ADDICT WHO KILLED FRAIL OLD LADY GETS ONLY 5 YEARS

THE grieving husband of an elderly woman fatally injured when a heroin addicted bag-snatcher knocked her over says her killer got away with murder. Phillip James Flower was today sentenced to eight years' jail, with a minimum of five years, for the manslaughter and robbery of 77-year-old Beryl Bloomfield. Flower, 36, had pleaded guilty to knocking the elderly woman to the ground, fatally injuring her, as he stole her purse and the $4000 it contained. The attack occurred on April 28 last year in the Melbourne suburb of Croydon, and Mrs Bloomfield died a day later in hospital, devastating her husband of 57 years.

Walter Bloomfield, 90, who is bed-ridden with an illness, still lives in the marital home in suburban Mooroolbark. "It's certainly not appropriate, he murdered her," Mr Bloomfield said of the sentence. "It was premeditated because he must have known what would happen. "I'm not very happy about it, but what can I do?" Reflecting on his late wife, Mr Bloomfield also said: "She's the one that suffered through all of this." He said he was too ill to attend today's sentencing.

The Victorian Supreme Court had heard Flower, a heroin addict on the methadone program, came from behind and caused Mrs Bloomfield to fall and hit her head after he snatched her bag. The woman, whose frailty was noted today by Justice Elizabeth Hollingworth, suffered head injuries and she died the day after the incident in St Vincent's hospital.

Flower had said he needed the money to buy cigarettes and food for his children. Justice Hollingworth sentenced Flower to eight years' jail for manslaughter and 12 months' prison for robbery to be served concurrently. She ordered him to serve a non-parole period of five years. "I have no doubt that you targeted her because she was elderly, vulnerable and frail," Justice Hollingworth said. "Unfortunately, elderly people are all too often seen as an attractive and easy target by those intent on theft. "People must be deterred from robbing those members of the community who are most vulnerable, particularly in circumstances such as these where there is a very real risk that the victim may be hurt in the process."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

INNOCENT MAN GOES TO JAIL WHILE THE GUILTY GUY GOES ON OFFENDING



Robert Clark couldn't stop smiling, despite spending 24 years in jail for a rape he didn't commit. That's because a US judge freed him on yesterday, after DNA evidence proved Clark's decades of pleading innocent were right. A smiling Clark hugged and kissed family members, repeatedly saying: "I told you. I told you." Clark's mother died and his children grew up and had families of their own while he sat in prison for a 1981 attack on an Atlanta woman.

His lawyers said DNA from another man matches not only that rape, but two others that were committed later. "This is a truly horrific case," said Vanessa Potkin, an attorney for the Innocence Project. "While Robert Clark was wrongfully convicted, it appears the true perpetrator of this crime was out there harming women and children."

Clark, 45, was convicted and sentenced to life plus 20 years after a woman identified him as the man who carjacked her at gunpoint from outside an Atlanta Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant and raped her repeatedly. But recent DNA tests showed that Clark - who had no prior adult felony convictions - did not commit the crime. Tests against state and federal DNA databases of convicts matched samples from the rape to Clark's friend Floyd Antonio "Tony" Arnold.

Prosecutors, who originally convicted Clark, are looking into whether to seek charges against Arnold, spokeswoman Kathy Watkins said. Arnold had convictions for sodomy and illegal gun possession when the rape took place. He is in prison for cruelty to children and is scheduled to be released Jan. 31. A search by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation revealed that Arnold's DNA matched two other unsolved Atlanta area rape cases in 2003, Potkin said. Arnold has not been charged with either crime.

Clark became the 164th person in the nation and the fifth in Georgia to be freed through post-conviction DNA testing, according to Potkin. Neufeld said an Atlanta law firm has volunteered to look into financial compensation for Clark. Earlier this year, the Georgia Legislature approved $1 million for Clarence Harrison, who spent nearly 18 years in prison before DNA evidence cleared him of rape. Clark's son, Rodrickus, said he and other family members looked forward to celebrating his father's freedom. "He always told me he was innocent. I believed in what he said," he said. "We can't make up for lost time. I guess we've just got to go on. We want to go fishing together, take a nice fishing trip."

Clark said he is not sure what his long-term plans are, but he is looking forward to his first family Christmas in years. "I won't be able to give them any gifts or anything, but I don't think they're worried about that," he said. "They just want to have me home."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

CONSERVATIVE PROFESSOR'S CAREER RUINED DESPITE TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING



The slaying of Suzanne Jovin was bound to attract exceptional press and public interest. She was a dazzling undergraduate at one of the world's leading universities. Born in Gottingen, Germany, to U.S. scientists Thomas and Donna Jovin, raised there in a 14th-century castle, she was vastly talented. She spoke four languages. Even as a teenager she had greater experience in other countries and cultures than the man being groomed to become our 43rd president.

Energetically pursuing a double major in political science and international studies, Jovin seemed destined for a life of public service. She would be at the center of the nation's greatest modern challenge to its security. Nearly three years before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, she produced a formidable senior thesis on international terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Just as impressive was her commitment to the social good. A friend has told of her "very, very strong sense of justice and righteousness." She tutored urban children. From the start of her freshman year to her last hours, she devoted herself to the Yale chapter of Best Buddies, joining other students in bringing friendship and joy to the lives of adults with mental disabilities.

Picture her final hours in this labor of love: directing a Best Buddies pizza-making party at Trinity Lutheran Church, driving home the volunteers, returning the borrowed car to the university, turning in the keys to the campus police, then, at about 9:30, walking into the night and an encounter with a madman.

Even so, it was not the heartbreaking death of an outstanding young woman that made the Jovin case a national story through the first year of her death. For the Connecticut press as well as the New York Times, Time, Vanity Fair, 20/20, Court TV, CNN and the other big media, the compelling force was the flood of speculation, with undertones of romance, obsession and anger, about a student-professor relationship gone wrong.

The permanent coupling of the homicide with a case of false accusation began within a week of the crime with the local headline "Educator Grilled in Jovin Matter." Thereafter, the victim's name was linked to that of her thesis adviser, James Van de Velde, one of the university's most popular lecturers.

A 38-year-old Yale graduate and former dean of Saybrook, one of Yale's residential colleges, his class on the national security dimensions of international drug trafficking had been cited by Spin magazine as among the most interesting college courses in the country.

As an officer in the U.S. Naval Intelligence Reserve, he had worked at the Pentagon and the State Department. He had carried out assignments everywhere from Bosnia to Singapore. Born and raised in Orange, still a bachelor, he was a handsome, politically conservative "straight arrow" with a sterling reputation.

With the avalanche of publicity about his possible guilt, based mostly on police leaks, rumor and conjecture, Van de Velde's good name was destroyed. In the words of a Courant headline, he went "From Pillar to Pariah." Never mind that no hint of any relationship with the victim outside the classroom ever surfaced. Never mind the absence of any history of violence. His academic career came down in flames.

