Hollywood: Check Brain Before Engaging Mouth When Defending Roman Polanski

by Stacy Dittrich

California Penal Code: Rape

261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.
_______________________________________________________

Don’t quite understand the legal lingo? Here’s a partial transcript of Roman Polanski’s victim describing her “experience” with the famed director. Polanski pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, also known as statutory rape, in 1977. He posted bond, then fled to Paris, where he has spent the last 30 years enjoying the privileged life of a multimillionaire director and international celebrity. He was finally arrested on September 28, 2009 in Switzerland and is fighting extradition.

**Warning~the following is extremely graphic**

Excerpts:

Q: Samantha Gailey, how old are you?

A: 13

Q: You reside with your mother and your sister at a residence in Woodland Hills?

A: Yeah.
Q: At any time did Mr. Polanski offer you something to drink?
A: Yes. I think I said I was thirsty. And he went in the kitchen and this refrigerator, it was full of juice and wine and soda and all this stuff. And he got out -- he got a bottle of champagne. And he said, "Should I open it?" And I went, "I don't care," you know.
Q: How much did you drink?

A: I don't know. I had been finishing my glass and I was using it to pose in the pictures with. So I have no idea how much I drank.

Q: So after you had the drink of champagne, you went and took pictures?

A: Yes.
Q: After taking pictures in the patio area, what happened?

A: We went inside and he started playing with his camera again. I think he changed lenses or something. And then we took some more pictures right inside the patio door.

Q: Was that wearing the same outfit that you had on when you arrived, the blue jeans?
A: No. I didn't have a shirt on. I was standing behind a lamp.
Q: Was that at his request or did you volunteer to do that?

A: That was at his request.
Q: After taking those photographs, what happened?

A: He went to show me this Jacuzzi that Jack Nicholson has.
Q: After talking to your mother on the telephone, what happened?

A: We went out and I got in the Jacuzzi.

Q: So you went outside?

A: No, wait. We went into the bathroom before and he took this little yellow thing. I don't know what it was. It was some kind of container. And he had -- he walked in before me. When I walked in he had the container. And he had a pill broken into three parts. And he said, "Is this a Quaalude?" And I went, "Yes." And he says, "Oh, do you think I will be able to drive if I take it?" And I went, "I don't know," you know. He says, "Well, I guess I will," and he took it. And he says, "Do you want part?" And I went, "No." And he says -- oh, at that time I went "Okay," because -- I don't know.

Q: Why did you take it?

A: I don't know. I think I must have been pretty drunk or else I wouldn't have.
Q: How did he get you to take that tablet?

A: I took it with a swallow of champagne.

Q: What happened after you took the tablet?

A: I went into the kitchen, and I don't know why, but I thought if I ate -- I realized I was drinking and then I took that. And I then really got upset at myself so I started eating.
A: I said that I wanted to go home because I needed to take my medicine.

Q: What did Mr. Polanski say?

A: He said, "Yeah, I'll take you home soon."

Q: What did you do?

A: I told him -- I said that I wanted to get -- I wanted to go home. I said, "No, I have to go home now."

Q: What did Mr. Polanski say?

A: He told me to go in the other room and lie down.

Q: When he said, "In the other room," was there an adjoining room to the bathroom?

A: No, it was at the end of the hall. He went outside the bathroom. It was right a few feet away.

Q: What kind of room is that?

A: I'm not sure. There's no lights on in it. And it looked like a master bedroom. It had a bed and a couch and a TV.

Q: What did you do when he said, "Let's go in the other room?"

A: I was going, "No, I think I better go home," because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q: What were you afraid of?

A: Him.
Q: What were you wearing at that time?

A: My underwear and a towel.

Q: At some time had you put on your panties?

A: Yes, I did that right away when I got into the bathroom.

Q: What happened when you sat down on the couch?

A: He sat down beside me and asked me if I was okay.

Q: What did you say, if anything?

A: I said, "No."

Q: What did he say?

A: He goes, "Well, you'll be better." And I go, "No, I won't. I have to go home."

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, "No," you know, "Keep away." But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

Q: What was said after you indicated that you wanted to go home when you were sitting on the couch?

A: He said, "I'll take you home soon."

Q: Then what happened?

A: And then he went down and he started performing cuddliness.

Q: What does that mean?

A: It means he went down on me or he placed his mouth on my vagina.

Q: What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?

A: He was just like licking and I don't know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of... I was going, "No. Come on. Stop it." But I was afraid.

Q: Why do you believe you were under the influence at that time?

A: I can barely remember anything that happened.

Q: Is there any other reason?

A: No. I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination like walking and stuff.

Q: How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina?

A: A few minutes.

Q: What happened after that?

A: He started to have intercourse with me.

Q: What do you mean intercourse?

A: He placed his penis in my vagina.

Q: What did you say, if anything, before he did that?

A: I was mostly just on and off saying, "No, stop." But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.

Q: What did he say, if anything?

A: He didn't answer me when I said, "No."

Q: At this time were your panties off?

A: Yes.

Q: How were your panties taken off?

A: He had taken them off.

Q: When was that?

A: After he kissed me he got a hold of them and he pulled them off.
Q: At any time did he ask you when your period was?

A: Yes.

Q: When was that?

A: While he was having intercourse with me.

Q: Did he ask you about being on the pill?

A: Yes.

Q: When did he say that?

A: At the same time.

Q: What did he say?

A: He asked, he goes, "Are you on the pill?" And I went, "No." And he goes, "When did you last have your period?" And I said, "I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure."

Q: And what did he say?

A: He goes, "Come on, you have to remember." And I told him I didn't.

Q: Did he say anything after that?

A: Yes. He goes, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" And I went, "No."

Q: Did he say anything else?

A: No.

Q: How long did he have his penis in your vagina?

A: I can't remember how long, but not a very long time.

Q: Had you had sexual intercourse with anyone before.

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how many times?

A: Twice.
Q: What happened after he says, "DO you want me to -- " Was it go through your back?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened then?

A: I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, "Oh, I won't come inside of you then." And I just went -- and he goes -- and then he put me -- wait. Then he lifted up my legs farther and he went in through my anus.

