A "Well Deserved" Guilty Verdict

by Tina Dirmann

When the guilty verdict finally came for Skylar Deleon, he didn't weep. He didn't sigh. He didn't blink.

Skylar just stood there, staring blankly, with the same cold expression I imagine he wore when he callously took the lives of three people whose biggest failing in life was to trust him.

On Monday, an Orange County jury took just two hours to deliberate before announcing that Deleon was guilty in the murders of a retired couple, Tom and Jackie Hawks, and the slaying of a former pilot, Jon Peter Jarvi. The details of the crimes, which I recounted in the book Vanished At Sea, are chilling, to say the least.

I remember, when doing press for the book, I often told interviewers that in all my 15 years as a crime reporter, I'd never covered anyone so bereft of humanity as 27-year-old Skylar Deleon. This is a man who, minutes after slitting the throat of one victim, boasted to a relative, "You're dealing with the devil now."

Indeed, if evil does exist in this world, it is embodied within the skin of Skylar Deleon and his wife, Jennifer Deleon, 25, who was convicted for her part in the murder in late 2006. The case that got the most attention from the media involved Tom and Jackie Hawks, who turned up missing in November 2004, shortly after posting an ad to sell their home, a 55-foot yacht they called Well Deserved.

Skylar and his young, pregnant wife, posing as buyers, answered the ad. After gaining their trust, Skylar arranged to return to the boat with a few associates to take the Well Deserved for a test ride.

But while at sea, Skylar used a taser to overpower the couple, then handcuffed them and held them at gun point while forcing them to sign a document transferring the boat title and power of attorney to Skylar.

With the help of associates Alonso Machain and John Kennedy, Skylar then tied the couple to one of the boat's anchors and, while Jackie tearfully begged for their lives, dropped the anchor overboard. The couple was hurled overboard and sank to their deaths.

Skylar, an unemployed bit-part actor, and his wife, a hair dresser, insisted they bought the boat and the Hawks drove off to Mexico. The Hawks' loving family knew their relatives—responsible, respectable, outgoing people—would never drop out of touch. They assumed the worst. And that worst was confirmed when accomplice McCain, a guy more dumb and naive than evil, confessed to police.

No less horrific was the death of Jon Jarvi, whom Skylar befriended only to swindle him out of $50,000 in a bogus real-estate deal. Skylar lured Jarvi to Mexico, supposedly to surf and talk over this "deal of a lifetime." But once there, Skylar drove Jarvi down an isolated dirt road, calmly slit his throat, then left him to bleed out, alone, on a deserted roadway.

It took nothing short of heroic investigative efforts on the part of the Newport Beach Police Department to tie the murders back to Skylar and his main accomplice, the innocent-looking Jennifer Deleon, who, at every turn, covered for her husband and lied to the police.

In the end, Skylar and all of his accomplices landed in jail. Jennifer is serving life behind bars. Alonso and another accomplice will probably get reduced sentences for cooperating in the investigation.

But death will surely come for Skylar, and, likely, John Kennedy, who notably kicked Tom off his feet so he would more easily slide off the boat and into the frigid waters that tragic night—then grabbed a rod onboard and fished all the way home. Kennedy, a known Long Beach gang member, will face trial next year.

Skylar's death penalty case begins on Wednesday. You can bet his attorneys will drag out all the details of Skylar's terrible childhood. Basically, his dad was a drug dealer who verbally abused his son. Yeah, his tender years were rough. But I can't imagine that's going to be enough to excuse his sins.

This jury already got it right once. I'm sure they will again.

And I know, no one is more anxious to see the ultimate penalty pronounced than the Hawks' son, Ryan, who is the spitting image of his deceased father. "Let's just get on with it," Ryan said simply after the verdict was announced.

I couldn't agree more. . . .

Tweet

Does O.J. Deserve an Unbiased Jury?

by Tina Dirmann

O.J. Simpson may not get a fair trial. That's what a lot of people are saying, right? That jurors will be stinging, still, from that February 5, 1997 verdict that allowed him to walk away from a double homicide charge. And jurors will be so outraged, apparently, that they will not be able to weigh the facts objectively now that he stands trial for kidnapping and armed robbery in Las Vegas.

