Mystery Man - Russell Ingle

by Russell Ingle

For my household, and for most other families in McNairy County, Tennessee, Tuesday, March 22, 2006, was an ordinary day. But in the Selmer home of Matthew and Mary Winkler, an extraordinary day began. Mary held the shotgun that blasted a hole in Matthew’s back. The Church of Christ Pastor was dead. His wife was on the run with their three little girls.

Now more than two years later, one question still remains: Did Mary Winkler get away with murder?

On April 19, 2007, after an eight-hour deliberation, the jury found Mary guilty of voluntary manslaughter. On June 8, she was sentenced to 210 days in prison, with credit given for 143 days she had spent in jail the previous year before making bail. The judge allowed her to spend 60 of the remaining 67 days of her sentence in a mental health facility.

Was this verdict just? It’s a question that will be debated around her for years to come.

Since we’ll never hear Matthew's account of the years, months, weeks, and days leading up to the shooting, we may never know what caused Mary to pull the trigger.

During her trial, Mary (pictured above during testimony and below with her father and attorney) contended she’d been forced into uncomfortable and unwanted sexual liaisons with her pastor husband including dressing up in a wig, “slutty skirts” and “hooker shoes,” and performing oral and anal sex. Of course, there’s a fine line between what one person believes is normal and another sees as healthy fantasy. When a husband and wife are in agreement, fulfilling each other's fantasies is a healthy component of marriage. Were Matthew Winkler's sexual desires normal? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of “normal” is.

In recent months, the initial sympathy Mary's super star legal team managed to generate has waned. Reputation is not made or lost in a day’s time. It is something that plays out when the curtain is pulled and we catch a glimpse of the real person behind the headlines. It’s true that in the months following the shooting, Mary attempted to portray a stable and dependable person. She gained employment and lived with friends in McMinnville. Still, although we may never know who Matthew Winkler truly was behind that closed bedroom door, there are hints that at the very least Mary was not the team player in her marriage that her defense portrayed.

Red flags appeared in the months leading up to and following the trial. On New Year's Eve 2006, for instance, Mary was seen in a McMinnville bar smoking a cigarette and surrounded by drinks. Is there anything immoral with having the occasional smoke or sip of an adult beverage? For most people, no. But as a member of the Church of Christ and a minister's wife, Mary was breaking a moral code of conduct.

A few months later, just 10 months after her husband’s death, the public learned that Mary was dating Darrell Pillow, brother to Paul Pillow, the owner of the dry cleaning business where she worked (pictured right). Is there anything wrong with seeking the companionship of another? Again, it depends on who you ask. For some it seemed entirely out of line that Mary would date another man when she had not fully faced the outcome of the legal process, not to mention while she was still attempting to regain custody of her three daughters.

Since her release from a mental health facility, Mary has lost her job and no longer lives with her friend Rudy Thomsen. In a recent interview, Cleaner's Express owner Paul Pillow said Mary Winkler was "forced on him," and he never really had the finances to justify hiring her in the first place.

Though no real light has been shed on this case, unresolved questions linger as new ones arise. What will the end of this tragic tale be? Is there a happily ever after, at least for the children? Only time will tell if this heartbreaking case has an ending satisfactory to not only the Winkler family but to the folks who have followed it in McNairy County and across the world. Maybe one day, the book will close on this horrible tragedy that has captured the imagination and passion of a nation.

Maybe.

Tweet

Mystery Man - Clue Box

COMING THIS FRIDAY: A NEW MYSTERY MAN BLOG POST

Our next Mystery Man covers all the crime stories in the county--not just any county, though. This is the county made famous by Sheriff Buford Pusser. Only a faint bell tinkling in the back of your head? Let me refresh your memory: Pusser is the lawman in the Walking Tall movies. And, yes, he was a real person who fought the bad guys, survived an assassination attempt that took the life of his wife, and walked tall until he crashed his Corvette on an empty stretch of highway. This Saturday, the sheriff's legacy is celebrated with the 20th Annual Buford Pusser Pageant and May 21-24 is the 20th Annual Sheriff Buford Pusser Festival.

This Mystery Man doesn't just write the stories, though. He also shoots the pictures. His photographs have been published in major newspapers from coast to coast. His most famous photo featured a shoe shrouded in controversy. In addition to reporting, this Mystery Man is also an ordained minister who does a lot of couples counseling. He's a very nice guy who would never give you the finger--but he can find it on the map.

Tweet

College Students Beware! The "Smiley Face Gang" is Coming to a Bar Near You!

by Pat Brown

Four years ago I did some profiling on the case of Chris Jenkins, a twenty-one-year old University of Minnesota college student who disappeared on Halloween night after he was tossed out of a popular local bar. He was finally discovered in the Mississippi River when the ice started melting at the beginning of spring. The police ruled Chris's death a suicide, stating that he leaped off the Hennepin Bridge just down the block from the bar where he was celebrating Halloween with his friends.

The family immediately questioned their conclusions as their son was not suicidal and the physical evidence didn't make sense to them. They fought the ruling with a private detective, a profiler, and a team of experts on river currents.

