk to me. Many will still be trying to figure out why things happened, and talking to me, cooperating so that the book is accurate, is one way to make that possible.
The only way I can depict a case fairly and accurately is to talk to everyone involved who is willing to talk to me, and I do that. I try to keep an open mind. People are sometimes falsely accused and even convicted, so it’s important not to presuppose that a guilty verdict means the person actually committed the crime.

It’s difficult not to identify with the families whose lives have been torn apart by these tragedies. I often ache for all they’ve been through. I see their suffering as part of the story, and I include it in the book. It’s important to understand how devastating murder is, what it does to all those involved. It’s the most horrendous of acts, the taking of a life, and to treat it without emotion is to become desensitized to the pain. That said, the evidence is the evidence, and the events that lead up to the murder aren’t written by me but by those involved. When I write a novel, I construct the plots. But when it comes to true crime, I’m a chronicler, who researches and pulls together the evidence to paint the picture, to explain what happened and why.


Q: Have you ever done a prison interview?


KC: Many times, for magazines and books. It can be a chilling experience. It’s more than unsettling to sit across from someone who describes in detail how he or she has committed a horrendous crime. I’m often amazed at how skimpy the motives are and how calm and collected the killer can be while
describing a victim’s final moments. Yet most of those I’ve interviewed, even years after their convictions, maintain their innocence. Do I believe them? As I said before, I do my best to give them the benefit of the doubt. I listen to what they tell me, ask them for anything I can research to bolster their claims, and afterward I follow through, looking for evidence that contradicts the guilty verdict.

Q: What is on the horizon for Kathryn Casey?


KC: I have a third Sarah Armstrong novel,
The Killing Storm, coming out on October 26th. I’m very excited about the book. I love this character. Sarah is a Texas Ranger/profiler, a single mom. Since inventing her, I’ve put that poor woman through hell. In the first book, Singularity, she tracked a serial killer. In the second, Blood Lines, she was charged with saving a teen pop star from a perverse and deadly stalker, and in The Killing Storm, Sarah will have to fight her way through a hurricane to save the life of an innocent child.

Q: Do you have a blog?

KC: I have one associated with my Web site, www.kathryncasey.com, where I
occasionally write about what I’m doing, a little bit about my personal life and writing. I’m also proud to say that I’m one of the founders of Women in Crime Ink.

Q: Is there anything else you would like to tell WCI readers?


KC: I’d like to thank everyone who reads my books, especially those who recommend them to others. Word of mouth is truly the best way to spread the word. Thanks all of you! Please keep reading: I really do enjoy the writing!


Wednesday, May 5, 2010

What are Prisons Really For?



By Women in Crime Ink

 We've asked our contributors a few questions about the prison system. What is its purpose -- punishment, rehabilitation, or separating criminals from society? Is the system accomplishing that purpose? If the purpose is keeping criminals apart from the rest of society, are there alternatives besides incarceration in prison cells? 

Kathryn Casey:
It depends on the case. For those with life without parole, prisons are nothing more than a holding area, some more humane than others, where dangerous folks are segregated to keep society as a whole safer for the rest of us. For those who might someday get out, prison is primarily punishment, but it does offer, for those who reach out for it, a chance for rehabilitation.

Most of the prisons I've visited, and I've been in plenty down here in Texas, offer literacy and GED programs. Illiteracy is incredibly high behind bars. Yet I remember years ago meeting a convicted murderer who finished high school, got a bachelor's and a master's degree while serving a 60-year sentence. When I talked to him, he was working on a Ph.D. through a correspondence course. An inmate has to seek out the opportunities, and few do. For most offenders, the time in prison is simply punishment and wasted years.

One of the disappointing things is that there's so little treatment for sex offenders and violent criminals in prisons. Most aren't given any treatment at all until shortly before release, despite studies that show these types of ex-cons have high recidivism rates and require years of therapy, if there's any hope at all of preventing future crimes.

Donna Pendergast:
 The prison system aspires to rehabilitate offenders, but it isn't the purpose of the system -- only a goal.

The purpose of prison is to isolate offenders from society to protect the public and to punish offenders.  Unfortunately, although prison may not be a preferred experience, the amenities offered to offenders sometimes strain the bounds of belief. Libraries more extensive than in a prosecutor's office, large screen TVs, and well-equipped work out areas are standard fare at most prisons.  These privileges should be earned, not mandated.  I am not at all for any kind of abusive treatment of prisoners, but the prison experience should not be a posh one. That's why I am such a fan of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom I have posted on before.  Although he presides over a county jail rather than a prison, he makes sure that it is not a pleasant experience.  His standard retort to complaining prisoners is "If you don't like it, don't come back.

