Government Charged with Accessory to Murder—Federal, State & City Leaders Thrown Behind Bars

Hunt for Justice by Cynthia Hunt

My title is wishful. If there were to be real justice, we could hold elected leaders responsible in some way other than just voting them out of office.

A Mother Warns It Could Happen to Your Family

A San Francisco mother had to bury her husband and two sons because the City of San Francisco under its “sanctuary city” policy did not report a convicted violent offender and illegal immigrant to federal authorities. Twenty-one-year-old Edwin Ramos (pictured above), an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, is charged in the triple murder of a father and his two sons.

Prosecutors say Ramos gunned down Tony Bologna, 48, and his two sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, in a fit of “road rage.” Tony apparently made the unforgivable mistake of briefly blocking Ramos’s car from making a left turn, and officers say Ramos gunned down the family right there in their vehicle. They were driving home from a family picnic.

“It was a senseless crime, and had [authorities] done something this animal would not have taken my family," mother and widow Danielle Bologna told FOX News on Monday. "I feel that the government should have stepped in. I feel that they allow these immigrants to come in and how dare they strip our families like this." (Watch the widow's tearful plea to the community.)

Rap Sheet Includes Membership is MS-13 Gang and Violent Offenses

Police say Ramos is a member of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang. The FBI considers Ms-13 the most violent and dangerous gang in the United States. Ramos had a rap sheet that I’m confident made his fellow thugs proud.

When Ramos was 17, he and two other men flashed gang signs, boarded a bus, and beat a man who was not in a gang. The attack was recorded by the bus video camera. He was convicted and released back to his mother a short six months later.

Days after his release, he tried to rob a pregnant woman in the middle of the day. This time Ramos was sent to a city-run camp and again released back to his family. NEVER did San Francisco report this upstanding illegal to the feds. In San Francisco, Ramos was treated and protected in the juvenile justice system because he was only 17 when he committed the crimes. San Francisco's 1989 "City of Refuge" ordinance prohibits city agencies from contacting the feds on immigration matters.

Three Months Before Killings Feds Failed to Protect Citizens

This year, three months before Ramos allegedly shot and killed the Bologna dad and sons, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Ramos was pulled over for having illegally tinted windows and for failing to display a front license plate. Police say an alleged gang member in Ramos’s car discarded a gun that had been used in a double murder.

Prosecutors didn’t file charges against Ramos, saying they couldn’t prove he knew his companion had the gun. At this point, a member of the sheriff’s department (a county-run agency) DID REPORT his immigration status to the ICE (the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). But the sheriff’s department says ICE decided NOT to place a detainer on Ramos and the department released Ramos. What brainchild at ICE made that call?

San Francisco Spends Taxpayer Money to Brag about Its Sanctuary City Status

When Ramos allegedly killed three innocent Americans, the City of San Francisco was spending $83,000 in taxpayers’ money running ads that told illegal immigrants about all kinds of taxpayer-funded city services they could get without having to worry about their illegal status being reported to the feds. A TV ad ends with the city’s top leader bragging “I’m Mayor Gavin Newsom. San Francisco is a sanctuary city making public services safe and accessible for everywhere.”

On Monday in a segment about the triple murder, Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly said Newsom is “perhaps the most despicable public servant” in America.” San Francisco conservative columnist Debra Saunders declared that San Francisco is an example of “political correctness run amuck.”

Our Government Leaders Are Completely Incompetent on This Issue

Is it just me or does it feel like our government leaders have gone mad? Forget the conservative and liberal labels that may be coming to your minds. Both sides have had a chance to correct this, and both have failed to solve the illegal immigration crisis. Is it not insanely dangerous for cities to protect violent illegal immigrants?

As a reporter, I’ve talked to illegal immigrants about this issue and even they support the deportation of violent illegal immigrants. Ramos was 17 when he committed these vicious crimes. Why not certify him as an adult and deport this dangerous MS-13 gang member before he decimated the Bologna family?

The One Part of Sanctuary City Policy that Makes Sense

I understand where the concept of sanctuary city originated. As a journalist in another sanctuary city, Houston, Texas, I can tell you that it started with a legitimate police need. Investigators needed to have a working relationship with the illegal population to solve crimes.

The federal government wasn’t protecting our borders and keeping illegals out of the cities, but the locals have always been the ones who had to deal with the crime problems. Police desperately needed to get cooperation from illegal residents to solve crimes for the safety of all. Therefore, it became policy that people knew they could cooperate and call local police without having to worry about their immigration status being reported.

How did the need for police to communicate with all people morph into a system where our city leaders are breaking federal law, endangering the hardworking, taxpaying Americans, and then even running ads to brag about it?

Cities and Federal Government Clashing Over Illegal Immigration

In Houston, Texas a beloved veteran police officer and dad of five, Rodney Johnson, was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant during a traffic stop. In the two years since then, the case has become a battle cry against illegal immigration. The shooting happened as Houston police were facing pressure to become more involved in immigration enforcement.

Just four months ago. The U. S. Supreme Court decided President Bush had to no power to tell the State of Texas to reopen the case of an illegal immigrant who had been sentenced to death for the 1993 murder and rape of two teenage girls. Jose E. Medellin is scheduled for execution on August 5th, two weeks from today. The President had argued for the case to be reopened because officers failed to tell Medellin he had a right under the Vienna Convention to contact Mexican diplomats about his arrest.

The mayor of Los Angeles is criticizing ICE saying the agency is using scarce resources to round up illegal workers instead of focusing on the wanted violent illegal aliens.