In a grave lapse of conscience, Yale itself, putting out his name as one in a supposed "pool of suspects" even before the official police statement, subsequently canceled his political science classes just hours before the start of the next semester on the excuse that his students should be spared distractions.

When I read this, I thought about Peter Reilly. He was the central figure of Connecticut's nationally famous "wrong man" case of the mid-1970s. Although his mother's death was the most savage homicide in Litchfield County history, the teenager was released from prison during the appeal of his conviction. The "confessed killer," eventually exonerated, returned to our regional high school for his senior-year classes. No distractions were expected or reported.

With his lectures abruptly ended, his teaching contract unlikely to be renewed, Van de Velde's days at Yale were numbered. The university said it was willing to recommend him to other institutions but would have to note that he was under suspicion for murder. His academic opportunities vanished. Quinnipiac College had already added to his woes by expelling him from its master's program in broadcast journalism.

An independent investigator, Patrick Harnett, now Hartford's police chief, has described Van de Velde as "Richard Jewell with a Ph.D.," referring to the security guard mistakenly targeted by the FBI and defamed in the press for the Atlanta Olympics bombing in 1996. The great oddity about Van de Velde's situation now, as it has been for seven years, is that he is both "the only named suspect" in the Jovin murder and the citizen who has been more active than anyone else in trying to keep the case alive and demanding a solution to the crime.

Much more here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

AN EMAIL FROM A READER:

It's good to see that some effort is being made in the States and elsewhere to provide a measure of justice to men falsely accused of rape. The laws pertaining to this offense are porous and overly broad, tailor-made for finger-pointing by malicious females. The rules of evidence are nearly non-existent and should be reinstated. The use of DNA analysis has been the greatest advance in providing legal protection to men spuriously accused.

Next, laws need to promulgated allowing DNA testing of all infants involved in paternity suits. This will allow many an accused to keep his money in his wallet and make women more careful. Steps in the right direction.

It's also encouraging to read that some men wrongfully accused of major crimes (rape, murder) are not only being released through the efforts of outfits like Unlocking Innocence and Innocence Project, etc, but also are being granted hefty compensation payouts. This not only goes some way in easing the aftermath of their ordeals, but in time will, I believe, put pressure on law-enforcement agencies to be more professional in their investigations. When the state begins to lose appreciable money, it begins to pay attention to the behaviour of its minions. Better police-work should be the result...





NOT GUILTY BUT NOT INNOCENT EITHER?

"Innocent until proven guilty" means nothing in California. Overturning basic legal principles is a snack if it will save the government money



Ken Marsh spent more than two decades in state prison, all the while insisting he should not have been there because he was an innocent man. Now, 15 months after he walked out of Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility on a starlit August night, Marsh will have to prove it. In the latest turn in Marsh's long-running legal saga, he and his lawyers are in Sacramento today for an unusual hearing in which they will seek to show that Marsh was wrongly convicted of killing toddler Phillip Buell in April 1983.

Much is at stake. The hearing, which will feature testimony from Marsh, Phillip's mother Brenda - who is now married to Marsh - and medical experts, is being held under a little-known section of the Penal Code that awards those wrongly convicted $100 for each day they spend in prison. Marsh spent more than 7,500 days in custody. At $100 per day, he stands to receive $756,000. That is the largest wrongful-conviction claim ever received by the state Victim Compensation Fund, said board spokeswoman Fran Clader. The fund makes recommendations on whether to grant a claim. The money comes from the state's general fund and must be approved by the Legislature.

This year, Marsh filed a claim with the fund, which - as it does for the handful of similar claims it receives each year - referred the matter to the state attorney general for review. That office has recommended against payment, concluding that the evidence does not establish Marsh's innocence.

Now living in Rancho Pe¤asquitos, Marsh, 50, said he is frustrated and upset. "I never thought I would have to go to court again on this in my life," he said. "I thought I was exonerated and free."

The hearing will revisit the events from 22 years ago and include new testimony from medical experts who have reviewed the case for Marsh and were instrumental in his campaign for freedom. It will also be a window into an unusual proceeding: an innocence trial that Marsh's lawyer said is key for his client. "We think it's important to establish in this forum Ken's innocence," said Donny Cox, who is also representing Marsh in a civil suit against San Diego County. "And it's important for Ken to tell his story."

Marsh's case has always been controversial. Police initially ruled the death an accident. But prosecutors, backed by doctors from Children's Hospital, where Phillip was taken and later died, contended that the child's injuries could not have come from a fall. They concluded it must have come from a beating.

At his trial and through an arduous path in appeals courts, Marsh insisted he did not harm the child. He said he was in another room of the College Area home he shared with Brenda when he heard a crash come from the living room where he had momentarily left Phillip and Phillip's sister. No one else was in the house. He said he found the boy unconscious on the floor in front of a brick fireplace hearth, tried to revive him and called for help. The jury convicted him of second-degree murder and he was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. Appeals of his conviction failed, but three years ago, new lawyers for Marsh assembled medical experts who reviewed the case and concluded that Phillip's death was caused by an undiagnosed bleeding disorder that turned the fall off a couch into a fatal accident.

Last year, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis agreed to have an independent forensic pathologist from Florida review the case. The pathologist, Dr. Sam Gulino, concluded that while the injuries may have come from a beating, he was "unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt or to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that Phillip died from abuse. With that finding, Dumanis said she would not oppose Marsh's release, and later concluded that there was insufficient evidence to retry Marsh.

But the manner in which Marsh was released makes this a more challenging fight. Prosecutors essentially said they could not prove Marsh was guilty - and that is different in the eyes of the law than concluding he is innocent. That is the legal stance embraced by state prosecutors in their opposition. Deputy Attorney General Jim Dutton wrote in a memo on the claim that Marsh had not proved he had no culpability for the crime, as he is required to do. He said there was still evidence supporting the beating theory from medical experts at the time. He said Gulino's conclusions last year "may be enough to lose confidence in the integrity of Mr. Marsh's conviction . . . but it does not assist Mr. Marsh in establishing that he did nothing to inflict the injuries." ....

At the Sacramento hearing, Marsh and his lawyers will have to prove two things in order to get any money. First, they must prove Marsh is innocent by a preponderance of the evidence. While that is a lower standard of proof than used in criminal cases - where evidence of guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt - Marsh must show that it is probable that he did not kill Phillip. In addition, the lawyers have to show that Marsh did nothing to "contribute to the bringing about" of his arrest or conviction....

More here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Victory for framed deportee

Lying police get off Scot-free as usual

Suezanne Hayman served 3 1/2 years' jail on a drug-smuggling confession that a corrupt police officer later told the Wood royal commission was "straight fiction". The New Zealand-born woman was raising three teenage children in Sydney at the time of her arrest in 1986, but in 1992 - a year after completing much of her sentence in maximum security - the punishment continued. She was deported over the conviction of conspiracy to import heroin.

Seven years since the sham conviction was quashed and 13 years since being forced to separate from her children and grandchildren and return to New Zealand, Ms Hayman, 56, was told this week she was no longer blackbanned from returning to Australia. "It's just been horrendous, from the first step that (policeman) took," Ms Hayman said on the phone from her home at Kerikeri in the Bay of Islands in New Zealand.

When an Immigration Department official called on Tuesday night to give her the news, it was the final victory in a battle that separated her from her children when she was sent to Mulawa women's prison in western Sydney in 1988.

She lived for a year in Sydney after her release and met her future husband, Chris Hayman, but was deported on a 24-hour passport. "It was done very quickly and very maliciously, in front of my family and in front of my children. It came as an absolute shock," she said.

In 1995, Detective Sergeant Paul William Deaves admitted that the unsigned confession in which she had admitted to importing heroin from Thailand was a fabrication.

After the conviction was quashed in 1998, she sued the NSW and federal police over wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution. All she would say of the confidential settlement was that she was happy. Ms Hayman's three children and their families have all moved to live within an hour of her Kerikeri property and she has no plans to settle back in Australia, but she can now return for her stepson's wedding after Christmas. "Everything's fine now, everything's great. It's like a chain being taken off my neck," she said.

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone apologised for the delay in lifting the ban.

Deaves told the Wood royal commission that police had "made our mind up" to charge her, and that the confession was "straight fiction". In exchange for his admissions, Deaves was granted immunity from prosecution.

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

WHAT A HEAP OF CRAP!

Canadians will believe anything if it lets a crook off. The Canadian specialty is convicting the innocent

It wasn't a sexual assault -- it was sleep sex. In an unusual case in a Scarborough, Ontario, courtroom, Jan Luedecke was acquitted of sexual assault after a judge ruled he was asleep during the attack -- a disorder known as "sexsomnia." "This is indeed a rare case ... His conduct was not voluntary," said Justice Russell Otter, as Luedecke's victim shook, sobbed and then left the courtroom.

The judgment has outraged women's groups. "This is infuriating. It's another case of the courts not taking a woman seriously, adding yet another list to the list of excuses which men use for sexual assault," said Suzanne Jay, of the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres.

Luedecke, a 33-year-old landscaper, met his victim at a party on July 6, 2003. Both had been drinking. The woman, who can't be named, had fallen asleep on a couch. She woke up to find him having sex with her. She pushed him off, then reported the rape to police. She didn't know Luedecke before that night. Luedecke claimed he fell asleep on the same couch and woke up when he was thrown to the floor. He only suspected he had had sex after using the bathroom and discovering he was still wearing a condom, court heard. He confessed to police.

During his trial, sleep expert Dr. Colin Shapiro testified Luedecke had parasomnia -- a disorder with symptoms such as sleepwalking. Shapiro testified Luedecke suffered from sexsomnia, which is sexual behaviour during sleep. It was brought on, he said, by alcohol, sleep deprivation and genetics. Luedecke previously had sleep sex with four girlfriends, court heard.

Yesterday's decision comes after a hearing on whether Luedecke had a mental disease. Had he been found not criminally responsible, he would have had his case reviewed by a mental health board. That could have meant restrictions on his freedom, said University of Toronto law professor Hamish Stewart. But his disorder doesn't mean he has a mental disease, Otter ruled. That means he faces no sentence.

News of the success of the sexsomnia defence may give rapists ideas, Stewart said. "We may hear more forms of this defence from accused persons," he said, adding he has never previously heard of such a case. Luedecke has cut down on his drinking and is taking pills to stop a repeat of his crime, court heard.

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

IRISH NUN CLEARED OF RAPE

Former nun Nora Wall, who was wrongfully convicted of raping a 10-year old girl, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday certified that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the case of Ms Wall, formerly Sr Dominic, who was sentenced to life imprisonment six years ago.

Mr Justice Nicky Kearns, presiding, after hearing the four-hour-long application, said the three-judge court believed Ms Wall "should not have to wait a moment longer than necessary" to hear the court's decision. The judge said newly discovered facts in the case included a crucial trial witness, Ms Patricia Phelan, who admitted to gardai [police] and another nun that she had lied about having witnessed Ms Wall hold down a young girl while a man raped her.

Immediately after the court's decision, Ms Wall, with her hand outstretched, approached Ms Phelan. A tearful Ms Phelan threw her arms around Ms Wall and hugged her.

Earlier the court heard that the DPP accepted that, had he been aware, prior to the arrest and prosecution in the late 1990s of Ms Wall and the late Paul (Pablo) McCabe, of significant information which had since come to light, the prosecution could and would never have been brought. That information included a statement by Ms Phelan of having lied about having witnessed Mr McCabe rape Regina Walsh, while she was being held down by Ms Wall in St Michael's child care centre, Cappoquin, Co Waterford. Ms Phelan said that she had never witnessed such an event, that "it never happened" and that she had made it up to "get back" at Ms Wall, whom, she alleged had beaten her in the home.

The young woman who gave critical prosecution evidence at the trial of Nora Wall later told another nun: "It never happened."

Patricia Phelan (32), with an address in Kilkenny, was present at the Four Courts complex yesterday and came into the Court of Criminal Appeal after it directed she should be present to hear what was being said.

Yesterday's proceedings arose after the June 1999 convictions of Ms Wall and Mr McCabe were overturned a month later by the Court of Criminal Appeal with no opposition from the DPP. Both had been convicted of the rape of Regina Walsh on a date between January 1988 and December 1989, when the girl was 10 years of age and on an indecent assault charge. Mr McCabe was jailed for 12 years and Ms Wall was jailed for life.

In November 1999, the DPP accepted fully that Ms Wall and Mr McCabe were entitled to be presumed innocent of all charges brought against them and said then he would not be seeking a re-trial. The DPP also regretted "the errors" in the handling of the case by the prosecution.

Yesterday, counsel for Ms Wall, John Rogers SC, said "quite extraordinary" newly-discovered facts showed the 1999 trial of Ms Wall had resulted regrettably from "a forensic debacle" and was never the trial the DPP intended to have. The defence had since 1999 come into possession of significant new evidence, including that the gardai had advised from 1997 that Ms Phelan, a crucial corroborative witness on whose evidence the jury relied to convict Ms Wall, was an unreliable witness. Although the DPP had directed she not be called as a witness, she was called through "inadvertence".

The defence had also learned just days after the trial that Ms Walsh had made a claim she was raped by a man in England. Ms Phelan the judges were told yesterday was aware of the effect of, and "stands over", an April 2001 statement in which she admitted she had lied about witnessing Ms Regina Walsh being raped by Mr McCabe and being held down by Ms Wall.

Crying on the phone, she told Sr Mona Killeen : "It never happened". Three days later she told the nun she made "made up" claims to the effect that she had walked into Ms Walsh's bedroom and witnessed a rape.

Sr Mona contacted the gardai and Ms Phelan made what Counsel said was a "crucial statement" in which she said the first time Ms Walsh told her she had been raped by Paul McCabe in the presence of Nora Wall was about 1996 when Ms Walsh was about 18 years old. Ms Phelan said she did not know at that time Ms Walsh had made a statement to gardai. Ms Phelan said Ms Walsh had said she was going to court and asked would Ms Phelan go with her. Ms Phelan said she could not say if Ms Walsh had asked her to make a statement saying she had seen Paul McCabe rape her but she had made such a statement.

In her April 2001 statement, Ms Phelan said she "actually never saw this" but told the gardai the story as Ms Walsh had told her. "I made it sound as if I saw it."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

ANOTHER CHILD ABUSE CASE FALLS APART

Testimony from admitted child-abusers was accepted as sufficient to implicate other people not involved

A French appeals court on Thursday overturned the conviction of six people accused of participating in a pedophilia ring in northern France five years ago, unraveling one of the most mismanaged criminal cases in recent memory and leaving the nation asking how the court system could have gone so awry. "I apologize to the acquitted and their families," said the country's justice minister, Pascal Cl‚ment, at a news conference after the appeal verdict was announced in Paris. He called the case a "disaster" and ordered an unprecedented investigation of the police, judiciary and social service operations in the case and asked for a report by February. "I want the French to know that I am determined to address this matter thoroughly," he said.

The case was based on wide-ranging accusations by a woman in the northern town of Outreau after children told a teacher they had been abused in her home. The six people had been convicted even though she recanted her allegations against them during the trial. Of the 18 people she had originally said were involved, 7 were acquitted following her recantation and one committed suicide in detention before the case went to trial. The other four - the woman, her husband and two friends - confessed and were also convicted.

The chief prosecutor of Paris, Yves Bot, personally asked the appeals court on Wednesday to acquit the six, including a priest, calling the case a "true catastrophe" and demanding an investigation into who was responsible for such a gross miscarriage of justice. Lawyers for the defense asked for a moment of silence in memory of Fran‡ois Mourmand, the defendant who had committed suicide. "We must do what is necessary to make sure this doesn't happen again," Mr. Bot said, adding that the case had created serious doubts about French justice.

But others were heartened by the appeal, saying that it showed that the courts were capable of self-criticism and self-correction. "That's indispensable in a democracy," said Dominique Wolton, a sociologist at the National Council for Scientific Research, adding the rectification of such a major failure would help "relegitimize the justice system."

The case began in 2000 after the children told a teacher that they had been abused at the home of Thierry and Myriam Delay. Mr. Delay, who is unemployed and alcoholic, confessed to abusing his own four children, but not any others. Ms. Delay, however, told a more complicated tale of a pedophile ring that reached into neighboring Belgium, and she implicated many of her neighbors.

Friends of the Delays, David Delplanque and Aur‚lie Grenon, also confessed, and Ms. Grenon repeated Ms. Delay's accusations against the others. On the 10th day of the trial in May of last year, Ms. Delay and Ms. Grenon recanted their testimony implicating the others. "I'm sick, I'm a liar, I lied about everything," Ms. Delay told a stunned courtroom. She pointed out several of the accused who had endured years of investigation, imprisonment and humiliation, saying they were innocent. Despite that testimony, the six were found guilty and sentenced to jail terms of up to seven years.

During their joint appeal, which was heard in Paris in early November, Ms. Delay, who is now divorced and goes by her maiden name, Badaoui, and her ex-husband again testified that the six had had no role in the affair. "It was a moment of madness," she told the appeals court about her initial accusations, which she said were all lies. Her ex-husband said that "it was only the four of us," referring to himself, his ex-wife, Mr. Delplanque and Ms. Grenon.

The case was marred by deep doubts from the beginning, said Yves Jannier, France's attorney general, speaking to the appeals court on Wednesday, a day before the ruling. He noted that an investigative report by the police in July 2002 found "more doubts than certainties" in the accusations, but said, "No one had enough critical sense to stop the machine."

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

STRANGE INDEED

A man wrongfully convicted of the murder of a 10-year-old girl has been awarded $706,000 by the Netherlands government. Kees B. served more than four years of an 18-year sentence for the slaying of Nienke Kleiss and the attempted murder of her friend, 11-year-old Maikel, in the Beatrixpark in Schiedam in 2000.

The defendant was near the scene of the killing and the news agency ANP said he was known to have a 'pedophile disposition.' He confessed to the crime shortly after his arrest but later withdrew his statement, Expatica reported.

The man was freed in December 2004 after Wik H., who was arrested for a sexual assault, admitted killing Kleiss.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

THE GOVERNOR WAS RIGHT

Destruction of evidence is a scandal at any time. Many people have been freed on evidence such as that which was destroyed in this case. The prisoner should in fact be released as justice cannot be seen to be done in this case

The man who would have become the 1000th person executed in the US since the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976 has had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment. The Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, on Tuesday issued his first grant of clemency in a death penalty case, sparing the life of Robin Lovitt, a day before the convicted murderer's scheduled execution. Mr Warner said in a statement that the destruction by an Arlington County Court clerk of DNA evidence that might have cleared Lovitt convinced him that Lovitt should instead spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. "In this case, the actions of an agent of the Commonwealth, in a manner contrary to the express direction of the law, comes at the expense of a defendant facing society's most severe and final sanction," Mr Warner said. "The Commonwealth must ensure that every time this ultimate sanction is carried out, it is done fairly." Mr Warner, a likely Democrat candidate for president in 2008, has previously allowed the executions of 11 men to proceed.

Lovitt, 41, was convicted and sentenced to death for the November 1998 stabbing of Clayton Dicks, 45, during a robbery at a pool hall in Arlington. During a 1999 trial, prosecutors said Lovitt went there to steal money but was confronted by Mr Dicks. They said Lovitt grabbed a pair of scissors and stabbed Mr Dicks six times. Lovitt admitted he was at the pool hall on the night of the killing but said he was in the bathroom while Mr Dicks fought with another man. He said that after he emerged and found that Mr Dicks had been stabbed, he grabbed the cash box and fled.

Lovitt's lawyers have argued that DNA tests using the latest technology - now impossible because evidence, including the scissors, was discarded - might have exonerated their client. Early forensic tests were inconclusive. His legal team included the former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who led the special investigation into president Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Interest in Lovitt's fate, and Mr Warner's decision, is intense. Officials at the Virginia Department of Corrections said on Tuesday that they had received press calls from Australia, France and Italy about the execution.

More here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

IF EVEN THE BRITISH POLICE THINK THIS GUY IS INNOCENT, IT IS A PRETTY GOOD BET THAT HE IS

One of Devon's most notorious murder cases could be referred to the Court of Appeal after a reinvestigation. Robert Kennedy was sentenced to life in 1991 for battering Arthur Eathorne, 74, to death in his Plymouth Hoe flat. Police have submitted a file to the Criminal Cases Review Commission after 18 months of work. A BBC correspondent says legal experts believe there is sufficient doubt to see it referred to the Court of Appeal as a possible miscarriage of justice.

Kennedy, 41, who has been put on suicide watch, says he is innocent. Advances in DNA technology have cast doubt on evidence linking cigarettes in Mr Eathorne's flat to Kennedy. At least two unidentified people were at the flat before Mr Eathorne was murdered. He was homosexual and entertained a large number of men at the flat, one of whom was Robert Kennedy.

BBC South West Home Affairs Correspondent Simon Hall said the new evidence could lead to the safety of the conviction being reconsidered. He said: "At the original trial there was other evidence against Robert Kennedy, including confessions to his friends and fellow prisoners. [Jailhouse "confessions" are notoriously fabricated]

"The judge also warned the jury to be cautious about the DNA evidence on the cigarettes. So it is a case which I think it's fair to say is in the balance." The Criminal Cases Review Commission say they expect to make a decision on whether to send the case to appeal sometime next year. [Take your time guys!]

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

CRAZY COMPENSATION RULES

James Newsome and Anthony Porter were convicted of murders they did not commit. Both languished behind bars for more than 15 years before their innocence was established. Both sued the Chicago Police. Newsome's jury awarded him $15 million. Porter's jury awarded him -- nothing. The disparate outcomes hinged on one factor: Newsome was able, but Porter unable, to prove to a jury that he had been the victim of overt police misconduct.

Police are immune from civil damages as long as they act in good faith. There is little doubt that a competent police investigation would have shown that the witnesses who claimed to have seen Porter commit the crime were lying -- a building blocked their line of sight. But Porter, in his jury's view, established only that his wrongful conviction resulted from negligence, which is worthless in a wrongful conviction case. Unless you can prove that the police acted in bad faith, you are entitled to nothing.

After denying Porter's claim, jurors said they would have awarded him millions, if they could have. Porter, however, deserves more than sympathy. He deserves fair compensation, which either the City Council or the Illinois General Assembly ought now to provide through special legislation.

Porter also deserves a legacy in the form of legislation named for him to assure fair compensation for innocent persons. At present, automatic compensation in Illinois is limited to about $160,000, in addition to which a lawsuit may be filed. It would be preferable to increase that amount substantially but require that a wrongfully convicted person waive the right to sue.

The General Assembly should extend the principle of eminent domain -- which requires fair compensation when private property is taken for a public purpose -- to the priceless commodity we call freedom. The law should recognize that those who commit serious crimes forfeit their freedom and deserve no compensation, but that, when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, prompt and ample remuneration should be the government's legal obligation.

More important, the compensation ought not depend on proving that the police acted in bad faith, but rather -- borrowing the no-fault insurance concept -- strictly on the degree and duration of the pain and suffering resulting from the wrongful conviction.

The Newsome case illuminates the concept of fair compensation. The award might appear frighteningly high -- a million dollars a year. But it shows why it would be in the interest of most litigants to settle for far less.

Newsome's legal fees consumed one-fifth of the award and, more significantly, he assumed a huge risk in taking his claim to trial. Thus, given a reasonable offer at the onset, litigants in Newsome's situation might find elimination of risk could easily be would be worth as much as half of a prospective settlement and take into account the value of being compensated promptly after exoneration, rather than waiting seven years, as Newsome did, for a resolution. Taking these various factors into account, many litigants in Newsome's situation would have an incentive to settle for as little as $250,000 a year.

The offer should be automatic, with the state and the local government entity splitting the amount equally. But if a wrongfully convicted person were unwilling to take the deal, the case could proceed to litigation or arbitration.

From the taxpayers' perspective, such a system could be a boon. The savings in one just case like James Newsome's would be enough to fairly compensate an Anthony Porter several times over.

(Article from here)


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

THE FARCE OF A NYC GRAND JURY

My Grand Jury service finished, it is inevitable, if not right, that I now draw definitive inferences about the way the system works. I will tell my students that it is a mass of contradictions and a feast of ironies. It's a volley between abomination and blessing. I'd rather not rely on it, but I wouldn't trade it for the world. Being a conscripted jurist is a duty as daunting as watching a kindergarten class on a field trip to a pumpkin farm. But not being a lawyer who could volunteer his services to a political club in exchange for an eventual payoff of a judgeship,( as a favor from the governor to a loyal club politician), this is as close as I can get to being called "your honor."

Mental deficiency is no ground for exclusion from jury duty, nor is anything else. We twenty-three citizens were convened to impersonate a cross section of our often morbidly diverse society. We were highly qualified by virtue of random selection from drivers licenses and willingness of our employers to save the court system money by paying us full salary for the duration of our term. Who better to determine "reasonable cause to believe" and "legally sufficient evidence."

Unless my experience was a fluke, the system works to a decent, now and then inspiring degree, in spite of itself. The odds of justice prevailing are more favorable than the calling of unloaded dice, which is more than can be said of most nations. After a month, we Grand Jurors felt more imbedded than impaneled. We saw human tragedies and sometimes came to pity those who caused them, even as we dispatched them to face the consequences. We also observed prosecutions that reflected more malice than vigor.

Arson to bail jumping, murder to insurance fraud, kidnaping and car jacking to robbery, burglary and sex abuse, the docket was in a heavy bleed for four weeks. Each case was presented by an assistant district attorney, nearly all of whom were female thirty-somethings. Their styles varied. Some were aloof; others acted like party animals, no doubt to charm jurors. They mostly kept to a rigid line of interrogation, which we soon realized was scripted and memorized. They verbally "painted by numbers" by filling in testimony from fastidiously prepped and briefed witnesses. If I ever hear "Did there come a time..." again, I will embrace Islamic law.

District attorneys often must think fast to get a witness back on track after he has contradicted or strayed from his original testimony. Some are virtuosos at this, their agility driven by ravenousness for indictment. Others get flustered and cannot ad-lib. Like matinee understudies, some of these legal thespians are better at improvisation than others.
"The People against..." This standard phrase implies that we jurors, the exclusive judges of the evidence, are society's conscience. Is there such a thing anymore? It is a sacred trust, and when the honor system is in effect, somewhat shaky too.

Comic relief peeks through gravity. When voting on whether to hand up an indictment or dismiss felony charges, we heard a fellow juror snoring. One of us raised his slumbering hand and he thus tipped the balance. In a different case we were being shown autopsy photos when a district attorney's cell phone went off to a mambo motif.

Typically, cases are continued more than a week after testimony was heard by the grand jury. During that time, dozens of unrelated cases may have been heard in their entirety or drips and drabs. The district attorney always asks cursorily and rhetorically whether the jury has a sufficient recollection of the facts of the old case, but juries tend to automatically answer in the affirmative, even with a person's freedom at stake.