Katherine Scardino:
Jurors want revenge for a really heinous crime.  A kidnapping, rape or any crime involving a child induces immediate wrath on the defendant.  There is no discussion of rehabilitation.  I truly believe that a juror couldn't care less whether the prison system allows for counseling, education or any other individual assistance. The only issue is "how much does it cost?"  Your question: "why do we have a prison?"  It is, as Kathryn said, a "house" for people who have violated our laws. In capital cases, there are serious problems relating to sensory deprivation, where humans are kept in a box 23 out of 24 hours a day, and fed through a hole in the door.  This is inhuman and more than punishment. But, we say, they deserve this. These people hurt my family, my society, and should not be allowed to join the rest of us. No one disagrees with it. But prison should be more than a holding cell. Prison should be a place where bad people have an opportunity to learn about being better and returning to society as different people -- instead of learning how to be worse than they were when they entered the prison system. This does not help any of us.

Andrea Campbell:
Just as there are different camps on most major issues of any importance, there will always be disagreement on why offenders should be punished, how offenders should be punished, and what constitutes punishment. The common dictionary says quite generally that punishment is loss, severe treatment or suffering. Our prison systems are based on the concept that corrections serve these functions:  1) retribution, 2) deterrence, 3) incapacitation, and 4) rehabilitation. I think we also need to consider two other functions are enumerated: reintegration, and control.

But what about retribution for the victims? This system dictates that the severity of the offense should match the level of incarceration. If some petty, non-violent crook gets nicked, he might be able to do his time at an “honor farm.” Likewise, if a man has been convicted as a murderer, maximum security is probably what he’s earned. This methodology even weighs the type of probation on the same scale. In the aftermath, the probationary attention to follow-up and detail befits the crime similarly. Citizens should like this system, because they feel it shows the moral imperative of “getting tough on crime.” We might think about a new, modern Justice Model of punishment.

Like a “Just Desserts” concept,  it rejects the notion of rehabilitation as key and aims to avoid sentencing disparities. It seeks to match the punishment to the crime with room for variation, with a major difference up-front: To do a re-evaluation of the offender's past record. Then it would institute the type of justice a particular community wants reflected onto the behavior of its citizens. The foundation for the policy is that everyone is responsible for his/her own actions; that rational thought brought them to this end; that the criminal should bear the blame for his/her acts; and that the public needs protection and should be able to legislate punishment according to proscribed dicta of constitutional severity. As far as corrections, I think prisons should be privatized.

Pat Brown:
I think we have to look at two types of prisoners: those who can be rehabilitated and deserving of rehabilitation, and those who can't be rehabilitated nor deserving of rehabilitation. The latter are excessively violent repeat offenders, violent sexual predators and serial killers. Therapy does not "cure" arrogant psychopaths lacking in remorse or empathy; they will always be a danger to society, and they deserve no sympathy from us. Put them away and keep them away. Furthermore, we shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money allowing them to amuse themselves studying and getting degrees while their victims are rotting in the grave or living lives or psychological, physical or economic poverty.

The former group can be divided into two subgroups: those who are willing to be rehabilitated and those who are not. Prisoners should earn their right to favors by the society they have abused and when they earn that consideration by good behavior and hard work, then they can be moved to a rehabilitation facility where they can earn an income and pay for their education and vocational training like citizens do on the outside.

Lisa Cohen:
This topic resonates particularly for me. For most of the last five years, I researched and wrote a book (AFTER ETAN: The Missing Child Case That Held America Captive) about the long, horrific “career” of Jose Ramos, a serial pedophile who damaged countless helpless children in the '70s and '80s (including Down's Syndrome and mentally challenged boys). He was finally locked away from any future victims in 1986 and has served the last 25 years in prison.  A generation of children have been safe from him. But in 2011, he’ll max out and will walk free unless someone can figure out a way to stop him. He’s never completed a sex offender program and has never taken responsibility for the worst of his crimes.

The father of Etan Patz, the boy Ramos almost certainly kidnapped, raped and killed, has said Ramos should never be released from prison.  “He’s a predator,” Stan Patz told me,  as well as a 60 Minutes audience, “and he should never be allowed near children again. He should be kept behind bars until he’s too old to walk.” His is a compelling argument.