What they found was that Chris could not have gone into the river where the police claimed he did. He did not jump off the Hennepin Bridge. More interestingly, Chris, still clothed in his Halloween costume of an Native American, was found lying in the river with his arms neatly folded across his chest, and his pull-on moccasins still on his feet. Now that would be quite an unlikely result should Chris have climbed over a rail and leaped into the waters below. It looked more as if Chris had been placed in the water at a quiet location, where he stayed, becoming frozen within the ice, and then eventually floating downstream as the temperature of the water warmed and the ice broke apart. Eventually, the police changed their ruling on the manner of death to homicide.

Next, they said they had found Chris's killer. They theorized that Chris--who had been thrown out of the bar for being intoxicated and left out in the cold without wallet, keys, or cell phone--had attempted to walk home. On the bridge, he was met with a violent offender who later was convicted of murder. This seventeen-year-old youth decided for some reason to kill Chris and picked him up and tossed him off the bridge. With this ludicrous story, which included no angry words, fighting, robbery attempt, beating, stabbing, or any other kind of altercation, police expect us to believe the smaller teen picked up the hefty Chris Jenkins and, without a struggle from the victim, held him above his shoulders and threw him over the railing. Quite a strong fellah! Chris hit the water, drowned, and all the while the moccasins stay glued to his feet and his arms remained folded over his chest.

I don't know what this police department was smoking, but the story was incredible. That the detectives could get a convicted felon to give them this story is either good interviewing or outright deal-making, but to believe it and think it fits the evidence and worse, think the public will believe it, is rather sad.


And, now, the story takes an even more incredible turn! Two retired New York police detectives, Kevin Gannon and Antony Duarte, claim Jenkins is but one of forty some male students who have been systematically murdered by a nationwide group of serial killers they have dubbed "The Smiley Face Gang" or "The Smiley Face Killers." They claim there is a bunch of men who target athletic, blond, college boys and drown them in bodies of water near their colleges. They insist that these young men were not victims of binge drinking, hypothermia, foolishness, or depression, that none of these deaths could be attributed to accident or suicide. Nor do they believe that most of these deaths could have been accidents or suicide and some deaths, perhaps, the work of one serial killer or serial killer team. No, they believe each and every one of these young men was the victim of an organized group of serial killers that does in college boys for . . . well, they are clothed . . . not for sexual purposes . . . and they don't show signs of extreme violence . . . not for sadistic reasons . . . um . . . I guess just because they want to make statements about smart college boys.

So, supposedly, this group finds a handsome young man, abducts him, drowns him, and then, somewhere in the vicinity of where the body is put in the water, they paint a smiley face on a building or a tree or a bridge. Not in most of the crimes, mind you, but some of them. Gannon and Duarte can't even prove that where they found the smiley faces is where the bodies went in the water, but the fact that such a symbol was in the area . . . well, a rather large area . . . they claim these symbols have got to be made by this gang--they couldn't have been made by anyone else.

Now, I might buy this if the symbol, this signature, was a bunny rabbit with wings coming out of its back and sporting big green teeth, but a smiley face? Wow! How rare! I went on Google Images and in less than a few minutes, I found a dozen images of smiley faces people had added to the outdoor landscape. Yet, according to these retired cops, it is an extraordinarily rare graffiti.



So, we are to believe there is a group of young men on the Internet who plan these crimes, drive a van over to a potential location and grab a strapping young man. They are smart enough to eliminate all the evidence by putting the bodies in water, but can't resist taunting the police by leaving artwork somewhere in the town that says, "We did it!"

Chris Jenkins (pictured left) was murdered, yes, but most likely by someone who knew him and with whom he had a run-in with at the bar. One of the earlier theories was a possibly a sleeper-hold-gone-wrong by one of the bouncers. Other theories ranged from a jealous lover to a serial killer suspect I had been investigating who lived in the area and liked drowning young men. He could have been involved in Chris's death and even a few others. But, an Internet gang of serial killers who drive all over the country to kill? Or is it that a cell in each area that does local killings and then brags about it to the others. I think this is the theory Gannon and Duarte are working on.

Possible? Sure, anything is possible, but I have never seen such a thing in the history of serial killing. Maybe this is a new weird trend, but, so far, I see no evidence of any kind that links the deaths of these forty college boys and proves they were all homicides. The only evidence I see so far is some overactive imaginations on the part of retired policemen and the desperation of some of the parents to believe their sons were innocent of any foolish behavior which might have led to their deaths.

Even though my speciality is serial killers, a serial killer is not always behind deaths that have a similar cause. Especially when you expand the area of linkage to fifty states, you are bound to find deaths that appear similar. I bet if you expand the area to include Canada, one will find the "Smiley Face Gang" has struck there as well!

I have no issue with dedicated detectives working as hard as Gannon and Duarte have to solve crimes and bring closure to families, but it is irresponsible and cruel to promote a theory as a reality when, in fact, there is not the evidence to prove it.

It will be interesting to see if they are ever able to find proof of any such gang or whether the "Smiley Face Killers" will simply live forever in the world of conspiracy theorists.

Okay, so if there isn't a serial killer gang offing young college boys, why are so many found dead in the water? Well, let's take a look at Minnesota. This is the land of 10,000 lakes and I guarantee most colleges and bars aren't far from the water. Add the cold of winter, and hypothermia can add to the confusion and disorientation of an already drunk young person. He may even go swimming to cool off or he may simply stagger the wrong direction and fall into the river or lake. He may go to urinate and pass out.

