Do the Media Have a Cafeteria Plan When Reporting About Missing Children?

by Stacy Dittrich

I’m guilty. The hundreds of radio, print and television reporters across the country are guilty. We are guilty of standing in the dessert line in the cafeteria, picking and choosing the more attractive dishes, while completely ignoring the entrée’s to our left that our screaming for our attention. You’re over Casey Anthony—the latest Crème Brulee. I get it. I’m over Casey Anthony. For 3 years I have been commenting on the case via radio, television, and print. I’m done. I know many of the other contributors here echo these sentiments. A brief scroll down the WCI archives shows that Casey, Caylee, Cindy and George Anthony, along with Zanny the Nanny, were mentioned an astounding 137 times.

In reflection, however, the case begs to open another discussion of why some incredibly emotional and horrific cases are ignored while others are literally blasting through every artery of the media on a daily basis. Why did we focus so intently on Casey Anthony and not others? I’ve actually heard some in the media blame Nancy Grace.

Riiiiiight.

If one woman wields that kind of power, than Nancy truly is an American superstar.

In my opinion, it’s not Nancy’s fault, but the American public’s obsession with seeing justice served—and rightly so. We’ve been dragged through so many senseless tragedies with little or no vindication (ahem, O.J.) that I truly believe the public has simply had enough and wants to start holding those responsible accountable. The problem with Casey Anthony started at the beginning. It seemed like an open and shut case; mother allegedly murders daughter, mother gets arrested, mother goes to prison for life. Unfortunately, I began to see many red flags in the beginning that made me nervous. As shallow as this sounds, Casey’s attractiveness was one of them. It may sound shallow but I have the experience to back it up. I can’t begin to count the number of jury trials I’ve attended where my attractive, female, suspect was found “not guilty.” Even more incredulous, as I spoke to jurors after, they held nothing back when telling me, “I’m sorry, but I just can’t look at that nice, sweet, girl and believe she really did that. I can’t.” (Hello, professional jurors, where are you?)

Some believe that race and religion are silent factors when bringing a horrific crime to the national forefront. I have been following a disturbing case that I’ve seen briefly touched on in the national news, but nowhere near other crimes. New York City local news has been covering it frequently, but other than that—zilch. It involves the disappearance and murder of an 8-year old Orthodox Jewish boy, Leiby Kletzky, and it is gruesome.

On July 11, 2011, the Brooklyn boy had begged and pleaded with his parents to walk home by himself from day camp–a first. The parents initially hesitated, but decided to allow Leiby (pictured left) to spread his wings a little. With obvious trepidation, Leiby’s parents not only memorized the route with him, a total of seven blocks, but they actually went through a dry run. Walking by himself for the first time, Leiby never came home. This defines a parent’s worst nightmare. Of course it gets worse; much, much, worse.

33 hours after intense searches and investigations, authorities were led to the home of Levi Aron, 35, a local hardware supply stock clerk. Nothing could have prepared them for what they found inside.

Inside Aron’s freezer, they found Leiby’s severed feet wrapped in plastic. Aron then led investigators to a Dumpster containing a red suitcase that held the remainder of Leiby’s dismembered body. Aron claimed he forgot about the feet in the freezer.

Through a series of bizarre interviews, Aron claimed that Leiby had become lost on his route home and approached him for a ride. Headed to a wedding, Aron claimed he took Leiby with him and, upon seeing the flyers for the missing boy the next day, panicked and killed him. Of course, investigators now know that Aron took Leiby back to his apartment where he supplied him with a cocktail of drugs, suffocated him, and dismembered his body. The answer to the perpetual question of why Aron committed such a heinous act is still unclear. However, investigators did remove numerous children’s items from Aron’s home including a blue child’s spoon and pink cup. Is it possible Aron had harmed more children? Police say that there is currently no evidence of that, but a look into Aron’s background screams red flags of violent behavior.

My point is, Levi Aron will never see the light of day again. He confessed, there is physical and circumstantial evidence to back up his confession, it’s a done deal. So, why should we care? I do, which is why I’m writing about it here. Do you think the media took a pass on this case because Leiby was an Orthodox Jew or was it because we know justice will be served?

Then there’s the case of Mariha Smith (pictured right), 5, an African American girl who was recently abducted and murdered in Detroit. On Sunday, July 31, 2011 Mariha was reported missing by her mother who said someone must have gone through Mariha’s bedroom window between 3 a.m. and noon while she slept. Mariha’s mother admitted to being heavily intoxicated and passed out when this occurred. Unfortunately, just hours later, Mariha’s burned body was found in an abandoned home just blocks from her own. Her skull had been crushed prior to her body being set on fire.

After investigators showed family members a surveillance video from a nearby gas station showing a man purchasing cans of gasoline, did they begin to suspect Darnell Cheatham, 20. Cheatam is the boyfriend of Mariha’s aunt. After executing a search warrant at Cheatam’s residence, investigators took him into custody, and subsequently charged him with Mariha’s murder. Justice served, but not much attention.

Are the cases chosen based on race, religion, or socioeconomic factors? Possibly, but to reiterate, I truly believe it’s about justice. In both of the above cases, it is rather clear that justice will prevail in each of these horrific and vile crimes. But, in Caylee Anthony’s case, it didn’t. What's the X factor here?

Justice certainly hasn’t prevailed in the case of missing Oregon boy, Kyron Horman, 7. The last person to see him, step-mother Terri Horman, has been investigated exhaustively but refuses to cooperate. Kyron (pictured left) still hasn’t been found and his parents continue to live in Hell. Now this is pure injustice and it’s downright appalling.

I have to submit that all of the above cases have been mentioned in the media, some more than others. The downside is that there are approximately 150-200 child stranger abductions every year across this country and the media couldn’t possibly cover them all. All races, religions, and socioeconomic factors are unfortunately covered here. Child abductions know no racism or bigotry and most of these children are probably deceased. Should a deranged lunatic walk into an elementary school and viciously murder 150 students in one mass murder the incident would scream across headlines worldwide, but spread each one out over a one year period and no one seems to pay attention to each and every one. Why?

It’s the nature of the media beast, our cafeteria mentality that picks those who will grab the public’s attention in a New York minute. Regardless of the how’s and why’s at least some of these cases are being brought to the national level. Even if it’s just one case where the life of a child is saved or we learn from it, it is truly worth it.

For those left behind, always keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

Tweet

The Media - America's Next Courtroom?

by Anne Bremner

Having been a trial lawyer for well over two decades, I'm keenly interested in the public's perception of the judicial process, the practice of law, and what really transpires in an actual courtroom. With the ever-increasing ranks of pseudo-courtroom shows; the burgeoning blogosphere; reporters with unused bar cards spouting legalese; and lawyers heavy on chutzpah but light on credentials out-shouting each other on the TV screen, it seems that the media portrayal of jurisprudence is increasingly diverging from actuality--the real American courtroom.

The tabloidization of high-profile cases has created a distorted, hybrid version of our legal system--much like a locomotive engine, cut loose from the rest of the train. The rest of the train includes the rules of evidence, admissibility, procedure, burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. The engine steams ahead, fascinating to watch as it veers off the tracks. Train wrecks are compelling. In the blogosphere, over the airwaves, in sensational tabloids, mini-trials are conducted, concluded, verdicts pronounced. Those with mouths open, ears closed, cultivate a certain ipsi dixit mentality devoid of civility. Personal attacks substitute for educated, thoughtful or persuasive argument.

In our instant-everything culture, there is a tendency to want everything wrapped up in a sound bite. We see, as in the Anna Nicole Smith case and the Michael Jackson case, an impatience to wait for toxicology results, the conclusion of a thorough investigation. There is an eagerness to turn "what if's" into presumed fact, the presumption that a bit of google searching turns laypersons into forensic experts, detectives, and armchair lawyers.

Sometimes the rampant speculation ultimately proves to be correct, but many times it does not. For several days Richard Jewell was the Atlanta City Bomber, John Mark Karr had killed JonBenet Ramsey, Kobe Bryant had raped a hotel clerk, the Duke Lacrosse players had raped a stripper. 

In the media, there is no ramification for getting it wrong. In the real courtroom, there is. No one knows that more than Michael Nifong, disbarred for his bungling of the Duke Lacrosse prosecution. No one feels it more than any trial lawyer who has lived and breathed a case for several years leading up to a trial-- the burden of standing in the shoes of a client whose future hangs in the balance.

Then there is the phenomena I call "blogulgation" -- when a group of bloggers feed off each other's posts, citing each other as reliable sources to bolster the validity of their position. A diatribe by another blogger is tagged as "news" in a cyber game of telegraph, where a surreal "reality" is crafted from amalgamated speculation corroborated not by actual facts or independent investigation but by endorsement of other speculators. 

Often regurgitating outdated news, disproven facts, they share such a fanatic devotion to their cultivated theories that they become disturbingly hostile, on a personal level, towards anyone with divergent views. Rather than a quest for enlightenment or intellectual debate, these groups often evolve into a support group for those with identical, albeit misinformed opinions.

Although I appear on a variety of networks discussing numerous topics, I am most frequently asked about my appearances on Nancy Grace. The show is a lightening rod for controversy--viewers divided into two categories: those that love the show and those that love to hate it. Many attorneys who appear on the show receive a mixed bag of effusive fan emails and the smattering of vitriolic admonitions from viewers who suggest the show is not highbrow legal analysis. The show doesn't purport to be highbrow. It is is a forum for the prosecution/victim point of view, those who feel the justice system doesn't effectively deter and punish perpetrators who harm and exploit vulnerable victims. 

A case can't be dissected in a few sound bites. The best I hope to do is act as a counterweight, maybe interject a brief point that will serve to plant a seed in the minds of viewers, a reminder that every case, no matter how open and shut it appears to be, will be defended and must be proven. That Nancy Grace interjects her laserlike acerbic wit makes the show entertaining. I know many lawyers and judges who consider it their "little secret" that they are fascinated by the show.

I know Nancy Grace as a dear friend, champion of the underdog, promoter of others in her profession, generous to a fault, wickedly witty, endlessly kind. I have seen her at home with her ever-amused husband, the breathtakingly adorable twins that are the center of their universe--Nancy in sweats, no makeup, the kind of friend you hang out with on the back porch, drinking sweet tea and talking about normal, everyday things that friends share. On the TV screen, we're just two lawyers on opposite sides of an issue. If I get cut off, don't get to wax loquacious, no harm done. TV is fleeting, soon forgotten. 

I try to remind people that TV is no substitute for reality, that bloggers are no substitute for quality journalism. As long as we all understand the line between entertainment and reality, the only harm that comes is taking the TV version too seriously.

My advice to anyone interested in the trial process? Pick any courthouse in any town, find a jury trial on the court docket and sit in the courtroom from start to finish. From the motions in limine. voir dire of jurors, opening statements, closings, jury instructions. Listen as the jury's verdict is read. That is our justice system. Accept no substitute.

Tweet

Risky Business - Partying in Underwear Is Not Cool

by Cassie Nelson

In 1983's Risky Business, Tom Cruise made a high school boy partying in private in his underwear the stuff of Hollywood legend. Twenty-seven years later, a junior and a senior at Dr. Michael Krop Senior High School thought it would be fun to throw a "lingerie party," which amounted to a night of extensive promiscuity as teens partied in their panties. And, in 2010, there was nothing private about it.

The Valentine's Day weekend party was held at former strip club in a seedy neighborhood in Miami, Florida. The theme and surroundings encouraged teens to drink heavily, wear hardly anything, and act outrageously. The price of admission: $25, and all of the underclassmen at my school were paying.

In class, I overheard three sophomore guys describe what they would be wearing: “Red silk boxers, no shirt, and a bow-tie.” Boys talked about the abs they'd been doing every night so they'd look good for the girls, who'd hardly be wearing anything at all. One guy even said he would be shaving his stomach for the occasion.

Although they just wanted to go out and have fun, these young adults were either completely unaware of the possible repercussions of their actions, or they just didn't care. The day after the party, pictures of them intoxicated and scantily clad would be all over Facebook, the world's largest social networking website. Only when it affects them in the future will they realize what they've done to themselves and each other. 

"Sexting" is already a massive issue at my school. Every few months, pictures of a naked girl spread through the school within minutes, until everyone, whether they want to or not, has seen them. Most of the boys save them, either on their phones or computers. The problem never ceases because the girl is too afraid and too embarrassed to go to school administrators or police -- even in a case as severe as a boy secretly recording his sexual activity with a girl and sending it to all his friends. 

Sometimes, a girl sends her nude photos to one boy, a boy she probably likes or has feelings for -- only to have the boy send it to all his friends, who then sent it to all of their friends. If caught, they all could be tried on child pornography charges.

 Technically, distributing naked pictures of teenage girls under the age of 18 is considered child pornography. If caught, the boys or men could face jail time and/or have to register as sex offenders -- a burden they would carry all their lives. It doesn't matter if the girl took the pictures herself, or if the photos were sent to someone younger than 18. It's still child porn. 

The lingerie party photos, though sleazy, don't count because the girls weren't nude.

Neither I nor most of the other senior girls went to the party. Most didn’t want to be surrounded by the younger students. But some also understood that they'd have no control over whether pictures of them clad in skimpy lingerie spread across the the Internet. One of the people throwing the party was a girl in her senior year. Once the hosts began promoting the party, high school principals from all over Dade County contacted her, demanding that she shut down the party before anyone was hurt, in the present or the future. She refused, and on that Saturday night, hundreds of boys and girls left their homes in normal “mall attire” over the lingerie until they got to the doors of the party.

That, I later learned (and saw on Facebook), was when the street clothes came off and the craziness began. In lingerie and boxers, the girls and boys were unable to relate to anyone there in any sort of normal way. The mood of the party went from the regular, have-fun sort to a totally sex-centered atmosphere, heightened by drinking and smoking. I believe those who may have felt a little inhibited by the way they were dressed -- or not dressed -- used the drugs and alcohol much earlier and more heavily than others.

The photos that appeared online that night and the next day were disturbing. The party was at a former strip club, so the girls were dancing on the poles and bar, wearing next to nothing and drunkenly oblivious to the camera phones snapping their pictures. Even more unsettling is that some of those girls posted those images as their main profile photos -- the default photo anyone can see -- on Facebook. Apparently, they really feel that they need to look promiscuous to be popular. 

But while the fun is fleeting, the Internet is forever. What happens when they want to get into a good university? When they start looking for a job in their profession? When they hope to play a college or pro sport or teach for a living? These pictures could haunt them forever, hindering their potential for success in the real world. The real world is not the one portrayed on TV in shows and commercials where everyone is either trying to have sex, having sex, or talking about the sex they had or want to have. (Pictured above: Actress Vanessa Hudgens in cell phone photo scandal of 2007. Sources say she "learned her lesson.")

Lingerie parties are just a symptom of a society and a generation that has lost sight of what is important. Instead of doing crunches and spending good money on ridiculous stripper outfits, teens in other eras involved themselves in social causes. Today, one of the worst problems I believe we face is the sexual abuse of women, through rape, domestic violence, and human trafficking. The line defining acceptable behavior keeps receding from the moral boundaries  needed to protect women and girls. If we see ourselves as sex objects, how can we expect others to see us anything else?

Tweet

Fuhrman's Persuasive Polemic

By Laura James

There is much wrong with the portrayal of criminal justice in the media today. Even those who work for the crime media will tell you that the way it's done today, it's cheap, profitable, and wrong. In a scathing new book, FOX analyst Mark Fuhrman details his criticisms of "The Murder Business." "All the claims they make on these shows about justice and crime-stopping," he writes, "are a mockery of the English language." The book is The Murder Business: How the Media Turns Crime Into Entertainment and Subverts Justice.

He backs up his sturm und drang with compelling examples. Once I overcame the tinnitus caused by reading incendiary analysis by an insider who admits he played a "notorious role in the OJ Simpson trial," I found myself agreeing with many of his points.