Please, Senators McCain and Obama: Show Some Leadership and Provide a Plan

Is it too much to ask that the next President of the United States show some leadership and give us an immigration policy that works and protects Americans while maintaining our special place in the world as the land of dreams and opportunity for immigrants?

I am sure if a high-profile leader in this country lost what Danielle Bologna lost—three loved ones—suddenly they would find the time and the motivation to address this crisis. Bologna wants San Francisco to stop being a sanctuary city. What do you think should happen?

Tweet

Out of the Closet

by Diane Fanning

Just when I thought law enforcement had forgotten Tommy Lynn Sells, along comes a former deputy with Missouri's Cape Girardeau County Sheriff’s Department asking about a long forgotten body. And once again, Sells' name was dropped as a possible suspect. I thought by now he’d been considered in every single cold case that remained open in his home state in the 1980s and 1990s. Apparently not.

Back when Sells was arrested, on January 2, 2000, investigators across the country dusted off files of cold cases eager to see if Sells was a possible perpetrator. After 48 Hours aired the show about the serial killer, Texas Rangers Johnny Allen and Coy Smith came into their offices to discover hundreds of requests from detectives all across the country wanting to know if Sells could have been in the right place at the right time to commit an unsolved murder in their jurisdiction.

The inquiries and interview requests continued to flood into Texas up to Sells' trial in September 2000, when he was convicted of the murder and sexual assault of Katie Harris and the attempted murder of Krystal Surles in Del Rio, Texas. Sells was sentenced to death.

Some law enforcement agencies no longer wanted to waste resources on looking at Sells—after all, unlike some states, Texas is very serious about the enforcement of their death penalty. Other investigators, though, who hungered to find closure for family members and satisfaction in their quest for justice, continued travelling to Texas to question Sells.

I fielded a lot of requests for information, too. I heard from detectives, family members, prosecutors, defense attorneys, private investigators, and some from uninvolved but curious true-crime buffs. Among the latter group, I received hundreds of emails about the Darlie Routier case. Although she sits on Death Row for the murder of her two sons, many people still believe in her innocence. They wanted to know if Tommy Lynn Sells was in the Dallas area at the time of that crime. While there may be doubts about Darlie’s guilt, Sells had an ironclad alibi—he sat behind bars in a West Virginia prison. There was no way he was responsible for killing those two boys.

This summer, though, as Sells approaches the eighth anniversary of his death sentence, interest in the Death Row inmate seemed to have died down. The only question most people still asked was: Have they killed him yet?

Until this month in the boot heel of Missouri, that is. Renewed interest in a 1981 homicide case raised his name again. The remains of an unknown white male, aged 20 to 40 and ranging from 5-feet-nine to five-feet-eleven inches tall, were found in a wooded area on April 6, 1981. The corpse was clothed in green pants, a short-sleeved khaki shirt (above) and a pair of black loafers adorned with a buckle. His skull, however, was missing.

Two years and one week later, a mushroom hunter found the missing head in a nearby creek. In the area, there were only three missing men who fit the description of the victim. A comparison of dental records discovered no match to any of them. So, the remains and the clothing moldered away in a basement closet archive at the Southeast Missouri State University for the next two decades. Forgotten by all but one man.

Now he’s come forward, resurrecting the case, looking for justice. Will the authorities be able to tie it to Tommy Lynn Sells? The odds are stacked against them. In 1979 and 1980, when Sells wasn’t on the road, he was in Missouri. In 1981, though, his home base was Little Rock, Arkansas and he was just 17 years old. He has confessed to committing homicide at that young age but he never mentioned this case.

If not Sells, will they be able to identify anyone as the killer? Will they even be able to give the victim a name? It sounds unlikely after 27 years but scientists make a habit of transforming the impossible into the routine every day.

Forensic Science is an amazing and rapidly expanding field. What seemed like fantasy five years ago is now common forensic investigative technique in labs across the country. Who knows what microscopic trace evidence is nestled in the folds of his shirt or on the buckle of his shoe (above), waiting for a diligent individual to uncover.

One day, the unknown man in green pants may find justice after all.

Tweet

Whatever Happened to Chandra Levy?

by Pat Brown

Remember Chandra Levy? The Washington Post just did a nice spread on the cold case, still rumininating about what actually happened to Chandra. The Post declared the intern's mysterious disappearance and murder "Washington's most famous unsolved crime." Last we heard some local serial killer wandering about Rock Creek Park (where her body was finally found in a ravine) is theorized to have grabbed her, tied her up and raped her.

Bullocks. I never bought this scenario. Let's take a look at it. When was the last time you heard of a serial killer, wandering around a park with ropes, looking for a jogger to tie up? In my experience and from all the history of dead women in parks, they are attacked by anger retaliatory serial killers, the type that commit the type of crime I have coined as a "bop and drop." This means he jumps out of the bushes or comes up behind his victim and nails her with a rock, or a police baton, or throws a belt around her throat and she falls to the ground. He rapes and strangles her. Her body is left right there or he pulls it under a bush to hide it. This is the level of activity we find with raped dead women in parks.

I have never heard of a woman being bound hand and foot (which rather makes raping her difficult) when there is no necessity to bother to do so. Bound women are found in homes, places of business, basements of serial killer's houses, and in trunks where the bindings are merely for ease of managing those flopping limbs.

Which brings us back to former Rep. Gary Condit. The location where Levy was found in Rock Creek Park is pretty much a skip and a jump away from Condit's home. It was also along a drive that one would take to make sure the car is not seen going from Point A to Point B.