Many parents and even young people do not want to admit the huge problem we have with binge drinking, drugs, and mixing binge drinking with drugs. Frat boys and athletic boys are at the top of the list for excessive drinking practices.

Well, some have argued, these young men might have gotten really drunk but this doesn't account for why they would chose to go alone into an area with water. Folks who say this are in serious denial, especially the parents who claim, "My boy would never . . . He is smarter than that." I hate to tell you, parents, I have seen your boy and heard stories about your boy. He was drunk as a skunk, passed out in the middle of the road, was found wandering behind a gas station, boasted to his friends he could swim to the bottom of the lake (thank God they stopped him), and asked his buddies the next day if they could tell him what he did the night before because he couldn't remember a thing. Sometimes your boy shows up on a gurney at the hospital or the morgue and sometimes your boy doesn't show up at all until next spring when the ice melts.

Most likely, in the majority of these cases, the only serial killers here are booze, GHB, Ecstasy, and the foolish behaviors of college boys who think they are young and invincible.

Tweet

Excavation to Begin at Manson Family Hideout

by Donna Weaver

Well, it's about time! A decision has been reached to commence a "limited" excavation to search for human remains at the former Death Valley hideout of Charles Manson and his followers. Police now believe Barker Ranch may be the location of several clandestine graves of additional victims possibly murdered by the Manson Family cult.

Following the grizzly murders of seven people in 1969, little has changed at the cabin where Manson was found hiding in the bathroom (pictured below right) when arrested at Barker Ranch. An officer who used the facilities there had found Manson, who was taken into custody along with several of his cohorts.

Inyo County Sheriff Bill Lutze issued a statement last Friday: "There was no consistent response from the dogs that searched, and no conclusive findings from the soil samplings tested by top experts in the field. Therefore I believe the only way to determine once and for all whether there are bodies buried at Barker Ranch from the time of the Manson family is to proceed with limited excavation in a very few areas." The excavation will take place May 20-23 at which time the federally owned park will be closed to visitors. A few weeks ago, Sheriff Lutze had postponed the decision to dig, saying ownership of the land was a compelling consideration on whether or not to proceed with the excavation.

Manson (pictured below left) apparently is no stranger to burying people in his backyard. Before moving to Barker Ranch, Manson and his followers resided at Spahn Ranch. On the night of August 8, 1969, Manson sent his right-hand man, Charles "Tex" Watson and three others to 10050 Cielo Drive with instructions to kill everyone inside. Murdered in the brutal killing spree were Steven Parent, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Sharon Tate and Sharon Tate's 8 month-old unborn fetus. The homicidal rampage continued the following evening with the horrific murders of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca.

Eight days later, on August 16, 1969, Manson and other family members were arrested on suspicion of auto theft. They were released, however, due to a date error in the search warrant. Manson blamed the arrests on Spahn Ranch hand Donald "Shorty" Shea. Believing Shea ratted them out to the police, Manson decided it was time to move, but before leaving for Barker Ranch, Manson and other family members killed Shea and buried him behind Spahn Ranch.

Although we may soon find out if there are indeed more possible victims of Charles Manson and his followers buried in unmarked graves on Barker Ranch, identifying the remains and proving who killed them may be difficult, if not impossible. Still, if nothing else, the discovery of human remains may help ensure that Manson family members who are on one-year parole reviews will never see the light of day.

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

If I Were Judge, Jury, and Lawmaker, Too . . .

by Robin Sax

There’s not a week that goes by when someone doesn’t ask me, “How can you prosecute sex crimes without getting ill, jaded or miserable?” Well, while my job is challenging, I consider it an honor and privilege to give young victims a voice, a place to regain trust, and a place to heal. But today, I‘d like to tackle a different question: “What would you do to the change the system?”

So, if I were judge, jury, and lawmaker, here’s my answer. And by the way, I’ll be brutally honest, even if I think you won’t like what I have to say.

1. First, I believe there should be mandatory sentencing schemes in all jurisdictions. Mandatory sentencing schemes should not require specific additional factors that a jury would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Under many current statutes, a case involving two victims would make a case eligible for a mandatory life sentence. If, however, the jury convicted one victim and not the other (which happens very often because jurors like to throw a “bone” to the defendant), then the case may no longer hold a mandatory life sentence.) I believe the existence of the multiple-victim factor alone should qualify a case for an enhanced penalty.

2. I believe that the Supreme Court should overturn the Crawford decision. Under current law, if a victim dies or is legally unavailable for a court appearance, the victim’s prior statements made to the police or hospital would be inadmissible, due to the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine the witness. I am in favor of the law prior to the recent Crawford decision that allows for admitting victims' or unavailable persons' previous statements made under certain conditions that ensure reliability.Why should a defendant benefit from the death or legal unavailability of his or her victim?

3. Our jury system sounds wonderful in theory Under the Constitution, each person charged with a crime is entitled to have the case heard by a jury of one’s peers., “peers” are people selected from our community who listen to the evidence and determine what the facts are in the case, while the judge decides on the legal issues.

“A jury of one’s peers” is based on the supposed impartiality of a random sample of the population. It assumes that the average accused will share more similarities than differences with a random sample of the population, and therefore will be judged by people who are likely to give the accused a fair shake.