Q: When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?

A: He put his penis in my butt.

Q: Did he say anything at that time?

A: No.
Q: Did you resist at that time?

A: A little bit, but not really because - (pause)

Q: Because what?

A: Because I was afraid of him.
*****************************************

Oh, phooey! It wasn’t like a “rape-rape” as stated by that intellectual genius Whoopi Goldberg, when weighing in on the recent arrest of Roman Polanski on her show, The View. In fact, it was “consensual,” she says. Goldberg’s scholars at the Moron University need to update her on the definition of the word “no,” as well as her legal scholars at whatever law school she secretly attended.
Let's not forget, the victim, Samantha Geimer, 45, no longer wants to prosecute! Why waste taxpayers’ money on such a gifted, artistic pedophile? Sheer nonsense, they say. In fact, let’s just throw the Jaycee Dugard case out with the bathwater as well, since she was also a little wishy-washy about testifying against the man who held her captive for 18 years, brutally raping her along the way. Some of the other pedophile defenders in Hollywood include:

Harrison Ford
Woody Allen (Silence is probably best here...)
Natalie Portman

Debra Winger
Monica Belucci
Martin Scorcese
David Lynch
Jonathan Demme
Harvey Weinstein
John Landis
Tilda Swinton

Re-read the transcript of the nauseating assault above, and imagine if that were your child. And then try to wrap your brain around each of these celebrities defending the animal at fault.

I simply cannot.

In fact, I am utterly disgusted at their ignorance, their lack of information, and the message they're sending to victims of sexual assault (except for Allen, whom we wouldn’t expect any less from). I was so angry after watching Goldberg’s mentally deflated comments and reading the petition to free Polanski that all I could do was post the information here and let you decide.

Would you be angry if it were your child? Should the charges against Roman Polanski be dropped?

Former Sex-Crimes Detective Stacy Dittrich's new true-crime book,"Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill", featuring the stories of Drew Peterson, Bobby Cutts Jr., Antoinette Frank and others, debuts in bookstores October 27th and is available for pre-order on line now.

Tweet

Crime Happens When We Least Expect It

by Diane Dimond

Crime happens when we least expect it. Criminal activity festers in places we can’t imagine and in the minds of those we least expect. We shouldn't be surprised when it's discovered.

The recent arrest of three seemingly low-key, nondescript men on charges of lying to federal agents about a plot to blow up American targets sounds like the stuff Hollywood makes movies about. But these arrests were all too real and should go to remind us that America’s fight against terrorism is far from over. The battlefield is worldwide.

These most recent suspects … all foreign-born Muslims, include a 24-year-old Denver airport shuttle driver, his father and an alleged accomplice in New York. They have not, of course, been found guilty of anything. But their case seems destined to go to trial.

FBI Agents on Watch

Before he stopped talking to the FBI, the suspected ring-leader, 24-year-old Najibullah Zazi, a native Afghani, allegedly told agents he received Al Qaeda weapons training in Pakistan last year. An FBI document claims Zazi’s laptop contained a recipe for making bombs and information about important New York-area targets like transportation hubs and sports and entertainment venues. They tied Zazi’s recent trip to New York (ominously on September 10th, the day before the nation marked the 9-11 anniversary) to his fingerprints on bomb-making ingredients found in apartments he visited in Queens. Media reports and FBI documents mentioned suspicions that Zazi planned to place bombs in rented vans or back packs. Authorities felt the plot had developed to include at least three separate teams of four men each preparing to carry out various U.S. attacks.

The round up of Zazi and his cohorts didn't happen in a vacuum. Every day in this country – as far removed as we are from the day the towers fell, the Pentagon was struck and the jetliner crashed into the ground in rural Pennsylvania – special government agents actively pursue leads to thwart more terror attacks on American soil. So far, they've done a hell of a job. Operatives within the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, your state, local police and other agencies know things about plots against our country that would curl your hair. They invisibly investigate countless cases we will never hear about, many times acting on tips from observant citizens.

This week in Illinois, an American ex-con who converted to Islam in prison was arrested on charges he tried to blow up the federal building in Springfield. Michael Finton, also known as Talib Islam, was unknowingly working with local and federal law enforcement agents as he chose his target. He faces life in prison.

Fountain Place: The Dallas Target

A day later, in Dallas, a Jordanian citizen was charged with trying to blow up a 60-story building with what he thought was an active car bomb. Actually, an FBI undercover agent posing as a fellow terrorist led 19-year-old Hosam Maher Husein Smadi to believe he had genuine explosives. The suspect reportedly idolized Osama bin Laden.

In May, New York authorities and the FBI arrested three U.S. citizens and a Haitian man on charges that they planned to bomb multiple synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down airplanes using surface-to-air missiles. In a meeting with a government informant, one of the suspects revealed his parents lived in Afghanistan, and he was angry about the U.S. war there. He said he an interest in “doing something to America.”

All this talk about suspected terror plots in New York, Dallas and Springfield, Ill., might seem far removed from where you live. But as we were all reminded on Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism that touches one American city touches us all.

All these years later, our leaders are still trying to figure out how to stop the terror at its source – Al Qaeda-sponsored training centers that pockmark the landscape in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We've spent billions of dollars, yet they survive. Why is that – are they smarter than us, or do we lack conviction and a definitive plan for their eradication?

I'll go with the latter. Our leaders can't seem to get it together to stop this monster of all crimes.

Generals on the front line say they need another 30,000 troops to mortally cripple Al Qaeda and install some sort of democracy in the region. The President has said he’s prepared to allocate about 17,000 more soldiers, although he’s now considering some alternatives. Many members of Congress seem focused only on blaming the past for the quagmire and offer no suggestions on going forward. Others on Capitol Hill support pulling out of the region right now, abandoning the mission altogether.

Democrats vs. Republicans, military leaders vs. civilian experts, soldier warriors vs. pacifists. America is strong enough and smart enough to figure it out. All we need is the right leadership.

So after an eight-year war, when do we begin to demand that?

