A Black Man, a White Man, and a Brown Man walk into a.....

by Pat Brown

Most of us are a bit sick of arguing about the Gates/Crowley racial profiling incident, but now Bob Dylan and Shahrukh Khan have made headlines in two similar incidents, and it is truly worth comparing the three events.

Bob Dylan was wandering around a New Jersey neighborhood when he experienced "Walking while White." A woman called the police when she saw a suspiciously acting man on her front lawn in the pouring rain. When the police showed up, Dylan was walking down the street, a public street. The police stopped him and asked him for an ID. He could not produce one. The police officer asked him his name, and he told her Bob Dylan. She didn't believe him. Why would a famous singer be all alone, soaking wet, looking for houses for sale in a rainstorm? Why would he be wearing two raincoats? The police officer, Kristie Buble, figured the guy was likely a mental patient from a nearby hospital.

I think that was a valid suspicion. I ran into Obama's "cousin" the other day at CNN. She was on the lobby phone, the one guests of the show use in the evening to contact security to come down and bring us up. My hit time had been moved up, and I needed to get upstairs quickly and the woman was talking and talking on the phone. Another man had entered the building at the same time; he could see she was having a problem with whomever she was speaking, so he asked if he could help. She told us she was Obama's cousin and had just come from Providence Hospital after being treated for an injury (she had a bandage on her ankle and a plastic band around her wrist). She had an East African accent and told us she needed to get upstairs. She pointed to the curb through the glass front doors and told us she had a limo waiting for her. There was one at the curb.

Now, the gentleman with me believed the woman was Obama's cousin. He was a kindhearted man and told her he would take her upstairs. I was standing behind her, waving my hands at the man and mouthing "Noooooo!" I called upstairs and security came down and "helped" the woman.

The man asked me how I knew the woman wasn't Obama's cousin. First off, I just couldn't see why Obama's cousin wouldn't have a better way to get into CNN than beg from the lobby. Secondly, I didn't see why she wanted to talk to someone there after all the major people had gone home for the day. Also, the woman came from Providence Hospital, not exactly a top hospital, and no one goes there if they have better options; the hospital usually serves the poor. Finally, there is a homeless shelter just a few blocks away, and anyone who knows the area near Union Station in DC is aware that a lot of panhandlers and mentally unstable people hang in the vicinity.

Of course, Obama had an aunt who was an illegal alien and lived in a housing project, so who knows, the woman could have been telling the truth, but having reasonable suspicion when someone says or does strange things should not be considered unfair treatment or racial profiling.

I don't think Officer Buble can be faulted for questioning Bob Dylan as he not only was a scruffy, bedraggled white guy in the Latin quarter of town, but a citizen called in because he had trespassed on someone's property. A person acting suspiciously, possibly committing a crime, is then asked for an ID and cannot produce one. Furthermore, the person behaving strangely claims to be a big shot. Does Dylan's story sound just like Gates? You bet! The only difference is Gates got nasty and Dylan was polite. Gates ended up in handcuffs and Dylan got a ride back to his hotel in order to prove who he was. That Officer Buble even did that is pretty impressive. So, to me, neither citizen/police interaction was an example of racial profiling.

However, now we have one. All over the headlines in the last couple of days is a much more troubling incident. Shahrukh Khan, known as the King of Bollywood, megastar famous the world over (except here in the US) was flying to New Jersey to attend an Indian Independence Day celebration. He got stopped by the Newark immigration folks and grilled for what he says was two hours (they say it was only a little over an hour). Shahrukh said he "felt angry and humiliated by the experience and believes he was stopped because of his Muslim surname." After a bit of time passed and Shahrukh had time for his raw emotions to settle, he gave this statement: "I think it's a procedure that needs to be followed, but an unfortunate procedure."

Now, anyone who knows me knows that if I worked Newark security at the airport I would have detained Shahrukh Khan for a much longer time and I would have locked the door. But that is beside the point. The question is, with concern for national security and the safety of airline passengers, was it unreasonable to detain Mr. Khan, and what should have been the red flags that would cause him to be pulled aside, grilled, and told he couldn't make a phone call? Many, including Indians, say this secondary security procedure is common, and Shahrukh Khan should not be exempt just because he is a movie star.

Okay, I agree with this to a degree. There have been movie stars involved in terrorist activities.

Sanjay Dutt, a very popular Indian actor, was sentenced in 2007 to six years in prison for illegally procuring weapons for the 1993 Mumbai train bombings. So, no one is beyond questioning. But I would hope anyone who is detained and questioned would have this occur because there was a true red flag that went up for some reason. I remember reporting a burning tire in a park in my neighborhood, waiting until the police arrived and then immediately being asked if I set the fire! I remember being incensed that this was the thanks I got for trying to prevent a dangerous fire that might spread to homes in the area. I could see nothing about my report or my appearance that should have made the officer suspicious. I felt humiliated that I had to defend myself and prove myself innocent when I had acted properly and honorably.

I believe Shahrukh Khan acted quite decently as well. He is not the type of man to cause a ruckus; he is a personable, very polite man. He is Muslim but does not toss out prayer rugs in the airport; he is married to a Hindu woman. He is terribly honest and open and has a sense of humor about himself (Read my past post about Shahrukh Khan on Women in Crime Ink). So, I don't believe he did anything to cause problems. What then was the red flag?