The problem with this theory is twofold. First, those of us who are not “average” will have a much smaller likelihood of having a jury that comprises our peers. Second, the mechanisms of the “voir dire” process, or jury selection, increases the problem by creating juries composed of a greater percentage of poor, uneducated, unintelligent people, with very little experience with the justice system, than their natural prevalence in society.

The solution to this imbalance is a professional jury system. Professional jurors would be laypersons educated for the task. They would be taught to understand the rules of evidence, the trial process and instruction, and would be tested thoroughly on their objectivity. Most important, a professional jury would have no motivation other than ensuring that due process was followed. The complexities, nuances, and intricacies involved in a child sexual assault warrant a professional jury both because of the difficulty of the case and the great danger of releasing a predator back into society if a jury makes the wrong decision.

4. We need better supervision of registered sex offenders. Some ways to improve supervision include requiring registered sex offenders to register their computer Internet accounts, IP addresses, telephone numbers--not just their physical address. They should be required to inform authorities of international travel and there should be an integrated international registration system (like that for known terrorists) to monitor the “comings and goings” of registered sex offenders. Registered sex offenders should also be subject to lifetime counseling and therapy, and not only conditions of parole or probation.

5. Money and time should be available to train the professionals in this field. This goes for all the agencies involved, including law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, therapists, judges, probation, and parole officers. It's important, of course, to stay current on the latest advances and laws in this area. Additionally, studies show that training and resources alleviate burnout and serve to inspire and motivate people in this line of work.

6. Right now, it’s standard procedure to assign prosecutors and law enforcement to handle sex crimes for a limited time before rotating them to another area of crime. The benefit of being in a vertical unit (handling all aspects of a case from beginning to end) is that there is a high degree of specialization and high accountability for those involved.

The whole theory behind vertical prosecution is to have a group of people trained in this highly difficult area so that they become specialists. However, all too often, once a prosecutor or detective reaches about a year or so in the unit, they get transferred.The bureaucratic thinking is that prosecutors and detectives should be cross-trained in all areas of criminal law, and that specializing narrows a prosecutor’s or detective’s skills. In the sex crimes area, where cases are so sensitive and the victims have their own special needs, I believe that lawyers and detectives should be assigned for a minimum of five years. Also, I believe lawyers and law enforcers should be assigned to these units only if they want to be there. This is not the type of unit for someone who doesn’t have the requisite passion or a tough enough stomach to handle these cases.

7. Specific courtrooms should be designated and designed for child sexual assault (and child abuse) cases, so they are 100% devoted to the needs and realities of kids who testify. For example, courtrooms can be painted in “kid friendly”colors like pastels, so they look more like a classroom than the typical large, windowless, intimidating enclosure. The chairs on the witness stand should be appropriately “kid sized” and adjustable so that a child’s feet can reach the floor. Further, the judges in these cases should be especially trained to handle them, and to be very familiar with the laws pertaining to child testimony. They would thus be able to use their discretion to protect the child and assist the child when giving testimony. This system can be modeled after the drug courts that are in place in many jurisdictions, where specific courts are devoted to drug addicts and focus on treatment, as opposed to punishment. These courts work with the defendants to address their issues and are sensitive to the needs of addicts.

8. There should be limits to an attorney’s ability to cross-examine and badger kids. One of the basic tenets of our Constitution is that criminal defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. It often seems that our criminal justice system offers greater protection to the accused than to the child victim involved in a sexual abuse prosecution.

9. Finally, in recent years, legislators have been concerned about defendants who escape punishment for sexually molesting young children because the children are afraid to testify in the defendant's presence. To address this problem, many states have enacted special rules that authorize judges--in certain situations--to allow children to testify via closed-circuit television. The defendant can see the child on a television monitor, but the child cannot see the defendant. The defense attorney can be present where the child is testifying and can cross-examine the child. Closed-circuit TV should be allowed more readily than its current use.

10. Currently, admissibility of expert testimony requires the prosecutor to jump thorough a number of legal hoops. And even when admitted, the admissibility tends to be for extremely limited purposes. Expert testimony should be welcomed and encouraged (from both sides) in order to assist jurors in understanding the unique issues when it comes to child sexual assault. The very things that the defense highlights as a way to discredit a child are the factors that can make a disclosure more credible if put into perspective by an expert. These include delayed disclosure, recantation, minimization, self blame, lying first in order to protect the abuser or fearing they are in trouble, and understanding why “smart” kids engage in risk-taking behavior.

11. Defense attorneys should be as sensitive and compassionate about victims as they are about their own clients. There must be legislation to stop re-victimizing the victim through the court process and to cease casting blame on the victim for being a crime victim.

12. Cases involving children should go to trial as soon as possible and definitely no later than six months from the filing. Currently, the most expeditious cases are tried in roughly a year from the date it was filed (not necessarily reported). Unlike fine wine, an aging case never gets better for the prosecution as time goes by.

13. As an alternative to jail and/or prison there should be live-in/lock-down facilities that are meant to work with, treat, and study sex offenders. Like drug rehabilitation, there should be facilities where we can take a low-level sex offender off the streets to ensure the safety of the public and treat them (if possible) or at least learn from the offender.

