Prescription For Trouble

by Diane Dimond

We are a pill-popping culture. We take pills to sleep, wake up, get happy, keep our children less hyper. And while people might not realize it, sharing prescription drugs, using false names to get prescription drugs or shopping around to get more than one doctor to prescribe extra prescription drugs are all against the law.

It used to be that law enforcement worried only about illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines. Now they’re dealing with the criminal aftermath of a record number of people getting high on prescription drugs: Deadly car accidents, domestic abuse, sex offenses -- all committed by people too impaired to control themselves. Addicts of prescription drugs have been known to commit crimes to pay for their pills once their insurance runs out.

Health-care providers and law enforcement will tell you prescription-drug abuse results in the same problems as street drugs: addiction, crime and broken families.

So how bad is the problem? Hold on to your hats for some brand new, jaw-dropping statistics from the Drug Enforcement Administration: seven million Americans are regularly abusing prescription drugs – not just taking them, abusing them. The drugs of choice are powerful pain killers like oxycodone (the generic name for an opiate-type drug sold under three different brand names), Percocet (known as Tylenol 3; brand name for acetaminophen with oxycodone) and Vicodin (acetaminophen with hydrocodone, another opiate-type drug).

The DEA has been studying this for years, so comparisons are easy. In the year 2000, 3.8 million Americans abused painkillers. The latest figure of seven million marks an 80 percent increase!

Prescription medications now cause more overdose deaths than cocaine and heroin combined.

If that stuns you – and I hope it does – get this: It’s not just painkillers Americans depend on to get through the day. There has also been a massive jump in anti-depressant prescriptions. It seems inconceivable, but 27 million people are currently taking anti-depressants like Paxil and Prozac, according to a new report in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

There seems to be the feeling that if a doctor prescribes it, it‘s okay to take, that prescription meds are somehow safer than street drugs. It isn’t true. Many prescription drugs have a high potential for abuse, and patients can get hooked before they realize what’s happening. Some people get so used to taking a drug their bodies begin to crave more and more of it, and they die of a self-induced overdose.

Look, lots of patients have pain and depression and truly need these drugs, there is no denying that. Probably a lot of the increase in the skyrocketing number of prescriptions can be traced to the stress of life in the United States post September 11th, 2001; to the miserable state of the economy we’ve all had to deal with; and a decline in psychotherapy sessions after many insurance companies restricted payments.

But there’s also real criminality involved here. There are doctors who act illegally when they continue to prescribe or over-prescribe to someone they believe is an addict. There are pharmacies dispensing far too many pills to one household and ignoring the red flag of possible addiction. And there are scads of rogue “pharmacy” Internet sites illegally selling controlled substances. If they run out of doctors to write scrips, addicts often turn to these cyber-drug dealers. The web sites rake in profits -- millions of dollars per month.

Lawmakers have been talking about the potential for a prescription-drug abuse epidemic in America for more than a decade. Now, with a total of 34 million patients currently taking painkillers or anti-depressants, I think we’ve hit the epidemic level. As fast as authorities shut down careless pharmacies and illegal Internet sites, or strip offending doctors of their prescription privileges, others step in to take their place. In the last three years, tens of millions of doses of prescription drugs, and tens of millions of dollars in assets have been seized. But the seizures have done nothing to stem the growth of the problem.

The most depressing part of this mess is that it’s destined to get worse. Our children are learning awful lessons from our pill-popping behavior. And it’s easy for them to simply slip a few of their parents' prescription drugs out of the medicine cabinet. Don’t imagine your kids wouldn’t think about it. The DEA reports nearly one in 10 high school seniors admit to abusing drugs that weren’t prescribed to them.

I’ve got no brilliant idea for solving this problem. It just seems that we spend so much time, effort and money fighting illegal drugs while overlooking the scourge of prescription drugs. If we’re going to crusade against one, shouldn’t we include the other?

Our kids aren’t stupid. They see the campaign against hard street drugs and then watch us down all sorts of prescription drugs as though nothing bad can happen.

Bad happens. And we should all spread the word.

Tweet

Should the Casey Anthony Case Be Moved?

By Women In Crime Ink

Today we've asked our contributors to weigh in on the Casey Anthony case. The question asked: Should Casey Anthony’s trial be moved out of the county where the crime occurred?

Laura James: The pretrial publicity is a problem. I can't imagine how they're going to get jurors who (a) have half a brain AND (b) haven't heard things on TV that won't be offered into evidence. Seems to me it ought to be moved, not only to ensure a fair trial but to ensure it's not overturned on appeal.

Kathryn Casey: This is such a national case, I don’t know where they could move it. If they had the option, which I don't believe they do, even moving it to another state wouldn't help. Is there a place where people haven't heard of it? My guess is no. It shouldn't be moved.

Andrea Campbell: Don't we get too bogged down in "fairness?" Was it fair for the little baby to be found with duct tape over her mouth and in garbage bags? I have no sympathy for narcissistic mothers who can't take care of their children because it might interfere with their lives.

Diane Fanning: A trial cannot be moved out of the state in which the crime has been committed unless it is a federal offense. Since Casey Anthony is facing state criminal charges, there is no option but trial in Florida. However, I do think attorneys could make a compelling argument for moving it out of the Central Florida area.

Jurors do not need to be ignorant of the news, but they do need to set aside the biases and interpretation of the facts derived from media reports and make their decisions solely based on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

Quite honestly, though, if I were Casey Anthony’s attorney, I’d be look for the best plea bargain I could negotiate. Casey’s actions and words in June and July 2008 combined with the forensic evidence gathered by law enforcement paint a strong portrait of guilt. It seems to me that an attorney would have to have an enormous ego to believe he could overcome the strength of the prosecution’s case, based on what has been released thus far. I expect that the state has even more damaging information that has not yet been revealed to the public.

Robin Sax: The publicity concerns are the same in her home county in Florida as they would be everywhere. The case has had not only a statewide but nationwide media attention and therefore has nationwide exposure. What difference would one part of Florida make over another, other than inconveniencing everyone, costing more money, and delaying a trial for someone who should be begging for a plea deal.

Tweet

Elizabeth Smart: A Woman To Look Up To

by Cassie Nelson

Everyone has someone they would want to meet given the chance. Usually it's a famous athlete, celebrity, or politician like the president of the United States. But I'd rather meet someone far stronger than athletes who are constantly battered during games; celebrities ducking omnipresent paparazzi, or a president constantly attacked by one side or the other for every decision he makes.

I would want to meet Elizabeth Smart, a woman who has endured more than most will in a lifetime. Six years after her rescue, Elizabeth holds her head high as she reveals details of her capture for the first time. She walks with poise; looking fearless and determined. She's determined not to let the horrors she endured during her captivity destroy her future. She's determined not to let the man responsible for those horrors avoid punishment. She's determined that her survival be an inspiration for women and girls similarly abducted and held, among them Jaycee Dugard.


Three years ago, Elizabeth’s abductor, Brian Mitchell, convinced a judge that he was not competent to stand trial. Last week, Elizabeth Smart testified in detail about Mitchell’s abuse and behavior during her captivity to prove he knew exactly what he was doing then and was manipulating the system now. I can’t imagine the courage it must have taken to publicly describe her experience, especially in front of her parents, who never pushed her for details. Knowing she would be confronting her abductor for the first time since her rescue on March 12, 2003, in Sandy, Utah, she did not hesitate.

Perhaps Elizabeth Smart is able to talk about her ordeal, rather than be consumed by it, because she maintained her inner dignity and belief in a better future through the worst of  her horror. Even when she was being raped as often as four times a day, Elizabeth never lost herself. She kept a diary, writing nice things about her captor in English, while scribbling her true feelings in French underneath. Not only did she refuse to give in to despair; she looked for a way to escape.
Mitchell had told her he would kill her if she tried to escape. She figured her best chance at rescue would be back in Utah and not in California, where he had taken her. Somehow, without making him suspicious, she convinced Mitchell to return to Salt Lake City. The plan worked, and she was spotted on a street outside of Salt Lake City.


Elizabeth was 14 years old when she was abducted. She is 21 now, officially an adult. Like other young  women her age, Elizabeth is preparing to begin an independent life. She plans to move to Paris soon for the 18-month mission served by many young members of the Mormon Church. The commitment to helping others sustained her through the aftermath of her abduction and now propels her forward. As Elizabeth said in an interview recently, “I want people to know that no matter what happens in their lives, there is nothing too difficult to get through.” 

Tweet

"Baby, We Will Find You"

by Susan Murphy-Milano

Keighley Ann Alyea went missing from her Overland Park, Kans., apartment on Sunday, Sept. 30. Within hours, unaware she was already dead, family and friends posted a missing person's bulletin and photos on the social-networking site Facebook. The information and offer of a reward spread quickly over the Internet. Strangers answered the plea for help finding the petite 18-year-old by holding prayer vigils in their own communities thousands of miles away.

Several days later, police found Keighley’s abandoned Mazda 626. The following day, the teenager's mother posted a message on Facebook: “Keighley, we are coming for you, baby. We will find you!”

But on Tuesday, Oct. 6, police reported Keighley's body was found in a Missouri farm field. They charged three young men with first-degree murder, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery in her death. Family said Keighley had dated one of the men, 18-year-old Dustin Hilt, for about two years.

The couple broke up sometime last year; a friend said Keighley broke off the relationship because “he just wasn’t a good guy.” Hilt reportedly beat Keighley, and she told friends she was afraid of him.

Although the relationship appeared to be over, several friends say it was an on-again, off-again romance. According to one close friend, “Keighley had a very hard time saying no to him.” A few weeks before she disappeared, Hilt was reportedly tapping on her bedroom window in the middle of the night, calling and texting her constantly, and following Keighley around town. Sometime after the official break-up, Hilt had Keighley's name tattooed on his arm. All of Hilt's actions indicated he was dangerously and unpredictably obsessed with a young woman who'd rejected him.

According to her uncle, during the ride out of town sometime after Keighley was attacked and kidnapped, she regained consciousness, giving the three suspects a chance to get her medical help and maybe save her life. Instead, he said, they decided to "finish killing her."

If I had to guess, few people, including Keighley's mother and father, knew the extent of Hilt’s obsessive contact with their daughter. Most teens don't tell their parents about being harassed or stalked; instead, like Keighley, they confide in close friends. Sometimes young women who break off relationships don't recognize danger signs and instead expect former boyfriends will eventually give up and move on with their lives. They believe they have the situation is under control.

But they don't. If they are being stalked, they are in danger.

Stalking is defined as repeated, unwanted pursuit behaviors (such as following, watching, phone calls, and e-mails) that seem obsessive and make someone afraid or concerned for their safety. October happens to be National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. But 20 years after I began my work in this arena -- after my father murdered my mother -- we are still no closer to addressing this epidemic.

The laws created to protect victims of stalking and domestic violence were not signed into effect with ink but with the blood of all those whose cries for help fell on deaf ears. If you have school age children, and they are dating or have recently broken off a relationship, keep the door to communication open with your child. Find out if the person is treating them with respect. If the relationship has ended, ask whether they continue to receive phone calls, texts or e-mails begging to get back together.

If you are a friend or relative, encourage teens to tell their parents; strongly suggest parents convince their teens to see people who can help them. Go to your local police department, ask to speak to an officer or detective, and have them document your concerns as often as possible. If she is afraid, have your teenager get help by talking to a professional therapist or a psychiatrist.

The final entry on Keighley's Facebook page was from a man who will never see his daughter graduate from college. He won't see her marry, nor will he be waiting at a hospital to meet his first grandchild. To him, she'll always be as she was the day he learned of her murder.

“Keighley, we will never forget you and we will make sure no one else does either, love DAD.”

Tweet

A Particularly Unsettling Exoneration

by Laura James

The Court of Appeals said the evidence was "overwhelming." Nathaniel Maurice Hatchett confessed to carjacking and raping a woman. The victim identified him as her attacker. He was caught driving her car three days after the crime.

Yet Hatchett walked out of a Michigan prison after serving 12 years, because the semen found on the victim did not match him. The current prosecutor remarked: "We went back in and did a full investigation. We could have fought for a new trial, but our job is to seek justice. It was served today."

Now for the unsettling part: the prosecutor, trial judge, and Court of Appeals knew at the time of his trial that the DNA from the semen did not match the defendant, but the 17-year-old was convicted anyway. It now appears that the only "overwhelming" evidence in State v. Hatchett was of prosecutorial abuse and judicial incompetence.

They also knew that when Hatchett was caught with her car, the ignition had been popped out. Curious. The carjacker left the victim on the side of the road and took off - with the keys in the ignition. Why would he break the steering column if he had the keys? They also knew some details from the confession did not match the victim's account. For example, the defendant denied robbing her. The most burning question concerned the DNA result. When weighed against a victim's cross-racial identification, even against a confession elicited after several hours of interrogation of a teenager, isn't DNA evidence from semen, in a rape case, a trump card?

Apparently not. Said the trial judge: "[The DNA can] hardly be found to represent a reasonable doubt considering all of the evidence in the case. The court does not find that the laboratory analysis is a fact which would lead to a verdict of acquittal."

DNA - not exculpatory? I find that logic quite strange. By the way, that trial judge is now a federal judge - appointed by President William J. Clinton.

But surely there are smarter judges at the Court of Appeals level, right?

The appellate decision is available online. The bizarre logic applied by the unanimous, three-judge panel that affirmed Hatchett's conviction makes for hair-raising reading. Said the Court of Appeals: "We agree ... that while the DNA test results introduce a slight doubt ... there are several plausible explanations for these results." The Court of Appeals goes on to give two "plausible explanations." Not "several." Two.

One: "The victim told the treating nurse that defendant ejaculated 'on' her, and she told the treating physician that she was only 'fairly certain' that defendant ejaculated at all; therefore, it is altogether possible that defendant's semen would not be found in the victim's vagina or in her underpants."

This is quite curious reasoning. Someone's semen was found on the rape victim. Do these three judges have their heads in the sand? How can the judges choose to question the victim's veracity when she described her attacker's ejaculation while simultaneously refusing to harbor any doubt about her identification of Mr. Hatchett as the rapist? They said her evidence was "overwhelming" - and I guess it was, except for the details.

Two: "The donor might have been the victim's spouse." That is a plausible explanation. So why didn't they obtain a racial profile from the DNA? Or better yet, test the husband? When 25 to 40 years of a man's life are on the line, why was that question posed but not answered?

As it turns out, the husband was in fact tested. He did not match the DNA from the semen. The prosecutor never brought that fact to the attention of the defense attorney, the trial judge, or the Court of Appeals. He is still a prosecutor today - and he actually denies knowingly putting an innocent kid in prison, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, nothing will come of it. The prosecutor won't be affected. The trial judge now has a lifetime appointment. None of the appeals court judges will even see their names in the paper, let alone be made to feel like court jesters, as they should. Judges William B. Murphy and Donald S. Owens are still sitting on the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Hatchett is the 216th person freed by DNA, his exoneration coming at the behest of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School's Innocence Project. What a shame for Nathaniel Hatchett that 12 years had to pass before the DNA evidence that was there all along was brought to the attention of fair-minded men.

Tweet

He Got Off Too Easy

by Donna Weaver

Florida death row inmate John Evander Couey died of cancer last week, and if you ask me, he got off too easy.

Six men and six women found Couey guilty of first-degree murder, burglary, kidnapping, and sexual battery in March 2007 for the rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford in 2005. The same jury also recommend, by majority vote, that Couey be put to death. The defense had urged jurors to sentence him to life in prison, putting psychologists on the stand who testified that Couey was mentally retarded. Florida law prohibits execution of someone judged mentally retarded. The prosecution called their own experts, who stated Couey was well aware of his actions when he kidnapped, raped, and murdered little Jessica.

Couey was a waste of skin who knew exactly what he wanted to do to Jessica Lunsford. He was also the veritable poster boy for the flaws in our justice system that contribute to the horrific deaths of innocent children like Jessie.

Couey’s rap sheet included no less than 24 burglary arrests, an arrest for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, and an arrest for indecent exposure. During a home burglary in 1978, he was accused of grabbing a girl in her bedroom, placing his hand over her mouth, and kissing her. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison but paroled in 1980. In 1991, Couey became a registered sex offender after he was arrested in Kissimmee, FL, on a charge of committing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child. However, the criminal court progress docket for this case shows Couey was allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of attempted lewd act on a child. He was given credit for 135 days time served in a state prison.

How does one get arrested 27 times by age 46 and not still be incarcerated?

What about Couey’s housemates? According to CBS News reports, court documents state "Couey's timeline of events after he kidnapped Jessica Lunsford leaves open the possibility she was alive and in the house at the time of the first and possibly the second interview." Citrus County sheriff's deputies stopped twice at Couey's sister's single-wide mobile home while canvassing the neighborhood after Jessie was reported missing Feb. 24. At the first interview, shortly after the child was reported missing, deputies spoke to Couey's niece and her boyfriend. The second time, deputies spoke with the same niece and Couey's half sister. Jessica Lunsford lived just 150 yards away, and her abduction was all over the news. Authorities say the residents concealed the fact that Couey was staying at the trailer. This suggests to me that they may have known Couey kidnapped Jessica and had her in the house. DNA evidence proved that he raped the little girl on the bedroom mattress. Jessica’s fingerprints were also found on other areas in the bedroom. Police and prosecutors believe Couey kept her alive for a time in the bedroom closet.