I would have to agree with Shahrukh that he was detained simply because his name was Khan. Ironically, Shahrukh was on a publicity tour for his new movie, My Name is Khan, a film about racial profiling post 9/11! He isn't the only Khan to believe this is true. Another Bollywood actor, Zayed Khan, says that when he has traveled with a large group of people of varying nationalities and religions, he is the guy who gets pulled aside and questioned.

I know there are certain things that flag travelers for further scrutiny. I find that if I wear a suit and carry a briefcase I am far more likely to be pulled over and have my carry-ons rummaged through than if I wear a flowered sundress and carry a straw bag. They must have their reasons. And I suppose the reasoning used with Shahrukh and all the other Khans is that a Khan is more likely to blow up an airplane than a Sonnenburger or a Chung. But I think that is probably little comfort to the many Khans who are detained on religion alone and not because of behavior.

One can argue that Muslims should routinely be detained while traveling; for officials to say that wasn't the reason Shahrukh Khan was held is ridiculous. Of course it was. There were no behaviors that were concerning, his passport was in order, and he didn't have any weapons on him. He was detained because he was Muslim. This is a fact.

If the United States is going to do this, then they ought to admit it. Racial profiling is occurring at airports and we should confess that this is true. We should simply say that since 9/11, we have been very unnerved about terrorism, and since the terrorism against us has largely been by Muslims, we require Muslims traveling to our country to receive extra scrutiny. We apologize for the inconvenience and we feel sad that so many honorable Muslims must go through this procedure because of a small number of extremists.

I think if we were honest and polite in our dealings, Shahrukh Khan may not have been so offended by the actions of the officials. Sometimes we may be forced to profile by sex, race, or religion, but we should have the backbone to admit that is what we are doing.

I personally love strong security for airline travel, but I think the overly aggressive profiling of anyone with a Muslim name is unsettling. At least there should be some concerning behaviors as well. A black man seen in a white neighborhood should not be stopped unless he is also running down the street with a television on his shoulders. A white man should not be stopped in a black neighborhood unless he is seen trying to jimmy a door open with a screwdriver. And a brown man should not be stopped at airport security unless he is looking around nervously, muttering the word "bomb", or telling his friend he just got an email from wanted terrorist Dawood Ibrahim.

I also am expecting Obama to invite Shahrukh to the White House for ... well, for a Diet Pepsi, since Khan is a Muslim.

Tweet

Ohio Honors One of Their Own- Stacy Dittrich

By Robin Sax

Women in Crime Ink's Stacy Dittrich is a wonder: a beautiful blond, intelligent woman, and a tough cookie. She is a 16-year law enforcement officer and a former detective. I know she sounds like something out of a movie, but Stacy is a real person. A woman of many talents who deserves to be recognized for not only helping to break down barriers for women in crime, but also as someone who has made a deep and lasting impact on her field.

Stacy’s pursuit of justice and her quest to bring people into the world of crime solving has landed her in the media spotlight. She's written books that capture our imaginations and appeared as a commentator on many high profile shows including: Fox, The Nancy Grace Show, E! True Hollywood In Crime, The War On Crime, The Dana Pretzer Show and others. Stacy has been recognized by former Ohio Attorney General, Jim Petro, for her contributions to the field of law enforcement. And now Stacy is being honored by Representative Margaret Ann Ruhl of the Ohio House of Representatives.

I have the privilege of co-hosting Justice Interrupted with Stacy, a radio blog show dedicated to providing justice for those whose lives have been interrupted by rape, murder, sexual predators of children, unexplained disappearances, domestic violence, and cold cases.

I am proud of Stacy, my colleague and friend, for her many accomplishments, and I'm grateful to the Ohio House of Representatives for honoring such a deserving woman. Way to go Stacy!!!

Tweet

Women In Crime Give Back: An Intern Program

by Women In Crime Ink

The antiquated saying “kids should be seen and not heard” is obsolete. No one knows more than Women in Crime Ink's contributors how valuable it is to be heard!

To give the next generation of young women a place to express their opinions, we're announcing the WCI Intern Program. High school and college interns now have a forum to speak out, to share their concerns, advice, and experience, to promote teens' crime awareness. A three-month stint under the direction of a WCI professional, the internship offers young women valuable experience in writing, researching, and blogging. It will give them a place to test ideas, voice opinions and open up to new possibilities. We are all excited to launch this new program! Please join WCI in welcoming our first intern: Cassie Nelson.

A high-school senior, Cassie, 17, worked this summer for prosecutor Robin Sax. Dedicated and tenacious, Cassie is pursuing her goal of becoming a lawyer. Working for Robin, Cassie tested her desire to advocate for victims, write articles, and research today's most difficult legal issues. She found she loved criminal law and wants to use her passion to protect women, children, and elders. Besides being passionate about human victims, Cassie is devoted to protecting animals. As our first intern, Cassie's article on Chris Brown follows this post. For information on how to apply for an internship, please contact any of the Women In Crime Ink bloggers or e-mail us at womenincrimeink@yahoo.com.

Tweet

Apology Not Accepted

by WCI Intern Cassie Nelson

For those of you who have been hiding under a rock or perhaps just returned from a space shuttle voyage, here's the latest Hollywood News: Chris Brown has issued a very public apology for abusing Rihanna in February 2008. He issued the apology in a video released via the Internet. Although he seemed sincere and aware his acts were wrong, I don’t believe he should be forgiven, and if forgiven, not so easily.