Defense attorneys are forbidden from addressing the grand jury. The district attorney is the orchestrator of the presentation, as well as the jury's legal advisor. After a witness has testified and the district attorney concluded her delivery, grand jury members can ask their own questions of the witness. The juror must whisper it privately to the district attorney out of earshot of all others except the stenographer. Often the district attorney will not permit it because it inadmissible on legal grounds. But even when this is not the case, she may so skewer by paraphrase, that the intended meaning of the original question is sacrificed to suit the interested party of the prosecution.

Often there is dramatic and enlightening testimony that the jury is instructed to disregard as "hearsay", even if its consideration would reverse the jury's finding. Fortunately, it is not realistic to expect people to unhear what they have heard.

Despite the district attorney's pointed, poised, and intermittently slick ways, we have seen them flustered and even outsmarted by some dysfunctional and ignorant street kid who might have nothing but the stubborn truth on his side. Police officers, in some cases, would not bear up as well, were it not for the district attorney walking them through the testimony.

Before the Grand Jury votes on whether the evidence merits a trial, it hears the applicable standards of law speed-read by the district attorney. Most of the time we knew which charges, which counts, and which defendants were which.
If the justice system has a "wonder of wonders" it is the court reporter. Not only does she render into code instantly every syllable of rapid speech, but again and again she acts like a de facto advisor to district attorneys forgetful of routine procedures.

Ms. Blind Justice, upholding the scales of justice, might sometimes as well be wearing a Halloween mask for the treatment that guilt and innocence get in our riddled system. But to a majestic extent, it is viable. None of us voted along racial, political, economic, or other prejudicial lines. Plain folks really do rise to a supreme bar of responsibility. They are exalted into expertise as by the solemn commission of a religious mystery. It works. I cannot wait to tell my students about the "way" of the American Way.

(From here)



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Policing the Policing of Psychiatric Patients in Canada

Chances are that when someone with a mental illness ends up in the hands of police, he is suffering from one of what's known in law enforcement as the big three: depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. "These people used to be dealt with in the mental-health system; now they are left until police intervention is necessary," said Gary Glacken, executive director of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, during a telephone interview with the Georgia Straight. "Jails have become the new asylums."

It's not a role the police have chosen, and the consequences are sometimes tragic. Although relatively few in number, the deaths make the headlines. In February 1997, Toronto police shot and killed Edmund Yu, a paranoid schizophrenic, who threatened officers with a hammer when they tried to handcuff him. In December 1999, an RCMP officer shot Donald Mayer as he lunged at police with scissors after being cornered in a Langley hospital. That same month, Sai Ming Wai, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, was shot and killed by police in B.C. In August 2000, an RCMP officer shot and killed Norman Reid, who came at them with a hatchet when Newfoundland police tried to apprehend him. There were 13 such incidents in Canada between 1992 and 2002.

Whether or not they should be, the fact is that police are increasingly called on to intervene in situations of psychiatric crisis. A 2000 Canadian study estimates the time spent on such calls doubled from 1997 to 2000. More troubling, over half the fatal police-shooting deaths in B.C. between 1980 and 1994 involved people with mental disorders, even though only 20 percent of Canadians experience mental illness during their lifetime. And 30 percent of these involved people with a history of schizophrenia, despite the fact that the disorder affects only one percent of Canada's population. (There are approximately 40,000 people with schizophrenia in B.C.)

Such tragedies could have been avoided, many judicial and mental health experts believe, if the officers involved had been better trained on how to handle calls involving the mentally ill. Overall, police handling of cases involving the mentally ill is inconsistent and unpredictable. Two years ago, the Surrey RCMP detachment rolled out Car 67, a copycat of the Vancouver police department's Car 87 program, in which a core group of experienced officers team with veteran psychiatric nurses to take mental-health calls. "Before Car 67," said Surrey RCMP Insp. Amrik Virk by phone, "there were 497 different ways of handling these situations."

That is precisely the problem, according to an April 2004 report by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, which reviewed allegations of excessive force by RCMP officers when apprehending a young man with schizophrenia in October 2000. It recommended specialized training for all RCMP members and the development of national policy guidelines on mental-health crisis intervention. It's one in a series of such recommendations. Inquests into all the aforementioned deaths--except the Reid case, which is still pending--also called on the RCMP to provide more training on how to respond to people suffering from mental illness.

But RCMP brass have not been receptive. As a result of the complaints commission report, they have reinstated specialized training for new recruits, a pilot program suspended in January 2004, but they are denying the need for such training for all members and for policy guidelines. In an official response from RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli to Shirley Heafey, chair of the complaints commission, Zaccardelli stated that policy is not the appropriate forum to provide guidance and that current training is more than adequate.

From her office in Ottawa, Sharron Ellis, senior communications officer for the complaints commission, said that although the commission applauded Zaccardelli for reinstituting training, it stands by its recommendation that all members should receive the program, especially those in the field. Ellis cited the example of the officer who killed Norman Reid. "He had received three hours of training on dealing with the mentally ill 11 years before the shooting, and during the inquiry he said the incident would haunt him for the rest of his life. It's just not fair to ask our police officers to deal with these situations without proper training," Ellis said.

During an interview at his Cambie Street office, Chief Const. Jamie Graham of the Vancouver police department said he has both a personal and professional interest in ensuring his officers get appropriate training. "We work in a singular environment here," he said. "The Downtown Eastside is one of the most unique places in the world. There's no RCMP jurisdiction that compares to this one and that drives our training. The new phrase I'm using is socially relevant policing. The things we do have to be relevant to what's going on around us." Graham's department is cited in the commission report, along with nine others, including Victoria, for having implemented training that recognizes the specific needs of people suffering from mental disorders.

It has also been commended for creating a pocket-size tips sheet for defusing situations involving people in psychiatric crisis. The bright-yellow card advises officers, among other things, to speak and move slowly, and to reassure the subject by saying things like "Take it easy" or "I'm here to help you." It's a departure from standard police-tactical training, which is action-oriented and based on quick response. "We've adopted current techniques used by the medical field," Graham said.

They are the techniques mental-health advocates, service providers, and consumers would like to see used more often. But until the RCMP adopts ongoing training programs, the positive outcomes resulting from a kinder, gentler approach may well depend on which police jurisdiction the person happens to be in at the time of crisis.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Why we cannot rely on firearm forensic "science"

Tyrone Jones is serving a life sentence, in part because of a microscopic particle that Baltimore police found on his left hand. At his trial for murder in 1998 the crime-lab examiner gave evidence that the particle was residue from a gunshot. He claimed Jones must have held or fired a gun shortly before his arrest. Jones denies this and still protests his innocence. His defence team is appealing the conviction, claiming that the science of gunshot residue (GSR) analysis is not as robust as the prosecution claims.