Per Fuhrman, crime TV commits these sins. Do any of his criticisms ring true (or false) to you?

1. "They don't actually investigate... Facts have mostly been replaced with opinion, conversation, debate, and argument... Investigative journalists don't do much investigating. They stand in a pack outside Drew Peterson's house shouting, 'Did you kill Kathleen Savio?' I mean honestly, what did they expect him to say?"

2. They deliberately drag out stories, misrepresenting the facts if it helps to do so. It was obvious immediately that Caylee Anthony was dead, Fuhrman writes; but she was "missing" according to the press. "They want a big, loose time-line filled with "leads" and "possible suspects" and "persons of interest"... They didn't want a grim and depressing Search for Caylee Anthony's Body, but a suspenseful, heart-rending Search for Caylee Anthony. A story they could drag out for months, long after it was clear to me, the police, and every realistic observer or participant, that the child was dead."

3. They shell out huge sums for interviews and/or photos.

4. "They manufacture questions, but never try to answer them."

5. They relentlessly focus on attractive, middle class females as either culprit or victim. Haleigh Cummings' case fell from the TV screen because of the class of her family, which turned the story into "a white-trash nightmare, too much of a freak show."

Fuhrman goes on to analyze several recent cases of prominence.

Fuhrman on Drew Peterson: "He's got personality disorders they don't have a name for yet."

Fuhrman on Scott Peterson: "The media played along [with him]. They made his relationship with Amber Frey the centerpiece of the story, rather than the overwhelming evidence against him, mounting each day."

Fuhrman on his experiences as a true crime reporter in the Martha Moxley case: "I have never in my life been treated more shabbily than I was in Greenwich, CT. And that includes the Simpson trial."

Fuhrman on Nancy Grace: "She all but convicted the Duke University lacrosse players... and didn't apologize later when the accusations proved bogus... Grace flat-out declared suspect Richard Ricci guilty [of the abduction of Elizabeth Smart] several times on air... Grace didn't apologize for that one either... [Her interview of Melinda Duckett would] establish a new low, even by the standards of crime TV... Nancy Grace fired blindly. All she did was work herself into a lather and make Duckett clam up. The next day, Duckett was dead, and the investigation effectively died with her."

Fuhrman on the future of crime reporting: "Crime as entertainment has become so intoxicating, it's very difficult to go back. But all it takes is one person -- one journalist willing to step outside the circle and investigate the facts. One Woodward or one Bernstein could change the entire industry, remind reporters of their responsibility tot he public, and balance out the soap opera on the air."

Tweet

The Enigma That Was Michael Jackson

by Diane Dimond

Let's Admit—there was a dark side.

When I was plying my trade as an investigative reporter, the most famous criminal defendant I ever covered was entertainer Michael Jackson. Boy, did I cover him! From breaking the first news about the molestation claims against him back in 1993, to being the first to report the 2003 abuse allegations of a young boy who was a cancer patient when he first met the King of Pop. I was there for every day of the criminal trial and I wrote a book drawing on what I’d learned about the man over the course of the decade I’d investigated his story.

Now, Michael Jackson is dead at age 50.

Since his death, likely related to his long-term drug abuse and anorexia, I’ve been asked to explain the fascination so many have for this Pop Icon. What was it about Jackson that caused the great worldwide crowds of people we saw to drop everything and gather in public forums to mourn his passing? . . .

The answer, of course, is Michael Jackson’s music. And his dancing. And his song-writing ability. He was, quite simply, a self-taught entertainment genius. His talent reached down deep inside us and made us feel good. We couldn’t help but tap our toes to the rhythm, to have his lyrics burned into our memories.

Michael Jackson was also a pioneer on the racial front. He was the first Black artist to break through the MTV barrier, his highly produced music and videos literally brought the races together on both the dance floor and in society. Who among us doesn’t sing along (or do a version of a "cool" dance move) when we hear Jackson tunes like, "A-B-C," "Billy Jean," or "Beat It"?

Here’s another reason for the massive fan base. We watched Michael Jackson grow up. He was ours, no matter what our color, and we reveled in how this wildly talented 10-year-old could captivate us. Later, we became mesmerized by Jackson’s solo career and his obsessively intricate choreography that made his videos, like Thriller, all-time record breakers.

We introduced our kids to his irresistible music and another generation was hooked.

But Michael Jackson was obsessive about other things too—things that don’t make us feel so good. He was accused of one of the most insidious crimes imaginable: the sexual abuse of a child; not just once, but twice. And from my years of reporting on the case, I can tell you there were other young boys with eerily similar stories of abuse by Jackson, sons of parents too reticent, too embarrassed, or scared to press charges.

In public, Jackson flaunted his fascination with male children. Even after his narrow escape from prosecution in 1993, for which he paid out about 30 million dollars to avoid a trial, he flamboyantly continued to pose with and travel with unidentified young boys. He openly declared there was “nothing wrong” with a 40-year-old man sleeping with another’s boy. He called us “ignorant” for not understanding. Jackson seemed to be daring us to stop him. No one could.

Then he started to collect children of his own. Jackson reportedly paid up to 10 million dollars to a nurse named Debbie Rowe in return for her agreement to be inseminated with the sperm of his dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, and to give him two children and then disappear. His third child was reportedly born to a surrogate mother and another mystery sperm donor. No one stopped Jackson from doing this either. He had the wealth and the celebrity clout to indulge his obsessions.