How could four other adults living in such tight quarters not have heard or seen anything? One month later, Jessica was found near the trailer -- right where Couey told investigators he buried her alive. How could these four people not hear the plastic bags being wrapped around Jessie, or Couey outside digging a hole and then burying the little girl alive as she struggled, her little fingers poking holes through the garbage bags?

It is truly horrifying to contemplate that someone else in that household might have seen her or heard that little girl cry out, and did nothing to help her. If so, they are equally guilty of all charges and deserve the same punishment as the monster they protected with their silence.

Tweet

New Life Wrapped in Death

by Diane Fanning

The landlord sniffed a “horrifying smell” that convinced her she had to enter 23-year-old Darlene Haynes’(pictured below right) apartment on July 27, 2009. There she found the young woman’s mutilated body, again raising the nightmarish specter of Cesarean abduction in the public consciousness. Media reports cited the case of Lisa Montgomery, the woman sentenced to death for murdering Bobbie Jo Stinnett to steal the baby from her body—the subject of BABY BE MINE, the most difficult book I’ve ever written.

The violent death of a pregnant woman violates all our standards of decency and brings the word "evil" to our lips. The time a woman spends carrying a baby is supposed to be a special time — I know it was for me — and when an expectant mother is killed, she is often not the only one to die. In taking her life, the life of the most innocent of all victims is often forfeited as well.

Most pregnant women who die of homicide are victims of domestic abuse by an intimate partner. Typically, the motivation for these murders are the man's desire to control the woman or to free himself of an unwelcome burden or change of lifestyle.

Law Enforcement is familiar with domestic violence but that experience does not translate to the snatching of a newborn or a Cesarean abduction. These female killers do not know their victims well and have no personal resentment toward them. They target pregnant women at random, based only on their physical condition, in a narcissistic urge to satisfy their own needs without any regard for anyone else.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the abductor in these types of cases is “desperate to bask in the rapture of baby love—to feel adored and needed.” The typical perpetrator “truly believes she is about to give birth and fully expects everyone to accept the reality she has attempted to create.”

“Infant abductors want what they want when they want it. They don’t care who they step on to get there,” said Cathy Nahirney at the Center. “If you are standing in their way, they will run you over without a blink of an eye and leave you to die on the pavement while they pursue their all-consuming goal.”

Making it harder on investigators, these women do not usually have rap sheets. If there is anything on their record, it is for minor, nonviolent crimes like shoplifting or check kiting.

“Infant abductions are usually carried out by women who are not criminally sophisticated,” according to a September 1995 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. “However, the women demonstrate an ability to plan…” the crime “…and convincingly play a role… Most of these women are living a lie—before, during and after the abduction. Many have faked a pregnancy, which eventually forces them into a corner. They feel they have no choice but to produce a child by any means necessary. Indeed, infant abductions are the desperate acts of desperate women. As one infant abductor put it, “I began getting desperate trying to figure out what I was going to do—how I was gonna find someone to give me their baby—now.”

In trying to understand this crime in the context of our normalcy, we often wondered if the woman who kills for a baby is despairing because of an inability to get pregnant or a recent miscarriage. However, this is normally not the case. These women are, more likely than not, sociopaths who don’t love children but who do love the power and attention that feel is connected with motherhood. In other words, these women want a child solely for the attention in brings to them.

On the victim’s side of the equation, this crime evokes extreme emotion, devastating the immediate family, the community where it occurred and more often than that, resulting in the death of the newborn. What can a woman do to protect herself from Cesarean abduction or any form of infant abduction? The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has a wealth of resources on line as well as a toll-free number to call with questions. The bottom line, though, is that a pregnant woman or new mother needs to exercise awareness and caution.

Don’t post a photograph of yourself appearing pregnant on a public forum on line. Don’t put up a cute pink or blue sign in your front yard advertising the birth of your child. And pay attention to your intuition—if a situation or a person makes you uncomfortable, trust yourself and don’t let fears of looking foolish stand in the way of your innate common sense.

Darlene Haynes should be alive today, holding a two-month-old baby in her arms. Fortunately, Darlene’s baby survived and the suspected killer, Julie Corey (left), and her alleged accomplice are behind bars. But no matter how severe a sentence is handed down to Corey, it will not bring back Darlene Haynes' life—nor will her innocent baby ever know the warmth of her biological mother's smile.

Tweet

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