Tweet

Left Behind

by Lisa R. Cohen

I've been thinking a lot about the Jaycee Dugard story, of course, because of the similarities to the Etan Patz case. Blond, beautiful Jaycee was abducted off her bicycle 18 years ago while on her way to school. Blond, beautiful, six-year-old Etan was abducted 30 years ago, walking the two short blocks to the school bus stop, on his own for the first time. Jaycee's stepdad was considered a suspect for years, as was Stan Patz, Etan's dad.

But then there are those important differences in the two cases: unlike Stan and Julie Patz, Jaycee's folks didn't sustain their marriage through such tragedy; and unlike Jaycee -- Etan never came home.

There's been so much talk about Jaycee's two daughters and how they will adjust to their shattering, new reality. But I've also been wondering about how this bombshell is affecting Jaycee's other family - her mother and stepfather, and her younger sister Shana who was just a baby when Jaycee disappeared.

Over the years, the Patzes had a lot of contact with other families of missing children. So much about the tragedy of an abducted or missing child is specific to that one circumstance and simply can't be understood except by another family in the same straits. It's like a terrible, exclusive club no one wants to be a member of.

In 1984, five years after Etan disappeared, Julie took her younger son, then 7-year-old Ari, on a very unique retreat organized by psychotherapist Gary Hewitt. Amid the growing voices clamoring for much needed new legislation on the issue, Hewitt's Center for Missing Children specialized in a narrow spot on the missing child spectrum, one that received little attention but demonstrated a huge need -- the families, and especially the children, left behind. Hewitt treated such families, as well as the rare young victims who returned, carrying the emotional baggage of their captivity.

Julie hoped the retreat would be helpful for Ari. He had come to her on his seventh birthday to express relief that he'd made it through the scary age of six, but a year later he was still suffering the effects of his brother's loss. He'd recently spent hours up in the night weeping after a particularly bad nightmare. Now he would celebrate his eighth birthday at a lakefront resort in upstate New York, in the company of trained therapists and siblings of other missing children.

On the first night, some 60 strangers sang to Ari, then shared his birthday cake after a buffet dinner at Keuka College, 212 gloriously green acres in the Finger Lake region. Gary Hewitt presented the boy with a newly minted coin set for his collection and hoped the familiar birthday ritual would help break the ice at this somber, awkward gathering of 14 families.

But it would take more than cake and party balloons to chip away at their sorrow. These were mothers and fathers who'd molded themselves rigidly into an unnatural public persona, or had kept an isolated vigil by the phone in hopes of a call. Many had completely lost sight of relating to other people. Looking around, Julie felt the oppressive weight of the collective tragedy. She doubted whether some of these people had smiled or laughed once since their child had disappeared.

The next day, at the first working sessions, the adults were split off from the children, as everyone divided their time between group therapy and play. Parents talked to parents, kids to kids. Ari sat in a classroom with other children ranging from seven to 17, who were encouraged to tell their stories. Gradually, the youngsters opened up, but it wasn't until the evening when the families came together again, that the parents had their own protective ice broken...by their children.

One after another, with safety in numbers, the youngest voices said what they'd been holding inside. Our brother or sister may be gone, but we're still here. We need to get out of the house, move forward, take a vacation, be normal. Every aspect of life had been on hold, and these children were suffering for that too, not just for the loss of their loved one. As parents listened, and the tears flowed, the adults acknowledged what their children were saying.

Talking about such things for the first time had a profound effect, but it wasn't the only healing tool. In between the talking and listening was what Julie jokingly called the "forced" recreation. These were people who had lost the ability to relax and to feel unencumbered by their grief, or by the appearance they needed to maintain, so that neighbors wouldn't find it unseemly, even suspicious to see the laughing. At Keuka, they were cajoled into waterskiing, swimming and canoeing. There was t'ai chi in the mornings for the most sedentary of the adults and counselors who doubled as clowns armed with balloon animals for the youngest of the kids. And there were goofy parlor games, designed to coax laughter from even the most disconsolate.

It was a rare adventure for all the children and an even rarer break for the parents. For Julie, the entire Keuka retreat was a singular experience, one she would never forget. For the first time in five years she was spending time with other parents - besides her husband Stan - who had shared the same horror she had, and they were free of media, law-enforcement and other "non" victims. She didn't have to worry what anyone thought of her when she cried over an irrational fear, or more importantly, laughed at a joke. For the first time in a long time, she was with a group of peers, so she could feel - almost - normal.

Both she and Ari also spent time with 18-year-old Steven Stayner and his parents. Steven had left his Northern California home in 1972 a freckle faced seven year old, and reappeared eight years later almost a full grown man. Once home, Stayner had struggled to adapt to a life that on the one hand was free of the abuse he'd suffered in his captor's clutches, but on the other hand was bounded by the parental limits he'd shed during his time away. But Julie and Ari saw a polite, pleasant young man, and a functioning reunited family, and it was evidence that it could be done.

Let's hope that in the future, Jaycee's family will be able to share such experiences with other families too. They could use time away from the rest of the world in the company of others who've been through something similar, even though very few ever have. Again, being able to feel that shared experience will give them one of the most precious healing tools there is at such a challenging time - a sense of normalcy.

Tweet

The Grandma Bandits

by Kathryn Casey

I'm not used to seeing suspects who look like grandmothers. Oh, there's the occasional black widow like Betty Neumar, women of a certain age who have a trail of dead husbands and suddenly someone adds up two and two and gets, surprise, four, the four being that they may not all have died of natural causes. But for the most part, grandmothers aren't the predominant demographic for murderers, rapists, or, I would have thought, bank robbers.

So when I read about the "Grandma Bandit," as the FBI is calling her, I've got to admit that I was pretty shocked. I mean, does she look like a bank robber (photo top left)? A school crossing guard, Wal-Mart greeter, short order cook, or the sweet but maybe a little eccentric lady who lives next door? Sure. But a bank robber?

It seems however, if one believes the FBI, that's exactly what this matronly woman is doing in the surveillance photo from last Friday, not once but twice, to two Houston banks, four miles apart. Not only that, she's described in the news articles as brazen. She drove up in her white SUV, walked inside, confronted a teller, and threatened to pull a weapon. She didn't bother to wear a disguise, and, unlike some bank robbers, offered no excuses, for instance that she has her Medicare supplement, a tummy tuck or cataract surgery to pay for.

I know this isn't a laughing matter. I mean, somebody could get hurt, plus she's stealing other people's money. But she just appears to be such an unlikely candidate for a bank robber. The FBI spokesman theorized that in this dour economy more desperate people are turning to crime to pay the bills.

Wondering how often this has happened before, I Googled the phrase, "grandma bank robber," and up popped another case, that of a woman in 2008 who robbed the same Chino, California, bank twice, once lifting her shirt to expose a device with wires attached to her chest, presumably a bomb. (photo above right) At the time, she said she was being victimized by others, and a note she presented read: "Please help this lady. She's strapped."

I don't know if they mentioned that her hair looks like a white wig, but in the description in the BOLO -- be on the lockout for -- it did point out that she wore prescription glasses. In a later photo from another robbery, she wore a dark wig and a sweatshirt with a hood that made her look a little like a geriatric Unibomber. I looked but couldn't find anywhere that she'd been identified and/or arrested. I'm hoping that if she was forced into this crime spree, she's safe now. (If you know how this case was resolved, comment and tell us.)

A little more Googling and another Grandma Bandit turned up, in 2007, this time in Pittsburgh. This particular senior citizen, Marilyn Devine, was 76 years old. According to the news articles, she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 23 months of house arrest and 20-years probation. At the time, Devine's husband, Ray, claimed that his wife was in a sad state around the time of the robbery, needing money to help their son, "because that's just the kind of mom she is."

So what did this session of Net surfing teach me? To remember that stereotypes are often wrong and that it's dangerous to jump to conclusions about what type of person does what. Sadly, people of any age can be desperate enough to break the law, even grandmas.

Tweet

New or Pending Science on the Horizon

by Andrea Campbell

I had a difficult time choosing what to write for today. I often forget what I've told you, and I don't want anything to be too remedial—people have become pretty savvy with all the forensic information on current cases in the news. So I thought I would make a small departure and tell you about some new science or new ideas that are either in the works or coming down the pike, so-to-speak.

Sharing Faces


First the International Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing Network, also called Nlets (thank you, who could remember the other?) has just decided to coordinate policies for putting together an exchange service to share drivers' license photos. This was listed as a top priority of law enforcement for a long time. A pilot program is underway in North and South Carolina and Virginia. It would also allow them to share electronic images from motor vehicle departments for the sole purpose of identification. It seems like such a no-brainer, wonder what the hang-up is or was getting it going? (Link: See http://www.nlets.org/ for more information)

Face Recognition


Speaking of faces, the images on surveillance videos are really bad most of the time. The businesses either recycle the tapes, or have old (or even nonworking) cameras. A computer program is being developed to improve the image processing technology. The underlying technology is supposed to have face detection algorithms. I'm told that shape and appearance models lock on to the three-dimensional shape of the face in each video frame. This technology allows it to be rotated to a frontal view. That way a frame-to-frame registration of the face is combined and then a higher resolution is constructed. Yes, it sounds like something we've seen in the movies. Another idea, Active 3D Face Capture, is the brainchild of NIJ-sponsored project with the help of GE Global Research and PPR. It would set up video surveillance for large areas like a schoolyard or parking lot (where images get lost in the haze and bad resolution).

NamUs

Not so much a technology but a database, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System or NamUs, is the first online repository for missing person records and unidentified decedent cases. It will eventually consist of two databases, one with records of no-name decedents and the other with missing persons reports. It was launched in July 2007. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, medical examiners and coroners handle about 4,400 unidentified decedent cases every year and 1,000 of those remain nameless. (Link See: http://www.namus.gov/)

Cell Phone Forensics

Obviously the cell phone has progressed and affords us major capabilities now such as: voicemail, music or MP3 players, camera, video camera, voice recorder, Web browser, email, text messenger, address book, calendar, notepad, games, applications and more. And law enforcement know that any technology that can be used for legitimate uses can also be made to handle illegal aims as well. The potential for cell phones holding evidence cannot be overlooked. What is however overlooked is, the capability of police officers and detectives knowing how to preserve and retrieve all this data correctly. There are hurdles with an infinite number of custom-designed operating systems, different network providers, unfamiliar file systems, proprietary cables, chargers and connectors. For investigators who find this information overwhelming (who doesn't?) state, local and federal agencies are trying to create strategies for handling cell phone technology and disbursing it to investigative agencies. (Link See: http://www.bk.forensics.com/ also look for Cell Phone Forensics: An Overview & Analysis Update, NIST, http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/nistir-7387.pdf)

Chemical Signatures

I thought this was a very cool product because I have talked to law enforcement officers who work drug cases! The danger is horrendous. I doubt if any agencies here have one of these: a handheld meth-detection unit. It's called the ID-2 from Decatur Electronics. It allows an officer to pick-up trace elements of methamphetmine or pseudoephedrine without physical contact. Yep, it reads through the baggie. The scanner pulses ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopy to detect the elements of meth chemicals as they react to the light. (Link See: http://www.decaturradar.com/)

Tweet

Did She "Ask for It"? Does it Matter?

By Pat Brown

A victim is a housewife, college student, go-go dancer, model, teacher, nun, virgin, slut, whore, churchgoer, caretaker, drug user, pervert, cop, criminal, social worker, thief.

She may be sweet. She may be a bitch. She may not have deserved it. Then, again, maybe she sorta did.

What a victim is, and what a victim does, doesn't matter. Or, what a victim is, and what a victim does, makes all the difference.

Over and over, we hear that the behavior of the victim is not the issue. No one deserves to be murdered. No one deserves to be raped. Even the suggestion that the victim might have in some way contributed to her unfortunate demise is considered blasphemy. When pushed, it might be admitted, in a politically correct manner, that the victim "may have lived a high-risk life-style that increased her chance of becoming a victim." This is a nice way of saying the victim's personal decisions and behavior got her in trouble. Her unfortunate choices range from opening the door without knowing who is on the other side, jogging at dusk, or working the streets as a prostitute.

The continued white-washing of the victim's character, and the refusal to examine her actions, can make it harder to find, profile and try attackers. We think we are doing women a favor when we refuse to acknowledge that their behavior helped make them victims. We are, in fact, clouding the thinking of investigators and jurors in their abilities to identify and convict the perpetrators of rape and sexual homicide.

Let's examine how this political viewpoint of women's responsibility has affected these areas.

The investigation of a sexual homicide depends heavily on accurate information about the victim. Victimology includes the past history of the victim, the personality and habits of the victim in the recent months prior to the crime, and the activities and relationships the victim was involved with in the minutes, hours, and days before the murder.

The desire to believe that a totally crazy bogeyman appeared out of nowhere and, for no reason, murdered this totally innocent person, keeps many relatives and friends from informing the police investigators of dangerous activities and habits that could have set up the victim as the target in the killer's crime. Since the victim didn't deserve to be killed, then nothing she could have done should be relevant to her death.

This belief wastes valuable time and leads that could have led them rapidly to the perpetrator. The longer it takes for truthful information to reach the police, the more time the offender has to move or eliminate evidence, create alibis and generally disappear under the radar. When investigators accept this bogeyman theory, they too can overlook important information.

Still, investigators mustn't carelessly attribute risky behaviors as factors leading to a rape or murder. A prostitute is not necessarily murdered by a john, nor is a drug dealer always killed over drugs. Hitchhikers aren't necessarily murdered by the people who pick them up. It's entirely possible that none of the victim's less-than-desirable behaviors contributed in any way to her death. A drug-using prostitute with a real mean streak could be hit over the head and dragged into the bushes on her way home from church. The perpetrator may have no clue to her personality or lifestyle. She was just there; a victim of opportunity.

Wonderful traits can make someone a target as well. Take the horrific case of Annie Le (left with her fiancé), Yale student killed by a worker in the lab. She was beautiful, brilliant, sweet and friendly ... maybe too sweet and too friendly. Maybe she was overly polite to someone she should have avoided or maybe she was just so perfect and successful that her killer resented her existence. Good traits can get you killed, too.

Investigators must analyze all elements of victimology before making any conclusions. Even after a theory is developed, room must be left for the other possibilities, regardless of how unlikely. Paying close attention to all aspects of the victim's life as quickly as possible increases investigative leads and brings to police attention suspects who might  otherwise have gone undiscovered. 

In the courtroom, the defense often focuses on the victim's character. In a strange twist of reasoning, the politically correct refusal to make the victim responsible in any way for her fate allows the defense to assassinate her character.  

Because no one deserves to be killed, and no one contributes to the killer's choice of victim or decision to kill, then the victim must be totally innocent and the perpetrator must be totally guilty -- a hard case to prove. 

When the issue is seen so black and white, the jury is emotionally prepared to love the victim and hate the perpetrator. Then the defense presents their well-dressed, humble, intelligent, well -loved family man defendant. And then it proceeds to chip away at the victim's character (Jasmine Fiore, right, the model killed by her quickie-Las Vegas-marriage hubby) by, say, noting that she had numerous sexual relationships over the recent months (one of the other boyfriends could have done it), she frequented bars (oh, yeah, she could have picked up a freak), she did drugs (a low-life drug dealer probably offed her), she was a real flirt and wore provocative clothing (she asked for it ... oops ... not politically correct, but, hey, maybe she was into freaky sex and s/m), and she was not very nice sometimes (geez, maybe she really upset this guy and he lost it). 

Now that the victim has been so degraded in the eyes of the jury, they feel guilty if they put Mr. Nice Guy Defendant away for a crime, well, gee, for a crime that seems like any of the victim's acquaintances could have committed or that the victim herself encouraged. 

The truth gets lost in the jury's emotional response -- disappointment that the victim wasn't perfect. Oddly enough, it is easier to convict a murderer who killed during a drug deal, because character isn't an issue for either the prosecution or defense. The killer and the victim are both criminals. The only issue is the fact that the victim was killed. The trial then focuses on the evidence, not personality. (I am not saying this is cut and dried. Certainly defense attorneys still play the-defendant-is-a-nice-guy game, but the jury is not so conflicted over what to focus on to reach its verdict.) 

The issue in court should not be whether the girl was "easy," but whether she was easy prey, a vulnerable target for the offender. It should be stressed to the courts that these easy catches are often practice runs an offender uses to hone his skills before he goes after more difficult game --people with less risky behavior. When the concept of "good versus evil" raises its head in a court of law, the jury loses the gray area in between. If the defendant is "evil," then the victim must be "good." If the victim is not "good," then the defendant is not "evil" -- and neither gets justice.

A good example of this was the OJ Simpson case. When Nicole Simpson's character was raked over the coals, she went from being the innocent party to being the guilty party. This in turn made OJ the innocent party, unjustly accused. Anyone less than totally evil could not have committed such a heinous act; therefore, OJ couldn't have done it because he is no longer totally evil (as Nicole Simpson is no longer totally innocent). 

The focus of the argument in court is skewed. We should not be concerned about innocence or guilt of the perpetrator in relation to the victim. Nor should we focus on the innocence or guilt of the victim in relation to the perpetrator. We should simply be convicting the defendant if he has committed the crime, regardless of the relationship between them, and in spite of any behavior of the victim that rendered her the status of victim.

Did he commit the crime?

 

Let's take two examples of rape occurring at the same location. Both victims claim they were raped at a party. Both victims are college students. Both victims are deaf. Everyone at the party was deaf (Gallaudet University, the only university for the deaf in the world, pictured left). The perpetrators were both deaf. Both victims and both perpetrators were drinking. Victim One said she entered a back bedroom willingly with the suspect. The suspect started kissing her, which she allowed. The suspect pulled her onto a bed and started removing her underpants from under her skirt. The room was dark, and though she signed "no" to him repeatedly, he continued and then attempted sexual intercourse. She tried to push him off, but as she was drunk, she had little success. The suspect ejaculated quickly, got up, pulled on his pants and staggered out of the room. Did he commit a rape? 

Victim Two was on her way to the bathroom when the suspect came up behind her and shoved her into a back room. He pushed her to the floor and started pulling off her clothes. She struggled, but as she was very inebriated had little strength. Each time she tried to push him off, he shoved her back on the floor. He had sexual intercourse with her, ejaculated, got up, spit on her and left the room. Did he rape her?

Both victims came to the hospital. Both had semen evidence in the vagina. Neither showed any other injuries. The district attorney refuses to take either case to court because he claims to have no proof of rape. While both cases fit the societal definition of rape (the male is supposed to have asked and received permission for the sexual act in question), the legal definition of rape is another matter, and proving it is another matter still. 

The offender must have committed an act in which the victim is forced or coerced into participating. Victim One entered the room willingly with the suspect. She made no effort to turn on the light which would have enhanced her ability to communicate with the male. The male pulled (not pushed) her onto the bed and although she claims she pushed on his chest to get him off, she did so ineffectively; the suspect did not receive a clear indication of her refusal to have intercourse. During intercourse she did not attempt to cause him any kind of pain such as biting or stabbing him with her fingernails. She says she did not want to hurt him. She claims she was not particularly scared. His actions, although not welcomed, were not threatening. 

Because she could have taken precautions upon entering the room to ensure communication and she could have inflicted some sort of pain as an indication of objection, this victim clearly did not take action to prevent the event from occurring. The suspect may well have had no clue he was committing a sexual act against her will.

Victim Two did not enter into the back room of her own free will. She gave no indication of a desire to have sexual relations with the suspect. By shoving her into the room and pushing her to the floor, his aggression put the victim in a state of fear. When she tried to push him off, she made it clear she didn't want to have sex with him. She said she was afraid to try to hurt him because he might react violently. At a party with no hearing guests, screaming would have brought no help. At the end of the sexual activity, the perpetrator spit on her, clearly indicating his contempt for her and his awareness that she had not been a willing partner. 

There is sufficient circumstantial evidence here to prove a forcible sexual act.

Suppose both these cases actual were tried in a court of law. The jury learns that Victim One is a virgin and rarely drinks. Victim Two is rather promiscuous and is on the pill. Victim Two also hits up a party every week. In this profiler's opinion, both of victims' characters and behaviors could have led the perpetrators to the choices they made. The victims' choices of response to each suspect's acts established or negated the legal definition of forcible sexual activity. 

When Victim One went willingly into the room, virgin or not, she negated that she was being forced. By not attempting to turn on the light, she negated her desire for clear communication. By not attempting to inflict any kind of injury to the suspect that would make him question her desire for the sexual act, she negated that he was forcing her.

Victim Two, however, was forced into the room. That clearly establishes that the activity was forced. If Victim Two at that point turned and signed "Hey, Big Boy, let's do it!" she would have established consent and negated any forcible issue. Instead, his actions showed he was forcing sexual activity on her. If, in court, the jury feels sorry for the virginal Victim One and doesn't think one more round of sex is a big deal to the more sexually experienced Victim Two, then no one receives justice. 

All victims of crime are indeed victims, but we mustn't ignore victim behaviors that can help us identify the offender; we mustn't over-focus on their behaviors and characters in court, and we should learn from those victims just how certain behaviors can make us victims as well.

Tweet

Seven Days of Rage

by Paul LaRosa

My new book on the Craigslist Killer case – “Seven Days of Rage” – was just published and here’s what bothers me most about the feedback so far: the idea that it's somehow okay to murder and attack prostitutes. All three of suspected killer Philip Markoff’s victims were sex workers. One describes herself as an escort, another as a stripper, and the dead woman – Julissa Brisman (photo left) – told friends she gave erotic or sensual massages.

I expected criticism when the book was released because, as I’ve learned from writing three previous true crimes books, there is always criticism. Usually, the flack is directed at me for making oodles of money off these cases (definitely not true), and this time I expected that a fair number of people would be offended that the book was written and released well before Markoff stands trial. I understand the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” but I was not troubled by it in this instance because, frankly, I’ve never seen or heard of such damning evidence against a defendant as there is against Markoff. His lawyer, a good one, is going to have to pull a Houdini to get his client out of this one.

What gets to me is the large number of viewers and readers who posted comments in the forums of both “48 Hours Mystery” and the Boston Globe (I co-wrote this book with Globe police reporter Maria Cramer), who think the Craigslist Killer’s three victims deserve what they got because of what they did for a living. Certainly, by choosing to be sex workers, they were inviting trouble, but does that make Markoff’s alleged crimes any less violent and cruel because of what his victims did for a living? To many people out there, the answer is ‘yes’ as if these women were somehow less than human.

It's so easy to pass judgment when you've never met these victims. But I've spoken to Trisha Leffler, the Craigslist Killer’s first victim (photo right), quite a bit as I prepared the book and television program. I can tell you that, although I believe she’s misguided in her chosen line of work, she’s a sweet person who keeps her word. And she is all too human – she lives with her parents, has trouble meeting her car payments, and is trying to make ends meet these days by selling scented candles.

As for the Craigslist Killer’s only murder victim, Julissa Brisman, well, all you have to do is look at her mother’s face to realize that she too was a real person who meant a lot to her family and friends – whether she was a sex worker or not!! Julissa’s mother Carmen is heartbroken and has taken down all the photographs of her daughter that once adorned the walls of her New York apartment. She can no longer bear to look at them and thinks about what happened to the precious girl she raised as a single mother. The holes on the walls, where those photos once hung, are a very sad reminder of the toll murder takes no matter what line of work the victim happens to be involved in.

___________

"Seven Days of Rage: The Deadly Crime Spree of the Craigslist Killer" is Paul LaRosa's fourth true crime book. In addition to being an author, Paul is a long-time producer for CBS's 48 Hours.

Tweet

Real or Rumor? Tupac's Murderer Charged.

by Cathy Scott 

It always amazes me when I see a rumor picked up by a media outlet, regardless of how small that outlet is. So I was once again surprised a couple weeks ago when I got an e-mail from a TV producer asking about an arrest in the 13-year-old murder case of platinum-selling rapper Tupac Shakur.

I put on my sleuth cap and started digging. This is what was first reported, from Backseat Cuddler, a gossip site that got Tupac fans and the hip hop world hyped up:

BREAKING NEWS - Tupac Shakur Killer Has Been Arrested In Las Vegas

I just received a message from my source in Las Vegas that Tupac Shakur’s killer has been arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Tupac died on September 13, 1996. On the night of September 7, 1996, Shakur was shot four times in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas. He died six days later of respiratory failure and cardiac arrest at the University Medical Center. Tupac Shakur was a rapper, actor, and social activist. Story developing…..

That prompted “Gossip Headlines” to print this reaction, which, in turn, prompted three pages of comments from readers:

Arrest Made?

OMG, OMG, O-M-G, if this is true, hip-hop is about to go into a tailspin!!! According to BackSeatCuddler, Tupac Shakur’s killer has been arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada!!! It was there in Sin City 13 years ago (September 13 marked the 13th anniversary) where the legendary rapper was shot 4 times while sitting in the passenger seat of Suge Knight’s BMW after leaving a Mike Tyson fight at the MGM Grand Hotel. Tupac died six days later from respiratory failure and cardiopulmonary arrest caused by multiple gunshot wounds. See Original Story For More.

Wow, I thought to myself, how could I have missed that one? Maybe it had to do with Notorious B.I.G.’s case, I thought. And that was odd too, because Las Vegas reporters would have been all over the story. A source wasn’t listed in the postings. So I checked TV and print sites and there were no mentions of an arrest. Then I reached out to my law enforcement contacts in Las Vegas and Nevada.

“No,” said a source in the Los Angeles area, “there haven't been any arrests in the Tupac and Biggie cases here.”

Then I called the homicide unit of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and talked with a spokesperson. “There haven’t been any arrests in that case,” she said.

I put out a few more feelers. I came up empty. The only news involving Tupac, who, besides being a rapper, was an actor and poet, is that the Tupac Amaru Shakur Foundation, which Tupac’s mother, Afeni Shakur, runs, is partnering with Woodruff Library to prepare Tupac’s writings and papers for scholarly research. The Tupac Shakur Collection is currently housed within the Woodruff Library's Archives and Special Collections Department. It features Tupac’s handwritten lyrics, personal notes and fan correspondence, among other items.

Meanwhile, the rumor about an arrest in Tupac's case coincided with the 13th anniversary of his murder. As a result of the anniversary and the rumor, record sales for Tupac’s music went through the roof. And sales for books about Tupac took off too. The warehouse manager at Huntington Press, my publisher for The Killing of Tupac Shakur, said sales had jumped and orders from Amazon.com were especially high.

Other than that, it's been fairly quiet on the Tupac front. So much for a “developing story.”

Tweet

Houston’s “Teen Killer”

by Katherine Scardino

In 2006, Ashley Benton was a 16-year-old high school student who had never had any experience with the police. On one fateful day, she made a bad choice. She went with a group of her friends, members of a gang called “Crazy Crew,” to an inner city park near her Houston home.

At the park, a brawl erupted between Crazy Crew and the notorious gang called “MS 13," known for its violence. That penchant for violence was apparent on that fateful day, when a gang member swung an aluminum baseball bat at her head, saying “Fuck you, bitch. I’m going to fuck you up.” Ashley responded by pulling out a knife she bought at a local store for $8.00 and stabbed Gabriel Granillo in the heart. He died.

Ashley lived and was charged with murder, with a possible punishment range of probation to life in prison. The prosecutors wanted to send a message to gang kids that they were going to be punished, and they labeled Ashley a “cold bloodied gang-banger," who deserved a life sentence.

To get that punishment, Ashley had to be certified by a juvenile court judge to stand trial as an adult. Her family hired an attorney and the legal proceedings began. She was ultimately certified as an adult and went through the year-long legal process in the adult criminal court in Harris County, Texas, noted for its tough stance on crime and criminal defendants - young or old, male or female. However, luckily for Ashley Benton, the first lawyer called out for legal help from a local lawyer named Brian Wice. Well-known in Houston for his expertise in the appellate process, Brian has been successful in setting aside verdicts and getting new trials for many clients. When Brian met his new client, he immediately believed her self-defense claim and that she didn't intend to kill Granillo.

In June 2007, after hearing all the evidence presented by both the State and the defense, the jury deliberated but failed to reach a unanimous decision, and the judge declared a mistrial. The State offered a plea bargain, which was rejected by Ashley. One can only imagine how hard it must have been for that young girl to reject a plea bargain and once again place her life in the hands of her lawyers and the Texas criminal justice system. The possibility of life in prison is terrifying and most of us would do anything to avoid that possibility. However, after a long negotiation process with the prosecutors, Brian and his defense team obtained a new offer from the prosecutors, and this time Ashley took it. Instead of murder, she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was placed on five-years deferred adjudication probation, with some stiff conditions.

At this point, there is nothing really unusual about the saga of Ashley Benton. Defendants are placed on probation often - not as likely on a charge of murder, but it does happen. What is unusual comes later.

After two years, Brian Wice filed a motion to terminate Ashley's probation early. By then, Ashley Benton had done all the requirements her judge ordered. She'd worked three jobs at one time in order to raise the money to reimburse the victim’s family for the funeral expenses, and performed thousands of hours of community service, with no assistance from anyone. Why? Ashley was determined to show the court, her lawyers, and the prosecutor that she was going to make something of her life. She wanted the opportunity to continue her education away from Houston, and to work and support herself without having the probation on her record, a stigma which prevents many from obtaining decent paying jobs. Ashley Benton wanted to reclaim her life.

After a hearing in court last week, the judge agreed.

Now this is the exceptional part: the hard line prosecutor didn't object. In fact, after the judge ruled, Ashley turned and hugged the prosecutor - that was the photograph in the Houston newspaper the following morning. It certainly got my attention. I've never had a client, even after a favorable ruling, turn and hug the person who tried to convince a jury to send her to prison for the rest of her life. That one photograph told a great story: a story that said that there are prosecutors who realize justice doesn't always mean prison. Justice can mean giving an accused citizen a second chance.

I know there are some of you who will ask, “What about the victim?” The bottom line here is that both Ashley and Gabriel Granillo placed themselves in that situation in that park on that terrible day. There is no doubt that, armed with the baseball bat, he threatened Ashley. Some members of the jury in June 2007 believed he threatened her with her life. Granillo took a risk; he lost. That's the way the events played out. And the end of this story is that Ashley Benton is getting a rare second chance.

Tweet

A Murderer Among Them: Random Act or Was Raymond Clark a Ticking Time Bomb?

by Robin Sax

Raymond Clark stands accused of strangling Annie Le to death in a Yale lab basement. Investigators charge that Clark flew into a rage because he thought Le was flouting the rules of the lab, where he oversaw the cleanliness of the cages and was charged with keeping order. Clark and Le had known each other through their respective work at the lab.

A study “Murder by Manual and Ligature Strangulation,” by Helina Hakkanen, tells us that research on homicidal strangulation has shown that “in a high percentage of cases, the offender and the victim have some kind of previous relationship (usually family or friends) and that as much as 75% of the victims are females and infants.” In the study, the most frequent motives for homicidal strangulation were rape, sexual jealousy, and personal rivalry.

While many call this a case of work place violence, we must not separate a defendant's past from the crime he's charged with. Analyzing a case, we all can look at signs and symptoms and try to see whether the writing was on the wall. Was this a random act, or was Raymond Clark a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode?

Let's take a look at his history. This isn't the first time Clark has shown aggressive jealousy. The first time that we know about is an alleged sex crime. If that incident had been prosecuted and he'd been found guilty, Clark would have had to register as a sex offender, putting him on the radar. Perhaps that would have been enough for the folks at Yale to be concerned about whom they were hiring…and maybe they would have passed on his application.

The New Haven Independent reported that Clark was accused of harassing a 16-year-old girlfriend in high school. Clark was an athlete at Branford High. During his 2003 senior year at Branford, his girlfriend claimed he once forced her to have sex with him. She said when she tried to break up, Clark confronted her at the school and defaced her locker. Although she talked to police, she refused to press charges. Yet she worried enough to ask police to warn Clark to stay away from her. Since the case was never prosecuted, Branford police have refused to release the paperwork on the case.

So how is Raymond Clark acting now that he has been charged with Le’s murder?

“He's just somber,” said Lt. John Bernard of the New Haven Community Correctional Center (reported by The NY Daily News on September 18th). “It's his first time in jail. This is all new to him. He hasn't cried. He hasn't said a word to anyone.”

Investigators zeroed in on Clark early in the investigation after he failed a lie detector test and was found to have defensive wounds on his body, scratches on his arms and back and a bruised eye. In addition his attempts to clean up the crime scene (where Le had been, before she was reported missing) and DNA evidence led to his arrest.

Clark's past relationship in high school suggests the signs for aggressive behavior were there, but could anyone have imagined he could commit such a murder?

Some say no. For instance, Lufeng Zhang worked with Clark in the Yale lab and thinks the police may have the wrong man. “He's a nice man, always,” Zhang said (CNN report, Sept. 18).

CNN also recorded some of Clark’s former friends thoughts:

High school friend Lisa Heselin remembers Clark “as a jokester, kind of a class clown. Everybody knew him. Everybody liked him.” She and others who knew Clark in high school are shocked that he was arrested in connection with Le’s murder. “They can’t believe it, and then, of course, you’re reminiscing, like, ‘Oh my God, remember when we went over to his house, and we all hung out?’ You don’t expect somebody you grew up with to be involved in something like this.”

Maurice Perry, a friend of Clark's since first grade, says he doesn’t believe his longtime pal is guilty: “This is not the Raymond Clark that I know. I’ve known him so long, I just can’t picture him doing something like this.” Asked if he ever knew Clark to be violent, Perry replied, “Not at all. I've known him to be outgoing, happy, athletic, and fun. Violent, not at all.”

Unfortunately, these reports from friends are pretty typical when it comes to cases like this. Those close to a defendant rarely think their loved one or friend is capable of a brutal crime. But we all know from history and experience that even the guy-next-door can be capable of murder. Shame on us for not seeing the writing on the wall.

Tweet

"Justice Before Mercy"

by Susan Murphy Milano

Laurie Asplund was sexually assaulted at a Christian camp in the 1970s. The former pastor began his advances during a trust game that the man of God played with the teenager. Asplund was sexually assaulted more than 40 times from summer 1974, when she was 14 years old, to spring 1976, when she was 16.

Justice finally caught up with former pastor Russell J. Lesser, now 64, who had moved to Bryson City, N.C. For three years, Asplund worked on the case with law enforcement. In late June 2009, Lesser was sentenced to 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting Asplund in the mid 1970s.

The State of Wisconsin kept the case open because Lesser moved out of state. Otherwise, he would have never been convicted. As it stands, he went on to work in other states in the meantime. I’m sure he had access to others, as he was a Youth for Christ Campus Life minister.

During his sentencing, Lesser asked for the court’s mercy and apologized to his victim, the now-50-year-old Laurie Asplund.

“I’d like to take that one year out of my life,” Lesser said. “I’m so deeply sorry for it.”

In her new book “Justice Before Mercy” Asplund is coming forward with her story in an effort to remove the stigma associated with sexual assaults. She wants victims to know it's not their fault and hopes her message will help others to feel empowered and confront their fears.

In the book Asplund talks about the fear of rejection and the reasons why it was so hard for her to talk about her traumatic experiences. “I didn’t know if people would believe me,” Asplund writes. “He was this gregarious, fun-loving and well-liked adult who many parents liked very much.

Laurie Asplund is a licensed professional counselor who works primarily with abused and neglected children, as well as with people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Using this combination of clinical knowledge and journalistic talent, Asplund tells a unique and educational story about just what it takes to survive and find justice 35 years later.

Tweet