Condit got to know the lovely summer intern, Chandra, the 24-year-old USC coed interning with the Bureau of Prisons in Washinton. Condit is a pretty squirrelly character. He had affairs with numerous women, stringing them along, and attempting to keep their relationships secret. I believe Chandra was naive and foolish and thought Condit was really going to dump his wife and marry her. This is what she told a friend. If she stuck to her guns, she would become a massive liability for Condit.

Did he kill her? There is a good amount of evidence that makes one focus on him as opposed to anyone else. If Condit (pictured right) didn't bind her up and toss her in the park, who else would? I bet Condit wishes still he could come up with an answer for that, but he can't. He was her one and only even if she wasn't HIS one and only. I doubt this case will ever be closed, any good physical evidence is long gone. If Condit did her in, he got away with a "good enough" murder.

For readers who want to take a closer view, see this timeline and the Washington Post series. What do you think it would take to solve this cold case?

Tweet

WCI's Wisegals Join the Syndicate!

It was an offer we could not refuse. Women in Crime Ink connected with Internet syndicator Newstex, supplier of information to such esteemed research networks as LexisNexis, Thomson Financial, and CanWest MediaWorks.

Possibilities were discussed.

"Come join us," Newstex offered.

We paused, considered the potential, and then nodded. "Okay."

Two weeks ago, WCI signed on with Newstex. The result, our posts are now syndicated worldwide, available on demand through Newstex clients that include ProQuest and NewsBank. Soon you may even be able to access WCI on your Amazon Kindle. Now is that exciting, or what?

No real wiseguys here, but we're not going to fuhgeddaboudit. Women in Crime Ink is jazzed, looking forward to the future, and dedicated to bringing you expert opinions on the biggest stories and the most controversial cases. Syndication is yet another step in our quest to deliver quality content from professionals working in the field. So check us out daily, and don't worry. We haven't gone over to the dark side.

Tweet

Factual Evidence in JonBenét Ramsey Case Forgotten

by Stacy Dittrich

I have been commentating on the JonBenét Ramsey case over the past week on radio and television stations from coast to coast, and there seems to be quite a misunderstanding regarding the "new" evidence that was presented in the case. The misunderstanding? That the evidence is new or even reliable.

Perhaps this was Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's last-ditch effort to rid herself of the case once and for all. Since Lacy (pictured right) took office, it has been very apparent that this case was something she wanted no part of but conceded the parents needed to be looked at. Last week, Lacy issued a public letter exonerating John Ramsey of all suspicion in the murder investigation involving his daughter, JonBenét. Bad move, Mary.

The DA's logic when issuing this exoneration was that a newly developed form of DNA testing resulted in several skin cells on JonBenét's long johns matching a sample taken from her underwear at the time of the murder. Now, instead of having unknown DNA on one piece of the victim's clothing, the same DNA is on two.

Apparently, Lacy thought this was enough to disregard every other piece of evidence in the case. Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front. Mary Lacy is clearly not proficient in puzzle solving.

First, we must question how reliable the DNA testing that was recently performed is. It was done through a private lab and is fairly new. The FBI DNA database, CODIS, is compiled of DNA from local, state, and federal labs. As Atlanta District Attorney Eleanor Dixon pointed out, it is unknown if this could even be admissible in court.

Next, we have the initial DNA sample taken from the underwear at the time of JonBenét's murder. It was described by the Boulder DA's office as a significant blood sample. Not so, says forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee. The amount of the sample was so minute on the brand new underwear JonBenét was wearing, that it could have possibly come from the manufacturer itself. Did you take DNA samples from everyone at the manufacturing company, Mary?

The following is where I take the biggest issue. As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic." Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved. John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.

I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples? Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

The DNA found in JonBenét's underwear only consisted of 9 DNA "markers." The FBI once used 13 to make comparisons. According to DNA expert Brent Turvy, 9 markers is enough nowadays. But comparing this small amount of markers to the new "spot DNA" is really pushing it.

As Mr. Turvy stated, "DNA alone is not going to tell you who committed the crime in a case like this." Are you listening, Mary Lacy? Has the District Attorney ever heard the term "totality of the evidence?"

Let's take a look at that evidence, shall we? I'll put it together in a simple timeline:

December 25, 1996 10:00 p.m. - John Ramsey is the last person in the family to see JonBenét alive. She was "on her bed."

December 26, 1996 05:52 a.m. - Patsy Ramsey wakes up, walks downstairs and finds a ransom note claiming to have kidnapped her daughter. The note claims she is being watched and not to call the police or JonBenét would be killed. Without hesitation, Patsy calls the police.

06:10 a.m. - The first officers from the Boulder Police Department arrive on scene. One of the first priorities in a missing child investigation is to search the house. They do not search the house at this point. Instead, they wait on a promised 10:00AM phone call from the kidnappers as stated in the ridiculous ransom note. They do, however, check the exterior of the residence and find it is completely locked, no signs of forced entry, and there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn. An incredible feat for any experienced criminal to pull off.

01:00 p.m. - Officers in the home inform John Ramsey they are going to get a search warrant, and request that he check the inside of the home for JonBenét, and to see if any of JonBenéts clothing, toys, or items are missing. What does John do? He immediately heads to the basement, followed by his friends Fleet White and John Fernie.

(Apparently, JonBenét's bedroom slipped his mind. It also must have slipped the officers' minds to escort him to every room since it was becoming increasingly clear he or someone present was a "person of interest.")

01:03 p.m. - Fleet White comes screaming up the stairs for someone to call an ambulance while he goes to the back office to get on the phone (???). Female detective Linda Arndt ran to the basement door and sees John Ramsey running up the stairs holding the body of JonBenét. (No mention of what John Fernie was doing.)