14. There should be amendments to the rule against double jeopardy (which means you can’t be tried twice for the same offense) to enable the re-opening of proceedings against acquitted defendants where there is compelling new evidence. This will apply to a range of grave offenses, including those involving serious sexual offenses.

15. There should be a total ban, or at least limitations, on what a child sexual assault defendant should be allowed to do in the criminal process. For example, if representing himself, he should not be able to personally direct or cross-examine the complaining children who are witnessing against him. He should not be able to access all the discovery information that a defense attorney (an officer of the court) would normally receive, such as the victim’s school records, rape exam photos, and other confidential records.

16.If a case is appealed after a conviction, it may take two or three years before a court determines whether or not the defendant is entitled to a new trial. If the defendant is granted a new trial, the prosecution would need to bring the victim in to testify again. The new or old testimony could then be presented as “inconsistencies” from the first testimony, thus casting doubt on the victim’s credibility. If the cause for appeal has nothing to do with the victim’s testimony, the victim should not be made to return to court and the entire prior testimony should be stipulated as accurate and complete.

There is no greater concern in society than the concern people have for children. Whether it is providing a better earth, protecting kids from wars, terrorism, criminals, or abuse, our society prides itself on shielding our young. And with good reason--children are powerless to take on the perils of our world on their own. We can give children the voice that they so desperately deserve if our leaders, lawmakers, and voters spoke up on and acted to protect the children we brought into this world.

POSTS FROM ROBIN SAX DO NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Tweet

Ink Blotter Sunday - Mother's Day Edition

Ink Blotter

Join our live chat this afternoon for a special Mother's Day edition of the Ink Blotter. We'll be discussing a mother most everyone remembers, and not just on Mother's Day--Kate McCann. It's been a year since her three-year-old daughter Madeleine Beth McCann disappeared during a family vacation in Portugal. Madeleine's parents insist she was abducted. During the investigation into the girl's disappearance, Portuguese police focused on her mother as a suspect. WCI Criminal Profiler Pat Brown is convinced that Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, know what happened to their child. After telling the world they would not leave Portugal without their daughter, the couple finally returned home to England once they were officially named as suspects. Pat Brown has speculated the couple could have returned with Madeleine without anyone knowing--if they packed their toddler's body in a suitcase for the trip home. Could Kate McCann have played a role in the death and disappearance of her daughter? Or is she simply a grieving mother, falsely accused and shamelessly abused by the media? This Sunday, Pat will offer her opinions in a discussion with WCI's Donna Weaver, a missing persons authority who understands the difficulties faced by anyone who investigates a disappearance in a foreign country. Donna is an area director for the Bahamas and Caribbean Region for The Doe Network - International Center for Unidentified and Missing Persons. Today marks Kate McCann's second Mother's Day without her daughter Madeleine. Let us know what you think about Kate. Is she a twice-victimized mother who will continue to live in the shadow of suspicion? Or is the British mum a daughter killer? Don't miss this live chat from 4 - 5:00 p.m. EDT. This will be WCI's last Ink Blotter discussion. (New format!)

Tweet

Free Will: Too Much of A Good Thing?

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

As a teenager I struggled with authority. Yeah, me and every other adolescent who's walked this earth. I balked against anyone telling me what to do, when to do it, or what I ought to think about it. It's my body, my hair, my education . . . so leave me the hell alone. I swore when I had my own children I would never repeat the "sins" of my parents.

And then of course I had my own kids and I knew they needed guidance and gentle influence, and sometimes even some not so popular rules. "No, you can't stay up until two on a school night, no you can't go to a party where there are no parents, no you may not speak to me that way. . . ." And their response to me is the same one I gave my parents: "I can't wait until I'm eighteen and you can't tell me what to do anymore."

What you realize as an adult is that it's not so simple. There are not automatically unrestricted freedoms that come with adulthood. There are still rules, and expectations, and societal norms, and even laws that must be followed. And as I tell my children, "No, you don't have to do what I say, but there are consequences to not doing so." If you break my household rules you may get grounded or lose your allowance. If you break societal laws you may do jail time or worse.

The dilemma comes in our society where the government was founded on individual rights of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms (rights currently being hotly debated), versus the needs of the larger group to be protected from someone's individual rights. Is it okay for you to threaten me with bodily harm as an expression of your right to free speech? Is it okay not to wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle, if after you squash your brain on the highway, my tax dollars are used to take care of you?

Nowhere is the tension between freedom of religion--an individual's right to choose--and societal laws and norms greater than in the case of the polygamists in Eldorado, Texas. (Women and children after being removed from the compound pictured below.)

So what's so wrong with polygamy? If a woman chooses to be one of five wives, shouldn't she have that right? Not my choice to do so but then no one is asking me to. I assume the FLDS church is just fine with my decision to stay away from them. They're not knocking on my door trying to recruit me as wife number six. So why don't we just leave them alone to practice their religion in peace?

I can think of a lot of religious practices that seem very strange to me. How about taking communion on a Sunday and believing that it is truly the body and blood of Christ? (I actually do believe in that as a practicing Episcopalian, but I'm also willing to admit others might think that practice quite odd and non-sensical.) How about the Jewish practice of circumcision, which is a religious ritual but practiced now by Jews and non-Jews alike? You don't think cutting the foreskin off of a baby's penis a little barbaric?