Now, a New Scientist investigation has found that someone who has never fired a gun could be contaminated by someone who has, and that different criminal investigators use contradictory standards. What's more, particles that are supposedly unique to GSR can be produced in other ways. Forensic scientists often testify that finding certain particle types means the suspect handled or fired a weapon. Janine Arvizu, an independent lab auditor based in New Mexico, reviewed the Baltimore county police department's procedures relating to GSR. Her report concludes: "The BCPD lab routinely reported that gunshot residue collected from a subject's hands 'most probably' arose from proximity to a discharging firearm, despite the fact that comparable levels of gunshot residue were detected in the laboratory's contamination studies." The BCPD did not return calls requesting comment.

Some specialists argue for a more cautious approach. "None of what we do can establish if anybody discharged a firearm," says Ronald Singer, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and chief criminalist at the Tarrant county medical examiner's office in Fort Worth, Texas. Peter De Forest of John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York goes further. "I don't think it's a very valuable technique to begin with. It's great chemistry. It's great microscopy. The question is, how did [the particle] get there?"

GSR analysis is commonly used by forensic scientists around the world. In Baltimore alone, it has been used in almost 1000 cases over the past decade. It is based on identifying combinations of heavy metals in microscopic particles that are formed when the primer in a cartridge ignites. The primer sets off the main charge, which expels the bullet. There is no standardised procedure to test for GSR, but the organisation ASTM International, which develops standards that laboratories can look to for guidance, has developed a guide for performing the technique that was approved in 2001. This states that particles made only of lead, barium and antimony, or of antimony and barium are "unique" to gunshot residue. The particles are identified using a scanning electron microscope and their composition analysed using energy-dispersive spectrometry.

But recent studies have shown that a non-shooter can become contaminated without going near a firearm. Lubor Fojt sek and Tom s Kmjec at the Institute of Criminalistics in Prague, Czech Republic, fired test shots in a closed room and attempted to recover particles 2 metres away from the shooter. They detected "unique" particles up to 8 minutes after a shot was fired, suggesting that someone entering the scene after a shooting could have more particles on them than a shooter who runs away immediately (Forensic Science International, vol 153, p 132).

A separate study reported in 2000 by Debra Kowal and Steven Dowell at the Los Angeles county coroner's department reported that it was also possible to be contaminated by police vehicles. Of 50 samples from the back seats of patrol cars, they found 45 contained particles "consistent" with GSR and four had "highly specific" GSR particles. What's more, they showed that "highly specific" particles could be transferred from the hands of someone who had fired a gun to someone who had not. This doesn't surprise Arvizu. "If I was going to go out and look for gunshot residue, police stations are the places I'd look," she says.

Scientists using the technique are aware of the potential contamination problem, but how they deal with it varies. In Baltimore, for example, the police department crime lab's protocol calls for at least one lead-barium-antimony particle and a few "consistent" particles to be found to call the sample positive for GSR. The FBI is more cautious. Its protocol states: "Because the possibility of secondary transfer exists, at least three unique particles must be detected...in order to report the subject/object/surface 'as having been in an environment of gunshot primer residue'." So a person could be named as a potential shooter in Baltimore, but given the benefit of the doubt by the FBI.

Even worse, it is possible to pick up a so-called "unique" particle from an entirely different source. Industrial tools and fireworks are both capable of producing particles with a similar composition to GSR. And several studies have suggested that car mechanics are particularly at risk of being falsely accused, because some brake linings contain heavy metals and can form GSR-like particles at the temperatures reached during braking. In one recent study, Bruno Cardinetti and colleagues at the Scientific Investigation Unit of the Carabinieri (the Italian police force) in Rome found that composition alone was not enough to tell true GSR particles from particles formed in brake linings (Forensic Science International, vol 143, p 1).

At an FBI symposium last June, GSR experts discussed ways to improve and standardise the tests. The bureau would not discuss the meeting, but special agent Ann Todd says the FBI's laboratory is preparing a paper for publication that "will make recommendations to the scientific community regarding accepting, conducting and interpreting GSR exams".

Singer maintains that the technique is useful if used carefully. "I think it's important as part of the investigative phase," he says, though not necessarily to be presented in court. But he adds: "There are people who are going to be a bit more, shall we say, enthusiastic. That's where you're going to run into trouble."

(From issue 2527 of New Scientist magazine, 23 November 2005, page 6)



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Amazing case: State Supreme court judges seen as so biased that a man declared not guilty by Australia's highest court refuses to go before them to get his freedom!

Perth man Andrew Mallard has protested his innocence over a brutal murder and called for a Corruption and Crime Commission hearing into his case. Writing from Casuarina Prison on Friday, Mallard said he was overjoyed by a High Court decision this week to quash his conviction for the 1994 murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence, 45. But he told the Sunday Times he would not apply for bail, as his lawyers suggested, because he did not trust the Supreme Court to be fair.

"I was elated and relieved when I heard that the High Court had quashed my conviction," he wrote in a letter to his sister Jacqui. "I feel that the end of this traumatic ordeal will soon be over and I will walk out of prison an innocent and free man. "If my bail application were to be heard by a High Court judge, I would be then making a bail application immediately, but I will not willingly go back before a West Australian judge who will only support the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. "I do not trust the WA Supreme Court judges."

Five justices of the High Court unanimously criticised the Supreme Court's 2003 rejection of Mallard's appeal, which was based on evidence not disclosed at his 1995 trial.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

SEMI-RANDOM JUSTICE IN BRITAIN

Criminal suspects are up to eight times more likely to go free in some parts of the country than others because of a postcode system of justice, The Times can disclose. A detailed analysis of the work of Britain's prosecutors shows stark differences in conviction rates around the country for offences ranging from dangerous driving to murder. Data obtained by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act established that:

34 per cent of homicide prosecutions in London involving murder and manslaughter failed

Almost 40 per cent of sexual offence prosecutions in London failed

37 per cent of sex crime prosecutions failed nationally

Hundreds of victims of sexual and violent attacks in Bedfordshire were left with their cases unresolved after almost 50 per cent of prosecutions for sex crimes and offences against the person failed. Bedfordshire came bottom of the first, unofficial league table of the Crown Prosecution Service's 42 regional teams in England and Wales, with an overall conviction rate of 76 per cent.

The performance measurement, compiled from casework data spanning an 11-month period, placed Warwickshire on top with a 93 per cent success rate. The statistics also exposed systemic inefficiencies within the CPS, which took 41,000 cases to court then dropped them at the last moment when lawyers offered no evidence.

Conviction rates reflect other factors including the social composition of juries in different crown courts and the contrasting nature of crime in different parts of the country. But the performance figures coincide with growing concern about courtroom prosecution. HMCPS Inspectorate will begin grading the 42 CPS areas next month as excellent, good, fair or poor. The Times has also learnt that Avon & Somerset Constabulary is conducting its own audit of CPS performance in the Bristol area....

Mr Macdonald said that different levels of performance could be explained in part by contrasts between shire counties and metropolitan areas and in different practices. He said that where prosecutors had taken over the task of charging from police officers, performance was improving. But he expressed concern over the low rate of conviction for sexual offences and the collapse of so many cases.

Ian Kelcey, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said that defence lawyers were increasingly frustrated by CPS delays. Mr Kelcey said: "You can write letters for months and never receive a reply, and there are huge differences in levels of efficiency . . . Every delay hampers the smooth running of the justice system."

More here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

CORRUPTION IN MILITARY JUSTICE

With lies obviously abundant why does this prosecution continue? What sort of prosecution service gives witnesses incentives to lie? And after all the lies, how can "beyond reasonable doubt" ever be satisfied?

A Soldier convicted of murdering unarmed Iraqis testified Thursday that he falsely implicated his platoon leader in one of the slayings so that he could get a lighter prison sentence. The startling testimony came near the conclusion of a military hearing to determine whether 2nd Lt. Erick J. Anderson should be court-martialed on murder charges. A decision isn't expected until after Thanksgiving. Pvt. Michael Williams said, contrary to his earlier statements and those of other Soldiers, that the Iraqi victim was already dead when Anderson arrived. He said Anderson never gave any order to kill him. "I just felt that pressure of getting a life sentence instead of 25 years," Williams said. "It's just a lot of my fear."

On Wednesday, an Army investigator testified that Williams implicated his platoon leader only after his prison sentence was reduced to 25 years from life. Williams' original statement led to murder charges being filed against Anderson in October. Anderson was charged with ordering Williams and a second Soldier to kill Iraqi civilians while the platoon was conducting missions in August 2004 near Sadr City, outside Baghdad.

Prosecutors said in closing arguments that many of the witnesses changed their stories of the events out of loyalty to Anderson, whom many considered a good leader. Capt. Chuck Neill said the original statements given to investigators in Iraq spoke volumes. "These are the kind of events that would stay in someone's mind," Neill said.

Neal Puckett, Anderson's civilian attorney and former Marine Corps judge, said the government's case was a "used car" that would "never pass go in a courtroom." Puckett characterized Williams as a crazed killer who looked out only for himself. "Who knows what's in his brain? He was looking to send bad guys to Allah," Puckett said. The private was given immunity from being charged with crimes related to his testimony.

Williams testified that after entering a house during a search, he and his team found an Iraqi man with an AK-47 rifle. Williams said he shot the man twice in the chest after the man reached for the gun. Contradicting his own statements and those of other Soldiers in the platoon, Williams said he fired a third shot at the Iraqi to make sure he was dead before Anderson arrived at the house.

Prosecutors argue that after entering the house, Anderson told Williams the man was not dead yet and said to finish him off. In the separate incident, prosecutors allege Anderson ordered two sergeants to kill a wounded teenager during night operations near Sadr City. The two sergeants were convicted; they claimed it was a "mercy killing" authorized by Anderson.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

CALIFORNIA: ANOTHER ABSURD SEX PROSECUTION

Gangs roam free shooting and murdering while police and prosecutors waste their time on this rubbish

Margaret De Barraicua, the McClatchy High intern teacher arrested nine months ago for having sex with a 16-year-old special-education student, was sentenced Friday to a year in jail. The 31-year-old mother of a 2-year-old boy declined to speak at her sentencing in Sacramento Superior Court. She pleaded guilty in September on the eve of going on trial on four felony counts of having unlawful sex with a minor. "Her moral compass was broken," Judge Talmadge R. Jones said of the former teacher. De Barraicua was a "novice" and an overwhelmed teacher of "uncontrollable" special education students, the judge said.

Though the 16-year-old was a "troubled youth" who propositioned De Barraicua several times before she consented, the woman "violated a tremendous trust," Jones said. "If he was messed up before he is probably more messed by this offense." Deputy District Attorney Rochelle Hao, who described the four sex acts as "premeditated," urged the judge to require that De Barraicua register as a sex offender to preclude her from ever becoming a teacher again. The judge declined for the time being, providing De Barraicua serves her sentence and does not violate any terms of her five-year probation.

In De Barraicua's favor were two "positive" psychiatric evaluations, her lack of a criminal record, family and community support and a history of volunteerism, the judge said. Sacramento police arrested De Bar-raicua on Feb. 19 after they found her with the student in the front seat of her parked car behind Leonardo da Vinci Elementary School. Her son was strapped into a safety seat in the rear of the car.

Although the student did not attend the sentencing, he wrote a letter that was read in court. "Ever since this, my life has changed completely. I'm not the same boy. At school I became the center of attention. Everyone knew my name. I can't express my feeling," wrote the boy who is not being identified because he is a victim of a sex crime. The teen's sister, who sat next to her father in court, said the family has noticed a change in the teenager. "I believe my brother is mad at life," said the sister. [So he should be at such idiotic events]....

The judge allowed De Barraicua to remain free through the Thanksgiving holiday to spend with her family and ordered her to report to the Sacramento County jail on Dec. 2.

More here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

ABSURD POLITICALLY CORRECT PERSECUTION OF A SEXY MAMMA

Teacher Karen Ellis denies she is a pedophile, despite being jailed for sleeping with a boy young enough to be her son. And her lover Benjamin Dunbar, who was 15 when their affair started, insists he instigated their relationship. In an interview to air tonight on 60 Minutes, the former Melbourne physical education teacher, 38, described the past two years as a "nightmare". "I did come out (of prison) a pedophile," she said. "I don't think I am but the law says I am."

Ellis was released from a Victorian prison this month after serving six months. She had pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16. In 2003, Ellis had a sexual relationship with Dunbar, one of her students. She was married at the time and is the same age as Dunbar's mother. Ellis, whose marriage broke down after the scandal broke, defended the affair. "Ben knew what he was doing, I knew what I was doing. I'm not making excuses at all, it was wrong and if I could I'd take it all back."

Dunbar said he had pursued Ellis. "The way it happened, you could say I was the predator. I mean, I went after her. "I suppose you could call it that (lust). Just a crush that went too far."

While in prison Ellis allegedly told other inmates she wanted to resume the relationship when she was freed, and the pair exchanged letters. They were interviewed after a $40,000 deal with Channel 9, with Victorian police watching to ensure Ellis does not receive a fee because it would be illegal for her to profit from her crimes. It is believed Dunbar will get the money.

But the interview has angered police who investigated the case. Sgt Mark Wakefield warned parents to keep their sons away from her because she continued to display classic pedophile traits. He believes the interview shows she has control over Dunbar, 17, and people who believe no harm was done to him should think again.

Before the affair he had promising scholastic and sporting careers ahead of him. Ellis had also turned him away from his family. "It's all down the drain now. He dropped out of school at Year 10 when all this became public," Sgt Wakefield said. [I don't suppose all the adverse publicity and portrayal of the boy as a victim had anything to do with any subsequent problems he had!]

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)