John had found JonBenét in an obscure room off the basement underneath two blankets. In a monstrous house with a gazillion rooms in it I'd say that's damn good luck, John! (Now there's a guy that should play the lottery.)

Oh, did I mention he pulled off the tape that was covering her mouth? (evidence contamination #3,456) The autopsy report showed that JonBenét's pelvic area was most likely wiped off with a wash cloth as well. Did he do that too? (evidence contamination #3,457)

01:03 p.m. - John Ramsey lays JonBenét on the floor where she is moved by Det. Arndt and Patsy pulls up her long johns (contaminatecontaminatecontaminate).

Det. Arndt notes green garland wrapped in JonBenéts hair is most likely from the garland decoration wrapped around the staircase where the note was found. Funny, Patsy must have missed the shambled decorations on her way down to make pancakes—or write a ransom note.

Ah, the ransom note. Another key factor in the investigation. Granted, I'm not a profiler, but I've talked to enough barbaric child molesters to know that they wouldn't know what the word "attache'" means—let alone how to spell it.

I find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught.

Most would be "out of their element" and transport the body to an outside location where they wouldn't be bothered. Most of whom wouldn't bother locking doors on their way out. Which leads me to my most prized theory:

JonBenét's body was hidden inside an obscure room underneath blankets where a "suspect" would assume she wouldn't be found. But, his plan fell through. Assuming law enforcement would be out of the home searching for the victim, would allow him plenty of time to grab his "stash" and go dump it somewhere. But when officers indicated they would search the house, the panicked "suspect" ran to his "stash" first. A likely scenario? Maybe.

The time of death is also a questioning factor. The autopsy showed rigor mortis in lower extremities and joints only, an effect that occurs five to eight hours after death. This would put JonBenét's death around the early morning hours.

Did Patsy Ramsey walk in on something? Giving all the benefit of the doubt, I contacted my most favorite and respected coroner's assistant. Since the body was in the basement, the cooler temperatures easily could have delayed the process. Still, it's another question.

The end result is that there are entirely too many unanswered questions in this case to exonerate anybody, especially John Ramsey. Whether his own hand was a factor or someone else's, I truly believe he has knowledge of what happened to his daughter.

If my child were brutally murdered, I couldn't comprehend flipping through the yellow pages four days later in search of a defense attorney. Actions and emotions are some of the largest factors of evidence in any investigation; something Mary Lacy clearly missed.

Oh, and the fact that the autopsy showed JonBenét had previous sexual trauma PRIOR to the night of her death is a clue. To exonerate a suspect in which the majority of evidence points to him is premature at best, and completely irresponsible at worst. Yes, there is always the possibility of an "intruder." But at this point, all of the options should have stayed open.

Tweet

Celebrity Jail Birds

by Tina Dirmann

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

Let's take them in order:

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

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

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

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

Dare to dream . . .

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

Nick's sentencing was carried live on CNN.

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

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

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

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

Tweet

Little Girl Lost

by Donna Weaver

Brooke Bennett was supposed to turn 13 years old last Saturday. Instead, her life was tragically cut short 3 weeks ago. Over 1000 people attended the funeral service for Brooke last Wednesday, July 9th. Pastor Thomas Harty of United Church of Bethel had those in attendance repeat three words after him: “Never, never again.”

On June 26, 2008, Vermont issued its first-ever AMBER Alert after Brooke was last seen the previous day on surveillance film leaving a convenience store with her uncle and cousin.

You see, Brooke never had a chance. Her abduction and murder—allegedly at the hands of her uncle, Michael Jacques, a two-time convicted sex offender—may have been all too predictable and almost certainly preventable. Jacques has since been charged with Brooke’s kidnapping. If it is determined that the kidnapping led to her death, he could receive the death penalty. Brooke was found deceased on her uncle's property on July 2, 2008.

Several factors may have contributed to the foreseeable demise of this little girl. The fact that she was permitted to be in the company of a relative who preyed on children put her in continual contact in the family setting with someone who had already been convicted of perpetrating the most heinous acts imaginable on a child.

Vermont state law also clearly let down Brooke when they allowed her alleged killer out of jail after only serving three years for a similar crime. Court records show that Michael Jacques abducted and brutalized another innocent child in 1992. In 2006, after serving the ridiculously short sentence, Jacques was released to set up a “sex ring,” where girls as young as nine years old were recruited to participate in sex with adult males. In fact, Jacques used one of his former victims to lure Brooke to her initiation in the sex ring, and to her ultimate death.

Vermont is one of the states that failed to adopt Jessie’s law, which provides minimum sentencing guidelines for sexual offenders who prey on children. Some form of Jessie’s law—proposed by Mark Lunsford, father of Jessica Lunsford (pictured right), who was abducted, raped, and buried alive by John Couey in 2005—has already been enacted into law in 33 states.

The State of Vermont is now considering the adoption of 25-year mandatory minimum sentencing for sexual offenders. But some, including victims' advocates, are opposed to the measure saying that mandatory minimums may prevent young victims from coming forward or from testifying against family members. It would also negate the possibility of plea bargains and cause the potential for some offenders to walk away free after trial.

Too little, too late for Brooke Bennett and countless other children. Michael Jacques is yet another veritable poster boy for the flaws in our justice system that contribute to the horrific deaths of children like Brooke at the hands of monsters like him.

Tweet

A Touch of DNA

by Pat Brown

A "bombshell" piece of DNA evidence has emerged in the long unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey and cleared John and Patsy of any involvement in the death of their daughter, according to District Attorney Mary Lacy, who has written a long letter of apology to the family.

Touch DNA, a new technology developed by Bode Laboratories near Washington DC, has discovered nonfamilial DNA on the sides of JonBenét's long johns. "Touch" DNA is a process which allows analysts to scrape targeted areas of clothing for DNA that might have been left by the perpetrator of a crime.

In JonBenét's case, it was surmised her killer might have pulled down her long johns to commit a sexual assault upon her, thereby leaving microscopic skin cells that the new Touch DNA technology could identify.

A knife was scraped along the waistband and sides of the long johns and previously undiscovered genetic material was found. Tests proved the DNA to be from a male unrelated to the Ramseys. This new DNA supposedly matches some other unidentified DNA found on JonBenét's panties years ago.

Quite convincing stuff until I realized what was missing from this picture: Patsy Ramsey's Touch DNA, and JonBenét's Touch DNA. When I further considered how easily this Touch DNA might have transfered off of any other person to the hands of Patsy or JonBenét—and then onto the little girl's long johns and panties—my confidence in this new evidence waned.

JonBenét had had an exciting and busy day, this last day of her life. She had gone to a party with her parents and enjoyed the company of a number of other adults and children. She then fell asleep on the way home. John carried her into the house and to her room. He laid her down on the bed and took off her coat and shoes. Then Patsy removed her pants and replaced them with the long johns.

Reviewing who might have touched what—and when and where they might have done so—we can see John would have had the least opportunity to touch JonBenét's underwear (if he were not involved in the crime) as while he was carrying her, the underwear was still covered by her outer clothing. Patsy, on the other hand, certainly must have handled her undergarments. Where then is her Touch DNA on the long johns that she forced onto the sleeping child? This is not an easy task and I would bet she had to get a good grip on the waist band to pull them on properly. Surely, she touched the sides of the long johns as well.

And what of JonBenét? Isn't it likely that her own Touch DNA is on her panties (as she would have pulled them up and down to go to the bathroom)? Wouldn't her Touch DNA also be on the long johns since even sleeping children's hands may come in contact with their clothes as they toss and move about?

Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion. If some 40-year-old sex offender ends up matching the DNA on JonBenét's underwear, well then, he would have a lot of explaining to do. However, if the match is an eighteen year old—someone who was but six years old at the time of JonBenét's murder—then John and Patsy are hardly off the hook.

We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.

Tweet

Bad Hair Day?

by Andrea Campbell

I often get forensic science questions from readers. This one is about hair analysis.

Q.: What problems are there in comparing hair samples with hair from suspects nearly 40 years later? Color, texture, resilience and size of shaft are going to be different. My assumption is that the basic DNA will not change. Will microscopic examination of such widespread samples show anything?

A.: A true forensic approach to hair examination will reveal that it is not yet possible to individualize a human hair to any single head or body. Over decades, scientists have tried to find a way to pinpoint the physical and chemical properties of hair, so that it could be used as an individual characteristic of identity. These efforts fail because there is no one property that remains consistent with time or is uniform throughout the head or body. It is said that the color and structure of hair are its most characteristic features, because its chemical properties are not relevant for forensic distinction.

Saying that does not mean that hair has no value as physical evidence; it does. When hair is properly collected at a crime scene, and the laboratory tests are accompanied by an adequate number of controls, hair provides strong corroborative evidence for placing an individual within the vicinity of a crime. It is usually placed in the category called “trace evidence,” along with fibers and other minutiae.

In the question as posed above, hair is a smashing good witness over time because its best two features are: its capacity to hold up against chemical decomposition, and its ability to retain structural features over a long duration.

Animal or Human?

The forensic goal for hair evidence in a criminal case usually involves two questions. Is it human or animal hair? And, secondly, how does the hair found at a crime scene compare with hair from a particular individual?

The first question—animal or human—is answered with the help of the medulla. The medulla is a collection of cells resembling a canal running through a hair. In most animals, this canal is a predominant feature, occupying more than half of the hair’s diameter. The medullary index measures the diameter of the medulla relative to the diameter of the hair shaft and is normally expressed as a fraction. For humans, the index generally has a value less than 1/3. For animals, the value is 1/2 or greater.

Not all hairs have medullae—head hairs generally exhibit none, or have fragmented ones with one exception, the Mongoloid race (this is to say, Asians, American Indians, Eskimos, etc). Their head hairs usually have continuous medullae. The shape and form of medullae, referred to as medullation, is different for different species as well. Under a microscope, they look like distinct patterns: a cat’s, for example, resemble a string of pearls. There are reference standards that scientists use to differentiate, and, of course, experience helps in their evaluations.

A more common request in a forensic investigation is whether or not scalp or pubic hair from the crime scene compares to a suspect’s hair. The evidentiary value boils down to the degree of probability with which the examiner can associate the questioned hair with the known sample.

Hair's Characteristics

A comparison microscope is an invaluable tool, in that it allows the technician to view the questioned hair alongside the known sample. Because hair from any part of the body exhibits a range of characteristics, it is necessary to have an adequate number of known hairs that are representative of all its features when making a comparison.

The criminalist is particularly interested in matching the color, length and diameter. Other important features are the presence or absence of a medulla and the distribution, shape, and color intensity of the pigment granules present in the cortex. Under a microscope you will also be able to distinguish dyed or bleached hair, and detect the presence of fungal or nit infections.

It is pretty easy to figure out the body area of a hair because scalp hairs show little diameter variation and have a more uniform distribution of pigment color. Pubic hairs (yes!) are short and curly; with wide variations in shaft diameter and mostly have a continuous medullae. Beard hairs are coarse and customarily triangle in cross section, with blunt tips from all the cutting and shaving.

The age of a person cannot be determined from hair other than with babies who have fine hair and fine pigment, whereas, a gray hair is fairly characteristic on its own.

But it is possible to determine if hair was forcibly removed. If a hair root is found to have follicular tissue (root sheath cells), that hair may have been pulled or brushed out. Naturally falling hair will show a bulbous-shaped root but will be free of any adhering tissue.

The current examination techniques of hair specimens still rely on mostly morphological characteristics, although the feasibility of recovering DNA from hair and typing a segment is now possible. This method utilizes a technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). It amplifies the small amount of DNA found in the human hair root (follicle tissue). The actual success rate for DNA typing is in the area of 34% for case samples.

In 1996, the FBI initiated a program to compare human head hair and pubic hairs through DNA analysis. This type of DNA analysis is called mitochondrial DNA and is located within the nuclei of body cells. The DNA is transmitted only from mother to child. It can be used when the amount of DNA present is small or degraded.

Hair is class evidence and it is not possible except in rare cases to determine that a questioned hair sample came from a particular individual to the exclusion of all others. The examiner to a large extent must rely on his experience and a statistical probability. They may say something like, “In my opinion, the representative hairs revealed that the odds of two similar pubic hairs originating from two different individuals are about 800 to 1."

Collecting Hair

To collect hair evidence, one usually collects about 50 full-length hairs from all areas of the scalp for a representative sampling. A minimum collection of two dozen full-length pubic hairs should cover the range of characteristics present in that portion of the body. In rape cases, a clean comb is used to capture all loose foreign hair present in the pubic area before the victim is sampled for control hair. The comb is then packaged in a separate envelope. And, a criminalist would not collect, nor compare, head hair with pubic hair—separate is the watchword here.

As a routine procedure, hair samples are collected from a victim of suspicious death during an autopsy. Failure to make this simple collection at an opportune time may result in complicated legal problems at a later date.

Test your knowledge with a mini-quiz at this interesting Web site.

Tweet

Career Choice—A Life of Crime?

by Jenna Jackson

I have a new intern for the summer. He’s a college student, working on his degree in journalism, and is trying to decide what he wants to do for a living once he graduates. It’s been a loooooong time, but I remember the pressure of that time. You’re about to end one major phase of your life and begin another—and you feel like you have to make a decision that will shape your future.

I kind of finked into my decision. I wanted to be a dance teacher—and had been working toward that most of my life. I injured my knees my senior year in high school, though, and that put an end to that. So I took the other scholarship I’d been offered at Sam Houston State University—a journalism scholarship. I needed the money, and that was the only other offer, now that my dance scholarship was gone.

That decision started me on a career that has taken me places I never imagined. For me, it has been a good career so far—and a good fit. But there are days when working almost exclusively on murder stories takes a toll. I almost forget how strange this world can be until someone new and unaccustomed to it comes along.

My intern, Matthew, is a blank canvas. He is smart, motivated, talented in many areas – and just trying to figure out what will fit him best. (He already runs a small but successful photo business, Matthew Crawford Photography.) And he is young—it has been an experience to me just to watch him take in this weird world I call a career. Many days, we’re sitting in my home office, making calls and sending e-mails. Exchanges and conversations that are completely normal to me cause him to look a little shocked at times. It has made me stop and listen to what I’m actually saying to people.

Nearly every conversation I have consists of details of a murder. I spend my days meeting with or talking to victims, suspects, lawyers—someone, who in some way, has been affected by a brutal crime. I always feel for the people to whom I’m talking—but it is also a job to me, and one I’ve been doing for more than a decade now. So sometimes I forget what an impact it has on people who aren’t used to this world.

Right now, I’m working on a couple of different cases, getting them ready (with a team of other people) to air on 48 Hours in the fall. In one, a man with no violent history is accused of executing his pregnant wife with a shotgun (Belinda and David Temple at left). My fellow blogger, Kathryn Casey, is writing a book on this bizarre case. In another, a 38-year-old man is accused of beating and strangling his own father, who he said had it coming because of years of abuse.

I had Matthew read the files so that he would be familiar with these cases—he has now listened to me talk to many of the people involved—and has sat through some on-camera interviews. During one interview session, one of our correspondents asked him (only half jokingly) why in the world he’d want to get into this dark business.

I am happy with the decisions I’ve made—I have a career that is never boring. And I get to meet incredible people fighting the odds every day. But I also am probably more cynical (and paranoid, especially when it comes to being a new mother) than the average person because of the tragedy I see every day.

I hope Matthew gets a good look at this business, so he can decide which direction he wants to go in his career. And I’m glad he’s seeing the full scope of it—because even though it’s a very rewarding career, it definitely takes a certain kind of person to stay with it. And it can take a toll on you emotionally—better to know that from the beginning and make the choice that choosing this 'life of crime' is still worth it.

To me, it is. I have the honor of meeting people going through their hardest times—and I’m the one who is allowed to help them tell their stories.

Tweet

What Is It About Crime?

by Katherine Scardino

Last night, I went to a book store in my city, Houston, called Murder by the Book, and it was a thriving place. One of my associates in Women in Crime Ink, Kathryn Casey, has written a novel called Singularity, and she had a book signing at this shop, which specializes in crime stories. Kathryn’s book is a murder mystery.