But for the last year, I’ve been involved in a very different project, albeit on a related topic. "ONE LAST SHOT: A Story of Redemption," is an ongoing documentary I’ve been directing. It tells the story of inmates at maximum security Angola Prison, home to Louisiana’s Death Row and some of the most hardened criminals you will ever meet. Half of them are killers; 85 percent will die at Angola. The particular inmates I’m focusing on staff a hospice at the prison, where they help dying fellow inmates to a humane death, something most of them cheated their own victims out of.

I’ve now spent time with several of these men. Many committed their crimes decades ago. So did Jose Ramos.  They are soft-spoken and articulate. So was Jose Ramos whenever I talked to him.

But I watch as these hospice volunteers clearly care about their dying patients. They feed them, clean them, comfort them.  Sometimes they change their diapers.  They watch them slowly waste away and eventually die, holding their hands as they slip away.  They treat each other and their hospice colleagues with respect.  They speak eloquently of developing compassion, of nurturing their humanity. They say they seek redemption.

They seem different than Jose Ramos, and they want to send that message via this documentary. As I continue to film, I hope to learn for myself whether that is true.  If so, then programs like prison hospice, inmate counseling, religious rehabilitation, are worthwhile and need to be promoted.  I’ve heard over and over while at Angola the credo: “A man’s entire life should not be judged by his worst act.”  

Cathy Scott:
I'll quote my friend Kevin Powell, an author and a Brooklynite through and through who cares about his rundown community and is running for a seat in U.S. Congress.

One leg of his campaign platform is "rid the 'hood of crime and pollution." He says that includes redirecting imprisonment dollars into education and enhancing "alternative strategies to lower incarceration rates." He also calls for abolishing the death penalty. "These actions," he says, "will reduce the rates of recidivism while creating opportunities for success." As the late Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger once said in his "Factories with Fences" speech, "We need prison reforms that will encourage offenders to earn and learn their way to freedom." I'm with Powell and Burger. Change is needed, and giving inmates the tools they need is paramount for them to live as non-offenders and contributing members of society outside the prison walls.


Wednesday, November 4, 2009

It's not CSI Folks!

by Kathryn Casey

Over the decades, I've spent a considerable amount of time in courtrooms. It’s part of the job. Awhile back, I sat in on a long trial, seven weeks. (There I am below right.) On the first day, I heard a phrase I hear in nearly every trial I attend these days. The prosecutor had the crime scene specialist on the stand, and the D.A. said something on the order of, “It’s not exactly CSI, is it, Sir?”

The investigator said, “No, it’s not.”

It may seem odd that a television program was a topic of testimony in a murder trial, but the CSI-type shows come up more often than not in courtrooms. Prosecutors increasingly feel compelled to defuse the myth, to explain to jurors who watch the sophisticated CBS
series and others like it that not all the gadgets and techniques they see in television are gospel, and that even the ones that do exist often aren’t available in run-of-the-mill, budget-strapped cop shops.

What types of crime solving methods? You know, like the holographic facial reconstruction on Fox’s
Bones. At times, it can actually be pretty comical. I once had lunch with a homicide cop and a crime scene officer, while they laughed about a CSI Miami episode in which a murder was solved based on an ant bite. Bite evidence is, of course, not unusual. But in this case, the TV sleuths measured and mapped an ant bite on a corpse, reconstructing the little critter’s minuscule mandible, then linked the resulting information not only to a certain species but – forgive me if this is wrong I am getting it second hand – to a specific ant colony. Wham! Crime solved. Wow. I was impressed. But everyone else at the table found the plot less than plausible.

Why is the CSI effect a bad thing in a courtroom? Prosecutors fear jurors who watch such unrealistic, forensic heavy programs may expect too much. They may expect absolute physical evidence to convict.

Of course, there’s another side to the coin. Many
defense attorneys object to the CSI comment. Why? For the defense, it’s not usually a bad thing for juries to assume all the stuff on CSI is real world. If they believe the TV show is gospel, jurors figure their local P.D. hasn’t met the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a case without iron-clad forensic evidence. After all if CSI is viewed by many as a real-world guideline for how a crime scene is investigated, what’s to be made of a police department without equipment to measure an ant bite and conclusively tie it to the correct ant hill? Of course that assumes a police department has an unlimited budget, a state-of-the-art lab, and the likes of David Caruso on staff.

Maybe it’s not surprising or new that we’re getting drawn in by dramatic presentations on television and confusing them with real life. I remember the first murder trial I sat through as a fledgling reporter, more than two decades ago. I’d grown up watching Perry Mason on my family’s black-and-white television, and I was shocked that witnesses weren’t allowed to ramble on without waiting for lawyers’ questions and, even more so, that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney cornered a single witness on the stand and spurred a confession.

Actually, to this day, I’m still waiting to be in a courtroom where a suspect yells out: “All right, I did it!”


Friday, October 23, 2009

Pounding the Pavement

by Kathryn Casey

We spend so much time talking about forensic science these days because it's hard to overemphasize how much it has changed police work. Rarely do I go to a trial where someone doesn't bring up DNA, trace evidence and the like. It's talked about in hushed tones, like the Holy Grail of justice. And it should be. Good forensic science can free the innocent and bring the guilty to punishment.

But we often forget how much of police work remains logic and legwork, covering the bases, putting in the time, thinking the cases through and coming up with ideas. Case in point: Yesterday's sad discovery of the body of seven-year-old Somer Thompson, the Orange Park, FL, girl who disappeared while walking home from school two days earlier. That's Somer pictured above. As many of you may already know, her remains were found in a Georgia landfill, legs sticking out of a mound of garbage. An autopsy is underway, but authorities have already labeled the manner of death as homicide.

Why were the police in that landfill? Did forensic evidence suggest Somer was somehow connected to the landfill? No. In this case, as in so many others, it was a good investigator thinking through the case and making a suggestion that led to a crucial discovery. Sheriff Rick Beseler credits one of his detectives with suggesting that the landfill should be checked. Orange Park's garbage is routinely hauled to this Georgia dump site. Based on that detective's reasoning, that the body might be among the refuse, Breseler told detectives to go through the debris as the trucks brought it in.

"Had we not done that, tons of garbage would have been distributed over the top of the body, and it likely would have never been found," said Beseler.

This isn't an anomaly. Lots of cases come together because of good old-fashioned police work. One comes to mind: the Piper Rountree case, the subject of my 2007 book, Die, My Love. In that case, prosecutors insisted police didn't have a solid case until they produced witnesses who could place Rountree, a Houston attorney, in Richmond, VA, where her ex-husband was ambushed and gunned down in his driveway there. No forensic evidence, no phone leads, nothing suggested how they might find those crucial witnesses. Instead, gumshoeing, walking the streets and asking questions, led investigators to folks who could point at Rountree in a courtroom and say, "That's her. I saw her in Richmond."

Now that little Somer's body has been found, of course, the forensic folks have moved in, combing the landfill for clues leading to her killer. I'm not suggesting that their role is any less important. But they wouldn't be there if not for the good idea of one cop who thought the case through and made a crucial suggestion.

Let's hope the forensic folks and the detectives working the Thompson case get every break they need to find the scumbag responsible for little Somer's death. Anyone who'd murder a child and throw her body in the trash needs to be found quickly and dealt with severely.


Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Should the Casey Anthony Case Be Moved?

By Women In Crime Ink

Today we've asked our contributors to weigh in on the Casey Anthony case. The question asked: Should Casey Anthony’s trial be moved out of the county where the crime occurred?

Laura James: The pretrial publicity is a problem. I can't imagine how they're going to get jurors who (a) have half a brain AND (b) haven't heard things on TV that won't be offered into evidence. Seems to me it ought to be moved, not only to ensure a fair trial but to ensure it's not overturned on appeal.

Kathryn Casey: This is such a national case, I don’t know where they could move it. If they had the option, which I don't believe they do, even moving it to another state wouldn't help. Is there a place where people haven't heard of it? My guess is no. It shouldn't be moved.

Andrea Campbell: Don't we get too bogged down in "fairness?" Was it fair for the little baby to be found with duct tape over her mouth and in garbage bags? I have no sympathy for narcissistic mothers who can't take care of their children because it might interfere with their lives.

Diane Fanning: A trial cannot be moved out of the state in which the crime has been committed unless it is a federal offense. Since Casey Anthony is facing state criminal charges, there is no option but trial in Florida. However, I do think attorneys could make a compelling argument for moving it out of the Central Florida area.

Jurors do not need to be ignorant of the news, but they do need to set aside the biases and interpretation of the facts derived from media reports and make their decisions solely based on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

Quite honestly, though, if I were Casey Anthony’s attorney, I’d be look for the best plea bargain I could negotiate. Casey’s actions and words in June and July 2008 combined with the forensic evidence gathered by law enforcement paint a strong portrait of guilt. It seems to me that an attorney would have to have an enormous ego to believe he could overcome the strength of the prosecution’s case, based on what has been released thus far. I expect that the state has even more damaging information that has not yet been revealed to the public.

Robin Sax: The publicity concerns are the same in her home county in Florida as they would be everywhere. The case has had not only a statewide but nationwide media attention and therefore has nationwide exposure. What difference would one part of Florida make over another, other than inconveniencing everyone, costing more money, and delaying a trial for someone who should be begging for a plea deal.


Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Who's Crazy? And Should the Jury Be Told?

by Women in Crime Ink

In the first of an ongoing series asking WCI contributors to weigh in on cases and issues, we posed the question: While not legally insane, some murderers have other types of mental illnesses, personality disorders and the like. Should those be considered when deciding guilt/innocence? What about sentencing?

Read on, to find out what WCI's bloggers think about this important issue:

Laura James: A defendant's "personality disorder" falls under the "so what" category for me. I'd bet half the people I know could be diagnosed with a "personality disorder."

Kathryn Casey: It’s not relevant. We're not talking about severe mental illness here, where someone doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong, which is the legal test for insanity. These people are capable of working with attorneys to defend themselves, although their frequent tendency toward pathological lies can get in the way. (It's not smart to lie to one's own lawyer and leave him/her unprepared.) Lots of folks have personality disorders, yet they don’t commit murder. Should this come up at all, it should be in sentencing. I honestly think severe poverty and childhood abuse are more mitigating factors.

Andrea Campbell: I do believe that the mentally ill fall into a crevice when it comes to society. No one wants to claim or protect them most of the time. And I do think their mental condition should be made known during trial. But I don't think we need to cut slack for heinous crimes or felonies. I've always been torn on this issue, but justice needs to keep dangerous people out of society. I guess that either means a mental health facility or incarceration.

Diane Fanning: Murderers, with anti-social personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and perhaps even borderline personality disorder, are people who understand the difference between right and wrong but just don’t care about the law, about the people around them, or about their victims. A violent offender with one of these disorders is a danger to society but also to those who guard them in prisons. They should not be viewed as equal to a person suffering from severe mental illness, who if given proper treatment and medication may be able to lead positive and productive lives. Adults with severe personality disorder are unlikely to ever move beyond their condition and thus, it should have no bearing on guilt or innocence.

In sentencing, juries should consider the personality disorders of violent offenders, but not to mitigate the offenses. Instead, it should help deliver sentences that ensures these individuals are not allowed to roam free and prey on innocent victims.

Robin Sax: Everyone who commits a murder MUST have a personality disorder; the personality disorder makes him a murderer who should be punished.


Thursday, August 27, 2009

Women In Crime Ink on Deadly Women

by Women in Crime Ink

The second season of "Deadly Women" on Investigation Discovery covers four centuries and seven countries, revisiting female killers and their crimes. Each episode features Candice DeLong, a former FBI agent and profiler, Dr. Janis Amatuzio, a forensic pathologist, and multiple female murderers.

In tonight's episode, "Blood for Money," Women in Crime Ink's Diane Fanning talks about Celeste Beard, the case Kathryn Casey wrote about in SHE WANTED IT ALL . Celeste had it made when she left her waitress job to marry Steve Beard, a multi-millionaire. But she threw it all away when she convinced her lesbian lover that Steve had to die.

This season, Diane and Kathryn will appear in additional episodes of Deadly Women. Watch for them. And tonight, make sure you don't miss Diane on "Blood for Money," at 9 pm eastern, on Investigation Discovery's Deadly Women.


Wednesday, August 26, 2009

One of Us, On E! Tonight

by Women In Crime Ink

What's even more fun than a program entitled Billionaire Crime Scenes? Watching a WCI regular dish on an amazing case. Tonight, 10 p.m. ET, explore murder among the wealthy on the E! channel. WCI's own Kathryn Casey will offer insight into the the bizarre case of Celeste Beard, a 32-year-old country club waitress who married a multimillionaire TV tycoon, only to convince her gay lover to shotgun him down! For those of you who haven't yet read it, the Beard case is explored in depth in Casey's fascinating book: SHE WANTED IT ALL.

Without a doubt, the Beard case has it all: sex, money, madness. "This is the strangest case I've ever covered," says Casey. "And that's saying something!" Casey, who has a book signing tonight at Murder by the Book in Houston, will have her TiVo set. If you're not close enough to drive over for the signing, turn on E! and settle in for a treat. In addition to the Beard case, the program will feature the cases of New Yorker Robert Durst, Edmond Safra and Ted Maher, Charlie White and Darin White, Susan Cummings and Roberto Villegas, Ted Ammon and Danny Pelosi.


Friday, June 19, 2009

Sarah's Back—With a Novel Reward for True Crime Buffs

The American Library Association's Booklist magazine calls Singularity, the first Sarah Armstrong mystery, one of last year's "Best Crime Novel Debuts." It's been a long wait for book two in this exciting new series. In fact, most of us will have to hang in there a bit longer, until July 21st, when Blood Lines hits stores. But now there's good news: One lucky WCI reader is about to move to the head of the line.

How? A contest, one that'll show off your knowledge of true crime. The prize: an ARC, an Advanced Review Copy, of Blood Lines, personalized and autographed by the author, WCI's own Kathryn Casey.

Praise is already pouring in for Blood Lines. Booklist calls it "a strong sequel." Library Journal says Blood Lines is "engrossing and well-written." Publishers Weekly says the second Sarah Armstrong mystery is "enjoyable," and "Casey successfully taps into celebrity obsessed culture." Enter the contest, win, and nearly a month before its pub date, you'll have your own copy!

To whet your appetite, here's a taste:

In Blood Lines, Cassidy Collins is living the dream. The latest teen singing sensation and the darling of the fan magazines, Collins has money and fame. She's escaped her humble beginnings to become a star. Everything is perfect for Collins, except for one complication, a potentially fatal one: the stalker who threatens to take her life.

Meanwhile, Faith Roberts believes her dead sister, Billie Cox, is contacting her from beyond the grave. What does Billie want Faith to know? Is she trying to tell her who pulled the trigger?

A year after tackling the most dangerous case of her career, the Texas Ranger's lone profiler, Sarah Armstrong, is back and charged with untangling two troubling cases that take her from Houston oil mansions to behind the scenes at rock concerts and the world's biggest rodeo. In the end, Sarah's forced into a battle of wits with a brilliant criminal intent on murder.

And now for our contest. Below are excerpts from ten true-crime classics. The first reader to correctly guess the authors and titles of all ten will win an autographed ARC of Blood Lines. You may list your answers in the comments to this post or by e-mailing us at womenincrimeink@yahoo.com. This contest will remain open until we have a winner. Good luck!

1) “I think that you can infer from the evidence that a fight developed in the master bedroom between Colette and the defendant. . . . You know those words—‘Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy.’ I believe those words were said, but not from fear of intruders. . . . They were said as Kimberly came to the master bedroom to find out what was going on between her mother and father.”

2) “[The boy] had a coughing fit, so I stuffed a pillow under his head. Then I turned off the lights. . . . The taping came later, after I’d tied both the women in their bedrooms. . . . Dick carried the flashlight when we went to tape [the father] and the boy. . . . I thought he was a very nice gentleman. Soft-spoken. I thought so right up until the moment I cut his throat.”

3) “Sharon looked at her and was crying and begging, ‘Please don’t kill me. Please don’t kill me. I don’t want to die. I want to live. I want to have my baby. . . . ' Susan said she looked Sharon in the eye and said, ‘Look, bitch, I don’t care about you. I don’t care if you’re going to have a baby. You had better be ready. You’re going to die, and I don’t feel anything about it.’ ”

4) “He and Danny had attended a drive-in movie, he said, and returned to Mercer House after midnight. Back at the house, [Danny] suddenly went wild . . . smashed an eighteenth-century English grandfather clock. Then . . . he grabbed one of William’s German Lugers . . . [and] aimed it directly at Williams, who was sitting behind his desk.”

5) “It was 3:00 a.m. when [she] arrived at the Chi Omega house. . . . She heard a loud thump. . . . A moment later, she heard running footsteps in the corridor above. . . . And then she saw him, a slender man, wearing a dark jacket. . . . A ‘Toboggan’ . . . was pulled down over the top half of his face. She saw him only in profile, but she could make out a sharp nose. The man was crouched over, his left hand on the doorknob. And in his right hand, incredibly, he held a club, a club that seemed to be a log.”

6) “Johnny asked, ‘Where’s the baby?’ . . . The patrolman directed him toward a closed door. . . . The room was obviously a nursery, but the pleasant aroma of baby talcum was mixed with the smell of death. . . . The blood seemed everywhere. It had coagulated on the mattress to form a grotesque halo around the baby’s head. His curly brown locks were matted and dyed a dark red. He looked so innocent and helpless, not much bigger than the stuffed animals surrounding him.”

7) “There was this man, standing there in the middle of the road. He looked like he needed help. I stopped the car, and got out. He wanted my keys. He just reached in through the window and shot my kids. . . . He shot me too.”

8) “I wasn’t fifty feet out of the driveway when my car was blocked. . . . I thought, It’s my turn to get whacked for Lufthansa. I saw this guy in a windbreaker who popped up alongside the car and jammed a gun against the side of my head. For a second, I thought it was over. Then he screamed, ‘Make one move, motherfucker, and I’ll blow you away!’ That’s when I began to relax. That’s when I knew they were cops. Only cops talk that way. If it had been wiseguys, I wouldn’t have heard a thing. I would have been dead.”

9) “Suddenly the doorbell rang. With a whoop, Robert ran to the foyer. Myra followed him. Just as the child put his hands on the knob, his grandmother felt something was wrong. . . . A strange man pushed his way in and stood in dominance. Though in her seventies, Myra's senses were sharp and her powers of observations clear. She would never forget how this intruder looked, even though her heart was rising in her throat. She first noticed his eyes . . . ‘wild eyes, like great big marbles rolling about. And glistening like they had a coat of shellac on them. . . .’ It seemed he was wearing a sorrel-colored wig, with a strip of greenish cloth dangling about his head. And in his hand, casually held as if it were nothing but a stone picked up at random from a plowed field, was a gun.”

10) “ ‘School children make nice targets,’ he threatened. ‘I think I shall wipe out a school bus some morning . . . and pick off the kiddies as they come bouncing out.’ ”


Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Go Directly to Jail and DON'T Collect $175,000

by Kathryn Casey

Think the system is broken? Tired of hearing about money handed over to the very folks who cause the problems? Okay, picture this: a U.S. district judge is sentenced to 33 months in a federal prison, a stint he began just yesterday. Do you think that judge should be off the federal payroll? Samuel Kent apparently doesn't understand the logic.

Kent's crime? Obstruction of justice, for lying to a judiciary panel about his alleged sexual misconduct. His sentence came down May 11th. In a plea deal, Kent, 59, admitted that he lied about his sexual conduct with two employees. (Kent is the first federal judge in history to be indicted for alleged sexual crimes.) In return, prosecutors dropped five sexual abuse charges. Many argued that the sentence was way lenient. Disappointing but the end of story? It seemed so on June 3rd, when Kent tendered his resignation.

The catch: He wants to be paid for another year..

On what grounds does Kent argue he's entitled to keep collecting his $174,000 a year salary and benefits until June 1, 2010? Because he needs the money and the health insurance. (Like the hundreds of thousands of unemployed and uninsured Americans don't?) And, perhaps more to the point, he figures he can get away with it. Why? Because he hopes it could take that long for Congress to get around to impeaching him.

"Impeachment is going to be brutal. It's going to be ugly, and it's going to be nasty," says well known Houston defense attorney Dick DeGuerin. Kent's attorney, DeGuerin charges that now that Kent has tendered his resignation, the only reason lawmakers could have to move on an impeachment is to get face time on TV and grandstand.

You know, some of us (my hand is raised) disagree. Let's review what Kent is alleged to have done. Consider the testimony of Cathy McBroom, one of two former employees who testified she was harassed by Kent: "He had one arm around my waist and was using the other arm to pull up my blouse and bra, exposing my entire breast. He also tried to force his hand down my skirt." Later, McBroom says a drunk Kent pushed her face toward his crotch and demanded oral sex.

In my humble opinion, it's Kent's behavior that's brutal, ugly, and nasty, not impeachment.

What's happening to Kent is deserved. He's not the victim; he's the perpetrator. Kent admits he tried to force himself on McBroom, a former case manager, and Donna Wilkerson, his secretary. He realizes he's going to serve time. He just doesn't want to give up the cash. (Kudos to McBroom and Wilkerson for having the courage to expose a federal judge. That couldn't have been easy.)

This is Kent's second attempt to stay on the federal dole. Earlier, he requested that he be allowed to retire on disability due to depression and psychiatric issues, which would have ensured him a paycheck for the rest of his life. That, thankfully, was denied.

So, what's to be done? The good news is that it's underway. Spurred by the judge's continued quest to collect a paycheck, on Wednesday, June 3, Congress began hearings that will undoubtedly lead to impeachment.

"This is a clear cut case," Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif, told the Associated Press. Lungren is right. It's a no-brainer. My question is: Why has this taken so long? Kent pleaded guilty in January and was sentenced in May. Notice the photo of Judge Kent at the top, waving? Glad to see him go, but I'm not sure why he thinks we're supposed to subsidize the trip.


Tuesday, June 9, 2009

The "Best" Spousal Murder Stories

by Laura James

Books about spousal murder, when done well, can make for the most insightful psychological reading around. That's why we love to read them. That's why we love to study these cases. That's why spousal murders have been one of the most perennially popular themes in literature, fiction and non-. When we crack open the bedroom door on a marriage that went to hell, we often wonder, do we see anything recognizable?

The greatest strength and appeal of well-written books in this theme lie in the psychological analysis of the principals. Sometimes this is done by the author, who comes right out with her conclusions about the causes of matrimonial disasters. Sometimes the facts speak for themselves, and perfect reporting with nary a hint of error or fictionalizing can speak powerfully to the character of the husbands and wives who end up at one another's throats. By the time we're done with the best of these books, we can fathom the endings.

The best five books about a spousal murder that I have ever read -- the most insightful, the most revealing of the nature of a couple -- strictly non-fiction, true crime, of course -- are these five books.

A Crime of Passion by Stanley Loomis - L'Affaire Praslin, a spousal murder story of great human drama involving French royalty, played out in the weeks immediately prior to the bloodbath of 1848. Searing in its perceptions of the husband and wife -- a Duke and Duchess, murderer and murderee -- it is a terrific book published forty years ago that deserves to be better known and loved today. It's a true spine-tingler.

Until the 12th of Never by Bella Stumbo - The murder of Dan and Linda Broderick by Betty Broderick. It’s impossible to finish this without having a strong opinion on the case.

Dead by Sunset by Ann Rule - The murder of Cheryl Cunningham by Brad Cunningham. Said Kirkus: “This book is better plotted than the murder itself.”

She Wanted It All by Kathryn Casey - The murder of Steve Beard by Celeste Beard and Tracey Tarlton. An even better title might have been She Couldn’t Wait.

Gone Forever by Diane Fanning - The murder of Susan McFarland by Richard McFarland told in chilling detail through the victim's diary and the murderer's confession.

I'd love to hear your suggestions along these lines... or the reason you find yourself drawn to macabre stories of marriages that ended in bloody tragedies.


Friday, January 9, 2009

This Week's Women In Crime Appearances

Here at Women in Crime Ink, we wanted to add something new to our weekend posts. Specifically, where you can see, hear, or meet the regular contributors! We will try and update every weekend, in the event we don't have a "Mystery Man" or "Your Turn" post. As you know, many of our contributors frequently appear on radio, television, print, or in person. This way, you can join us! Whether it's Diane Dimond filling in for CNN's Nancy Grace, or Pat Brown giving 'em hell on just about every network, this is the place to see a schedule of our upcoming appearances.

This week, meet WCI renowned mystery writer Kathryn Casey at the Pulpwood Queens annual Girlfriend Weekend this coming Friday and Saturday, January 16th and 17th, in historic Jefferson, Texas. The event kicks off Friday morning at the Jefferson Tourism and Convention Center on Austin Street. Kathryn will be part of a panel billed as, "Authors in the News," scheduled to take stage at 9:45 a.m. Friday morning. Afterward, she'll meet, greet, and sign books in the Vendor and Autograph Room. Casey's first novel, SINGULARITY, debuted to rave reviews last July. Don't miss it, attendance is sure to be high! To view more about the convention, click here.

Pat Brown will be offering her take on the California Santa murders Sunday, January 11th, at 9 p.m. EDT on The Dana Pretzer Show, aired on Scared Monkeys Radio. Always a great show, Dana Pretzer is a true fan of WCI and has phenomenal people as guests.


Crime writer and Caylee Anthony author, Diane Fanning, will be appearing on "The Levi Page Show," (as seen at the top) Sunday, January, 11th at 10 p.m. EDT. Also an amazing show, Levi frequently has WCI contributors on.

And, you can always hear Robin Sax, Stacy Dittrich, and Susan Murphy-Milano every Tuesday at 11 p.m EDT on Justice Interrupted Radio. Listen as they dissect, analyze cases, crimes, and people that interrupt and wreak havoc on people’s lives. Whether it's Tina Dirmann discussing her latest crime novel, or Diane Fanning writing the latest on the Casey Anthony case, WCI contributors are the most frequent guests!

Tune in, listen in, or make a stop, but we love to know you're out there! And, as always, drop us a line to let us know your thoughts or opinions. We value them greatly!