As a 17-year-old high school student in a frightening world of ceaseless dangers, I don’t believe individuals should be so easily forgiven solely because they apologized. Once upon a time, heroes were doctors, firefighters, soldiers, and police who lived and worked to save others. It's amazing how so much has changed in so little time. Now our heroes are performers, athletes, and models, who contribute nothing to the world besides exposing talents they were born with, such as outstanding voices, physical strength, height or agility, or beautiful faces and bodies.

An apology issued five months after the incident and coincidentally near the time of Brown’s sentencing makes me curious. Was Brown's apology spurred by true regret for his actions or to gain sympathy in hopes of reducing his sentence?

Everyday I watch as my friends obsess and fantasize about celebrities. It makes me angry that they are so blind-sided by looks and talent that they don’t see that they are praising celebrities who have done horrible things.

I don’t doubt Brown is sorry for what he has done, nor that he wishes each and every day that he hadn’t done it. But that doesn’t make physical abuse OK. Another example of the public's willingness to ignore or forget celebrity misdeeds: the incredible outpouring of love and admiration for Michael Jackson after his death, with few mentions of the many allegations of child abuse directed at the pop star during his life.

While interning with Robin Sax, a former prosecutor of sex crimes, I noticed that when she appeared on top news shows, ranging from the Today Show and ABC News to TV Guide News, she was asked who could be responsible for Michael Jackson’s death. She wasn't asked about the past allegations of sexual abuse. This makes me wonder if death or an apology makes wrongdoing too easily forgiven. People in the pubic eye apologize for all sorts of acts, crimes, and even accidents. An apology is a first step, only that. It doesn’t mean that Chris Brown will never abuse Rihanna or anyone else again.

Our society places too much emphasis on apologies and gives celebrities too much leeway. Saying one is sorry doesn’t make abuse ok, and dying shouldn’t erase allegations of sexual assault. Chris Brown should not be forgiven and his career should not be advanced because of a mere apology.

Tweet

Tupac Shakur Case Revisited

by Cathy Scott 

As the 13th anniversary approaches of rapper Tupac Shakur’s murder in a drive-by shooting near the Las Vegas Strip at age 25, the media come out in droves to cover it. TV news magazines started weeks ago on their pieces. All want to help solve the crime.

In the mix is the third edition of my book, The Killing of Tupac Shakur. In this edition, I’ve included new interviews and never-before-released information on the case. Also new to this edition is an exclusive interview, with first-hand background and information, with Reggie Wright, owner of Wright Way Security, the firm that provided security for Tupac’s record distributor, Death Row Records (since renamed Tha Row).

Wright and his security team were on duty the night of the killing. Also interviewed for the new edition were Kevin Hackie, a cop-turned-bodyguard for Wright Way who once worked for the Compton Police Department, and Leila Steinberg, a one-time manager for Tupac.
As each anniversary rolls by, reporters invariably ask me the same question. “Will Tupac’s murder ever be solved?” And my answer has typically been, “I don’t think so.”

Now, however, new information is surfacing from law enforcement indicating that they’re looking at new information about two South Side Crips members. It appears it may be the break everyone has been looking for in the case--considered the highest-profile murder investigation in the history of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The latest details in the investigation are also in the upcoming third edition of my book, due out by the mid-September anniversary.

In the many years since Tupac’s murder, much has happened. To wit, Notorious B.I.G. (a.k.a. Biggie Smalls) was killed six months later. Biggie’s murder, like Tupac’s, has not been solved. In the aftermath, others have died as well. Orlando Anderson, a Southside Crips gang member out of Compton, long believed to be the shooter in the Tupac case, was cut down in a shootout. Also dead are Jerry Bonds and Bobby Finch, who were named by Compton police as the gang members riding inside the white Cadillac with Anderson when Tupac was shot.

A fourth man,Davion Brooks--also a person of interest and widely believed to be a passenger in the Cadillac--co-ran a studio in Las Vegas called A&D Records, short for Armed and Dangerous, until 2003, when he was arrested for the federal offense of trafficking drugs to local street gang members. Brooks now sits in the Terminal Island federal penitentiary in California with a scheduled release date of July 2013. A fifth man, Terrence Brown, known as T-Brown, was named early on in a Compton Police affidavit as having been in the Cadillac with Tupac’s assailant. None has yet to be officially linked to Tupac’s murder. The book’s third edition breaks down that night in a minute-by-minute time line, supplying the information needed for readers to decide how the murder went down.

To many, Shakur was not just another ghetto kid who had made it big in the rap industry. He continues to be an inspiration, 13 years after his death, not only because of his music, but also for his ability to reach youth of all races. Whatever Shakur was, it’s indisputable that in both life and death, he took the rap industry by storm. 

And now, with a team in place taking a fresh look at the case, the killers may very well be brought to justice and the questions surrounding Tupac’s murder, including untold conspiracy theories, may finally be answered.

For Las Vegas record producer David Wallace, who met Tupac at a party hosted by Death Row, Tupac's record distributor, about a year before the killing, Tupac’s music will live on, regardless of whether his murder is ever solved. “He was an artist,” Wallace said. “You can’t just sing to somebody. You have to sing through them. Man, when Pac sang, he was real about it.”

Tweet

"I Used To Be Mad..."

by Katherine Scardino

That’s what Ernest Sonnier told the reporter who asked how he felt after spending 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Harris County, Texas, now has the distinction of having convicted six innocent people that we know of. They are the six fortunate individuals who could scream loud enough to get the Texas Innocence Project to look at their cases and demand action. I am on the board of the Texas Innocence Project; I learned last week it has more than a thousand cases to review to determine if there is even one more out there who should be freed. That's in Texas alone. Only a handful of workers are willing to labor that hard for so many hours and so little pay.