I looked around the shop and noted how many people were there and started wondering: What is this draw people have toward crime, blood and guts?

I started thinking about all the books and television shows about crime - CSI, The Closer, Miami Vice, Forensic Files, and movies too many to mention. They are all popular - lots of action, lots of bone-chilling mystery.

But don’t we all hate crime? Don’t we complain about too many people committing crimes, which raises our tax dollars?

More crime makes us have to build new prisons and jails, make new courts, hire more judges, clerks, staff, pay lawyers to defend indigent defendants? And all this costs money - lots of money.

So where is the attraction? Is it like the gawker on the freeway looking at a car accident, slowing down a line of traffic behind him? Why would this driver want to see the sorrow and pain of other people? Are we all like that?

I think we get a neurophysiologic high with crime and deviant acts - a sensory high - just like that guy on the freeway who slows down and looks at that car accident expecting to see a little blood. But what is it about tragedy that draws us closer. Wouldn't it seem more instinctive to run from danger, rather than slow down for a better look?

I think we get a sense of completion from crime novels, television shows, and movies. There is a beginning, middle, and an end - all nicely tied in a bow. We are at some point introduced to the killer, and usually there is an ending which includes a police officer with handcuffs leading the bad guy off to jail.

Life for most of us is a mess. It’s like a jumbled up set of facts and circumstances that usually do not end with a nicely tied bow. There are lots of loose ends, unanswered questions.

Why did this happen to me? Why did I do that? Was it my fault? How can I fix it?

If you think about it, life is just the middle part. We do not remember being born, and death is not part of life. Still we exist and remember the middle.

But crime stories are exciting and after the murderer is unmasked, everything falls into place like a jigsaw puzzle - much unlike our lives.

Tell us why you read crime stories. What is it about them? When we're winding down from our day, and reach for a book on our nightstands, why select A Descent Into Hell, for example, instead of Restful Sleep? What brought you here, to a Web site which focuses on all things crime?

Tweet

KATHRYN CASEY BOOK SIGNING IN TEXAS!

By now it's no mystery. Kathryn Casey's first crime novel is a breakout hit. SINGULARITY landed in bookstores June 24, and reviews are hot. The latest comes from the August issue of Vanity Fair, which lists Kathryn's novel under "Hot Type," along with other current titles Vanity Fair considers "great new books."

And in Sunday's Baltimore Sun, SINGULARITY received high marks from a reviewer taken with the heroine, a woman Texas Ranger. Protagonist Sarah Armstrong has "the makings of a robust and long-lasting series character," said the Sun.

A reviewer for The Tampa Tribune agrees. Calling Armstrong a blend of James Patterson's Alex Cross and Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta, the critic raves "Not since 'Postmortem' has a crime author crafted such a stellar series debut."

Publisher's Weekly calls SINGULARITY "riveting" and Booklist says it's "an impressive fiction debut."

SINGULARITY will make Deadly Pleasures magazine's list of Best Novels of 2008.

Tonight, Kathryn will be autographing copies of SINGULARITY at Murder by the Book in Houston. The event begins at 6:30, with a party to follow across the street at Under the Volcano. If you're in the area, come by and join fans and other WCI contributors as we raise a glass for Kathryn Casey and her red-hot crime fiction debut, SINGULARITY.

Tweet

Help Find Donna Jou

by Kathryn Casey

She's five-foot-three-inches tall and weighs 110 pounds. She's beautiful, with dark brown eyes and a ready smile. And she's brilliant, a straight-A student who'd just finished her freshman year at San Diego State and planned to attend Harvard med. She comes from an accomplished family: her father a space engineer, her mother a medical lab tech, her sister an attorney, and her brother's studying physics. One day, Donna Jou dreamed of being a neurosurgeon and saving lives. Yet little more than a year ago, she did something monumentally stupid and, it appears, threw hers away.

On June 23, 2007, the 19-year-old stood outside her mother's house in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, waiting for the arrival of a man she met on Craigslist.org. Her sister later said Donna was new to the area and trying to make friends on the Internet. How innocent that sounds. How dangerous it is. Up drove 35-year-old John Stephen Burgess on his 1981 Yamaha motorcycle. Away they went, to Burgess' rented L.A. home for a party. A home where he rented out beds to students. A home he advertised as "pot friendly."

Hours later, Donna's mom, Nili, got a text message: "Battery's dying. I'm in San Diego. Be home soon. I love you Mommy." It seemed odd. First: Donna never used caps when she text messaged. Second: She never called Nili "Mommy."

The next day, Donna Jou's family reported her missing. Not long after, authorities named Burgess as a person of interest in the case. It turns out that Donna's Internet friend was a sex offender, one who'd been convicted of three counts of battery in 2002, and performing a lewd and lascivious act on a 14-year-old girl in 2003.

Meanwhile, Burgess hid his motorcycle, the one he used to pick up Jou, and spray-painted his 1998 blue Ford pickup black. Authorities found his plastic tool box, personalized license plate, motorcycle helmet, rubber dishwashing gloves, rope, and scrub brush, all stashed in bushes a mile-and-a-half from his house. By then, Burgess had fled L.A., putting hundreds of miles between himself and the investigation into Jou's disappearance.

On July 26, 2007, Burgess was tracked to his hometown of Jacksonville, Floirda, where he was arrested for possession of crack. Extradited back to L.A., he was booked into the county jail. It came as little surprise that at that time he was named the primary suspect in Donna Jou's disappearance. His bail was set at $250,000. Burgess posted bond and (does this surprise anyone?), he fled again, back to Florida. When authorities found him, he was arrested for theft and having fake I.D. Back in California, his bail was doubled and he was thrown into prison on a charge of not registering as a sex offender.