Michael Jackson never did like to be told what to do. That probably stemmed from his iron-fisted father’s cruel upbringing. So, despite warnings from some in his entourage, Jackson went about his drug taking, children buying, shopping binges and other bizarre behavior and we seemed to look right past it . . . because of the glorious music he gave us. We telegraphed our approval of his behavior by continuing to support and adore him. We set no boundaries and he didn’t recognize any.

Separating the art from the artist has long been a dilemma. History shows we can love the art and not the man. Vincent Van Gogh was certifiably insane. The artist Caravaggio had a wicked temper and committed murder. Yet both were also celebrated as brilliant artists. In the case of Michael Jackson, anointed with titles like King and Superstar, the admiration caused him to believe the rules didn’t apply to him.

In our adoration of the artist, we shouldn’t forget that men of bad character do valuable things that benefit society in all sorts of ways. They build fabulous institutions, they write meaningful books, they entertain us in ways no others can. Good deeds seep out in spite of their flaws. That doesn’t mean their bad acts are okay.

Tweet

Women in Crime Ink in the Wall Street Journal!

To be written about in the famed Wall Street Journal proved to be quite a coup for a crime blog still in its infancy—just a little over one-year-old. On Tuesday June 2, 2009 the WSJ listed Women in Crime Ink as one of the six blogs listed in their famed “Blog Watch.” Needless to say, WCI contributors were exploding each other’s phones with the news, and definitely with excitement. WCI contributor Laura James’s own blog, Clews, was also one of the blogs featured. Editor Becky Bright wrote:

“Women in Crime Ink is hosted by a cast of female journalists, lawyers, authors and others with a passion for true crime. It has amassed an extensive archive of essays and commentary from women’s perspectives about crime and the court system.”

She even quoted WCI’s Diane Fanning from one of her recent posts regarding WCI’s general discussions of the psychology of crime and crime trends:

“Who am I to judge those who are taken in by these manipulators?...When I see a spouse certain of their loved one’s innocence, I won’t automatically suspect their involvement.”

Whatever the circumstance, the crime, the victim, or the story, the ladies here at Women in Crime Ink will undoubtedly continue making an impact throughout the halls of crime. Congratulations!

Tweet

On a lighter note... Can Madonna Sue?

by Laura James

The women who contribute thoughtful essays to this crime and justice site are serious professionals who grapple with profound and controversial legal questions. Hopefully they'll indulge me for considering a relatively frivolous legal issue today.

Some are honestly wondering about the legal ramifications of Madonna's recent fall from a horse, which her publicist blamed on an aggressive paparazzo. Her injuries, thank goodness, don't seem serious. But the incident offers a chance for a bit of exposition and education on the laws of personal injury. Can she sue? Would she win? Could she collect? The answers are sure, maybe, and probably not.

Can she sue?

Anyone with a hundred-dollar bill can file a lawsuit. The Material Girl didn't earn that moniker for nothing, so this one is a gimme.

Would she win?

Assuming that what her publicist says is true -- a photographer jumped from some bushes and scared her steed -- she'd have a pretty good case. If it came down to a he-said-she-said debate, she could get to a jury with it, and the jury would decide who is telling the truth.

Everyone, everywhere, at all times, has a "duty" under the law to act as a reasonable person would act in the same situation. That legal standard is vague, and it's usually up to a jury, and not a judge, to decide whether someone's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. I don't think it requires anything more than common sense to know that startling a horse can cause injury to its rider.

The department that rendered aid to her is releasing its own opinion on the matter. I found their statements rather curious. If Madonna said nothing to them about the photographer, that is neither here nor there. In the usual trip-and-fall, there's no reason for a responder to deeply delve. "How did this happen?" "I fell from my horse." That's as much of a conversation as I'd expect to see reflected in a police report.

Could she collect?

Assuming the jury believed Madonna's version of the dustup and gave her, say, a small verdict to compensate for a few hundred dollars in medical bills and a day or two of mild pain and suffering, collecting would probably be a challenge.

The press says he was a freelancer. Since he had no regular employer that could also be held accountable for his actions, there would be no insured corporate deep pocket to shake down. As a private person, he might own a home and might have homeowner's insurance. But it probably isn't much, and it might not cover such a claim since it arose from his line of business. Most homeowner's policies have limits or exclusions when you're sued because of the work that you do.

Believe it or not, as a rule lawyers do not like to pursue the personal assets of tort defendants (unless they've done something particularly egregious, and even then, I don't know many lawyers who would push to collect personally from an uninsured or underinsured person). If the jury did slam the fellow with a large verdict, he would have the option of filing for bankruptcy and blowing out the judgment there.

So even if Madonna did win a lawsuit against the fellow, she'd probably have a devil of a time getting any money from him. That's not to say I wouldn't take the case. If she needs a lawyer to handle the claim, gosh, I'm available!

Bottom line: While Madonna has credibility problems in general and a lifestyle that most people disdain, the paparazzi aren't doing much better these days in the court of public opinion. Given all the times when some jerk of a photographer sued a star for some stupid dustup, it might be fun to see the shoe on the other foot.

Tweet

Table Talk

by Jenna Jackson

I look better on paper.

I just do. I figured that out when a good friend of mine asked me to speak at a recent Table Talk evening for the University of Houston. This was a huge event–about 500 people, mostly women–and she wanted me to be a part of it. I was honored.

But, I told her then, I look better on paper. It sounds really cool to work for 48 Hours, but most of the time, when I show up somewhere, people ask me for ID because I don’t exactly look the part.

She laughed and ignored me, so I said sure I’d do it. All it consisted of was talking to the ten people at my particular table. It was very informal and easy.

I was completely relaxed. Until she told me, a week or so before the event, that I had been assigned the table who bid the highest donation in the entire event. They picked me, she said. I reminded her AGAIN, and this time vehemently, I’m much better on paper!

She again ignored me, and today I went to speak to this table. Once I arrived and saw how many people surrounded us–and how incredible and intelligent my tablemates were–I repeated to them my mantra: "I’m much better on paper. Hope I’m not a disappointment!"

Turns out I was the one with the lesson to learn. I should have known it from the incredible ratings CSI–and even 48 Hours these days–have garnered on a regular basis. People love what I do for a living. They love what we, as a blog, do for a living. People are riveted to crime stories, especially true ones.

These women at my table were smart, lively, charismatic. And curious. They were completely curious about what I do every day–how I get people to talk to me, whether I’m ever scared, whether I believe them. I told them stories about people who I'd met over the years that I didn't even remember.

It was refreshing to me. And having to explain to them why I do what I do on a daily basis made me believe in it all over again. As depressing as it can sometimes be to speak to people who are going through their toughest times, it is also inspiring. These people are courageous. They choose to keep moving and pushing forward, despite the fact that they lost a loved one–or that their loved one is accused of something unthinkable.

In each crime we cover at 48 Hours, each family is a victim. The actual murder victim’s family, clearly, has lost someone beloved to them. I do not know how people survive this and have the strength to move forward. This can never be replaced or understood. And the killer’s family–almost without fail–is shocked, saddened and (many times) in disbelief about the act/s their loved one is accused of committing.

The thing that I learn day after day is that nothing is black and white; almost no one is good or evil. Everything is gray.

And, today, at this luncheon for a very good cause–the University of Houston’s Friends of Women’s Studies–I was reminded of how important it is to know and understand and appreciate human nature and all that goes along with it.

Tweet

Why Crime History Matters

by Laura James

Unfortunately, the media often errs badly in its crime reporting because some reporters don't know a thing about the history of crime. And I guess they're too lazy to look it up before speaking on the subject.

For some reason, the natural tendency is to make it up—and get it wrong.

And that's too bad, because many times, some historical perspective might inform any given situation.

One example everyone knows: the press has erred badly in its coverage of the JonBenét Ramsey case on one small but perhaps important detail.

"Sex murderers never leave ransom notes." That's what the experts told us in the JonBenét Ramsey case. For years, in fact, that "fact" has been repeated.

It's always dangerous to talk in absolutes when the subject is human behavior, but there you have it.

And it wasn't true. One has to wonder just how much this error colored early perceptions of the case.

William Heirens was a sex killer. He left a ransom note. He kidnapped a little girl from the bedroom of her family home in the middle of the night, and later raped and killed her. Then he went on to kill again.

His name should sound familiar. No other inmate alive in a U.S. prison today has served longer than William Heirens, who went to prison in 1946. That's sixty-two years, and counting, behind bars.

While the press often get their precedents messed up, another type of error is more common: the tendency of some reporters to grossly exaggerate the historical significance of an event that is already, in and of itself, a very shocking crime that requires no exaggeration.

Reporters covering the terrible shooting massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007 called it "the worst massacre in U.S. history." That's a verbatim quote from Newsweek and from Time and from many, many others. No adjectives were omitted. And it was just flat-out a misstatement of fact.

Was it hysteria that caused so many journalists to overstate the matter as they did? Really, "the worst massacre in U.S. history"?

Thirty-two people died at Virginia Tech (Wiki).

That is far less than the Oklahoma City bombing (168 victims), Wounded Knee (300 victims), Mountain Meadows Massacre (100+ victims), or 9/11 (2,998 victims).

Alas, the terrible shootings at Virginia Tech could not even be called the "worst school massacre in U.S. history," though dozens of media outlets in fact did call it that.

It wasn't. A sad record still stands. The worst school massacre in U.S. history remains the Bath School Massacre, which claimed 45 lives in 1927. Not everyone has forgotten them.

Tweet

WCI Welcomes Two New Contributors

Women in Crime Ink is bringing fresh ink to our page. This week, we are introducing two new regular contributors: true-crime historian Laura James and 48 Hours producer Michelle Feuer.

Online true-crime fans will recognize the name Laura James as the woman behind the acclaimed crime blog CLEWS (the old-fashioned newsie's spelling of "clues"). CLEWS is described as "a literary blog where the chairs rest at the intersection of history, journalism, law, and murder, and the shelves are filled with the finest true-crime literature." As a lawyer, a former reporter, and a life-long crime reader with distinguishing literary taste, Laura fits the bill for a literary blog that caters to the true-crime genre. Her first book, The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son: Murder, Sin, and Scandal in the Shadow of Jesse James, is scheduled for release in May.

True-crime TV junkies would remember shows produced by our other addition, although Michelle Feuer is a woman who works behind the scenes, rather than on-screen. As a producer for 48 Hours Mystery, she pursues her passion for developing remarkable stories that reach millions of people. Michelle started her broadcast journalism career overseas, covering foreign news while based out of NBC's London bureau. Working for Dateline, she became known for her documentary-style pieces when she embedded with the Bronx Homicide Unit and the Boston Crime Lab. Michelle has been nominated for four Emmy awards and a Gracie, and she won an ABA Silver Gavel award (a distinction shared by WCI's Diane Dimond). At the invitation of WCI contributor Jenna Jackson, Michelle's colleague at 48 Hours, Michelle wrote a guest piece for us in December. We are proud to announce that she will be writing for us regularly.

Please join us in welcoming our newest contributors to Women in Crime Ink. Make sure to read Laura's first piece on Thursday and Michelle's tomorrow. As WCI celebrates our first year online this month, look for another stellar addition to our roster soon!

Tweet

Why Defense Attorneys Tell Clients to Shut Up

by Pat Brown

We see it over and over, again and again, especially in this 24-hour-a-day media world we live in: suspects giving interview after interview on nationally televised news shows—CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, and, if they get the opportunity, The Today Show and CBS's Early Show as well. They are like moths drawn to camera lights. They speak of their innocence, they give details of the crime, and, if they are Drew Peterson, talk about their dating life and send out a few winks to the ladies. All this public attention gets the suspect two possible results: a bad image and/or a prison sentence.

First off, if the person is a psychopath, he or she will not understand that their behavior on-camera is not coming across all that well to the public and a future jury. Scott Peterson? He was cold as ice with a smirk you just wanted to wipe off his face. Casey Anthony? Each time she opens her mouth, she just digs herself a deeper hole. With each interview, they increase the public's negative opinion of them.

The other risk these new television stars run is slipping up in their interviews; a bit of truth may escape or their retelling of the story may not match a previous version, sending up red flags to the investigators. Everything that is said on television can be used against them in the courtroom, so each word spoken is like playing Russian roulette with one's freedom.

A good example of a client who should have listened to his attorney's admonition to shut up would be Dino Pantazes. On March 30, 2000, the idyllic life of Clara and Dean Pantazes came to an abrupt end with the discovery of Clara shot to death in their suburban Maryland garage. Their successful life and partnership—a long happy marriage and the booming family business—came to a devastating finale.

Worse yet, Dean Pantazes, known as "Dino" to his friends and family, was arrested a month later and charged with ordering the execution of his wife. Relatives on both sides of the family stood staunchly behind Dino, swearing up and down that Dino would never have committed such a crime. They believed the police had rushed to justice and unfairly condemned a man who dearly loved his wife.

However, Dino was not your ordinary man. He was a bail bondsman, a man who made his living from dealing with some the worst criminals the Washington D.C.-area had to offer. And, being a bondsman, violence and sordid behavior can become normal features of life, criminal behavior can become ordinary.

Did Dino succumb to this world and find his wife a liability? Did he, as police believed, want out of the marriage to enjoy an alternative lifestyle, taking up with transgendered prostitutes like Mimi Kim Young (pictured left) who would later testify that Dino asked her to kill his wife? Was Clara on to some bad behavior by Dino and wanted a divorce? Or was he the loving husband and family man his supporters believed him to be? The story was heartbreaking.

A former Prince George's County bail bondsman convicted of hiring a prostitute to kill his wife was sentenced yesterday to life in prison without parole, despite his pleas that he was an "innocent lamb" tortured by police and framed by headline-seeking prosecutors.

"I am a victim, not only by the loss of my wife, but because of the judicial proceedings," Dean J. "Dino" Pantazes, 46, told Prince George's Circuit Judge James J. Lombardi.

Weeping in the courtroom, Pantazes said that police suspected him of the killing immediately after they arrived at his Upper Marlboro home on March 30, 2000.

I had met Dino and Clara once when I was working as a private detective. When this story broke, I couldn't really remember them clearly nor did I have any opinion as to Dino’s character. I do remember being stunned that it was the Pantazes that were in the news because they were pretty much fixtures next to the courthouse in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and the Pantazes name was synonymous for decades with bail bonds in Prince George’s County. So, while I couldn't attest to what kind of guy Dino was, I found it hard to believe, from a distance, that this man would hire a hit on his wife and business partner.

Then I read a newspaper story in the Washington Post that changed my mind. Dino had given an interview to the press and as soon as I read his words, I could see good reason for him to be a suspect in his wife’s murder. He had made two fascinating statements that struck me as very concerning. The first was a comment on the killing:

Dino stated: “I had no reason to want her dead. No insurance policy out on her. Greeks don’t get divorced. That’s the ultimate shame, and we wouldn’t have done that. She was my best friend.”

Is there a sentence here that does not belong? What does getting divorced have to do with killing Clara? Dino was admitting that he WOULD have a reason to kill his wife in spite of the fact he said he didn’t have one. Dino is informing us that he could not divorce his wife because that would be the worst humiliation imaginable. One would think murder would be the ultimate shame . . . but, according to Dino, asking for a divorce would be worse.

Dino went on to make the second fascinating statement: “Now I know what O.J. felt like when he was accused of killing his wife," Dino said. "He didn’t do it either and was hunted down for it.”

Huh? Was he the last person in America to believe in O.J.’s innocence? This is a man who had worked on the fringes of law enforcement for years. He knew criminals and he knew evidence. He undoubtedly was aware there was a mountain of evidence against O.J. Simpson. So, why this statement? I believe Dino was already preparing for his defense. He was pandering to his future jury, which in Prince George’s County, Maryland, was bound to be heavily African-American. This bereaved and innocent man was already calculating his trial strategy.

Dino Pantazes should have avoided anyone with a camera or a pen and paper.

Now many of us are watching the saga of little missing Haleigh Cummings of Satsuma, Florida. Her father, Ronald Cummings, and her caretaker, Daddy's 17-year-old girlfriend, Misty Croslin, have been doing interview after interview, show after show.

Armchair detectives on the blogs have been analyzing these two every time they tell their story. While neither Ronald nor Misty has been labeled a suspect in the disappearance of Haleigh, I bet there are defense lawyers across the nation shouting at their television sets, "Just shut up already! They might be totally innocent of any wrongdoing, but, if they are not, they should take the advice of these attorneys and just say, "No comment."

Dino got nailed and is serving life in prison. The conviction was based mostly on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. But, in the end, it was Dino's big mouth that got him caught and put away.

Tweet

A Day in the Life of a Police Reporter

by Jami Kinton, Reporter
Mansfield News Journal

Most people dread calls at 3 o'clock in the morning.

I look forward to them.

Having several friends who work at the police and fire departments, I know that 99% of the time, a call or text message at that hour means one of three things: A fire, a shooting, or a crash. And a front-page story.

A million things run through your head when you arrive at the scene: Where are the immediate individuals involved? Have they already been transported or are they in any condition to talk? If multiple departments are present, whose case is it and who will comment from that department? Who are family members and who are just spectators? Reporters also have to deal with the fact they're only going to get about 50% of the information they want.

I rarely leave a scene satisfied. I've got eyes, but I can't ever write by instinct or what I thought I might have seen.

Recently, I left a three-vehicle accident where it was pretty obvious that one of the drivers had been killed—but without confirmation from an officer or medical personnel, the most compelling component couldn’t be reported.

It’s frustrating.

With the growing demand for immediate online news, there’s a lot more pressure covering these types of stories.When big stories are unfolding, an editor is sitting by a phone waiting for a call with updates to be able to post online immediately. And if I'm not calling, he's calling me. While readers may appreciate it, I usually don't.

Officers rarely appreciate some nosy reporter asking them for an update every two minutes. But as much as readers complain about “too much negative news,” these stories are the first ones read, evoke an emotional response, and leave lasting impressions. I will never forget covering the story of a woman who had her entire community enthralled by her twisted, almost unbelievable, tale. Within one year, Gretchen Rocks, a 28-year-old Mansfield, Ohio woman, claimed she had been brutally beaten and near death four times.

In June 2007, Rocks was found beaten and blindfolded at the home she shared with her estranged husband. Two months later, Rocks was found bound and gagged in the back of her vehicle. In December 2007, police said she was bound, gagged, and tied inside a plastic bag and left in a Dumpster behind her workplace. She had the word 'liar' carved in her chest (evidence photo pictured above).

She was also the victim of arson, when someone burned her house to the ground on her wedding anniversary.

In June 2008, police found Rocks stuffed in the crawl space of the house she used to share with her husband. She was bruised beyond recognition. When she was released from the hospital, I went to her parents' house to interview her and family members. The house was beautiful, her family was beautiful, she had two beautiful girls and she was a well-spoken, educated young lady. Everything about the setting and her detailed story added to her credibility, and tugged hard at your heart strings.

Rocks claimed, with certainty, her husband was behind the abuse.

In the most recent incident, Rocks said she had been raped repeatedly, beaten, drugged and then taken to her former residence. Having met her husband on other stories, I felt shocked and angry—angry with him and angry with myself. I had liked the guy and I couldn’t believe I’d been so far off-base with my judgment. After interviewing the family for hours, their pastor stopped over to chat with them and I had a chance to talk to Rocks one-on-one.

Although I’d never experienced anything as traumatic, I felt a connection with her.

She was definitely not the stereotypical woman in an abusive relationship. Rocks (pictured below) was pretty, smart, appeared to have a terrific family and was married to a well-known banker. The old saying “if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone” stayed in my head for a long time after.

Rocks’ husband’s home was searched and her story stayed in the paper, generating lots of talk throughout the community. As time went on, I heard more and more people express skepticism about her story. For many, it seemed awfully peculiar that Rocks appeared on the brink of death so many times, but managed to escape them all.

Months later, I was out shopping and saw a call come into my cell phone from Rocks' mother, Corrine Fleming. Having not heard from her for a while, I was curious. Fleming calmly informed me that her daughter had confessed to police that she’d made up at least two of the incidents.

I was shocked.

Another reporter had worked on the story with me, and we both had stuck up for this girl on numerous occasions, especially within our own newsroom. As the only two reporters who’d actually spoken to her, we felt that few others, with the exception of police, had more authority or knowledge on the subject as we did.

Turns out, we’d both been taken.

As embarrassed as I feel about my own judgment, that case taught me a lot. No one likes to admit it, but we all stereotype and make judgments on others based on how they live, how they speak, and how they look. Perhaps my co-worker and I go swept up in all that, and, outside of writing, lost focus. It happens. Sometimes the closer you are, the harder it is to see what’s really there. Nevertheless, these types of stories will always be my favorite.

Reporters can’t do everything those in law enforcement can do. We can’t get search warrants and we can’t force anyone to talk to us who doesn’t want to. But we certainly do as much as we can to dig, to get multiple sources and information, so that we can deliver the most thorough story possible.

They may turn your stomach and can bring tears to my eyes, but at the same time, these stories give you a good dose of reality and keep you on your toes.

Jami Kinton is a reporter for Ohio's Mansfield News Journal and won an Associated Press award for Best Investigative Reporting in 2008.

Tweet