Mr. Sonnier spent his 23 years in prison knowing he was innocent. His family knew he was innocent; his mother says she knew because he was at home with her.

How often do prosecutors hear that alibi? Yeah, right, home with mom. The law says that until someone is convicted, he is presumed innocent. Why is that so damn hard for prosecutors and judges to remember and honor? Why have we all become so prejudiced against people accused of committing crimes that we assume they are guilty, no evidence required? Just ask someone accused of sexual abuse of a child whether they felt their jury looked at them fairly.

So, what happened to Mr. Sonnier? He was convicted in 1986 for the 1985 aggravated kidnapping and rape of a woman who lived in Alief, Texas. Two men grabbed her and raped her repeatedly in their car until they stopped at a store, giving her the chance to flee and call police. DNA evidence was handled poorly by the prosecutor and the Houston Police Department Crime Lab. The newspaper article about Mr. Sonnier’s release used the phrase “faulty forensics." Translate that to “HPD Crime Lab technicians lied.” There are only two ways you can get “faulty forensics” - falsifying results and lying in court, or contaminating evidence, knowingly or not.

It was not unusual several years ago for crime lab technicians to assume they worked for the prosecution and that their test results should help prosecutors. Such skewed results meant some innocent people, like Mr. Sonnier, wasted their lives in prison.

I cannot, in my wildest dreams, see how anyone could maintain their sanity and humanity while locked in prison for a crime they did not commit. I can't imagine the thoughts that would course through my mind -- about the hopelessness, helplessness and sheer futility of life, not to mention my seething anger.

The repercussions of losing most of the good years of your life? How about the aging of yourself and your family? Your children, nieces and nephews are all grown after 23 years. Your parents may be dead or in failing health. Your health has most lik ely deteriorated because of poor medical facilities in prison or the aging process we all endur e. But we endure it in freedom, with access to the best medical facilities available. Mr. Sonnier barely had a doctor or medication, let alone access to Texas Medical Center.

The problem is simple: Arrogant power controlled by small minds. The solution is not so simple. It would be a large step forward if our judges and prosecutors really believed in the presumption of innocence.

So, Mr. Sonnier, how do you feel today? Are you angry?

“No”, he says... "I used to be mad...”

Bless your heart, sir. Our best wishes for the rest of your life.

Tweet

Truth and Consequence

by Sheryl McCollum

By definition, the meanings of "consequence" include "result; something that follows a result."

If I hear another person say that Michael Vick has "paid his debt," I will lose my mind. Criminals sometimes go to jail for their crimes. Jail is punishment. After they get out of jail, their debt has not been paid. Society has a say-so; it's called consequences. After jail, the criminal must face the court of public opinion -- the result that follows a result such as his conviction for maiming and murdering dogs. Society will decide his other sentence.

Are we going to trust and welcome him back into our society, or are we going to forever see him as a criminal who can't be trusted? Will he be like citizens on the sex-offender registry: We don't trust them now, and we won't trust them later?

The public now gets to determine its future relationship with Vick. It's your turn to decide the consequences for Vick's past behavior.

Let's Recall the Facts

• A drug raid on Vick's property led police to a dog fighting ring.

• Informants said some 30 dogs were buried on the property, and Vick actively participated in dog fighting and betting, not one or two times, but since his college days!

• Vick bankrolled the gambling on these fights.

• Vick owned and bred dogs to fight so others could bet on the "matches."

• Vick lied about his involvement with dog fighting to his team owner and coach, to the NFL, and to fans, law enforcement, and subsequently, the world.

So what does this all mean? Vick used his dogs, money and property for criminal activity. After police broke up the ring, 66 dogs found temporary homes in shelters. According to court records, Vick operated his dog-fighting venue for more than five years. How many dogs suffered and died during that time? His co-defendant admitted to killing dogs who "did not perform well -- by hanging or drowning." In fact, the 18-page indictment states dogs were "electrocuted, drowned, shot or hanged." Also found on the property: a "rape stand" used for breeding. Doesn't this show how involved Vick and his co-defendants were in this brutal criminal activity?

During the investigation, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell ordered Vick to stay away from the Falcons training camp. Reebok, Upper Deck Trading Cards, AirTran Airlines and Rawlings Sports Goods all chose to end their relationships with him. Nike dropped him. These humiliations and income losses are consequences, imposed not by law but by society.

Man's Best Friend

A few facts about dogs: More people have dogs than children. Most states have more animal shelters than shelters for battered women. Dogs keep us safe. They sweep buildings for bombs and cars for drugs. As partners of police officers, each is trained to take down a bad guy holding a gun. Many are trained to take a bullet for their human partners. Dogs help find missing and lost people; some are trained to find dead bodies. They give vision-impaired people the freedom to walk around safely, helping them cross streets, go up and down steps, and maneuver around other hazards. Some service dogs give alerts of impending seizures, providing just enough time for their owners to sit or lie down instead of suddenly hitting the ground. I wonder.....

How many people who benefit from and love dogs would want season tickets to see Vick throw a football? Has Vick put his life on the line to save another? Has he ever helped a blind person get around for a day? Has he ever risked his life sniffing out dangerous materials in a high-rise?

Vick can throw a ball - big friggin deal! I'll take the dog!

Where there's Smoke there's Fire

"In a crisis, don't hide behind anything or anybody. They are going to find you out anyway." -- Bear Bryant.

Vick lied. He said he was never at the property, that he had learned a lesson about "trusting family members." Then he was indicted and plead not guilty.

Remember why his home was raided in the first place?

On Sept. 26, 2007, a federal judge placed tighter restrictions on Vick after he tested positive for marijuana while awaiting sentencing on the felony charge. The judge in Vick's case told him: "I'm not convinced you've fully accepted responsibility." Vick had a six-year contract worth a potential $62 million, including a signing bonus of $15 million. He was later sued by banks and filed for bankruptcy. Yes, Vick lost money, fame, fans and a lucrative career. Yes, he served time in prison. Too bad. These are all consequences.

Vick's Future

Vince Lombardi: "Football is like life; it requires perseverance, self denial, hard work, sacrifice, dedication, and respect for authority."

Many criminologists say if you want to know about future behavior look at past behavior. Vick's past shows him as a liar, animal killer, gambling backer, and drug user. The Miami Dolphins said they were "interested" in the reinstated Vick. His future in football may be uncertain, but one thing is certain to follow Vick wherever he goes: The consequences of his past crimes.

Tweet

Written in Blood

by Susan Murphy Milano

Late on a Saturday night, Richard Langert and his pregnant wife, Nancy, arrived at their Winnetka, IL, townhouse after a family birthday party. It was April 7, 1990. Nancy, 25, was three-and-a-half months pregnant. She and Richard, 30, soon realized they were not alone. A teenager waited in their living room, a .357 magnum in his lap.

David Biro, a 16-year-old high-school student the Langerts had never met, sat up in an easy chair and pointed the gun at their heads. He bound the terrified young couple's wrists with handcuffs and led them to the basement.

"I'm pregnant. We're begging for our lives!" Nancy pleaded. "Please, please don't hurt us."

Instead, Biro blew Richard's brains out, splattering his blood over his terrified wife, who lay beside him.

Arms shielding her abdomen, Nancy continued to beg. "Please don't hurt me. Please don't hurt my baby!" Biro shot Nancy in the stomach, instantly killing her unborn child. As she lay bleeding to death on the basement floor, Nancy called for help in the darkness. It never came. Before the young wife took her last breath, she expressed her undying love for her husband of three years. With his blood, she drew a heart and the letter "U" on the metal storage shelves above her.

Biro was arrested after he told a friend details of the killings. Convicted of murdering the Langerts and their unborn child, Biro is now serving three consecutive life terms in prison.

But for Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, Nancy Langert's sister, Biro's punishment was not enough.

The very personal and high-profile tragedy drove Bishop-Jenkins to look for causes of such brutal and meaningless violence and for ways to help others protect themselves from it. She works to ensure no other family will have to suffer as hers did. These days she appears frequently in the news media, most recently on ABC's "Good Morning America" last week. She used her appearance to oppose the release of Manson family murderer Susan Atkins.

Bishop-Jenkins is also against second chances for juveniles like Biro. Several organizations are advocating that prisoners convicted of murder as adolescents get a second chance -- release from prison -- after serving 15 years. The argument is being pushed under HR 2289 – The Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009.

On Aug. 17, the Heritage Foundation is scheduled to debate the issue live on C-Span. The organization also will release the findings of a damaging report on "Adult Time for Adult Crimes: Exposing the Movement to Set Free Juvenile Killers and Violent Offenders." It lays out myths created by offender-advocate groups, which have spent over $10 million in the last two to three years publishing "poor child in jail" propaganda. They use photos that make it appear convicts who were 17 when they killed were much younger, often showing them as 10-year-olds. The one-sided myths omit detailed information about individual crimes, misleading readers into believing youthful killers might deserve a second chance.

In Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins's opinion, "the focus of those who support HR 2289 has been, up to this point, almost entirely offender-centered. The message being sent is too much about 'the poor kids in prison.' They need to change their approach to one built on not only strong partnerships with law-enforcement and violence-prevention professionals, but to one that is all about restorative-justice principals."

Restorative Justice is an approach that addresses the harm caused to victims and focuses on accountability for crime. Some offender advocates have attempted to hijack the restorative-justice process and turn it into simply this: the victim forgives and the killer gets out.

Victims' rights need to be heard, considered and protected! So, I ask: What do you think? Should Biro and others like him be released?

Tweet

Laura Ingraham Wrong about Coverage of Gates Controversy..& the Big Missed Opportunity of Three Men

Hunt for Justice

By Cynthia Hunt

Recently on Fox News Channel’s ratings juggernaut, The O’Reilly Factor, conservative commentator Laura Ingraham claimed coverage of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates’s arrest was overblown by the media. If I hadn't covered so much crime as a reporter, I would probably agree with her that there are more important issues in this age of health care overhauls, bailouts, and unemployment. But Ingraham couldn’t be more wrong.

After years of covering police and crime, the race issue permeates almost all interactions between police officers and minority communities, especially the black community. It took years of watching the police and black community interacting before I realized how strained this relationship is and how both sides often racially profile the other.

Please, before some of you jump to a conservative or liberal defensive posture, give my viewpoint a chance. This is about where we stand in America in terms of race relations today. Writing about race is extremely difficult for me. I grew up in Alabama, and I'm concerned that as a white woman I don't have the experiences to draw from, that I may miss something in my analysis. However, I feel strongly that a unique moment in history was missed because the men involved couldn’t apologize for what they each did wrong.