My take? The talk is right. And, beyond that, my guess is that few people care if Simpson's right to a fair trial is violated.

As a career crime reporter, I know only too well that no matter what we think of Simpson—and I do think he brutally slashed to death ex-wife Nicole Brown and friend Ron Goldman—he still deserves an unbiased jury.

You know, the kind he didn't get the first time—only that worked out in his favor. But this time? Eh, my gut says probably not so much. Oh, forget my gut. Listen to the potential jurors directly.

"I feel the case down in Los Angeles—if someone got away with that," a male juror angrily reasoned, "you would keep yourself clean and you wouldn't come back and commit another crime."

That one led the defense attorney to try to have all potential jurors who even heard the comment dismissed. The judge refused. After all, it's taken all week to find 12 unbiased jurors. She wasn't about to allow such a setback. But she did allow others who agreed with him to raise their hands. A few did. All were sent home.

Another juror admitted on his questionnaire that he couldn't get over his anger about the 1995 acquittal (though he later said under examination that he had a "change of heart" about that). Right.

I can't help but wonder, in fact, if there are some folks out there who are so upset over that long-ago injustice, that they'll gloss over their feelings publicly just to get a seat on that jury and somehow finally seek justice for those old murders. It could happen. And we'd probably never know. No more than we knew the jurors in California all those years ago were incapable of setting aside feelings of bitterness over police injustice to the minority community and seek their retribution by letting an obviously guilty man go.

But all that aside, what I'd really love to know is . . . What is O.J. thinking as he sits there, listening to people call him a murderer. Unlike the last time, when he would roll his eyes at comments in court and famously proclaim himself "100% not guilty," Simpson remains passive, with not a flicker of emotion crossing his face as each day's proceedings roll on.

But I bet he is scared. He's 61 years old and once again facing life in prison, this time for kidnapping, armed robbery, and assault in connection to stealing items from two sports memorabilia dealers in a Vegas hotel room last year—memorabilia he claims were his. Such a dumb crime. And this time, he's alone, pretty much. No gavel-to-gavel coverage by all the media networks. No outraged black community. No Cochran and crew (a.k.a., Dream Team). No lenient Judge Lance Ito allowing the circus to dance on and on.

And I think Simpson knows the chances of getting 12 jurors and 6 alternates with absolutely no opinion, with no ax to grind against him, are pretty slim. I'm not saying it's right. Or fair. That's just the way it is.

And if I were O.J., I'd be plenty scared.

Tweet

MacKenzie Phillips Busted for Drugs . . . Again.

by Tina Dirmann

I am a true-crime author as well as a Hollywood news reporter. As a result, I usually use this space to combine my expertise and give you updates on whatever is happening with celebrity types who've landed on the wrong side of the law. Usually it involves some A-lister acting bratty (i.e. above the law). Or, at worst, highlighting a jury who let celebrity cloud their judgment, and let someone off the hook, mostly because the person was, you know, famous. . . .

This time, I'm having a little trouble coming down too hard on the notable name in the news this week: MacKenzie Phillips. You remember her, don't you? The lovable eldest daughter on the old sit-com One Day at a Time and daughter to John Phillips, the founding member of the ’60s band the Mamas and the Papas. Her battle with drugs has been long documented in the media. She's talked about it plenty—even credits the problem with her abrupt removal from the popular ’70s show.

"I grew up in mansions," she said years ago in an interview. "But everything was dirty and broken. Very little was going on inside except sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll."

In more recent years, Phillips went on to say that she successfully battled the problem. She's talked plenty, in interviews, promising not to be one of those childhood star statistics—the one who ends up in jail or, worse, deceased. She kicked the habit, she said.

Turns out, sadly, that wasn't exactly true.

Earlier this week, Phillips, 48, was charged with two felonies in connection to a drug bust at Los Angeles International Airport. On August 27, during a screening by a TSA officer, it was uncovered that Phillips had baggies and balloons containing heroine and cocaine, and had unauthorized possession of a syringe.

Yesterday, her high-powered entertainment attorney, Blair Berk (whose laundry list of celebrity clients include Mel Gibson and Lindsay Lohan), packed her up and sent her to rehab. It will be her tenth trip.

The judge in the case has already said in court that he expects to settle with MacKenzie. Now, I'm never one to advocate leniency in the world of criminal justice. But in this case, yeah, the judge is right on. This is a sad woman. A sick woman. Putting her in jail serves no purpose. She's abused drugs nearly three decades. A stint in jail isn't going to change that. I'm not sure what will, in fact. But a hospital bed, rather than a jail cell, feels right.

One other notable here in the world of celebrity crime news . . . albeit, this one really is only notable because of his famous (and infamous) niece. . . . Anyone following the case of Paul Sullivan, uncle to Lindsay Lohan (and brother to her reality star mom, Dina Lohan)?

I only bring it up because of the unbelievably low depths to which he sank to earn a buck. On August 29, Sullivan (pictured right) was sentenced to a year in jail for defrauding the government out of roughly $646,000.

How? He claimed he had a business that suffered losses in the 9/11 attacks. He didn't. No business at all. Just made it up. But he applied for a small business administration loan, made available to victims of the attacks, and cashed his check.

And you thought Lindsay's tabloid behavior was despicable. . . . I guess she's not quite the black sheep in the family after all.

Tweet

Mary-Kate: What Was She Hiding?

by Tina Dirmann

Who does Michael C. Miller think he's kidding? Really. Don't know who Michael C. Miller is? Well, I'm sure you know his high-profile client, Mary-Kate Olsen. Miller is the high-dollar attorney Olsen hired to block federal investigators from getting anywhere near her. Drug Enforcement Agency officers just wanted to chat with her a bit in connection to the accidental drug overdose of her dear friend, Heath Ledger.

Miller said no way.

"Despite tabloid speculation," Miller said in a prepared statement, "Mary-Kate Olsen had nothing whatsoever to do with the drugs found in Heath Ledger's home or his body, and she does not know where he obtained them."

Okay, so, then I think we're all a little confused as to why she repeatedly refused to cooperate with investigators—unless they promised her immunity.

Immunity from what, Mr. Miller? Ms. Olsen, care to weigh in?

Well, I'm sure she and her attorney are both breathing a sigh of relief since they will never have to answer that question. The Ledger death investigation was officially closed last week, with the U.S. Attoney's Office deciding not to enforce a subpeona against Olsen, issued in April. The key question for investigators looking into the accidental death was how Ledger was able to obtain the lethal cocktail of prescription drugs that he ingested before falling asleep in his Soho apartment on Jan. 22. An autopsy revealed that Ledger had, among other medications, the powerful pain killers Oxycontin and Vicodin in his system.

Ledger did not have a prescription for either medication and investigators wanted to know how he got the drugs.

It's unknown, obviously, whether Mary-Kate can answer that question. Something tells me—and this is just my opinion, mind you—but I'm guessing she had a pretty good idea. Why?

The two were not only good friends. They were party pals. Mary-Kate had become a constant in Heath's life, frequently hanging out with him late into the night. And so, it's no wonder when Heath's masseuse found his body unresponsive, she picked up the cell phone and called, not 911 . . . but Mary-Kate Olsen (who, in response, generously—cowardly—sent over her bodyguards). Thankfully, the massage therapist had also called paramedics by the time Olsen's tough guys arrived.

Is anyone else furious at Olsen? I don't blame her for Heath's mistake. He was an adult. He knew that he was abusing prescription medications. But Olsen, I'm saying she can't walk away by casually saying, "Oh, I don't know, I simply have no idea what happened. . . ."

Uh-huh. I don't think anyone is buying that. So, I'm sad to see this investigation come to an end without testimony from Mary-Kate.

I also want to note that every other person in this investigation made themselves open and available: Heath's housekeeper and masseuse (pictured left, respectively), his doctors, the bodyguards, staff, and Michelle Williams, the mother of Heath's 2-year-old daughter (both below).

As one investigator told the New York Times, "Everyone has been very eager to help, saying what a great guy Heath Ledger was—except Mary-Kate, who refused to speak."

Why? If there was nothing to hide, why stand behind a lawyer to say that. Why not sit next to an investigator and proclaim it?

Hmmmm . . . I don't know. But Ms. Olsen sounds to me about as innocent as a North Carlonia senator on the run from a pack of National Enquirer reporters. Hey, didn't he also discount accusations by calling them "tabloid"?

Nice try, guys. From now on, you'll have to do better than that.

Tweet

Celebrity Jail Birds

by Tina Dirmann

What's the saying? Birds of a feather flock together. Well, let's pause for a moment to check out these celebrity birds. Jail birds, that is. We have one who just got out of jail. Another who is headed to jail. And another who is sitting in the slammer right now. And in my opinion, as a long time crime and celebrity reporter, it's classic spoiled star behavior that's landed each of them in their current predicament.

Let's take them in order:

First, the one who just got out? Josh Brolin, presently in Louisiana shooting the Oliver Stone film "W," a fictional flick about the president's relationship with his father. After work, Brolin, 40, and several co-stars and crew members headed to a local bar Saturday night to blow off some steam. No problem there. Until the clock struck 2 a.m. and the rowdy bunch apparently had a problem leaving. In the end, 10 officers from the Shreveport Police Department were called in, arresting Brolin and fellow actor Jeffrey Wright (who plays Colin Powell in the film) for impeding the officers.

The actors and four others were charged with interfering with police, a misdemeanor, while another man, a lighting tech, was cuffed for resisting arrest and public intoxication. All were booked into city jail, according to a report by the Shreveport Times. Brolin and others posted $334 bond and were released.

Bratty jail bird number two? Khloe Kardashian: co-star of the E! reality show "The Kardashians," sister to the better known Kim Kardashian, and daughter to the late O. J. defense attorney Robert Kardashian. As if it wasn't bad enough that Khloe, 24, was booked March 4 on a DUI charge (registering, at the time, a .13 blood alcohol level). Afterward, she decided to blow off her probation requirements. The terms? Oh, the usual for a drunk driving offense. She had to work for Cal Trans (I'm assuming that means donning the infamous orange vest and picking up trash along the freeway). And she had to complete an alcohol education program. She did neither. Just forgot, I guess. I haven't heard, yet, a plausible explanation. Maybe because there isn't one. Oh well.

At least she's off the hook for that trash pick-up thing. Instead, on Friday, she'll begin serving 30 days in jail. Let's just hope she doesn't fair as well as Nicole Richie, who, last August, served just 82 minutes of a 4 day sentence after driving the wrong way on the freeway at 4 a.m. (while under the influence of marijuana and Vicodin, of course). Overcrowding at the jail was to blame, sheriff's officials said. Well, at least Khloe still has to enroll in alcohol education. Let's hope she learns something.

Dare to dream . . .

But the most outrageously bratty celeb jail bird behavior of them all? Nick Hogan, 17, currently serving an eight-month jail sentence in a Florida County Jail for felony reckless driving. You remember this case, right? While street racing, Nick lost control of his father's 1998 Toyota Supra, hitting a raised median and slamming the car into a palm tree. Nick's passenger and best friend, John Graziano, suffered a broken skull, lingered in a coma for several weeks, and will need life long care. Medical bills for John have already totaled more than $1 million.

Nick's sentencing was carried live on CNN.

Nick, son of wrestling super star Hulk Hogan and a regular on the family's reality show, "Hogan Knows Best," has proven himself entirely ungrateful, despite leaving the accident unscathed, and receiving a relatively light sentence. Instead, he's whined about his inability to make it in jail, pleading to serve out his time through home arrest, with an ankle bracelet. The judge said no.

In addition, he's repeatedly tried to capitalize on his time behind bars, going so far as to try to develop his own reality tv show about his jail experience. So far, thankfully, no one in Hollywood will touch the pitch.

But I can only assume Nick's tacky behavior is a family trait. After all, jail transcripts of phone conversations between Nick and his family show Hulk blaming John, the victim, for the accident. It was payback from God, Hulk told his son, because John was such a bad guy. Nick's mom, Linda, meanwhile, called John's mother "nasty," according to TMZ, and claims the real suffering is in the Hogan family.

Ugh. Anybody else's stomach turning here? On that note, we'll conclude today's look at the very un-glamorous side of Hollywood. I think we've had enough.

Tweet

Hollywood (In)justice - The Show Must Go On . . . Even When Celebrities Are Guilty

by Tina Dirmann

R. Kelly is not guilty.

Wow. Honestly, who could have seen that one coming?

Well, just about anyone, actually. As I wrote in my last blog posted May 20, exactly two weeks before the Chicago jury handed down their across-the-board acquittal on child pornography charges: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'd say get ready to see the latest celebrity charged with a crime walk away a free man!"

Oh, how I hate to use the phrase. . . . But, you know, I did. Told you so, I mean.

I'm not trying to gloat here. I'm actually sad that the inevitability of it all was so clear. Celebrity, once again, was the only piece of evidence a defense team need submit. Who cares if every other piece of evidence, including a videotape, showed Kelly having sex with a woman who looked an awful lot like his 13-year-old goddaughter?

Though I'm sure it didn't hurt that the R&B's fortune from fame allowed him access to the best defense attorneys money can buy. Even if the best they could come up with was to point out that it wasn't actually Kelly on the sex tape because a mole on the star's lower back region wasn't visible in the video. The defense put a video expert on the stand who declared that a small dot in that area--and obvious on film--was actually, get this: "digital noise," not a mole. And since there was no mole, well, it's not Kelly. Huh?

But the jurors, you know . . . They bought it.

One female juror, who asked to remain anonymous, said afterward, "At some point, we said there was a lack of evidence. There was nothing concrete enough to say it was him or her on that tape."

Even though there was the tape. With Kelly's apparent non-moled up twin on it.

I know, the "victim" in this case did deny it was her on the video. But the fact is, as any prosecutor who has worked with sex victims will tell you, it's often difficult to get them to say, publicly, they were abused. There's a lot of misplaced shame involved. And, in this case, the alleged abuser was the girl's famous, Grammy-winning, R&B star godfather. That's a lot to overcome. Perhaps the jurors, in their scant seven hours of deliberation, didn't have time to consider that fact. And apparently, they also didn't believe the girl's family members, who took the stand and swore it was, indeed, their 13-year-old relative having sex with Kelly.

A writer for the Village Voice, who ultimately lashed out at the unjust verdict, put it this way: "For entirely selfish reasons, it's natural enough to feel good when a favorite musician wriggles out of a predicament that would've kept him from making music for a long, long time."

It is? Is that why there were cheers--cheers--from courthouse clerks when the "not guilty" verdict was announced? I can't relate.

Isn't it ironic that R. Kelly's acquittal, on charges that could have brought him fifteen years in prison, by the way, comes just as HBO began airing its documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which basically chronicles the charges brought against Polanski (pictured right) for having sex with an underage girl. Also thirteen years old, by the way. In that case, the intense media glare scared the victim so badly, she didn't want to testify.

Prosecutors in the 1978 case were willing to deal, dropping a laundry list of charges, including rape and supplying a minor with drugs and alcohol, but left unlawful intercourse with a minor. Polanski pled guilty, but fled the country, fearful that a media-adoring judge would sentence him to hard prison time. I think most people agree the judge in the case was a man driven more by reporters and public opinion than his law books.

But in the end, Polanski did engage in sex, even sodomy, with a minor. He now lives in France, where he is celebrated as one of the most brilliant filmmakers of our time. He refuses to return to the United States, where he'd be arrested. Technically, he's still a fugitive.

Still, I wonder if Polanski follows celebrity court cases in the United States today. And as he watches stars walk away from charges ranging from murder to child pornography, if he considers what would've happened if his case had been in a California court today. A media-obsessed judge would be irrelevant. All he'd need to set him free is your average, celebrity- obsessed jury.

Tweet

P.I.'s High-profile Clients Got Off Easy

by Tina Dirmann

Here in California, one of the splashiest cases to hit this state’s court just wrapped up. Anthony Pellicano, private investigator to the rich and famous, was found guilty on 76 counts of wire fraud, computer fraud, wiretapping, and racketeering.

Despite the number of counts, he’ll likely do just about 10 years in prison when he’s sentenced later this summer.

Although the case is long and involved, the gist is that Pellicano used mobster-like methods to spy on people for his high-powered clients. And the client list is a glitzy one. CAA talent agency co-founder Michael Ovitz and Paramount Pictures chief Brad Grey used Pellicano’s talents to get dirt on their enemies. Comedian Chris Rock hired Pellicano to investigate a woman claiming, erroneously, that she was carrying the comedian’s baby. And Sylvester Stallone was on the other end, a victim, wiretapped by Pellicano when the actor’s former business manager hired him to get dirt on Stallone that might help in a nasty court case between the two. Garry Shandling was a victim, too.

I don’t think anyone is sad to see a man like Pellicano go down. How low did it get? This self-described wanna-be Tony Soprano even dropped a dead fish onto the hood of a car belonging to reporter Anita Busch, hoping to intimidate her enough, she’d stop the negative articles she was writing about his clients (specifically, Michael Ovitz) for the New York Times.

But here’s what I’m wondering as Pellicano fades from the headlines.

How is it that Pellicano is going down – but none of the clients who hired this man for his below the belt information gathering tactics aren’t going down with him?

In the early stages of the six-year investigation, journalists following the case speculated that it could involve trials against Hollywood’s power elite. The highest rollers on Tinsel Town would be shown that they aren’t above the law.

But alas, the Hollywooders and moneyed types would go unscathed. Again. We didn’t even see most of these folks in the courtroom. Not even Bert Fields, THE de facto attorney to the stars. Witnesses described Fields as Pellicano’s mentor. And, later, his frequent employer. And though his name was mentioned repeatedly in court testimony, was he ever called to take the stand? No. He was not. Though I suspect if he was called, he may have stood up there and pleaded the 5th, for fear of implicating himself with each and every word.

It reminds me of the headline-grabbing profile madam cases, which typically end with the prosecution of the ladies. And who goes free? All of those high-power, high-dollar clients. I never see justice in that, either.

Tweet

Conviction for pop star Kelly? . . . Not likely

by Tina Dirmann

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd say get ready to see the latest celebrity charged with a crime walk away a free man. We've seen it happen so many times now, it's becoming a sadly predictable cycle. O. J. Robert Blake. Phil Spector. As far as I'm concerned, each one of those men should be serving out the rest of their days in prison for taking the lives of women who trusted them. But they aren't. Because they are celebrities.

I'm convinced of that fact, having been an entertainment reporter for many years now, and watching, close-up, what the power of celebrity can do. It brings money. It brings access. It brings adoration. And it brings a "get out of jail free" card.

Now our eyes turn to R. Kelly (pictured above), the wildly popular, Grammy-winning 41-year-old R&B star accused of videotaping himself while having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Yesterday, attorneys in the Chicago case began screening 150 potential jurors. At the start, even Cook County Circuit Judge Vincent Gaughan warned them, "As you know, this is a high-profile case. And if you don't know, God love you. You're probably the only person on earth that doesn't."

Mark my words, there's not a chance he's going to go to jail for this one. But this time, even I have to admit, it's not because his high-dollar defense attorney (well-known Chicago attorney Ed Genson) will skillfully pack the jury with Kelly fans. No, this time, the hurdle actually might be a lack of solid evidence to convict him on the 14-count indictment.

First of all, the victim in this case, now 23, denies she's the one in the videotape. And by many accounts, those with access to the tape say it's just not clear if it is -- or not. In fact, prosecutors aren't even sure of the tape's date. They say is was made between 1998 and 2000, which could make the victim closer to 15 than 13. Still a crime, obviously. But to not have a clear victim, or a clear age, a clear date . . . This is going to be a tough one.

Then add to that, R. Kelly's celebrity, and the fact that those who know him will remember that his 1997 Grammy was for a gospel-like song, "I Believe I Can Fly," and I doubt there's much hope a conviction will happen. And if so, R. Kelly better thank his lucky stars. Because there's still a very young woman on that tape, whoever she is, having sex with an adult man. So, maybe the prosecutors won't be able to prove his guilt. But in my mind, that doesn't make him innocent, either.

Tweet

Tina Dirmann on Montel tomorrow!

Dear readers,

I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Montel Williams on his daily talk show to discuss the case featured in my most recent book, Vanished at Sea (released in January). I want to thank Montel for taking the time to highlight this most heartbreaking story, which took place in Newport Beach, California. This beautiful seaside community is where retired couple Jackie and Tom Hawks lived on their yacht, appropriately named Well Deserved -- because the couple had worked a lifetime to buy her. They weren't rich, just cautious with their money. But after a few years of life at sea, the couple decided to sell their dream boat, to be closer to a new grandbaby. A murderous young couple, Skylar DeLeon and his pregnant wife, Jennifer, posed as buyers and coldly conspired to drown this gentle couple, whom they'd never met.

With little evidence of what happened on the boat that night, investigators and the Hawks' relatives scrambled to get to the truth, to find justice for Tom and Jackie. The Hawks' son, Ryan, appears on Montel with me. As does Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.

The show, titled "Shocking Motives for Murder," airs Thursday. Check www.montelshow.com for the time and channel in your area. Watch a preview of the program here.

Tweet

Monster Mom

by Tina Dirmann

It's the most horrific of all crimest—he abuse of a small child at the hands of a parent.

As a former crime reporter, I've scanned countless evidence photos, taken by police to record the bruises, scratches, and scars marring small bodies. And yet, those were usually the lucky ones. Often, cases of abuse go too far. And by the time authorities get involved, it's a homicide.

Even though I haven't been a daily cop reporter for many years now, my mind still flashes back to those abuse cases as I take in the latest headlines. "Woman accused of not feeding 4-year-old," read one newspaper report. "Four year old Florida boy nearly starved to death," announced a television newscaster.

Deputies in the Florida Panhandle found this little guy near death, weighing in at just 10 pounds. I turned my eyes from the television and looked on my small cat, curled up on the couch, and couldn't help but think that my little feline probably weighed more than that 4-year-old boy. Normal weight for a child that age is about 35 pounds.

Turns out, he was also severely handicapped and denied medication needed to control frequent seizures.

How could you do it? I thought as they threw up the picture of his 19-year-old mom, Erin Brittany Markes (pictured above). She went by, day to day, knowing that her little boy was hungry, thirsty. His body was trembling at regular intervals from savage seizures.

The act is so unfathomable. Why? That's the only question after hearing a case like this. How could she?

It brought me back to the time I was a young journalist, covering an abuse case in San Bernardino County, California. In that case, the step-father of a 4-year-old little boy told the toddler to stand still and lift his arms so, he looked like a little letter "t."

"Make like an airplane," his step-father said.

And then he proceeded to pummel the kid in the stomach so hard, he ruptured the boy's insides, eventually killing him. Why would his step-father do that? The kid had apparently fallen asleep on the couch and soiled himself in his sleep. The urine soaked through and wet the couch cushions, infuriating the step-dad. It was, after all, a new couch.

I struggled to remain "neutral" or "objective" in that case. I remember looking at that father and just thinking, "Monster. Monster." Instead, I dipped my head into my notebook and dutifully quoted his defense attorney. It was an accident, he said. He didn't mean to kill that little boy. He loved that little boy. And the irony? Closing arguments in the case fell on the Friday before Father's Day.

He was convicted, I'm happy to report. He got 15 years in prison. I wanted to write that it wasn't enough, as I typed up my report on sentencing day. It stings today, as I think he's probably out on parole by now. Living his life.

The good news in this case is that the boy in Florida, in hospital care since Friday, is recovering. He's gained 3 pounds, local authorities said, and the bed sores covering his torso are being treated. The mom, who faces 15 years in prison if she's convicted on multiple child neglect charges, has told police the boy went unfed because she needed more help. True, she did have her son when she was 15. Just a minor herself. Still, I imagined reporters on this case rolling their eyes as they typed up her comments, struggling to hold on to their own objectivity while the investigation unfolds. I'm just glad this time, I won't be among their ranks, trying to make sense of a senseless story.

I once wrote an entire book about two teenage boys who conspired to kill their mom, decapitating her with a kitchen knife. As I investigated the case, I discovered the boys had suffered extreme mental abuse all of their lives at the hands of their mother. The abuse didn't excuse the brutal slaying, but slowly, I understood where all that anger came from. I interviewed one of the young men in jail and he told me what it was like to be young, defenseless, and abused.

"Every day I died a little inside," he told me. "To me, what we did, was just an act of self defense."

Tweet

Sam Lutfi Back in Court

by Tina Dirmann

Since I posted a story on Britney Spears, some of you have asked me for an update on the Sam Lutfi case (the temporary restraining order). Sam is scheduled to be in court today, actually. But I don't expect anything to be resolved just yet. This could go on awhile, guys. He's still fighting to have the TRO removed.

Also, here is a mildly interesting update from Radar.com. . . . Obviously, I don't quite agree with their take, "DARK DAYS Spears":

When Britney Spears is finally off restriction, her BFF will be there. But for the next 30 days, Spears ballcapped former walker Sam Lutfi (who was slapped with a restraining order) has agreed to lay off contact while his lawyers figure out a longterm arrangement. "Everything is quiet and peaceful on all sides," Lutfi spokesman Michael Sands tells Radar. Unless, of course, you're conserva-dad Jamie Spears. Sands' other client, self-declared Britney advocate, attorney Jon Eardley, is scheduled to go to court today with an evaluation of the Spears' conservatorship by renown UCLA law profession William McGovern. In it, McGovern rips the judge's ruling in the Spears case, essentially arguing that Spears' visitors are limited and she can't meet with an attorney to fight her way into independence. Sands also blasted out e-mails Sunday evening questioning whether Jamie Spears, who'd declared bankruptcy in the past, is fit to handle Britney's estate, and the News of the World is reporting that government officials are secretly looking into Spears financial affairs, a claim Sands has made to Radar before.

Tweet

Justice for Britney?

by Tina Dirmann

I am loathe to add to the endless volumes already written about the ups and downs of poor little rich girl Britney Spears and her ongoing mental health issues.

But I think it's appropriate to take a moment to address an angle I've been hearing a lot lately. Namely, that Jamie Spears, Britney's father, who has been named temporary conservator of his daughter's estate, is really only interested in getting his hands on his daughter's millions. The allegation is so outrageously inappropriate, I'm not quite sure where to begin.

Let's start with the obvious. Clearly, this is a young lady in trouble. We've all seen her very public meltdowns stretching back more than a year. And who was there, stepping in to "help" the fallen pop princess? A new boyfriend -- a married paparazzi photographer, actually. I'm sure his motives were pure. . . . And before that, a character named Sam Lutfi, who has since been accused of grinding up narcotics and putting them in Britney's food.

The situation became so sad, Jamie Spears had no choice but to intercede. And yes, I know the strikes against him. It's true, he is otherwise unemployed. He does have a bankruptcy in his background, while struggling to support his family, way before Britney ever hit it big. And he has been very estranged from his daughter in recent months. I contend, however, that the last point is a direct result of Britney's sick mind.

It's typical of people suffering from a mental illness (bipolar disorder, in Britney's case) to have extreme paranoid episodes and accuse those closest to them of siding with the enemy, whoever that enemy is.

And that's exactly what Britney did, accusing her father of betraying her when he publicly sided with an old manager who demanded Britney enroll herself in rehab. Jamie did do that, of course, but only because he could see his daughter was hurting and needed something, anything, to get better. Britney enrolled in the rehab, and hated them for it.

Of course, it turned out, she wasn't addicted to drugs. In fact, anything she did may have been an effort to self-medicate as a yet-undiagnosed mental illness began taking over.

Most recently, a judge ordered that Jamie Spears' conservatorship should not only continue, but that he should be paid, from Britney's estate, $2500 a week for his service. The estate was also ordered to pay for the lease of a car. I know, this feeds right into the conspiracy theorists out there who want to call Jamie a money-grubbing father with questionable interests.

But I disagree.

I don't have a problem with Jamie getting funds while managing Britney's affairs. For me, the bottom line is, he loves his daughter. I believe that. I've spoken to people in her inner circle who echo that.

And I do believe he is there to protect her from the likes of paparazzi boyfriends and other "pals" with questionable motives -- because without him, that's who would be running wild with her credit cards and check books. She'd be a lamb in a field of wolves, too mentally vulnerable to protect herself.

And let's not forget that Jamie has to check in every few months with a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner, who reviews the case and has the discretion to either remove Jamie's role, or extend it, as he did on March 8, giving him conservatorship status until at least July 31.

I say it was a good move. I applaud the court. This was a "just" decision. And I think even Britney will see that, eventually.

Hopefully, she is finally getting the treatment she needs. And we'll only see her improve. It would be awfully nice to see again the beautiful, talented pop princess we all came to know and love.

But until then, her dad is standing by her side -- on her side.

Tweet