Where do we draw the line between free will and the safety and well-being of others? The FLDS group from Eldorado believes that they are upholding God's prophetic vision for them to live their lives in plural relationships. The United States has laws that make polygamy illegal. However these groups have been practicing polygamy for decades and mostly have been left alone to practice their religion. But this case hinges on the well-being and protection of minor children. And that's where the issue of free will becomes very important.

We do not believe that children under the age of eighteen (a somewhat arbitrary cut off) have the right to free will. I think mostly because we think they're not mature enough or wise enough to exercise their rights using good judgement. And that's often true. Ask any child whether they thought going to school was a good idea and you'd get many who'd opt for the "only if I feel like it and there weren't any tests" track. So as a society we have chosen to subsume the rights of the child under the rights of the parents. And in the Eldorado case the parents have chosen to allow their underage young girls to be married to much older men and to participate in sexual activity, often against their will. Most of society calls this child abuse, and this is why the children were removed from the compound. Child abuse trumped the right to practice your religion without obstruction from the government.

It will be interesting to see how this case turns out. I think many will be surprised to see that most of the women and children will be allowed to return to the compound. It could be a worse fate for some of these children to be taken away from their mothers and sent to foster care. That can't be the answer for what's in the best interest of these children. And it may be astonishing to many that if given the choice, most of the women would choose to take their children and return to what they consider a safe and nurturing home.

There will be much argument over whether or not these women from Eldorado are acting freely. They have been raised in this environment and some would say "brainwashed" to believe that they are subservient to men and that it is their duty to practice plural marriage. Most of all of us have been "brainwashed" by the way we are raised. I'm an Episcopalian, my next door neighbor is a republican, my best friend was raised to believe in astrology and the power of crystals. But I would say we have free will because we have the freedom to choose whether or not we want to continue the practices of our parents. They may be disappointed or even angry if we choose to vote for a democrat, but we won't be banned from contact with the family.

Adults should be allowed to practice whatever religion, or be in whatever relationship configuration they choose, as long as minor children are not abused, coerced, or denied the right to choose another lifestyle in adulthood. When someone who does not have the right to exercise their own free will is hurt, the law needs to intervene. This is true for children, the elderly, and those with serious and persistent mental illnesses. Thirteen-year-old little girls should not be having intimate relationships with men. That is not religious freedom. That is child abuse.

Tweet

Susan Atkins Dying of Brain Cancer

by Kathryn Casey

Well, folks, let's try not be too upset about this. The Manson Family Today website reported this afternoon that Charles Manson groupie and convicted murderer Susan Atkins (photos then and now) is dying of brain cancer and has only weeks to live. At her 1970 trial for the Tate/LaBianca murders, she snickered and laughed, seemingly oblivious to the horror of her crimes, yet in later years she was commended for saving the lives of other inmates. Atkins has been eligible for parole off and on, but it has consistently been denied. She once filed a lawsuit claiming to be a political prisoner. Atkins, who turned sixty just yesterday, has said that she became a born-again Christian in prison. Since she'll soon be meeting her maker, let's hope she did.

Tweet

Defending a Guilty Client

by Katherine Scardino

Based on my earlier articles and the replies by the readers, a number of you do not understand how a defense attorney can represent a client who they know is guilty. Since I am about to do just that, I thought I would share my feelings about it.

As I mentioned before, under our Constitution, anyone standing trial for a crime is entitled to certain rights, such as a fair and unbiased trial. We also possess the right to have evidence presented to the jury, as long as it is legally obtained--i.e., no busting down doors and searching your home without either consent or probable cause to do so. We also enjoy the right to have the jury only consider evidence that rises to the level of our standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt. Too, there is our right to be presumed innocent until a jury hears this type of evidence, believes it, and renders a verdict of guilty.

All of these constitutional protections have been around since the Constitution was written in the late 1700s. Do they apply to today’s way of living? We have so much more today than our forefathers ever even dreamed of - cell phones, faxes, the Internet. So, some of you say these rules are no longer applicable.

I am preparing for a trial defending a man accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter - not just once, but for years. There will be testimony from the accuser, pointing a finger at my client.

Some of you might question - How can you sit next to this person and defend him in a case like that? I will admit to you that these types of cases, those involving children, are the toughest for any defense lawyer - not just in the cold facts of the case, but emotionally as well. Most of us have children. We would want to string whoever harmed our child up by his toes, or by some other body part that is a bit more sensitive.

In defending this client, I am reminding myself of his rights as an accused citizen of the United States. I am looking at the evidence with a hard eye to see if it meets the standard we should expect. Did the State, in its eagerness to solve the crime, zero in on one person and fail to investigate any other evidence?

Generally, once a young person makes an accusation against an adult, there is no more investigation. No one calls the accused on the phone and asks whether you did this, or whether you might have a "story" to defend yourself. God forbid there should be an alibi or a reason for this accusation other than the truth of the matter - is there a divorce involved? Or a custody fight where it would be convenient for the father to have this hanging over his head, which would certainly chill the father’s effort to get custody of his children. No. It is straight to an indictment and trial.

So, I am putting my case together to present to a jury, and I will be honest with you, this one is hard. I will do my job to be best of my ability. I have to remind myself - I did not make the facts, I just work with them - and give him a constitutionally fair trial. That is all I can do.

Tweet

Who Says The Party's Over?

In 2006, Gang Land News carried the headline "The Party's Over for Paciello," a mob informant who traded Miami nightlife for Club Fed. Chris Paciello's party days might be over, but festivities for the film based on his life are just beginning. Tonight in Miami Beach, WCI's Michele McPhee will be the guest of honor at a soiree celebrating the production launch of UNMADE MAN, the feature film based on her best-selling true-crime book Mob Over Miami.

The event is co-hosted by Miami Magazine; producers John Sherman, Josh Kagan, and Marilyn Haft; PR man Alan T. Brown; and lead actor Jeff Marchetti—whose acting debut was on The Sopranos as mafioso "Petey," a role he enjoyed for several seasons, including the final episode, "Made In America."

This time he's the UNMADE MAN in Florida. In the film, Marchetti (pictured below with Sopranos co-star Joseph Gannascoli) plays real-life thug Chris Paciello, a former member of Brooklyn's "Bath Avenue Crew," a particularly violent cadre of Bonanno crime family henchmen. When Paciello left New York in the early '90s, he tried to reinvent himself in the club scene in Miami, where he became a "South Beach King," running the glitziest nightspots and dating women like Madonna (pictured together at right) and hanging out with stars like Jennifer Lopez and supermodel Naomi Campbell.

Back home in New York, Paciello was the type of character real underworld figures had no respect for, but had occasional use for: "the type of man commonly found on the edges of organized crime, a fringe character who got some peculiar thrill or sense of power through his shady connections," Gay Talese wrote of another unmade Bonanno associate thirty years before Paciello assumed his own supporting role with the crime family. These types were never trusted "when situations were particularly dangerous," Talese added in Honor Thy Father: "types like [him] usually collapsed under pressure and could be coerced by the police into turning informer." History repeated itself with Paciello, who became a government witness.

"If Paciello did everything the government says he did," one of the former Club King's publicists told the Village Voice, "then he deserves an Oscar." Any acting awards won't be going to Paciello, who is doing his time at an undisclosed federal prison.

Michele McPhee (pictured left) was police bureau chief at the New York Daily News when she started covering the story. To learn how Michele became one of the nation's handful of women organized crime reporters, see her interview with South Beach Magazine.

Tweet

WEtv Takes on Celeste Beard

by Kathryn Casey

For all of you who read my book She Wanted It All, on the Celeste Beard case, don't miss "Women Behind Bars" on WEtv tonight, 8 C.T. The program will reexamine the case, including a prison interview with Celeste. I don't need a crystal ball to predict that she'll be hell-bent on convincing each and every one of you that she's an innocent woman. Will she succeed?

If you're unfamiliar with the case, here's the nuts and bolts: Celeste was a thirty-something, thrice-married waitress when she met Steve Beard, a recently widowed, 70-year-old, multimillionaire, at the Austin Country Club. Before long, she was living in Steve's house, and they eventually married. He built her a mansion, and gave her jewels, clothing, everything she ever wanted. But, somehow (get ready to be surprised), it was never enough. In the end, this is one of those cases that's stranger than fiction. (If I'd written this one as a novel, no one would have believed it.)

There's Celeste's bizarre treatment of her twin daughters, her affair with her former husband, her sexual liaisons with Tracey Tarlton, a smart but troubled gay woman she meets in a psychiatric hospital, Celeste's suicidal threats, and Tracey's tragic decision to help Celeste free herself from Steve, whom Celeste described as controlling and abusive.

In the end, Steve wasn't as Celeste described him, and police ended up knocking on Tracey Tarlton's door. So watch WEtv tonight, and let me know if Celeste succeeds in convincing you that she's not a murderer.

Tweet

Sex Offender Laws Need Some Work

by Stacy Dittrich

Granted, they're all a good start. Meghan's Law, Amber Alerts, Jessica's Law, and the Adam Walsh Act are headed in the right direction, but they still aren't "correcting" the problem. Here, in Ohio, Senate Bill 10, (somewhere around the range of 450 pages), aimed at sex offenders, has been revamped and corrected so many times I'm not sure what the law is!

What I do know is this: If I come upon a registered sex offender sitting in his vehicle, (watching the children and having no other reason of being there), I cannot arrest him. Furthermore, if he decides to follow the school bus from stop to stop--still no arrest.

Okay, so they can't live within 1000 feet of a school, playground, or daycare center, and all of their neighbors are told a perv is living among them. Big deal! Sexual Predators have legs, and they have cars. There is nothing that prevents them from strolling 1200 feet down to the nearest school to find a "fantasy fix" (a child's image to use while sexually gratifying himself). Or, in the worse case scenario, a future victim.

The possibility of pink license plates for sex offenders was presented before the senate. Their reaction? "Oh, the horror! A violation of civil rights!" Regardless, nothing prevented them from passing a bill that allowed judges to issue yellow license plates to DUI offenders, which is also a joke. Why? Because the judges rarely do this. There's the prospect of the poor soul that gets the judge on a bad day. Issued yellow license plates for his first offense DUI, he finds himself being passed on the roadway by a multiple DUI offender who honks, waves, and is prominently displaying "IDRINK4U" standard Ohio plates.

The main problem is the lack of separation for offenders. The state is pooling together the violent child predators with the guy who had sex with a disgruntled ex-girlfriend. Angry at the rejection of reconciliation, she files rape charges. The Romeo and Juliet cases still have yet to be addressed. The eighteen-year old senior in high school, in love and sexually active with his consenting, fourteen-year old freshman girlfriend is branded for life. Ridiculous!

When I argue the above with "people in the know," I am promptly informed that stricter laws will do nothing but drive the sex offenders underground. What?!!

Read this following story and tell me if it matters:

- A local sexual predator was recently released from prison. No parole, time served. His victims were all under the age of five and spanned from Florida to Ohio. He ultimately became a frequent visitor to local elementary schools and bus stops, and was suspected in an attempted abduction of a seven-year-old. Parents were outraged. As law enforcement, we scared him, watched him, and threatened him (within the scope of the law, of course) every way possible. The outcome of this? He merely drove to the neighboring county and promptly abducted and sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl. Yes, he's back in prison but it took the innocence and stability of a child to put him there--again.

What most people don't realize is this: There is no rehabilitation for pedophiles. Asking a pedophile to no longer be attracted to children, is like asking a homosexual to wake up tomorrow and live his life straight, or vice versa. It's not going to happen! (For chillingly accurate portrayals of child sexual predators, rent Little Children or The Woodsman.)

My solution? Put the violent sexual predators whose victims are under thirteen in a class of their own--restrict their breathing. Give law enforcement the authority to take action. It's not difficult. The law could read something like: "A state registered sexual offender who knowingly engages in a pattern of conduct that causes inconvenience, annoyance, alarm or panic to any prudent person who believes the person is conspiring or about to commit a sex offense." (Take that, Senate Bill 10!)

My "silent" solution? Torture and death to child offenders on the second offense. I've had the extremely unpleasant experience of witnessing the lifetime of damage these monsters inflict on our children. I'm pretty sure that would nip the problem in the bud. Yes, it's harsh, but I'm funny that way. . . .

Just my opinion.

Tweet

WOMEN IN CRIME INK RADIO

Tonight, please join Women in Crime Ink contributors Pat Brown, Stacy Dittrich, Diane Fanning, Vanessa Leggett, Donna Pendergast, and Robin Sax as Dana Pretzer, host of Scared Monkeys Radio, features them discussing today's hot stories and issues in the world of crime. Please feel free to tune in and comment on Tuesday, May 6, beginning at 9:00 p.m. EDT, LIVE ON http://scaredmonkeysradio.com/

Listen to Podcast:

FreeVideoCoding.com

Tweet

The Doctor is In (1 of 2 parts)

by Vanessa Leggett

A psychological riddle of sorts has been making the rounds in cyberspace. It might have landed in your Inbox. Now you might be good at guessing the answer to riddles like this one. My failure to solve this particular puzzle cast a self-revealing light on something I'm accustomed to examining in others: Motive.

Though motive need not be proved in a courtroom, in a crime story, discovering and revealing motivation is essential. Motivation is something I brood on as intensely as some people I write about try to conceal it. Here's what I've noticed. Even with suspects who confess—those who are willing to ask themselves and reveal to others the Why of their crimes—what drives us to extremes is often more of a mystery to ourselves than it is to observers.

You might recall a scene from The Silence of the Lambs, where Special Agent Clarice Starling says to serial killer Hannibal Lecter: "You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to turn that high-powered perception on yourself?"

If you read mysteries and crime stories, you likely see a lot too when it comes to identifying what powers the mens rea behind every criminal act.

In this riddle, you will be asked to discern another's motivation. How you answer will shine a high-powered light of perception on yourself. I racked my brain on this one but did not get it right. Let's see how good you are at guessing motive. Here is the text of the message I received:

The following is not a trick question. It is as it reads. No one I know has gotten it right. A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister.

Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?

So that's the riddle. Give this some thought before you answer, then click here to move to the below post: "Are You a Psychopath?"

Tweet

Are You a Psychopath? (2 of 2 parts)

by Vanessa Leggett

Note to readers: If you have not read "The Doctor is In" above, visit here before reading this post.

Scenario: A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a man whom she did not know. After meeting him, she was convinced he was Mr. Right. For her, it was love at first sight, but at the funeral she did not ask for his number nor could she find him afterward. A few days later she killed her sister.

Now for the rest of that e-mail riddle:

Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?

Answer: She was hoping the guy would appear at the funeral again.

If you answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath.

This was a test by a famous American psychologist used to tell if one has the same mentality as a killer. Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the question correctly. If you didn't answer the question correctly, good for you. If you got the answer correct, bad for us.

How did you do? If you're like me, you've never been so relieved to have missed an answer.

In closing, I should note that I cannot vouch for the riddle being a "test by a famous American psychologist." Again, I received this as an e-mail message. The one that landed in my Inbox had been forwarded to recipients from New York all the way to Texas. The original sender was someone I don't know at all.

Come to think of it, I may not even know the person who sent it to me—at least not as well as I might have thought. He may have had an unfair advantage in guessing what would motivate someone to commit murder. He's a criminal defense lawyer. All the same, he did not say how he did on the test. . . .

Tweet