The Facts Surrounding Gates Controversy

A concerned neighbor called 9-1-1 because she saw two men forcing their way into the home. She didn’t mention race. The Cambridge police responded. Sgt. James Crowley asked for identification from Gates when he found Gates and a friend, who are both black, in the home of the alleged break-in. Gates refused to come out of the house and became angry he was being asked by Crowley, who is white, for ID inside his own home. Gates immediately assumed it was racial profiling saying “why, because I am a black man in America?" Gates eventually provided ID but continued to yell at the officer and accused him of being a racist. You can read Crowley's police report, which Gates has never contradicted. Eventually, Crowley arrested Gates and charged him with disorderly conduct.

Colin Powell Faulted Gates First & Crowley Second

I agree with the opinion former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed on CNN. Gates should have been patient and come outside to answer the officer’s questions. We all must cooperate with police, even Harvard professors. Powell also believes Crowley did not have to arrest Gates, even though the officer had every right under the law. (See the WCI blog farther down on this same page by former police officer Stacy Dittrich to understand the law.) I believe if I acted so disrespectfully to Crowley in that situation, he would have had me in jail, too. I’ve never seen anyone get away with yelling at a police officer.

I Wish Gates Would Have Apologized at Beer Summit

Here’s why I'm disappointed: After the beer summit, I wanted Professor Gates to seize the moment, apologize, and admit he judged another because of race. I think he could have done that and still acknowledged the huge problem of racial profiling in America. Everyone can understand why the Harvard professor became irritated when asked for ID inside his own home. It would have been a moment of greatness for Gates to be the bigger person and apologize for jumping to conclusions because the officer’s skin is white. I would have liked to have seen the professor teach black America that it’s important for them to not assume every white officer they meet is a racist. There will never be another moment like the beer summit where Gates sad the nation’s complete attention.

Crowley Could Apologize Too

Why do I want Crowley to apologize, since the law clearly states he had the right to arrest Gates? Powell believes the arrest was simply unnecessary and since the charges have been dropped many may agree with him. However, you could argue that by arresting Gates, Crowley protected his career. How? Because the report documented the situation, illustrating that Gates's verbal barrage escalated to a point where it became disorderly conduct. If Crowley hadn't arrested Gates, I wonder if the officer would have risked being in trouble, since the Harvard professor warned that he intended to pursue Crowley for being racist. I’ve seen bad political things happen to good officers over unjust accusations. Since no one is perfect, I am confident there is some part of that night that Crowley could apologize for so that America could have seen both men apologize and unite, truly come together for more than a beer.

President Obama Should Have Apologized

It’s clear to me that President Obama should have apologized for saying the Cambridge police acted “stupidly” when he didn’t know all of the facts. Instead he said he should have "calibrated" his words differently. He, too, jumped to a conclusion based on a knee-jerk reaction to race.

Gates Is Uniquely Suited to Address Police and Minority Relations

It seems Gates is now on track to do what he can to improve race relations. Days after the scholar had time to reflect on the beer summit, he told the Associated Press he wants to produce a documentary from both the perspective of police and people who have been victims of racial profiling so "Americans can understand that you can have two equally valid perceptions of the same event." Do you think he will decide he racially profiled Crowley?

Big Moment Missed

Therefore, a prestigious black scholar, a respected white officer, and an American president who came from a white mother and a black father missed a monumental moment for a true lesson for all Americans.

I’m looking forward to Gates's documentary and hoping Crowley will be a part of it. The sad part is all of America will not watch the documentary like they watched the first presidential beer summit.

Tweet

Squeaky's on her way out!

By Kathryn Casey

Guess what boys and girls. While we've all been wondering what's going on with Susan Atkins, if her brain tumor will take her life or if she'll live long enough to perhaps get out of prison on parole this September, another Manson groupie has been quietly easing her way out of prison. Enter Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, the Mansonite who held a gun on then-president Gerald Ford. Of course, the gun was empty. Zilch bullets. And her motive? Well, Squeaky says she just wanted to talk to him, and, heck, why would he listen unless she held him at gunpoint?

In all honesty, on one level, I don't have a big problem with Fromme's release. She was twenty-six at the time of the quasi-assassination attempt, she's served thirty years, and from all appearances she never intended Ford any real harm. But that's just part of the story.

On another level, Fromme is frightening. While the other Manson followers have distanced themselves from their former leader, Fromme continued to avow her loyalty to the deranged death monger. She's never, to my knowledge, recanted her devotion to Manson. For years, she didn't even ask for parole, presumably because she knew she wouldn't get it while still pledging her support to such a hated, evil figure in American crime history.

At one point, in December 1987, Fromme actually escaped from prison for a couple of days. When caught, she said she'd gone on the lam to attempt to get closer to Manson, who's serving a life sentence in California's legendary San Quentin.

I'm kind of wondering if she's now changed her mind? The articles I've seen are unclear on whether Fromme's release was a parole granted because it had to be under federal law (Fromme had a life sentence for the attack) or if Fromme, now 60, has earned parole by finally swearing off Manson, no longer talking about the man who orchestrated the murders of Sharon Tate and eight others as the second-coming.

Whatever is going on behind the scenes, Fromme's release is scheduled for August 16th, from the Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, TX. It's also unclear why she's in a medical/mental health facility.

So the question is: Will this start a mass parole of the Manson followers? Probably not. My guess is that parole boards understand there's a difference between actual murder and threatening a president with an unloaded gun.

Tweet

Best Woman in the World?

by Diane Fanning

I got a very unusual email last week from someone who was quite mad at me—I assume he was angry because of the careful and frequent use of capital letters in his message. Writing True Crime books opens an author up to a lot of unwarranted criticism from two divergent groups of people with dissimilar world views.

The first are those who object to the guilty verdict awarded to a perpetrator and of course, the author who doesn't call it a wrongful conviction. WRITTEN IN BLOOD created a lot of these category of critics. Michael Peterson beat his wife to death at the foot of the stairs in his Durham mansion. He received a guilty verdict, based largely on forensic evidence, and has lost his appeals in the courts.

Yet, there are a number of family, friends and others in the general public who still support his innocence. In doing so, some cling to the most outrageous theories—like the owl as killer story. Yes, they actually believe an owl flew into the home and killed Kathleen as she walked up the stairs. It doesn’t matter that the theory does not explain the presence of red neurons in Kathleen’s brain, or the blood spatter on the inside of Michael’s shorts or the fact that sixteen years earlier, another woman was found dead at the foot of a different set of stairs with the same injuries to her skull and Michael was the last person to see her alive. Nope, an owl did it—don’t confuse them with the facts!

Another group--folks in some towns who don’t think a book should be written at all. They don’t want anyone to know about a crime that happened in their backyard. These very same people often praise any media help in finding a missing person, and when the body is found they waste no time insulting newspaper staff, broadcasters and book writers who dare report on the story.

I saw a book on Amazon this past week that seemed to come under attack just because it existed—MURDER IN CONNECTICUT by Michael Benson. I don’t know Benson and can’t attest to his motivation and I haven’t read the book so have no opinion on its quality. But when I read lines from reviews like: “Amazon remove this book from your site…this is a disgusting attempt by a pathetic author and publisher to profit from a family that was tragically murdered,” or “Evil has many faces. Profiting from an unauthorized book on crime is one of these faces.”

I feel badly for Benson, whoever he is, for these unfair assaults. Do these same people criticize journalists who write for newspaper, magazines, radio or television? The police officers and detectives who get a paycheck for working the crime? For the District Attorney who prosecutes the perpetrators? Probably not. But they “profit” from the crime in the same way a true crime author does—and yet the only one criticized is poor Michael Benson.

The email I received this week, though, was quite different. It was written in the defense of Nina Sells, the mother of Tommy Lynn Sells, a serial killer residing on death row in Texas. The author of the e-mail accused me of not checking sources for my book, THROUGH THE WINDOW. He wrote that I “degraded one of the best women in the world.”

Who were my sources? Law enforcement officials and victims' family members across the country as well as to Tommy Sells and many members of his family, including Nina Sells, who didn't deny anything the others told me. I learned what she did and who she was from multiple sources.

Nina, abandoned Tommy with an aunt when he was 18 months old. She never visitied him. Yet two and a half years later, when the relatives wanted to adopt Tommy so that they could enroll him in school, Nina jerked her son out of the only home he could remember. From that point on, she wouldn't let him see those family members again.

Then when Tommy was 7 years old, she turned him over to a predatory pedophile. The writer of the email claimed that Tommy wanted to go over to his molester’s house and his mother couldn’t stop him. Really? I’m sorry as a mother, it stretches my imagination to think I could not control any of my kids when they were seven or eight years old—or that I’d let a child of mine go live with a pedophile because that’s what the child wanted.

Even after writing ten true crime books, the cruelty, depravity, arrogance and narcissism of killers still shocks me. But I have gained some understanding of how their minds work and the sociopathic personalities that allow them to commit acts of evil without a scintilla of remorse. I don’t think, though, I will ever be able to understand people who defend these killers or the neglectful and abusive parents who are sometimes responsible for the monsters in our midst.

Tweet

Cambridge Police Justified

by Stacy Dittrich

It seems it will never end…the topic of race relations in America. In the recent case of the Cambridge, MA arrest of Harvard Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. the subject reignited the fact that tensions are as heated as ever. Why? Your guess is good as mine. Let me put myself in the shoes of Cambridge, MA Police Sgt. James Crowley (shoes I’ve worn many times over to the point the soles are worn!) I’m am both angry, and exhilarated, about this particular case.

Let’s pretend I’m dispatched to a report of a burglary in progress. The dispatcher tells me the 911 caller says there are 2 black males using forcible entry into a home. Whether or not the caller actually said that to the dispatcher, I have yet to hear the radio transmission of the call being dispatched. Okay. I do my job; I respond to the call and, lo and behold, I find two black males inside a home where forced entry is observed. The 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, 40, makes contact with me outside of the home and says, “Hey! I’m the one who made the 911 call!” According to Whalen, the conversation ended there. However, in all my years of law enforcement I’ve never spoken to an official “complainant” of a call and never asked her any questions. Crowley documented in his report that upon arrival Whalen told him that she was pretty sure it was two black males forcing entry into the house (ummm, well there actually were so why is this a problem?) Whalen (pictured right) maintains that all she said to Crowley is that she made the call. I don’t believe it for a minute. In policing, you try to get as much information from the original complainant as possible. A veteran like James Crowley is clearly not going to say, “Ok! Thanks for calling, lady!” without asking any questions. Whalen’s attorney, Wendy Murphy, refused to answer questions about the "on scene" conversation during a recent press release.

Silence speaks volumes.

Web sites like TMZ are trying to insinuate that Sgt. James Crowley lied on his police report.

Please.

It would be one thing if they were told “2 black males” and ended up arresting 2 Hispanic or Asian males, but the bottom line is this: 2 black males were seen forcibly entering a residence and 2 black males were found inside that particular residence. No matter how you put a spin on it, the fact remains is that whoever called clearly articulated what they saw. What the nation is failing to realize is that has absolutely nothing to do with the arrest. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and his clear disrespect for law enforcement or the laws of the state of Massachusetts is what caused the arrest. If one takes a good look at the details, it is crystal clear that Mr. Gates violated the rules of disorderly conduct. I saw a moronic defense attorney on a prominent network state that to be guilty of disorderly conduct, one has to pose a clear physical threat to another person. I don’t know where this man went to law school but I’m not sure the bar association would agree with his theory. Here’s what the misdemeanor law of Disorderly Conduct reads in Ohio (which is similar to most states):

(A)No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1)Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent and turbulent behavior.

(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3)Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or, upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by an act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose to the offender.

To make a long story short, if a young suburban house wife is playing with her toddler at a public playground and a man enters screaming the F-bomb over and over, he is guilty of disorderly conduct. The young housewife is offended, it happened in front of a child, and that’s all it takes, folks. If a man is standing in his own front yard screaming obscenities (as in the case of Dr. Gates) and any neighbor in close proximity can hear it, and is annoyed by it—he’s as guilty as all get out. So says case law.

So, back to my “if I were in his shoes scenario,” here’s what happens:

I arrive at the home, speak to the complainant, make contact with the suspect and advise him of the complaint (Okay, so here I have to give uber credit to the Cambridge Police—Me? I’d have put the guy down at gun point. Period. How the heck do I know the guy’s not a burglar? (I’ve seen burglars that range from scummy white rednecks, Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians—to attractive young college girls! If I’m a racist for calling out “it is what it is” then you are the one with serious issues!)

After advising them of the complaint, one of the men say, “I live here, this is my house!” I ask that man for identification (standard procedure no matter what call an officer is on) so I can verify it is his house, and get the hell out of there to meet my buddies for our scheduled coffee break.

His response?

“Why do you want my ID? Because I’m a black man in America?” he screams in my face.

“Um, no, so I can verify that you actually live here, sir” (I’m improvising of course.)

After the man launches into a tirade of verbally abusive obscenities towards me, he eventually provides identification. I verify he is, in fact, the homeowner and I begin to leave. However, as myself and other officers are exiting the home, the man follows us and continues his obscenity-laced tirade. When I notice the large crowd outside, I turn to the man and say, “Okay, enough is enough! It’s time for you to go back inside and calm down.”

Well, that’s not good enough for Dr. Gates. The instruction to calm down merely incites him more. He starts yelling a louder tirade that could be heard several blocks away. So, I warn him again, “Go inside! Your last warning!”

You guessed it. He proceeds to follow the cops onto the front lawn acting like an imbecile. They arrested him. They do their job.

Quite frankly, I think they gave Dr. Gates a break in only charging him with disorderly conduct. Here, in Ohio, Obstructing Official Business would have been more applicable—a second degree misdemeanor:

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s duties.

Translation: You screw around and waste a cops’ time who is just trying to do their job by failing to provide ID, acting like a complete ass, and causing a disturbance, you are GUILTY!

I’ve encountered many, many, situations similar to the Gates’ call. Upon my arrival, the homeowners start laughing, pat me on the back, and are more than happy to provide proof that they live there. They find it quite amusing and are eager to tell their friends and family the story.

In Gates’ situation, the problem isn’t about race, it’s about social classes.

These calls I’m referring to where the citizen’s are good-hearted and cooperate with the cops are low to middle-class; all races included. The problems I’ve encountered, similar to the Gates’ case, was all “well-to-do” upper class neighborhoods. Doctors, Lawyers, Business Owners, and Stock Brokers of all various races are the only ones that have given me a hard time when I’ve been dispatched to their homes when a neighbor got “paranoid,” (according to them). I have been called names by these people that would put sheep into shock and have arrested several. But, like Sgt. Crowley, was later called into the administration office where I was told, “Ya know, the prosecutor’s office called, Dr. Smith is really sorry for the way he treated you and swears he won’t ever act like that again. He knows you were only doing his job. Do you mind if we void the charges?”

What am I supposed to say? It’s politics. My boss wants the charges to go away and if I want any kind of career I’ll agree. The only problem in the Cambridge case I see is that the charges were dropped. Dr. Henry Louis Gates acted like a first-class ass, disrespected his local law enforcement officers and neighborhood, and should pay the consequences. Race is nothing but a smoke-screen.

When President Obama stated the Cambridge Police acted stupidly is an entirely different blog. I simply don’t have enough room here for that!

My “exhilaration” in this case is a result of the overwhelming support Sgt. James Crowley (pictured left) received from his own department, the Massachusetts police union, and from cops across the country. It is so refreshing to finally see a law enforcement agency that is standing behind one of its own, instead of throwing them under the bus—like we see day after day. In a typical scenario, especially one where an officer was called ‘stupid’ by the President of the United States, this officer’s career would be over before it began. Regardless, the men and women in blue all over the country and—most importantly, the officers of his own agency, rallied around him because they knew what he did was right. Sgt. James Crowley is an instructor in cultural sensitivity training. He was the one that taught other officers to be color blind. Calling him a racist is comical and it is finally time he was defended!—Kudos to those who support him. Hey! Colin Powell agrees...

I don’t agree with the “beer summit.” I firmly believe that Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. should be thoroughly embarrassed by his actions; he should apologize, and then go bury his head in the sand.

Tweet