Crime Clutter

by Kathryn Casey

Ever wonder what a crime writer keeps in her office? Awhile back, I spent the day going through piles of books and stacks of files, trying to whittle down. My husband constructed four sturdy wire shelves in my office closet – a converted bedroom – and I was determined to stow what I need and get rid of the clutter covering every possible surface, including the upright piano I had to have and still don’t know how to play. (It is a great place for stacking books though. The keyboard is just the right width. And maybe someday, if I retire…)

Anyway, all went well until I dug into the wire mesh office organizer I bought at The Container Store about 12 years ago. The theory at the time was that this would help clear up the debris by allowing me to categorize everything in hanging folders. Instead, it’s beneath three feet of newspaper clippings. At one point or another, it seems, I thought knowing about Stonehenge, jet propulsion and tooth bacteria would all help me write mysteries and true crime. Don’t ask. I haven’t the foggiest.

Those were quick throw-outs.

The harder articles to part with are those that offer intriguing theories. For instance, there’s an August 2, 2002 Chicago Tribune article by Ronald Kotulak with the headline: “Scientists ID gene linked to violence.” (A later study at Florida State labeled it the Warrior Gene and linked it to gang membership.) The Chicago Tribune article quoted a report published in the journal Science citing evidence that both genetic and environmental factors influence human behavior. We already suspected this, right? It’s that old thing about how our urges or tendencies are hard-wired, but we may or may not act on them depending on whether or not experience flips the switch, like the serial killer who’s abused as a child. (Of course, then how do we explain serial killers who aren’t abused as children?)

My question: If they found this d**n gene in 2002, why haven’t they found a way to fix it and rewired all of the monsters for us?

Then there's the April, 22, 2007 article "Study of brain may show link to violent acts," by Houston Chronicle reporter Todd Ackerman. Charles Whitman (photo right), the University of Texas UT Tower sniper, had a brain tumor, and, according to the article, Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, showed evidence of a brain-abnormality-induced psychosis. The theory is that when the frontal lobe is damaged it can disconnect the part of the brain that censors impulses. A March 2007 study published in Nature suggests that injuries and abnormalities behind the forehead, two inches into the brain, affect moral judgment in life or death situations, and that those who suffer this type of injury can be more inclined to kill or harm one person to save the life of another. One Houston doc, Pamela Blake, a Memorial Hermann neurologist, released a study in 2004 of Death Row inmates that concluded 40 percent had a frontal lobe injury or impairment. Hmmm. Makes you think, doesn't it? I've got to admit, however, that whenever theories like these pop up I recall the double Y chromosome theory.

You know the one: about four decades ago they tested a sample of the male prison population and found a percentage with an extra Y chromosome, XYY instead of XY. It was suspected at the time that the extra male chromosome increased testosterone levels and made these men more prone to violence, landing them in the slammer. The theory fell apart when other studies discovered XYYers have normal testosterone levels and that men in the general population have approximately the same instance of the XYY pattern. Ah, well.

Okay, back to my stash of articles going into the to-be-kept file.

This final article I couldn’t throw out simply because of the title: “Local ‘Polka King’ goes missing.” The Polka King is 48-year-old Bobby Jones, who was last seen on the night of June 22, 2007. He didn’t show up in El Campo, Texas, for a radio station emcee gig. He’d been acting unusually sad and, according to the article, no foul play was suspected, so maybe there’s no crime to write about. A while later, his car's license plate was found in the Colorado River. But the guy left his accordion behind. Would a Polka King do that? Sounds fishy to me

Tweet

What About the Crime Post-Blast?

by Andrea Campbell

The government defines a bombing as an incident in which an explosive or incendiary device has actually functioned. There are attempted bombings, of course, and premature explosions. The center of a bombing is referred to as the “seat.” (That's a historic photo of the Los Angeles Times bombing—October 1, 1910—at left.)