Six weeks after John Steven Burgess entered the WASCO state prison, 198 volunteers scattered throughout the Santa Monica Mountains in Malibu, searching for clues to the disappearance of Donna Jou. Nothing was found. Since then, noted California attorney Gloria Allred has joined forces with Jou's family demanding answers, and large protests have been held outside Burgess' L.A. home, the last place Jou was seen on the night she disappeared. But all for naught. The question remains: Where is Donna Jou?

It's easy to get angry with Jou. What was she thinking? How could she have gone off with a man she knew nothing about, only what he'd told her about himself on the Internet? Burgess was calling himself Sinjin Stevens. Donna didn't even know his real name. Jou was a bright kid. She had every advantage. How could she have ignored all the newspaper articles, books, and TV programs trumpeting the dangers and suggesting precautions for Internet dating?

Sure, there are reasons. She was young, still at that bullet-proof stage, when most of us believe truly bad things only happen to other people. But still, what do we all have to do to get the word out, to make sure our kids understand how dangerous it is to invite a stranger into their lives? The Donna Jou case epitomizes the problem: even smart kids with all the advantages make really stupid mistakes.

So where is Donna Jou? Burgess, piece of human debris that he is, has offered to talk, but only if given immunity, like that's ever going to happen.

This all leaves Donna's family praying she'll be found alive and fearing that they'll never know what happened to her. "I feel strongly that we have not reached the point where we should give up hope. My heart and soul tell me to hold on, and to cherish the thought that 'see you soon' still describes what we believe will be the ultimate outcome of this case....I will persist and stop at nothing to find my daughter, reunite with her or find closure," Nili Jou wrote on the family's website, on the first anniversary of Donna's disappearance.

So, let's keep our eyes open for Donna Jou. Anyone living in Los Angeles, Jacksonville, anywhere who knows anything about this case, please get in touch with America's Most Wanted or the Jou family. And, as useless as it may seem after reading this, please don't forget to remind your kids that the Internet is one hell of a dangerous place to make friends. Okay?

Tweet

Home (Not So) Sweet Home

by Donna Pendergast

The precise statistics for incidence of domestic violence in America are difficult to determine. When violence is between intimates rather than strangers, factors such as family dynamics, shame, and fear of reprisals all result in substantial under reporting to the police.

When domestic violence is reported not only is there disagreement as to what should be included in the definition of domestic violence, but there is disagreement on who should be defined as a victim as well.

Domestic violence victims can come from far larger groups of persons than the traditional spouse or former spouse that most persons automatically think of. Romantic and sexual partners, gay and lesbian couples, children and persons with a child in common all may fit into the definition of who is considered to be a victim of domestic violence.

What is known is that the numbers of victims are staggering. The Center for Disease Control estimates that domestic violence affects more than 32 million Americans or more than 10% of the population.

A critical issue in the criminal justice system has long been how to address the problem of domestic violence most effectively. How to improve the judicial response to domestic violence while addressing the needs and problems of families who suffer from the abuse.

Over the past decade or so an innovative solution has emerged to deal with problems and issues related to domestic violence. Specialized Domestic Violence Courts have been created that utilize a a particularized approach in domestic violence prosecutions to prevent further violence. Domestic Violence Courts are designed to improve victim safety, enhance defendant accountability, and ensure quick and consistent responses to domestic violence while addressing the unique needs and concerns of the victims of domestic violence.

The Elements of a Domestic Violence Court

The makeup of a domestic violence court and the level of specialization varies widely between geographic areas depending upon need and resources. There are, howeverr, elements that remain consistent in the makeup of a successful Domestic Violence Court. In most Domestic Violence Courts the caseload is handled by a judge dedicated solely to that type of case and a specialized court staff who work together to coordinate the criminal justice system's response to domestic violence and address the specialized needs of victims. Victim's Advocates, Prosecutors, and often Social Workers are all specially trained to respond to the special needs of victims and children.

In Domestic Violence Courts the same judge presides over the case from arraignment through disposition. Should there be future incidents of violence the file returns to the original judge as well. This results in informed, educated judicial decision-making and allows for intensive judicial monitoring of batterers to ensure compliance with the terms of sentence and probation. It also enables judges to respond swiftly to probation violators.

Creating a situation where the judge is in a position to exert power over the situation and take power away from the abuser helps deter recidivism. Repeat offenders know that they will end up in front of the same judge where it will be increasingly more difficult to deny or minimize culpability. A fast response time also prevents problems from escalating and sends a strong message to defendants that they are being watched.

Recognition that this is a social as well as a criminal problem mandates that Domestic Violence Courts give early access to victim advocacy and social services including food shelter and emergency services.

Victims often face complicated issues including economic dependency and children's needs. Victim advocates guide the victims through the criminal justice system, explain court proceedings, provide safety planning, direct victims to resources like civil legal assistance and otherwise help navigate victims through an unfamiliar and often confusing criminal justice system.

Victim advocates also keep victims apprised of the progress of the case as it proceeds through the criminal justice system.

The assignment of domestic violence cases to a specialized calendar sometimes known as a "rocket docket" allows for a quick resolution of court proceedings. This fast-track calendar eliminates delays that give batterers more time to press victims not to cooperate with authorities.

Responding to the challenge of domestic violence is a complex undertaking. Domestic Violence Courts help break the cycle of domestic violence through intense intervention which both empowers victims and assures justice through a coordinated community response.

Statements made in this post are my own and not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet