My Top 8 Stories of 2010

by Robin Sax


Eight cases, why not? Everyone else can do a Top 10 list -- here are my Top 8 from 2010:

8. Casey Anthony going to trial 

In the case of Casey Anthony,  the mother who allegedly murdered her child Caylee, the jury will want to know how a mom, an attractive, normal woman, could do such a thing to her own daughter. The most damning evidence against Casey Anthony -- the reason, the answer to why she might murder her own daughter, the smoking motive: she didn't want to be a mother anymore.  Anthony wanted to party and be free, and so researched a murder method (chloroform) and went ahead and got rid of her daughter one mile from their home. Sounds like an awful scenario. But it may very well be true. That Casey Anthony is a party girl who killed little Caylee in favor of a liberating, carefree life is not a new theory. But the jailhouse letters and inmate interviews support the idea that she was too young to have a kid and could not hang with being a mom, that she wanted freedom from everything, and that she was willing to do absolutely anything to get that freedom - including murdering her 2-year-old baby. This case may top the list for next year when it goes to trial.

7. Bruce Beresford Redman's wife's murder

Beresford Redman, former Survivor producer, went on vacation to Cancun with his wife, who was found strangled to death adjacent from the Moon Palace Resort. Factors that tend to show that he is guilty: the 3 different life insurance policies he took out on his wife's life within 3 months, including the accidental death and dismemberment policy; witnesses that will attest to fighting the night before her mysterious death; a weak, if not lame, excuse that she went shopping but whoops didn’t bring a cell phone and left at 8:30 am (who does that in Cancun while on vacation?); scratch marks on his neck; inconsistencies in his accounts and the accounts of witnesses; need I go on?  Face it people, we live in a judgmental society. We size people and situations up all the time. We draw conclusions over cocktails, in lunchrooms, and in op-ed pieces, like this one.  I say Bruce (and Richard) it’s time to think of a new PR strategy because this one isn't working! We'll see what happens.

6. Mitrice Richardson murder -- any closer?

This 24-year-old Cal State Fullerton graduate mysteriously vanished after walking out of the Lost Hills Sheriff's station nearly three months ago. According to the Los Angeles Times, authorities believe that Mitrice had gone without sleep for as many as five nights before she was arrested for not paying her bill at a Malibu restaurant. They think she may have had a major mental breakdown, including possibly suffering from bipolar disorder. This begs the question, why didn't anyone at the Lost Hills sheriff's station notice anything strange about Mitrice's mood and behavior? Tragically, the body of Mitrice was found this year (she went missing in September of 2009). Richardson's body was found naked, and her bra and jeans were found apart from her body. The search is still in motion for her killer. 

5. Mel Gibson and Oksana domestic violence blow-up/out

After the details of the January 2010 domestic abuse incident surfaced against Mel Gibson, and the taped rant and tirade were released, the incident chills down the spines of even the most hardened people. No one thought Mel would survive the abuse against Oksana Grigorieva, his girlfriend and mother of one of his children. It seemed clear to all he was going down this time, at least in PR if not as a criminal. To make sure I was not missing something, I called a few of my detective buddies at Lost Hills Sheriff's station back in January and found that they concluded as similarly as I -- that Mel Gibson committed a crime against Oksana and if it were any other person, he or she would have been arrested on the spot. The evidence, when compared to that of a typical domestic violence case, was overwhelming. A report from Oksana, taped calls corroborating Oksana’s words, a suspect clearly afflicted with anger among other issues, medical records and statements consistent with the injuries, and another victim who says similar crimes have happened to her. But the tides shifted to disbelief of Oksana and the case virtually died out. It's unlikely that we'll see much justice in this case.

4. John Gardner confession to killing Chelsea King & Amber Dubois 

How could a man who admittedly molested a 13-year-old girl in 2000 serve only five years in jail when he could have served 30? How could he wind up living yards away from an elementary school? In this case, there are lots of questions but only one answer: It should have never happened. There is no excuse, justification or mitigation that can comfort the King or Dubois family for the murder and rape of their beloved daughters. These are deaths that simply could have been avoided. I participated in a press conference and rally this year to help shed light on the horrible parol system in California that could allow this kind of monster out on the streets. Where is the public outcry on this parole supervision crisis? Where is the accountability? Why are these parolees not being properly supervised and monitored by parole agents? Where is the governor of the State of California on this? Why do these parole administrators continue to have their jobs? Shouldn't they be held accountable for these resulting disasters? How many more innocent people have to be murdered for the department to make changes? How many more innocent victims have to suffer at the hands of roaming parolees?

3. Lindsay Lohan saga

Lindsay Lohan has an appetite for destruction. What can we learn from the recent media blitz on Lindsay Lohan besides just a baffling dose of "why" when watching all of her legal debacles? You may expect me to come up with some hidden message or special lesson here but sometimes the obvious is the hardest to digest. The lesson from LiLo's case: don't drink & drive.  I would like to use my platform and big mouth to rant a little about the issue of driving under the influence. Most of you reading this probably have driven home buzzed at some point in your life. Don't do it again. It's not worth it. Just call a cab or a friend if you have had too many drinks. Not only because you don't want to go to jail like our Ms. Lindsay, but because you want to prevent tragedies. Life is too short. We see that Lindsay did get some celebrity justice but, sadly, there doesn't seem to be enough of time on these celebrity news shows to discuss the dangers of getting a DUI and how rampant, and deadly, the practice of drinking and driving is.

2. Human Trafficking on Craigslist and other sites

Websites like Craigslist, MySpace and MyRedBook have facilitated and spurred new growth in child/human trafficking and prostitution within the United States. The Internet has made it possible for pimps and traffickers to sell and solicit children from thousands of miles away. Savvy online criminals can easily pick up at-risk children and runaways through social networking sites. Craigslist seems to be at the forefront of the online solicitation of children in America, and indeed came under fire in 2010 for this practice. Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster said any ad on Craigslist that enables human trafficking and child exploitation is completely unacceptable and that his company works tirelessly with law enforcement to help stop the attackers on their site ... really? Well, I think we will be hearing a lot more about the Craigslist site in 2011. Tragically, human trafficking of children for the sex industry is a rapidly growing domestic crisis. Yes, here right in America!

1. Ronni Chasen's murder mystery

The police are convinced that the shooting of Ronni Chasen, a wealthy and respected Beverly Hills publicist, was not a professional hit and that 43-year-old Harold Martin Smith acted on his own with the motive being a robbery, albeit a botched robbery. But there have been a ton of rumors and speculation. It is possible that all the premature speculation generated too many unanswered questions to what really happened to Chasen on November 16. Some questions, that are harder than others, contradict Beverly Hills Police Department statements that 43 year old ex-con Harold Smith rode his favorite bike to commit an armed robbery with Chasen the random victim. BHPD will hopefully come forth very soon with convincing information to legitimize their theory that this was not a merciless contract murder that took the life of this vital member of the entertainment industry. Until then, the questions remain. Rest in peace, Ronni Chasen. We will continue to press on as we know you would have. 

Tweet

Oksana Needs Reputation Rehab!

by Robin Sax

Less than four months ago, Oksana Grigorieva was the “poster child” of the domestic violence victim. She garnered much support and even sympathy after the details of the January 6, 2010 domestic abuse detail surfaced. Mel Gibson’s taped rant and tirade sent chills down the spines of even the most hardened of people. No one thought Mel would survive this one. It seemed clear, to all, he was going down this time. To make sure I wasn't missing something, I called a few of my detective buddies at Lost Hills Sheriff's Station and found that they concluded as similarly as I---that Mel Gibson committed a crime against Oksana and if it were any other person, he or she would have been arrested on the spot.

The evidence (compared to the typical DV case) was overwhelming--a report from Oksana, taped calls corroborating Oksana’s words, a suspect clearly afflicted with anger, among other issues, medical records and statements consistent with the injuries, and another victim who says similar crimes have happened to her.

So how is that in four short months the tides have changed so much that Oksana is not only disbelieved, but she is loathed and Mel is coming out seemingly clean? Are the coming and goings of 39 lawyers, as reported by TMZ, a sign that Oksana’s case is weak or that no one can take control? Is the difficulty because of Oksana or because of the people around her? Are there just too many ego driven people who want a piece of celebrity, so much so that they cannot get a cohesive plan together? Whatever the reasons are, the state of the case is most telling.

Mel’s camp has succeeded in the court of public opinion because they have been rock solid in how and where they fight the battle. They have a strategy, and the team works together. You don’t see Stephen Kolodny or Blair Berke being quoted all over the place. You see a solid team with a solid division of labors with no credit or stardom needed. You don't see Mel's lawyers releasing evidence to TMZ before it gets to the sheriff and DA. And if you don’t think this matters, think again.

As the DA’ s office is deciding what to do about filing domestic violence charges against Mel and/or extortion charges against Oksana, be aware that the Los Angeles District Attorney has a written policy mandating the filing Deputy DA to consider the likelihood of successful prosecution. And what better way to tell what potential jurors are thinking than reading what the wing nuts are saying on TMZ? Twelve-hundred negative comments per post doesn't bode well for successful prosecution.

Please do not get me wrong here. I am not saying there is not a case for domestic violence against Mel, but what I am saying is the lack of laser focus by Team Oksana has made the chances for the DA’s office to engage less likely. Remember, the prosecutor has the sole discretion of whether or not to file a case, and, if they don’t feel that they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they don’t need to file it.

The best piece of PR in this case would be a filing by the DA on Mel and a rejection of the extortion charged on Oksana. And instead of Team Oksana making that happen, they have been too busy giving quotes to TMZ, arranging Oprah, and booking People, all of which have backfired.

So, Team Oksana, take a lesson from the Fortune 500 companies when they are in crises. I am not saying the lame basics, like “be transparent.” You need to go further--choose a leader (a real leader, one who has Oksana’s best interest at heart), be honest, be available, be forthcoming, and, by all means, fight your battle in the courtroom. We are all watching your every single move, and you must think beyond today, as we will remember this case not for the details, but for how it was handled.

Tweet

Mitrice Richardson's relationship to Mel Gibson

by Robin Sax

Is there any relationship between the death of Mitrice Richardson (left) and Mel Gibson’s rage-a-holic issues? Both cases happen to be assigned to the Lost Hills Branch of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department -- but that is not much of a connection (as hundreds of cases go through that department). However, the Mitrice Richardson case is impacting the Mel Gibson investigation.

Mitrice Richardson was the 24-year-old woman whose remains were recently found and confirmed. Mitrice was last seen leaving a Los Angeles County Sheriff's station in Malibu in the early morning hours of September 17, 2009 (after being arrested the evening before at the swanky Geoffreys of Malibu). She was arrested for allegedly skipping on her tab and showing signs of "strange and erratic behavior." The search for Mitrice was riddled with issues. Her family is angry; they believe that a young girl with apparent mental health concerns should not have been released in the dark desolate wilderness of Malibu. She should have been kept at the sheriff’s station until a relative could have picked her up; if she had been, she might still be with us today. The finding of Mitrice's body puts no closure on this case which has many more questions than answers.

There is a general feeling here in Los Angeles that something stinks in Lost Hills. While Sheriff Baca (right) insists there was no homicide, the suspicions abound: Why was Mitrice released alone in the middle of the night? Why did the sheriff’s officials deny the existence of a videotape for so many months? Are sheriff's deputies being investigated? Is this a racial issue (of disparate treatment for an African American woman)? What really happened here?

The Mitrice Richardson case, although prominently featured on the CNN Headline News's "Jane Velez-Mitchell" show, hasn't seen nearly as much national print or TV press as Mel Gibson’s most recent brush with the law. Sources close to the Mel Gibson investigation confirm my notion that “if this case was anyone else, that person would be arrested so fast your head would spin.” 

Well, duh! Any Mel Jones or Smith accused of domestic violence with the heap of corroboration or evidence (as in this case) would have been arrested already. There would be a mound of paperwork on the DA’s desk requesting charges for domestic violence, criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, child endangerment, and a few other felony charges.  A cop wouldn’t even think twice about this arrest. The minimal probable cause standard has been met and re-met over and over again here.

We haven’t seen too many changes in the justice system in the last 20 years. But one positive shift is that domestic violence is not treated lightly or brushed off in today's climate. In my experience, at least 85 percent of the time where there is felonious domestic violence conduct in a case, there is an arrest -- period. Given the high correlation of domestic batteries leading to domestic murders, no police station in a post-OJ era wants to risk blood on their hands. Most cops chose to follow the lead of the lobbyists and politicians by adopting the "no tolerance" rule for domestic violence. You hit, you injure, and you go to jail.

So if that’s the case, why hasn’t Mel been arrested yet? Part of the answer may be that Mel Gibson (left) is one of the most powerful actors around. But I have come to find out that the predominant reason is because of the Mitrice Richardson case. 

What happened with Mitrice Richardson (and we only found out recently that she is dead) has brought on so much bad local press for the Sheriff’s Department that it is paralyzed. The recent Friday, August 13, Los Angeles Times editorial "Failing Mitrice Richardson: A woman's tragic end in Malibu Canyon raises questions about Sheriff's Department practices" comes down very hard on the sheriff's department. How can the department now afford to act in Mel’s case and risk more intense scrutiny at this time? As a matter of fact, my sources tell me the department is so paralyzed it has pretty much allowed Blair Berk (Mel’s lawyer) to dictate the course of the entire investigation.

So, it's clear (as I said): the Mitrice  Richardson case is directly affecting the investigation -- and probably the prosecution -- of Mel Gibson. Although the Sheriff's Department says it plans to turn over Mel Gibson's domestic violence case to prosecutors "within the next two weeks" -- it remains to be seen. And hopefully, since no suspect has been identified in Mitrice's case, the effect that Mitrice Richardson has on the Sheriff's department won't spill over to the DA's office too.

It is interesting to note that we are talking about the same police department that arrested Mel Gibson for his DUI back in 2006 when he went on a racist, antisemitic, misogynistic rant for officers while resisting arrest. So how did Gibson get home that night? Reportedly, he got a ride home from the police. 

So, if it had been Mel  arrested that night in Geoffreys instead of Mitrice (and we can just imagine what range of "mental health" issues would have brought on Gibson's arrest),  they surely wouldn't have released Mel into the dark night without knowing exactly how he was getting home safe.  

The reality of this last fact is the crux of the whole issue: that is, when the eyes of the celebrity media monster are fixated on a case in the LA Sheriff's Department,  the department is going to act differently, or not act at all. Are they hoping the monster will just go away? I am sure Mitrice's family is feeling the same as I do ... hoping that justice will be served by prosecuting Mel, by getting to the bottom of what happened to Mitrice (right, on People magazine cover in 2009), and holding the police and criminals accountable. 

Tweet

Celebrity Justice?

by Robin Sax

Celebrity justice: is it an oxymoron?  Do celebrities get justice?  Do they get treated better?  Do they get treated worse?  Most people believe that celebrities get preferential treatment with shortened sentences, easy plea deals and the like.  The New York Daily News, supporting this view, has provided its findings as proof that celebs do the crime -- they just don’t do the time.  

The site offers various examples of recent celeb cases where the jail sentence was cut short: Paris Hilton, in 2007, was sentenced to 45 days in jail, but released after four days; Lindsay Lohan, in 2007, was sentenced to four days in jail but released after 84 minutes; Nicole Richie, in 2007 was sentenced to four days in jail but released after 82 minutes; Michelle Rodriguez, in 2008, was sentenced to 180 days in jail but released after 17 -- you get the idea. 

But is this really a factor of stardom, or is everyone getting a break these days?  Plenty of non-celebs  get their jail time curtailed because of jail overcrowding and other factors. It's important to remember celebs aren't the only people do less time then sentenced. However, it's hard for the general public to digest this, because everyday-Joe cases aren't covered 24/7. 

Paris Hilton Mug Shot

Preferential treatment is sometimes defined or viewed as reverse discrimination. It occurs when a person receives a benefit because he/she is of a certain societal or economic status, or has another categorization making them "special", such as a Hollywood or media star. Because preferential treatment rarely rises to the level of discrimination, it can be very difficult to prove that a person is actually receiving better treatment based on his/her celebrity status.

There exists a popular notion that celebrities who are accused of crimes are more likely to be acquitted or receive lighter sentences than non-celebrities.  According to empirical research from studies by the The Law and Society Association, the status and authority of a defendant can indeed influence jurors’ decision-making processes. This social power sometimes translates into favorable treatment in the courtroom. But some celebrities'  fame  may work against them. In other words, the preferential treatment celebrities were found to receive in a courtroom or jail setting might not translate exactly to lighter legal treatment -- as is often thought.

What celebrities get is different treatment. And really, is that entirely wrong? I think everyone would readily agree that while there should be uniformity and consistency in court, the unique situation of any person's case could require a change in protocol or policy.  As a former prosecutor, I saw this all the time. While the sentences I would seek for defendants were uniform and objective, I always balanced the defendant's history and situation -- which may have lead him or her to the life of crime; you also must include and weigh occupational and educational backgrounds. The fact is that while everyone likes black-letter law and rock solid rules, that's not always possible to execute. In some cases it's just plain impractical and, frankly, unjust.

Lindsay Lohan Mug Shot

The perception that stars get special treatment persists and is being fed by the recent incarceration of LiLo. We are hearing all about Lohan getting her own cell, extra time in the infirmary, use of TV and Internet, specialty foods, newer/nicer clothes, extra guards, private phone use, extended visiting hours, isolation from the other prisoners, and more. But what else can we do with a celebrity likely to be target for other inmates, the public, and the media? Part of the sheriff's department's responsibility is protecting inmates. 

The celebrity courthouse circus is sometimes cited as a drain on the criminal justice system because of the extra costs of special treatment. But by definition, a celebrity is someone who is different from and fascinating to the general public. Their fame means they're subject to more intense scrutiny and require different protections. They usually give up their private lives in exchange for our adoration (and the need more security measures). 

We have political stars, Hollywood stars, music stars, sports stars, even news-media stars, and now reality-TV stars who've all had run-ins with the law. The recent media interest in Lindsay Lohan and in the Michael Jackson /Conrad Murray case, though, have surpassed the interest in other celebrity legal-ins of recent memory (Martha Stewart, Robert Downey Jr., and Hugh Grant come to mind). Of course, most will say -- and I agree -- the OJ Simpson trial solidified our fascination with celebrity justice.

Mel Gibson Mug Shot

So do celebrities receive special treatment in court? Does the expression "duh" mean anything to you? But, again, special is not necessarily preferential. When a celebrity is due to appear in court, authorities have to use extra safety precautions to protect the celebrity, courthouse employees, and the general public. They may need to request additional sheriff deputies;  provide extra security for the public; assign extra clerks for taking the minutes (because of the extra scrutiny); and use more District Attorney resources and staff time overall.  

Precautions use different resources when a celeb goes to jail rather than just a courthouse appearance. For example, a motorcade took Lindsay Lohan to jail -- probably necessary, but definitely costly.

There are also cases in other courtrooms, on other judges's calendars, that can't be moved just because a high-profile person is facing one judge, whether for a brief hearing, a full trial, or sentencing, on a particular day. The constitutional rights of all defendants mean the court has to keep certain dates, so there is no way to actually shut down the courthouse completely. 

However, to the extent that a judge has discretion over that particular day's case load, he/she may postpone everything possible. Criminal courts are open to the public (whereas family courts, as in Mel Gibson's family court case, are closed to the public), so celebrity criminal cases mean it will take more time for the public and news media to file in and out of the courthouse. Approximately 20 percent of all judges's court hearings will likely be rescheduled on the day of a celebrity appearance to allow for the extra time needed.

In a way, a celebrity court hearing could be looked upon as a burden on the justice system (in both financial and logistical terms); however, nothing is going to change that fact so long as there is still such strong public interest in celebrity trials. It's important to remember that not all celebrity cases involve Hollywood stars. In some cases, celebrity is actually notoriety. For example, in the cases of Joran van der Sloot and Philip Garrido, they not celebrities per se, but their crimes were so horrific and intriguing that public interest has elevated the status of the case to that of a celebrity trial. 

Not so widely discussed is the public benefit of celebrity justice. For example, the public will become more educated about the justice system, and the trials can be used as deterrents for bad behaviors ... as in, don't get a DUI, for starters, and then, duh, don't violate the terms of your probation -- or you will go to jail (Lindsay!).

When celebrities break the law, they may sometimes be given extra resources or attention from the criminal justice system because of their star status -- but it is mostly because the public interest necessitates the special treatment. It is very much a Catch 22: you can't have stars without setting them apart from the rest of society, but you can't have true equality in the justice system if some individuals are set apart. We do the best we can and hope that in the end, the punishment will fit the crime, regardless of who commits it (fingers crossed)!

Tweet