I started reading up on what it takes to work a post-blast crime scene, and though I found a lot of good information, I know it didn’t begin to scrape the surface. I guess that’s the wrong metaphor to use, because after a bomb goes off, there isn’t much surface left. Can you imagine going to the scene? There are tons of material called gross physical evidence. Most of the time you don’t know what you’re looking at, even though nearly everything is potential evidence. The debris is shredded, cut, spun, blended, burned, ruffled and any other adjective describing destruction like nothing you’ve ever seen.

Classifying and Typing

A bombing is deliberate or accidental. There are instances where these can be confused. Story has it that a man was charged with causing an explosion; he was in the business of running a grain silo. Anyone who knew anything about volatility should have known that grain dust explosions are common in silos. But back to business. There are three types of explosions: mechanical, nuclear and chemical. An example of a mechanical explosion might be a vessel -- such as a boiler or a propane tank -- under great pressure that gives at its weakest spot, dispersing its contents. Nuclear explosions are created by fission or fusion of unstable atoms, and chemical explosions are the result of either low or high explosives triggered by shock or heat.

A low explosive is typically heat-sensitive material that burns rapidly, about 1,000 feet per second. High explosives, on the other hand, are considered detonations — decomposition of molecules that are forced through a shock wave at about 10,000 feet per second. The difference between the two is significant in helping to understand what has happened; low explosives are more likely to cause a fire than the shorter impulse time associated with high explosives.

Explosives Differ in Other Ways Too

The chemicals needed for low explosions are generally substances such as black powder, pyrotechnic powders, and other fuels. High explosives include materials like dynamite, TNT, and RDX components such as C-4, those usually used by the military and for commercial applications such as imploding old buildings.

Low explosives need a housing or container, because burning produces the gases needed for expansion. High explosives give off their energy as the result of a detonation or shock wave and can be out in the open.

Bombing Materials

Bombs in criminal investigations are often called IEDs, short for improvised explosive devices. The explosive material can be commercially created or homemade. To initiate an explosion the material needs an igniter, which can be as simple as a burning fuse or as sophisticated as a complex electronic device. (The Oklahoma City bombing is pictured at right.)

The activator of the fusing system is put into three basic categories: 1.) time-activated, 2.) victim-activated, and 3.) command-activated. The first uses a time delay, the second is similar to a booby trap, and the third is set off manually, often using a remote-control device. According to GlobalSecurity.org, a person-borne suicide bomb usually employs a high-explosive/fragmentary effect and a command-detonation firing system -- a switch or button the suicide-bomber pushes to set off the blast.

Dr. Kirk Yeager, an explosives forensic scientist at the Federal Bureau of Investigation explainsit quite simply: A bomb consists of an oxidizer and a fuel. An explosion requires oxygen, provided by the oxidizer, and a fuel source, which can be as basic as sugar. A common oxidizer is ammonium nitrate, a primary ingredient of fertilizer. While bombs made with sugar and ammonium nitrate may be less potent than more advanced fuel sources, like TNT, the ingredients are easy to buy and legal to own. It’s interesting to note that the rapid oxidation in a bombing changes the colors of materials such as pipe or steel. (The 2004 Madrid train bombing is pictured above left.)

Working the Scene

A team will have a leader, a bomb technician, a photographer and sketch artist, and an evidence custodian. Depending on the size of the blast area, the team may be augmented by additional investigators.

The borders of a post-blast scene can be tremendous in size. Paul R. Laska, a retired crime scene investigator, says the lead investigator generally looks for the furthest item that can be identified as having originated at the point of the blast. A radius is established based on the distance of that item plus half again.

Search Methodology

Generally, the physical search and evidence collection are organized like a field search, with participants walking an approximate arm’s length (or wing span) apart in a grid, strip or even in a spiral pattern. Most common is the strip-style search, broken down into sectors.

Investigators don’t touch or collect the materials, but mark them out; the object is photographed where it lies. Everything is sketched, and an evidence custodian wearing gloves collects the items and often puts them into clean, unused paint cans, nylon bags, glass vials or sturdy cardboard boxes. The idea is to preserve DNA, fingerprints and explosive residue.

Searches are thought of as being three-dimensional because exploding bits can be lodged into walls, thrown onto roofs — don't forget people tossed into trees — and items driven into the ground. Yeager recalls a car whose pieces landed as high as 75 feet at a U.S. Embassy bombing.


Often investigators will suit up in protective gear including shoe covers to avoid blood-borne pathogens. The scene is monitored for hazardous materials as well.

Collecting and Preserving

Oftentimes the debris will be trucked to another area for examination. It’s taken to a secure facility where pieces can be sifted, examined for potential evidence, segregated, identified and put back together. Dr. Yeager said that he has spent a lot of his time going between different hardware stores, comparing their inventories to bomb components.

General Facts

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been collecting, storing and analyzing records on explosives and arson incidents since 1976.
• The FBI works on bombings related to terrorism.
• 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 18 U.S.C. 846(b), established a national repository for incidents involving arson and the criminal misuse of explosives.
• The U.S. Bomb Data Center (USBDC) is the sole repository and contains information on more than 180,000 arson and explosives incidents investigated by ATF and other federal, state and local law enforcement and fire investigation agencies.
  According to the US Bomb Data Fact Sheet, which provides overall statistics and information such as event locations, bomb types used, and regional maps, contains the figures listed below. Explosives Incidents in the United States: In 2007: 2,772 explosives incidents, 60 people injured, 15 killed, and 633 referred for prosecution. In 2006: 3,445 explosives incidents, 135 people injured, 14 killed, and 745 referred for prosecution.
  
  

Tweet

How to Become a Suspect 101

by Pat Brown

When a cable-news show host asks whether a particular character should be a suspect in a crime we're discussing, I talk about behavior, traits, or circumstances that might draw the attention of police. Sometimes I get mail from people who believe someone I or the police have named as a possible suspect is being unfairly targeted. Others want to know why I don't jump to name someone they're sure committed the crime. And sometimes I'm just playing devil's advocate when I see red flags being ignored or getting too much attention.

Red flags -- certain behaviors or traits of a person or the circumstances surrounding them, are just that: indicators that the person should be looked at more carefully as a potential suspect in a crime, but not considered guilty unless other evidence supports the accusation and the accusation is proven in court.

Four cases come to mind as examples in this class of How to Become a Suspect 101: The Quantico Marine case of 1983, the bizarre Madeline McCann case, the Haleigh Cummings saga, and the recent Balloon Boy case.

Bad Luck:

This is the No. 1 issue that will get you in trouble and connect you to a crime, whether the bad luck just happened to you or you created it by actually being the perpetrator. Richard and Miyumi Heene called 911 in a panic because their six-year-old son, Falcon, was supposedly aloft in a balloon Richard made, drifting across the skies in a silvery flying saucer-shaped airship. Later, the child was found to be hiding in the house and ignoring the shouts of searchers. The police say they are filing charges because the spectacle was a publicity stunt and the child was never in the balloon.

The incident occurred at the Heene residence. There was no one around but the family, and the balloon belonged to them. Either the kid was being a naughty boy and the parents got in trouble because of him, or the parents are lying.

Cpl. Lindsey Scott was in investigations at Quantico Marine Base (book about his ordeal available at Amazon) at the time a young woman was raped and her throat cut. His bad luck: the victim described her attacker to a sketch artist and when the drawing was complete, Lindsey Scott's workmates said, "Wow! That looks just like Scotty!" Scott also drove a gold Buick; although it didn't have the white top the girl saw on her attacker's car, it was still the color and make she described.

When Haleigh Cummings (on left below with the various suspects) and Madelaine McCann went missing, they disappeared from locations where their parents were supposed to be. Misty Croslin, Ronald Cummings's underage girlfriend who watched his kids while he worked, claims she was asleep when someone came into the house and snatched the child from the bedroom she shared with the children. Maddy McCann supposedly was taken while her parents left the child alone with her younger siblings and went off drinking at the resort restaurant.

In all these cases, particular individuals are now linked with each crime. These persons-of-interest could have been involved.

Alibis:

Okay, so they could have done it, but did they? Do they have alibis which will clear them? Lindsey Scott admits he wasn't at home when the victim linked to him was attacked. Scott was out and about, going back to his recently vacated apartment to clean an oven (no one saw him) and looking for a foot bath to buy for his pregnant wife (no one really remembers seeing him in the store).

Misty Croslin claims she was sleeping, which isn't much of an alibi; Ronald Cummings claims he was at work, but there is no proof the crime couldn't have been committed before he went to work.

The McCanns (pictured left with Madelaine in the red circle) were the last people to be with their daughter before they supposedly left her unattended and available to be taken from their room at the resort. The Heenes were home with their children when the boy supposedly climbed into the balloon, or the boy pretended he went up in a balloon and hid in the house. No one has a particularly good alibi.

Past behaviors:

The Heenes are publicity seekers who have already done one reality-TV show: an episode of "Wife Swap." Richard Heene, who met his wife in acting school, was pitching producers for a new show for his family just before the balloon incident, suggesting he might have been trying to get attention. But Heene has behaved so bizarrely in raising his children -- chasing tornadoes with them and letting them be extremely adventurous and curious -- that on this particular day maybe the kids just outdid themselves.

Misty likes to use drugs and party. She hooks up with an older man, Ronald Cummings, and plays Mommy to his two little children. Cummings has a questionable history of drug involvement and a controlling nature. So it's easy to think Misty may have been out partying, the child ingested drugs, or Misty might be covering for Ronald if he beat the child to death before he went to work.

The McCanns left their three children alone in a hotel room so the couple could have fun. Automatically this awakens suspicious of what else they would do, such as give the kids prescription medicine (both parents are physicians) to make them sleep while the parents were away.

Lindsey Scott is the only one who doesn't have any questionable past behaviors.

Post-Crime Behaviors:

The Heenes were more than eager to do television appearances. Richard Heene said, "Wow!" and then hung his head when his son Falcon blurted out on "The Today Show" that he hid because "They were doing a show." No longer so hungry for the public eye, Heene became angry at the cable networks for asking questions and insisted all future questions be in writing.

The McCanns never showed remorse for leaving their children unattended. They dressed nicely every day and continued normal routines such as jogging. Kate McCann said she never had problems sleeping after Maddy "was taken."

Misty Croslin couldn't keep her story straight about the night Haleigh went missing. Ronald Cummings boldly told reporters he has never been involved in drugs despite his long list of drug arrests. Ron and Misty married soon after Haleigh went missing, as if this were a time to celebrate. No one can tell me they had to get married at that time: they were already living together, so the sanctity of marriage doesn't seem to be an issue.

Lindsey Scott's behavior remained credible after the crime.

The Suspects:

The Heenes will most likely be charged with more than one crime, possibly including contributing to the delinquency of a minor and making a false police report. I will be curious what actual proof police have that the balloon episode was a hoax. Richard Heene's behavior sure looks squirrelly, and the kid rather outed him (As Art Linkletter said, "Kids say the darndest things."), but Falcon may not have meant what he said exactly as it sounded. That's why police must have more evidence: conflicting stories, something on the computer, maybe even notes detailing a "story" of a little boy going off in a flying saucer balloon.

Neither the McCanns nor the Croslin/Cummings duo have been charged with any crimes, yet no evidence in either case points to abduction by a stranger. Because the parents have no alibis and their behavior is questionable, both in the past and after the crime, they remain suspects to some degree. So until evidence shows up to convict them or someone else, we will have to continue to wonder about their guilt.

Poor Lindsey Scott. He got convicted of the crime and spent four years in Fort Leavenworth until he got an appeal and was freed for lack of evidence. Truly, he got a bad deal. He became a suspect because the victim's info matched him and his car and because he couldn't account for his time. Nothing was questionable about his behavior and no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Since his release, another suspect has come into view: he is a drop dead look-alike to Scott, he was driving a gold Buick with a white top during the time of the crime, and he had a cousin who maintained the usually locked area on the base where the victim was taken.

I don't have a problem with the Heenes, the McCanns, or Misty Croslin and Ronald Cummings being suspects; they should be. However, the investigation of Lindsey Scott should have been downplayed until there was more evidence that made him look a whole lot worse. Of course, none should be convicted without substantial evidence proving that they, and only they, could have committed the crime.

Some say the possible involvement of these people shouldn't even be discussed, because we are in effect convicting them without a trial in the court of public opinion. This is ridiculous; we can't convict someone with an opinion or a speculation. Of course, we must be careful not to slander or libel someone by making claims about the person (creating "facts" that do not exist based on guesswork) or stating they are guilty instead of hypothesizing that they might be guilty. People are responsible for their behavior, and it's not illegal for someone to discuss it in public, (even if it is somewhat gossipy). We all make choices in our lives, and our choices follow us. If they lead the public and the police into suspecting we are involved in a crime, we are responsible.

Good behavior won't always protect us (look at Lindsey Scott's unfortunate incarceration), but it should give us better odds of avoiding becoming a criminal suspect -- and the talk of cable television.

Tweet

That Damn Death Penalty - Again

by Katherine Scardino

I have posted many articles on Women in Crime Ink about the death penalty, especially in the State of Texas. There have been several incidences recently which scream out for a revisit of this unpopular and hateful subject.

I read an article yesterday in the local Houston paper that our Supreme Court refused to give Linda Carty a new trial - even though her trial lawyers did not put on any mitigating evidence and only met her two weeks before jury selection. Linda Carty did a terrible thing. She kidnapped a woman and her four-day-old baby, and killed the mother. Do not misunderstand - I, of all people, am well aware of the horrible acts that one person can commit against another. It is sickening and disgusting. That doesn't change the fact that we must have rules and laws that we all obey we're going to take a person’s life in the name of our law.

I admit I don't know all the facts of the Linda Carty case. Thank goodness I wasn't involved in it -- and I hope that if I had been, no one could say she had an incompetent defense. But the two failures in her defense are enough in my mind to give pause to the Supreme Court’s decision.

A defense attorney has a duty to “know” his client -- especially one who may die as a result of the attorney’s laxity or ineptness. It is indefensible for a lawyer to not meet his client until two weeks prior to trial. It is indefensible for a lawyer to know so little about his client that he has no witnesses and records to present to the jury during the punishment phase of a capital case. How can any attorney convince a jury that mercy -- life in prison instead of execution -- is appropriate without a complete picture of the defendant's background? What kind of life did this person live? What negative influences may have changed his life? 

This attorney is not arguing guilt or innocence. If he convinces the jury, it won't mean the defendant will walk out of the courtroom and down the elevator with you.

Then, there is the arson murder case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was convicted of setting a fire that killed his three children. I don't have the words to express my outrage at how ignorant and uninformed Gov. Rick Perry sounded when he said the there was other evidence besides the state's arson experts to prove the cause of the fire. The State of Texas had to prove arson if the jury were to reach a capital murder verdict. The problem is that fire experts, not just someone the post-conviction lawyers pulled off the streets, but individuals renowned in the field, now condemn the state’s arson testimony as bogus and unscientific. Oh, did I forget to mention - Texas has already executed Cameron Todd Willingham. He was most certainly an innocent person. At least, Perry must be afraid he was. In October, Perry abruptly replaced the chairman and two members of the state's Forensic Science Commission -- two days before they were to hear the evidence of the arson expert. 

Rick Perry doesn't like the idea that while he sat on his ass and refused to look at the reputable fire scientists' evidence, Cameron Todd Willingham died.
Is there one person out there who can state that Cameron Todd Willingham is the only innocent person Texas has executed? I dare you to make that statement. You would have to ignore the evidence related to the cases of Carlos DeLuna and Ruben Cantu, just to name two. There are many more. But, the issue is - even if there is one, just one - that is one too many. Killing another human being, through an act of violence or an act of the supposed legal system of Texas our State, is final. We can't bring that person back to life. We took that away from him or her, and we did it wrongly.

Our capital punishment system in Texas -- and elsewhere -- is flawed. It is not dispensed fairly. It is not certain. Arrogant, self-centered, unqualified politicians decide whether new evidence is sufficient to stop an execution. These same arrogant, self-centered politicians -- so-called judges -- tell us that “actual innocence” is not enough to warrant a new trial, let alone stop an execution.

What in the hell are we doing?

Tweet

Accused Killers Catch a Break

by Cathy Scott

Two murder cases with women as the accused killers have taken similar -- and unusual -- turns. Each was instantly labeled the “Black Widow.” And both women stood to gain millions should their husbands die.

In the first case, San Juan and Manhattan socialite Barbara Kogan was indicted late last year for the 1990 murder of her millionaire husband George. She stood accused of convincing her attorney to hire a hitman to kill George. Kogan’s estranged husband, with whom she was in the middle of a nasty divorce, was shot to death in broad daylight while George was walking from a neighborhood market to his live-in girlfriend’s high-rise apartment on Manhattan's Upper East Side.

Joel Seidemann, the Manhattan assistant district attorney who has been on the case for nearly two decades, is expected to refile a fresh charge against Kogan by the end of this year. During Kogan's arraignment in November 2008, Seidemann described the suspect as "a very angry woman."

"But when that anger became so overwhelming," he told the judge, "she decided to litigate the divorce through the bullets of a gun."

The second defendant is Margaret Rudin, charged and convicted of killing her husband, wealthy real estate investor Ronald Rudin, then driving the body to a remote area on the shore of Lake Mojave 45 miles outside of Las Vegas, stuffing him inside an antique truck and setting it on fire.

The commonalities with the two women, both of whom are now 65 years old, are many. Rudin, who was convicted of murder, has been granted a new trial. Rudin’s conviction was overturned in December 2008 by Clark County District Court Judge Sally Loehrer, who ruled that Rudin, who has spent the last nine years in a Nevada state prison, had “ineffective counsel” during her first trial.

And Barbara Kogan, accused of second-degree murder in the contract killing of her estranged husband, has had the charge dismissed on a technicality. In July, State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus ruled that because another grand jury had failed to indict Kogan in the 1990s, prosecutors needed judicial permission to empanel a new grand jury that handed down the indictment against Kogan last year. The prosecution, he said, failed to get that permission.

Both women are expected to be in their respective courtrooms on opposite ends of the country sometime next year. Rudin’s first trial, which was much publicized and lasted 10 weeks, was one of Las Vegas's highest profile murder cases. For Kogan, “48 Hours” and “Dateline” have already made arrangements to be in the courtroom for the trial, which is expected to last eight weeks.

While prosecutors in both crimes claim greed as the motive, in the Kogan case, the only evidence against her is circumstantial at best -- unless, by trial time, the prosecution comes up with more.

As for Rudin, it's mostly circumstantial as well, with hard evidence against her shaky. Her husband was missing in 1994, his car found at a strip club. Later, a boy and his father, out fishing together, discovered the burnt trunk and body near the shore of Lake Mojave on the Nevada side of the water. A gun, said to be the murder weapon, found months later in the lake, was not registered to Rudin or her husband, so that connection was never made, just conjectured.

After Rudin was granted a new trial, her new attorney, Christopher Oram, told reporters, "Obviously, we're very happy with the judge's ruling and look forward to going to trial.”

Kogan’s new counsel, high-profile criminal defense lawyer Barry Levin, said he’s looking forward to going to trial as well. “I intend to represent her zealously. I think she will be acquitted,” Levin said.

It all will unfold in their respective courtrooms. For the prosecution, both cases at this juncture appear to be uphill battles. But you never know what might happen as both sides sides duke it out in court.

Photo of Barbara Kogan in court (top) courtesy of the New York Daily News and photo of Margaret Rudin courtesy of TruTV.

Tweet

Prescription For Trouble

by Diane Dimond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad happens. And we should all spread the word.

Tweet

Should the Casey Anthony Case Be Moved?

By Women In Crime Ink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet

Elizabeth Smart: A Woman To Look Up To

by Cassie Nelson

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

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


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

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


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

Tweet

"Baby, We Will Find You"

by Susan Murphy-Milano

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet

A Particularly Unsettling Exoneration

by Laura James

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet

He Got Off Too Easy

by Donna Weaver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet

New Life Wrapped in Death

by Diane Fanning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet