AUSTRALIA: INSANE TREATMENT OF THE INSANE

Wouldn't it be just dandy to have the kid of one of these irresponsible cops stabbed?

A woman charged with stabbing her nine-year-old neighbour seven times has been allowed to return home on bail. The woman, 29, attacked the boy with a pocket knife last Sunday just after 6.30pm, police said. Department of Human Services authorities are now with the woman, who is autistic, and her family to assess if she should be moved following an emotional appeal from the boy's father.

The boy was stabbed three times in the chest, one narrowly missing his heart, three times in the back, puncturing one of his kidneys, received a wound to his hand and lost a litre of blood.

The woman lives across the road from the victim's Brunswick West home and was initially allowed to return home without charge due to "extenuating circumstances regarding her mental ability", Victoria Police spokesman Sen Const Leigh Wadeson said. The woman was sent home after being deemed mentally unfit for questioning. However police confirmed this morning that she had since been charged with intentionally causing injury and recklessly causing injury and has bailed for a future date.

The boy came home from the Royal Children's Hospital yesterday afternoon after requiring surgery, his father 'Ray' said. Along with having to cope with his physical injuries, the single father said his son was living in fear knowing his attacker was just across the road. "He looks out the window and looks back, he's a bit scared," he said. "When he was in the hospital he was having nightmares and although he wanted to come home in a way, in another way he was was a bit reluctant."

Ray said he was angry the woman had been bailed to be allowed to return to her housing commission home opposite their block of flats. "I just can't believe she's out," he said. "I would have thought she would be in hospital or a psych ward or something."

Health Minister Bronwyn Pike said the Department of Human Services had only been told of the incident this morning, which is why they had been slow to act. Ms Pike said something had gone wrong in the way the matter had been handled by the police. "While I'm not blaming the police... the police did what they could when the incident occured but unfortunately they rang the child protection line," he said. "The tried several agencies and often in these very complex cases it;s not clear what kind of support this person needs."

Report here




U.K.: Stalker death coroner slams bureaucracy. Says it is no solution

A police culture of “bureaucracy and blame” that hinders officers in their fight against crime was condemned by a coroner yesterday. At the end of an inquest on a beautician shot dead by a stalker at Harvey Nichols, Paul Knapman, the Westminster Coroner, said that police were constantly required to tick boxes and fill in forms. He said a never-ending paper trail had been created in forces merely to prevent lawyers from blaming and humiliating an officer involved in an investigation.

He made his comments as he ruled that Clare Bernal, 22, was unlawfully killed when Michal Pech shot her four times in the head as she worked at a perfume counter. The former Slovakian soldier, who was high on cocaine, then turned the gun on himself. He had been jailed earlier for stalking the beautician.

Dr Knapman said that police could not have prevented her murder, and any mistakes made in assessing the danger Pech posed were “not serious”. He said: “Here is the mischief — the present-day infection of the requirement to have more and more paper trails and computer trails. These result in assertions I hear all the time in this court by lawyers, who say to policemen, or doctors, or prison officers, ‘Because no record of doing something exists, you didn’t do it’. But far better to use your brain and think, rather than tick boxes and sign at the bottom.”

He praised PC Bibi Shah, who handled Miss Bernal’s complaint that Pech was stalking her. He said that although she did not formally record the threat that Pech posed, she was “very assiduous”.

Pech served more than a week in jail after breaching an order banning him from going near Miss Bernal. The former security guard had bombarded her with text messages and threatened to kill her. For four months he did not approach Miss Bernal, but in September 2005, shortly before he was due to be sentenced for stalking her, he shot her dead.

The inquest was told that officers had failed to fill in a form to assess the risk Pech posed. Dr Knapman said that he would write to the Metropolitan Police to urge it to stop officers recording investigations merely because there could be a complaint.

After the inquest Miss Bernal’s mother, Tricia, said that the police had failed to assess properly the risk that Pech posed to her daughter. Sandra Horley, chief executive of Refuge, said: “I am appalled by the coroner’s words.”

Report here



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

Conviction fiasco wrecks British crime drive

ALMOST half of the offenders caught by police are getting away without being punished by a court, according to an independent study which exposes as a sham Tony Blair’s pledge to be tough on crime. In the past year 624,000 of the 1.327m offences “brought to justice” were “non-convictions” — dealt with by cautions, summary fines or official warnings, to boost the clear-up rate.

The 75-page report, by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London, concludes there have been no “significant improvements” in law and order under Labour, and Britain remains “a high crime society”.

The report, published in association with The Sunday Times, assesses the boosting of spending on criminal justice by over a third in real terms over the past decade, to £22.7 billion this year.

It claims Britain spends proportionately more on criminal justice than any other western country but that “there has not been a significant step change” in outcome. It dismisses Labour’s manifesto claims that it has made Britain a safer place as “overstated and at times misleading”.

From 1998-99 to 2004-05 the police received a 21% real terms increase in funding, with even larger rises for the probation service (160%), the crown courts (116%) and the Crown Prosecution Service (44%).

Yet the report shows:

Court convictions as a proportion of offences “brought to justice” have fallen. The absolute number of convictions has also fallen.

Nearly half (47%) of the 1.327m offences “brought to justice” in 2006 were “non-convictions”.

Robberies have risen and murders are up by more than a third, from 600 in 1997 to 820 last year.

Street muggings and the proportion of prisoners reconvicted remain stubbornly high, showing Labour’s promises to curb them have all been missed.

Labour’s claim that crime as a whole has gone down is “highly misleading”. Official statistics, such as the British Crime Survey, exclude murder, rape, sexual assault, crimes involving children and other serious offences.

Crime was already falling fast when Labour came to power, making it easy for ministers to set a target — to cut crime by 15% — which seemed bold but was “based on existing trends continuing regardless of government action”.

The report concludes: “The extra money for relentless reform has not resulted in a significant improvement in outcomes, with crime remaining high and the proportion of crimes dealt with being extremely low.”

Report here



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

Australia: No significant penalty for habitual drunken driving

A motorist who crashed into a parked car and then got busted for drink driving for the sixth time has walked free from court. Leo Baden Brakey blew 0.143 -- almost three times the legal blood-alcohol limit -- in June last year and should not have been driving with any alcohol in his system.

The North Hobart man's punishment -- a six-month suspended sentence, $500 fine and three-year licence disqualification -- has disappointed road safety advocates. RACT chief engineer Doug Ling said: "If they get off lightly, there is not much deterrent, not much reason for people to change their habits. "The current penalties are probably adequate enough, so long as they are applied by the courts."

Earlier this week, Road Safety Task Force chairman Paul Hogan said serial offenders should be subjected to the "full force of the law". "These people should not be allowed on the road," he said.

The Brakey case in the Hobart Magistrates Court yesterday comes amid calls for tougher penalties for serial drink-drivers, including confiscating their cars. Figures released this week showed a third of drink-drivers caught in southern Tasmania in a Christmas-New Year blitz had been busted before. Magistrate Michael Hill suspended Brakey's prison sentence on the condition he did not offend under the Road Safety Act for three years. He said Brakey, 52, had a substantial record for a variety of offences stretching back 30 years but his behaviour had improved in the past decade. But he noted his last drink-driving offence in 2000 had, "unfortunately" for Brakey, been remarkably similar to the latest offence. In 2000, Brakey blew 0.22 and ran into the back of an occupied car.

On June 12 last year, police were called to Murray St at 2am and found Brakey slumped against a fence. He had abandoned his written-off car in the path of oncoming traffic after crashing into a parked car around the corner in Harrington St. Prosector Rebecca Lancaster said police noticed the disability pensioner's slurred, slow speech, red eyes and a strong smell of alcohol. He recorded a blood-alcohol level of 0.143 despite having a restricted licence, which meant he should not have had any alcohol in his body when driving. Brakey pleaded guilty to one count each of driving a motor vehicle while exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit, driving without due care or attention, and failing to comply with conditions of a driver's licence and the duties of a driver involved in a crash.

His lawyer, Steve Chopping, said Brakey had gone to the Republic Bar in North Hobart to escape a neighbour, who constantly yelled abuse. "He could not face the abuse," Mr Chopping said. "Foolishly, he made the decision to drive home." He said Brakey had being going through a particularly bad and stressful period. His father had died and his wife had "done a runner" with their son. Mr Chopping said Brakey had since changed his habits, been co-operative with police, passed liver function tests and had alcohol counselling. "This is the last time he intends to appear in court," Mr Chopping said.

Mr Hill said Brakey's fifth drink-driving offence had been in 2000 and fourth in 1989. He said the three-year licence suspension given to Brakey was the maximum possible.

Opposition justice spokesman Michael Hodgman, who was run over by a truck driven by a drink-driver when he was eight and almost died, would not comment on individual cases. But he said he was very concerned about any case of a person being convicted for a sixth time of a drink-driving offence, and particularly where that person's ability to drive had been seriously impaired. He said strong deterrents needed to be set for drink driving and repeat offenders, especially in light of the appalling number of recidivists caught during the Christmas period.

Report here




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

ANOTHER BRITISH COVERUP

This time at the highest level

A mother who won the right to an inquest into the murder of her son faces a rare challenge by the Lord Chancellor. Christine Hurst has already won the backing of the High Court and Court of Appeal for an inquest into the stabbing of her son, Troy, in 2000. But Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, has applied to join today’s appeal to the House of Lords against that decision, arguing that if the ruling is upheld it will clear the way for dozens of old inquests to be reopened.

Mr Hurst, a decorator, was 39 when he was killed in May 2000 in Muswell Hill, North London. His neighbour, Albert Reid, stabbed him. Mrs Hurst believes that her son’s death was entirely avoidable and that the police had failed to take steps to protect him, even though Reid had been the subject of 52 complaints about his threats and harassment and had a history of mental illness. An inquest was opened soon after Mr Hurst’s death, but immediately adjourned under section 16 of the Coroners Act because Reid had been charged with murder. He was eventually convicted of manslaughter on July 16, 2001, and William Dolman, the coroner, had to decide whether there was “sufficient cause” to reopen the inquest. He declined, saying that the issues had been aired at the trial.

Mrs Hurst, 62, who lives in Brookmans Park, Hertfordshire, lodged a High Court challenge, insisting that the inquest was necessary to explore what she maintained were the systemic failings and in particular the lack of police protection that gave rise to her son’s death. Reid was known to the police, she said, having previously stabbed her former husband. She added: “If the police had acted, they could have saved my son’s life.”

She won first in the High Court and then again in the Court of Appeal, where the judges rejected appeals by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the coroner and the London Borough of Barnet. The judges ruled that, when coroners exercised their discretion under the Coroners Act over whether to hold an inquest, they were bound by the duty imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate unexplained deaths.

Now Lord Falconer, whose department has responsibility for the coroners’ service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has sought leave to intervene in the final appeal to the House of Lords. His lawyers argue that if Mrs Hurst wins then a large number of other inquests might need to be reopened, putting a strain on the system. They also argue that the issues “have far wider significance than the circumstances of the present appeal”.

Fiona Murphy, solicitor for Mrs Hurst, said that she had been trying since 2000 to establish the true circumstances leading to her son’s death. “She has been opposed at each stage by those state agencies that will likely be criticised in the event that she defends this appeal.” Mrs Hurst said: “I am disgusted at this attempt by the Government. They have behaved appallingly. My son’s death was entirely preventable — and now they want to stop me ensuring that the failings that led to his death are publicly aired.”

Report here




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

U.K.: Murder conviction quashed after 14 years

A 36-year-old man who spent more than 14 years of his life in jail for the murder of a retired science teacher has been freed by Britain's Court of Appeal after judges ruled his conviction had been "unsafe". Andrew Adams, found guilty of shooting dead 58-year-old Jack Royal in Newcastle in 1990, had always maintained his innocence. Mr Adams said he had been deprived of a fair trial by incompetent defence representation and because the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.

His appeal lawyers also argued the original trial judge had made summing-up errors and that the jury were given inadmissible evidence. Three Appeal Court judges ruled that individually the criticisms and failures did not warrant the conviction being quashed but that taken together they did. "We are quite satisfied that, taken together, cumulatively they were sufficient to render the verdict unsafe," said Lord Justice Gage.

Speaking outside court, Mr Adams said he was delighted to be free, but angry that he had ever been convicted. "I feel bitter that my original trial lawyers let me down so badly. At the time I was charged I was 21 years old. I turned to them for help and assistance which I did not get in the way I ought to have done," he said. He said his joy on being released was tinged by sadness. "My one great sadness about today is that my (late) mum cannot be here to share this moment with me."

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said they would not seek a retrial of Mr Adams because if he were re-convicted he would be released almost immediately because of the jail time he has already served. A CPS spokesman said that during the appeal hearing it was clear that witnesess had experienced "great difficulty in remembering events" which would also pose problems for any retrial.

Northumbria Police, the force responsible for investigating Mr Royal's murder, said it was too early to say whether they would reopen the case. "The Court of Appeal has made its decision and we accept that. We will not be making any further comment until we have had the opportunity to study the court's findings in detail," Detective Chief Superintendent Steve Bolam said.

Report here



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

The Duke rape hoax is redolent of past decades' phony child-abuse cases

No one could have imagined, when the story began last March, how soon and completely that bit of shorthand--"the Duke University scandal"--would be transformed. Scarcely 10 months after, the term is now almost universally understood as a reference to the operations of Michael Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, whose abandonment of all semblance of concern about the merits of the rape and assault accusations against three Duke University students was obvious from the first. So was his abundant confidence while broadcasting comments on the guilt of the accused. He seemed a man immune to concerns for appearances as he raced about expounding on the case against the accused lacrosse players and calling them hooligans. He would hear nothing by way of concern from Duke administrators (seven months into this affair, the university president did find an opportunity to mention the accused students' right to a presumption of innocence)--and certainly none from the politically progressive quarters of the Duke faculty who lent their names to an impassioned ad thanking everyone who had come out to march in protest against the rape and assault of the exotic dancer; 88 faculty members signed it, among them such Duke luminaries as Alice Kaplan, author and student of fascism, and Frank Lentricchia, literary critic.

Unable to take part in the ad signing, Duke's administrators nonetheless found ways to identify with its spirit. Soon after news broke of the Duke athletes' alleged brutish sex crimes against a black woman, the administration undertook a well-publicized campaign targeting the entire lacrosse team for offensive behavior. President Richard Brodhead was, it seems, barely able to recover from the shock of his discovery that a party thrown by male jocks could occasion heavy drinking. And related loutish behavior. Not to mention a stripper. Lacrosse was suspended for the season, and the team coach, Mike Pressler, was shortly after forced to resign. Mr. Brodhead in due course reinstated the team, but on probation, and with conditions, i.e., no underage drinking and disorderly conduct, and no harassment. The members of other Duke organizations, sports teams included, which had sponsored parties where alcohol flowed freely and which had featured strippers--an informal count reveals at least 20 known to have done so--no doubt understood that they faced no similar disciplinary action. The reason for the moral-cleansing program devised for the lacrosse team could scarcely have been missed.

Mr. Nifong's confidence that he had nothing to fear from establishment opinion or from the leaders of the great university as he bounded about making hash of the rules of justice--prime among them the accused's right to a presumption of innocence--proved justified. And might have remained so longer but for the catastrophic effects of the accuser's unraveling stories.

Mr. Nifong is no anomaly--merely a product of the political times, a prosecutor who has absorbed all the clues about the sanctified status now accorded charges involving rape, child sex-abuse and accusations of racism. Which has in turn ensured their transformation into weapons of unequalled power. Like others before him, the DA quickly grasped the career possibilities open to him with such a case and proceeded accordingly--denouncing racism, and the rape and assault of a helpless black woman, and the Duke athletes guilty of these crimes in every media interview available to him (and they were many).

For all the public shock and fury over his behavior, there is little that is new or strange about Mr. Nifong. We have seen the likes of this district attorney, uninterested in proofs of innocence, willing to suppress any he found, many times in the busy army of prosecutors claiming to have found evidence of rampant child abuse in nursery schools and other child-care centers around the country in the 1980s and throughout most of the '90s. They built case after headline-making case charging the mass molestation of small children, and managed to convict scores of innocent Americans on the basis of testimony no rational mind could credit. Law officers who regularly violated requirements of due process in their effort to obtain a conviction, they grasped the special advantage that was theirs: that for a prosecutor dealing with molestation, and wearing the mantle of avenger, there was no such thing as excess, no limits to what could be said of the accused. In court, rules could be bent, any charges presented, and nonexistent medical evidence proclaimed as proof positive of the accusation.

In his role of avenger of a young black woman alleged to have been brutalized by white males, Mr. Nifong proceeded with similar assurance. His was a crusade. Who but enemies of the good would object? Confronted with hard questions about his evidence, whether from the defense or the press, Mr. Nifong answered that these challenges were all designed to intimidate the rape victim. More than once the DA suggested, as criticisms of his case multiplied, that he was himself a victim of the press. He could have had little complaint, last summer, about the New York Times, which provided its own reports on the Duke story. It maintained that that the DA's case had been distorted by the defense and that there was, in fact, a body of evidence that supported the decision to take the case to a jury. A close study of this work's wondrous logic, and of its body of evidence, should provide rich material for students of the press for years to come.

The jury to which Mr. Nifong played--the black population of Durham--duly helped re-elect him. This could not prevent his case of rape and abuse against the three Duke students from coming undone, thanks in part to his own heedless behavior but mainly to the accusing dancer herself, whose shifting stories and checkered past could not be hidden.

Mr. Nifong had, of course, nothing like the advantages of nursery school prosecutors: endearing 4- and 5-year-old witnesses clutching teddy bears, who came to court to recite lies they had been cajoled into inventing, about how the accused had raped and stabbed them, cut off the legs of animals--the kinds of charges mounted, against elderly Violet Amirault of Massachusetts and her adult children Cheryl and Gerald, proprietors of the respected Fells Acres Day School. Many like them were caught up in the era's whirlwind of accusation and sensational trials invariably leading to conviction, on which ambitious prosecutors built careers. Almost all those cases would ultimately be thrown out by appeals courts, most of the time not before those convicted had served long years and paid with the ruin of their lives.

Mr. Nifong's case has come undone long before any trial, fortunately for the three Duke students charged. They have had, nevertheless, a powerful taste of what it means to have been named and despised as perpetrators of abhorrent sexual crimes. I could go to prison for 30 years, Reade Seligmann, one of the accused, told the late Ed Bradley during a "60 Minutes" interview last October--and "for something that never happened"

Neither Mr. Seligman nor the other accused Duke students will ever have to contend with a punishment like the one meted out to Gerald Amirault, who was sentenced to a 30- to 40-year term for something that never happened--atrocious sex crimes that never took place, of which there was no physical evidence, or anything resembling a credible allegation. What did it matter that the child's testimony that resulted in Gerald's conviction had claimed rape with a large butcher's knife--one that had magically left not the slightest injury? The jury's most important duty was, the prosecutors informed them, to believe the children and show that they honored their testimony. The same young witness also testified that Gerald was accompanied by a green, silver and yellow robot, R2-D2, from "Star Wars."

What did it matter, either, that special judicial hearings about the Amiraults' prosecution had concluded that it was a travesty, that a tough panel of former prosecutors, the Governor's Board of Pardons, had virtually declared Gerald Amirault innocent and voted for commutation of his sentence--or that he was finally granted parole nearly three years ago, after nearly 18 years' imprisonment?

He was almost immediately classified by Massachusetts's Sex Offenders Registry Board as a Level 3 offender. The kind, that is, deemed the most dangerous and most likely to re-offend. This bizarre classification, the board made clear, had to do with the number of counts of sex abuse charged to him--and the fact, too, that he continued to deny guilt. He now has to wear a large tracking device around his ankle, and obey a curfew confining him to the house from 11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. every day. He has, not surprisingly, been unable to find a job. He is sustained, as ever, by the unstinting devotion of his family, and he grieves now mainly for the loss of the chance he had dreamed of in prison--of earning a salary and finally lightening the burden his wife had carried, uncomplaining and alone, during his years in prison. (He has recently been advised of pending legislation that will require him to pay $10 a day for the global positioning tag on his leg, that tracks him.)

The accused Duke students can be grateful that the case against them has collapsed, and that Mr. Nifong now confronts a serious ethics complaint filed by the North Carolina State Bar. They will never have to face anything like the malignant force which descended on the happy and ambitious Amiraults in 1984, and turned their lives to dust. But Reade Seligmann, David Evans and Collin Finnerty have this year had a look into an abyss that has claimed many others, and that is never less than terrorizing. It is a piece of their Duke education they are unlikely to forget.

Report here



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

SFPD HAS A YAWN ABOUT BIG BASHING CASE

And it's normal procedure in SF. Who says that? City officials! Given their well-known far-Left soft-on-crime attitudes, I believe them. Criminals are just "misunderstood", don't you know?

Members of a renowned choral group from Yale University were attacked outside a New Year's Eve party in San Francisco, sending several of them to the hospital. Now the police department is coming under fire for its handling of the case. This does not look good for the city. Yale sends its popular singing group, The Baker's Dozen, on a holiday concert tour. And San Francisco sends the young men away bloody, bruised, and several of them seriously injured.

Laura Aziz sent her son, Sharyar, off on a concert tour with one of Yale University's singing groups -- he came to San Francisco over New Year's. This is how the 18-year-old returned to New York last week. Sharyar Aziz, Yale University Student: "Besides any bruising or scrapes to the face, the main injury that I suffered was I broke my jaw in two places." Laura Aziz, Sharyar's Mother: "It was shocking. It didn't make any sense. It still doesn't make any sense."

The Baker's Dozen are a 58-year tradition at Yale. They've put out two dozen albums and toured the country, with appearances at the White House and Los Angeles Lakers games. When their winter tour brought them to San Francisco, retired police officer and department lawyer, Reno Rapagnani, arranged a New Year's Eve party at his home in the group's honor. Reno Rapagnani, Retired SFPD Lawyer: "I had given strict orders to my daughter that if anything got out of hand that the party would be over."

The trouble started at midnight after The Baker's Dozen sang "The Star Spangled Banner." Witnesses say a few local young men didn't appreciate the attention the Yale students were getting, made fun of their conservative dress and began taunting them and making threats. Leanna Dawydiak, Hosted Party: "They had something here special that these other fellas obviously didn't have and that irritated them."

Witnesses say 19-year-old Richard Aicardi was the most aggressive. Sharyar Aziz: "'You're not welcome here,' he called a few members of the group, whether it was fag or homo, very, I would say, juvenile taunting." Aicardi took out his cell phone and called in reinforcements. Reno Rapagnani: "He said, 'I'm 20 deep, my boys are coming.'"

One of the vehicles that brought the attackers was captured by surveillance camera at a church across the street. As The Baker's Dozen left the house, they were ambushed -- five, six, seven assailants attacking each member. Their injuries ranged from scrapes, black eyes, a badly sprained ankle to concussions.

The most seriously injured was Sharyar Aziz. He was rushed back to New York for reconstructive surgery -- his jaws wired shut for eight weeks. He'll forever have two titanium plates in his face. The varsity squash player will miss the season, now underway. He's trying to remain positive. Sharyar Aziz: "I can't just look back at that incident and be depressed for the next two months. I have to learn to deal with what's been given to me."

What especially concerns the Aziz family -- when police arrived, they detained four of the attackers who were identified by members of The Baker's Dozen, but officers did not make an arrest. And a full week later, they still haven't made an arrest. Whitney Leigh, Gonzalez & Leigh Law Firm: "That doesn't seem to comport with traditional police practices and as a result, at least at this point, there's several violent youths or young men, actually, who are out on the street and shouldn't be." Police investigators didn't even bother to photograph the injuries to The Baker's Dozen. The couple who held the party that night took pictures. Leanna Dawydiak: "Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems as a citizen in San Francisco that something should be done a little more than has been."

Police spokesman Neville Gittens defends the handling of the case. Neville Gittens, SFPD Spokesman: "What you want to do is you want to have a complete, thorough investigation. So the officers responded, the fight was abated and now an investigation is ongoing."

The couple who hosted the party wonder whether the authorities are moving slowly because of the family involved. Rich Aicardi and two of his brothers who were involved in the incident are the sons of prominent San Francisco pediatrician Eileen Aicardi. The I-Team met with Eileen Aicardi and her sons last night. They invited us into their home in the shadow of Coit Tower, but later declined to be interviewed. Rich Aicardi did not want to have his picture taken.

The incident threatens to be another black eye for the City of San Francisco. Mayor Gavin Newsom wouldn't address it when we caught up with him late this afternoon. There has been movement since we began investigating this story Friday night. Police interviewed Richard Aicardi on Sunday. Officials at Yale, by the way, issued a statement this afternoon saying they hope the "perpetrators will be apprehended and prosecuted."

Report here

More details:

Police arrived and the dispatch sheet obtained by the I-Team shows they detained Sacred Heart graduates Brian Dwyer, Marino Peradotto, James Aicardi and Michael Aicardi. They apparently did not detain their brother, Rich Aicardi. Police let all the suspects go.

Dean Johnson, ABC7 Legal Analyst: "Police can arrest anytime that they believe have probably cause to believe a felony was committed." Former San Mateo County prosecutor and ABC7 legal analyst, Dean Johnson, explains. Dean Johnson: "They should have let the suspects sit in jail overnight and if these suspects are entitled to bail, if they're essentially good kids who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, if they have no records, if they're no danger to society, the judge on the afternoon arraignment calendar can sort all of that out later."

It especially troubles Johnson that the police failed to take photographs of the injuries. The couple who owned the home where the party took place took these pictures. And it bothers him that police failed to interview the victims.

Now, 10 days later, investigators are demanding that the young men pay their way back to San Francisco to be interviewed. One investigator told a parent, "the kids are affluent, so they can afford it." The Baker's Dozen's attorney says it's ridiculous. Whitney Leigh, Gonzalez & Leigh Law Firm: "The notion that the police should now put the burden on the families or on these kids to fly back to San Francisco, a place they're now afraid to come to frankly, doesn't seem to make any sense to me."

Also today, a development that the police and mayor's office may not welcome -- former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer has joined the team of attorneys for The Baker's Dozen. Whitney Leigh: "He's got such great detailed expertise and knowledge, particularly about how the San Francisco criminal justice system is supposed to work."

We caught up to Chief Heather Fong this evening outside the police commission meeting. She defended her officers not arresting the suspects the night of the attack. Heather Fong, SFPD Chief: "When they detained them, they identified those individuals, and when the officers tried to get information as to specifically what did the individuals do, where were the injuries, if there were injuries, there were no individuals who provided additional information." But members of The Baker's Dozen tell the I-Team they did identify the suspects and were available just a few doors down the street and that the police knew that.

Report here


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

VICIOUS GEORGIA POLICE

A distinguished British historian who tried to cross a road in Atlanta, Georgia, has complained of being wrestled to the ground, pinioned by five police officers and incarcerated. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, 56, visiting Professor of Global Environmental History at Queen Mary, University of London, was attending the conference of the American Historical Association last Thursday when he was caught jaywalking.

“I’m a mass of contusions and grazes,” he said in an interview shown on the website YouTube. “I come from a country where you can cross the road where you like,” he said. “It hadn’t occurred to me that I wasn’t allowed to cross the road between the two main conference venues.”

He was not the only historian so to offend. A policeman called Kevin Leonpacher led a crackdown on the scholars, cautioning several before confronting the British professor, whose work has been compared to that of the 18th-century greats Gibbon and Montesquieu.

“I didn’t appreciate the gravity of the offence,” he said. “And I didn’t recognise him as a policeman. He was wearing . . . a bomber jacket, like a jerkin.” The officer asked the professor for identification. The professor asked the officer for identification. Officer Leonpacher then told him that he was under arrest and, according to the professor, subjected him to “terrible, terrible violence”. He said: “This young man kicked my legs from under me, wrenched me round, pinned me to the ground, wrenched my arms behind my back, handcuffed me.” As he bridled at this treatment, Officer Leonpacher called for help and soon “I had five burly policemen pinioning me to the ground”. His colleagues were astonished. It was “like he was Osama bin Laden or something”, said Lisa Kazmier, a historian from Philadelphia.

The professor had hoped to spend the afternoon listening to his fellows discoursing on arcane topics. Instead, he was handcuffed to another suspect in a “filthy paddywagon” and fingerprinted in a detention centre, where his peppermints were confiscated. His bail was set at £720 and he remained behind bars for eight hours. When he told a judge his side of the story in court the next morning the case was dropped.

Officer Leonpacher was unrepentant, saying: “He chose to ignore a uniformed officer. At what point can anyone say I overreacted?” The professor’s wife, Lesley, told The Times yesterday: “I suppose it’s lucky he wasn’t shot.”

The professor said that, as an “ageing member of the bourgeoisie”, he found it all educational — and was now seen by many of his colleagues “as a combination of Rambo, because it took five cops to pin me to the ground, and Perry Mason, because my eloquence before a judge obtained my immediate release”.

Report here


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

BRITAIN: THE STAGG CASE

Another police frame-up -- now exonerated by DNA

Colin Stagg has been told officially for the first time that he will receive compensation for his wrongful prosecution over the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common in 1992. Some estimates put the figure at nearly 1 million pounds.

Mr Stagg, 43, spent a year in custody before being cleared of the murder on the orders of a judge. The amount of compensation will be decided by Lord Brennan, QC, an independent assessor.

Last year it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service believes it has enough evidence to prosecute a patient at Broadmoor [loony bin] for Ms Nickell's murder.

Report here

Background

It is not fashionable these days for politicians to extol the judiciary, but then this column is not meant to be fashionable. Today I salute the genius of a judge. If I had anything to do with the honours system I would be advising that the next list should contain a special medal for Mr Justice Ognall, and that the citation should recognise his conspicuous gallantry under fire.... To understand the bravery of this judge's action, you have to cast your mind back to that murder, in 1992, and the mania that engulfed the media.

It was a horrifying crime, and one that cried to heaven for vengeance. A beautiful young blonde woman, of exemplary character, much loved by all who knew her, had been stabbed 49 times when out on the common one morning with her two-year-old son; and when she was discovered, the little boy was standing by her and pitiably repeating the words "Wake up, mummy".

The awfulness of the killing provoked the press to paroxysms of outrage. So deafening were the calls for retribution that the police were driven quite out of their wits. There being no forensic evidence, they were forced to look for likely suspects, and in Colin Stagg they found a man who ideally suited the tabloid agenda. He was runtish and rat-like, and yet also into body-building. He lived on his own. He was given to wearing dodgy-looking singlets and he was a devotee of the ancient pagan religion called Wicca. He had a picture of the Cerne Abbas giant inscribed on a black-painted wall in his flat. Someone said that they had seen him, or a man very like him, on the common on the morning of the murder - and that was enough.

So desperate were the Met to inculpate this loser that they organised a honeytrap of surreal absurdity, in which a young blonde policewoman took the alias of "Lizzie James" and tried to engage Stagg's interest. She met him, made much of him, and then started to write him letters in which she encouraged him to share a secret desire to kill young blonde women. She informed him that she had once killed a child and a baby in a black magic ritual. Was that the kind of thing, wondered "Lizzie James", that turned Stagg on?

The bewildered Stagg tried to cooperate as best he could with this beautiful woman and her appalling fantasies. It may have added to his creative difficulties that he was then still a virgin. After "Lizzie" had sent him a particularly torrid and gory account of killing blonde women, Stagg attempted rather lamely to reply in kind. "I hope that was to your satisfaction, Lizzie," he wrote at the end of one painful composition. "I've written the story on the lines of what I feel you are into."

It is unbelievable that the police could have decided to rely on this as "evidence", let alone think it enough to bring a prosecution. We can only understand what happened if we remember that day in, day out, the tabloid press was providing a barrage of covering fire, with pictures of Stagg looking goofy and deranged, pictures of his sweaty-looking singlet and his malodorous flat; and so all the time the police knew that if they failed to land this man, if they let him off the hook, then the wrath of the press would be turned on them.

They went ahead. They took the honeytrap nonsense to court, and of course Mr Justice Ognall dismissed the whole operation as "deceptive conduct of the worst kind", and threw the case out, a move which did indeed leave the papers furious. They blamed the police. They blamed the Crown Prosecution Service. They blamed the undercover honeytrap operative "Lizzie", and caused her such distress that she was later to sue the police force and win damages of œ135,000.

They blamed the police psychologist who had worked out, on the basis of "profiling", that Stagg must be the man. And for years afterwards, slyly or openly, they blamed Stagg himself, and continued to hint at his guilt. A paper paid him 43,000 pounds to take a lie detector test, which he passed, and yet whenever the case was mentioned they would in the same breath remind their readers of Stagg, the creep who had got off on an evidential technicality.

Now Stagg has been shown, by the latest DNA technology, to have been completely innocent. Another man certainly did it. Whom shall the media blame? The tabloids should realise that they are very largely at fault for the disaster. They decided not so much that Stagg had done it, but that this was what their readers wanted to hear, and they hammered away at it so vociferously that the criminal justice system was driven almost to insanity.

The Stagg case is a perfect example of why we should not allow ourselves to be ruled by tabloid editors. The Daily Mail's MMR panic has brought us an increase in measles, and the general panic over paedophiles has all but driven men from primary school classrooms. It needs brave politicians to resist this kind of nonsense, and brave judges to tell the media when they are wrong.

Report here



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

N.Y.: Tankleff's bid for new trial

An unlikely crime to start with -- and with a confession from a kid under pressure from the highly ethical [joke] NY police as the main evidence!

Martin Tankleff's latest appeal for a new trial will include words from a man who knows something about being a teenager wrongfully convicted for a parent's murder. "It's an outrage, and I just had to say something," said Peter Reilly, 51, of Tolland, Conn., who was convicted of his mother's 1973 murder in Falls Village, Conn., based on a false confession. He spent four months in jail before being exonerated. "This man has spent a good piece of his youth and a large portion of his life in jail for something I don't believe for a minute he did."

Reilly's sentiments echo those of several former prosecutors, judges and even Tankleff's high school classmates, who have written letters supporting his appeal, expected to be filed today in a Brooklyn appellate court. "They all look at the evidence, and they all think the same thing -- that justice has not been done in this case," said Tankleff's Washington, D.C., attorney Barry Pollack.

In 1990, Tankleff was convicted of murdering his parents Arlene and Seymour Tankleff at their Belle Terre home. Tankleff, 17 at the time of the 1988 slayings, has said he was coerced by police into confessing. His lawyers went on to launch a national campaign to overturn his conviction, based on evidence they say exonerates Tankleff and implicates others.

During a 20-month hearing that ended in 2005 on a motion for a new trial, Tankleff's attorneys presented evidence they said showed that Seymour Tankleff's business partner, Jerry Steuerman, paid Peter Kent and Joseph Creedon, both of Selden, to commit the murders.

Prosecutors say, however, that forensic evidence links Tankleff to the murders, and last year Suffolk County Court Judge Stephen Braslow rejected Tankleff's bid. Steuerman, Kent and Creedon have all denied having anything to do with the murders.

Believing that Suffolk's law enforcement and legal systems have a stake in upholding the conviction, Tankleff's attorneys say his odds are better now, in front of the Appellate Division. "They don't care so much about what Suffolk County looks like; they care about preserving the system in general," said another of Tankleff's attorneys, Bruce Barket of Garden City.

The 150-page appeal compiles the testimony of several witnesses who have come forward since Tankleff's trial with evidence of his innocence, attorneys said. They include Glenn Harris, who told Tankleff's lawyers that he drove Creedon and Kent to the Tankleff home on the night of the murders, and Creedon's son, who said his father confessed to him.

The appeal also includes several briefs by Tankleff supporters. One was written by former state, federal and county prosecutors, including an ex-Queens district attorney and a former Suffolk prosecutor, Tankleff representatives said.

Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Leonard Lato, who has reviewed a draft of the appeal, said it focuses on three issues -- that Tankleff's trial attorney was ineffective, that lead investigator Det. K. James McCready perjured himself by testifying that he did not know Steuerman and that new evidence proves Tankleff's innocence.

Lato said the appeal is well-written and well-argued but essentially "is no different than any argument they made" during the hearings before Braslow. More telling than what is in the appeal is what was left out, Lato said. There is no mention of the blood and forensic evidence, which prosecutors say clearly link Tankleff to the murder, nor of how Tankleff lawyers paid one witness for his testimony, Lato said. "The worst thing I think lawyers can do is ignore potentially devastating evidence," Lato said. "That is a sign that you know your adversary is right." Barket said attorneys focused their efforts on evidence exonerating their client, and would address prosecutors' objections later.

Attorneys expect to make brief oral arguments on the appeal in the fall, and they expect a decision by the end of 2007. If the court rules in favor of Tankleff, it could order a new trial or even dismiss the charges altogether, making Tankleff a free man. If the court rejects the appeal, Tankleff's attorneys say they will appeal the case to higher courts. In a statement, Tankleff's family expressed hope that it will not come to that. "Marty finally will have his day in court and we are truly optimistic that the appeals court will overturn Marty's wrongful conviction," the statement said. "We look forward to welcoming him home this year."

Report here



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

Australia: Savage killer free on parole

One of Tasmania's "most violent and horrific" murderers and rapists was released from prison yesterday -- having spent his entire adult life to date behind bars. Frankie Lyle Curtis, 37, was 16 when and he and his older brother Jamie John Curtis went on a drunken crime spree in February 1986.

They abducted a 15-year-old delivery girl, who escaped from the boot of their car before they could rape her. The brothers then returned home to Glenorchy and burst into the next-door flat and bashed 22-year-old neighbour Dean Allie. They sexually abused his fiance in what the trial judge described as "the most degrading way". The younger Curtis subdued Mr Allie, while his brother "had his way" with the girl. They then drove the pair to Gretna and stabbed and killed Mr Allie, who had been bashed and kicked until he was "incapacitated". They dragged his body into the bush, released his fiance from the car boot and continued their "cruel mistreatment".

Yesterday the delivery girl, who still lives in Tasmania, said: "I and the other victims would like the last 20 years back." She said she doubted her would-be rapist's remorse and had unsuccessfully tried to visit him in jail more than once to ask "why?".

Curtis was originally given a life sentence in June 1986 after being found guilty of murder, forcible abduction, aggravated burglary, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm, 10 counts of assault, two counts of indecent assault and three counts of rape. However, in 1996, he was resentenced to 30 years and became eligible for parole in early 2004. Last year the Parole Board granted him parole, noting he "appeared remorseful" and had voluntarily enrolled in a sex offender treatment program. It also cited a psychiatric opinion, noting Curtis's "very low" risk of re-offending.

Under his parole, Mr Curtis must remain alcohol and drug free, not approach his victims or their families and not enter licensed premises or the Glenorchy area. He must also attend counselling. In 1996 Justice Ewan Crawford referred to Curtis, who has been assessed as being of borderline mental capacity, as "a danger to society". He said his conduct, carried out after a night of drinking and watching violent horror films, was "the most violent and horrific I have had to deal with". Justice Crawford said Curtis had been influenced by his much older brother -- described as a brain-damaged psychopath. But he had been a "willing and active participant" and "played a major role in the brutal bashing, kicking and otherwise cruelly treating Mr Allie".

Report here



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

Duke Case: Can Professor Davidson Learn?

A dissection of an attempt by a hate-filled leftist to wriggle out of the evidence about her bigoted rush to judgment

Cathy N. Davidson is Ruth F. DeVarney professor of English and interim director, professor of interdisciplinary studies, John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke University and an unapologetic member of the infamous Group of 88. In 2003, in a paper titled "Crises and Opportunities: The Future(s) of Scholarly Publishing," Professor Davidson opined: "Innocence is not bliss--it is professional suicide."

When it comes to the sliming of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans (aka the Duke Three) and their fellow members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team, those players, their families and friends, and those who have followed the case and focused on the facts, are likely NOT to think of Professor Davidson as innocent. On October 15, 2006 (the same day that the "60 Minutes" expose of the Duke case was broadcast), Spotlight posted a brief article by Professor Davidson titled "Who is really preying on our children?"

When it comes to the Duke Three and their fellow members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team, those players, their families and friends, and those who have followed the case and focused on the facts are likely to think that Professor Davidson and her fellow Group of 88ers were preying on the team members (albeit not sexually) instead of praying for them. [Note: "Prey" means "to have an injurious, destructive, or wasting effect".]

On January 5, 2006, The News & Observer published Professor Davidson's current"point of view." Repentant, Professor Davidson is not. Apparently Professor Davidson was impelled to explain why she signed THE AD along with 87 colleagues.last April. The repulsive ad that inspired Brooklyn College Professor Robert K.C. Johnson to write way back on April 23, 2006 a scathing criticism valid then and obviously valid now. Professor Johnson:

"88 members of the Duke faculty... recently signed a public statement saying they were 'listening' regarding allegations against the Duke lacrosse team. The statement spoke of 'what happened to this young woman' (which at that point consisted of nothing more than uncorroborated allegations) and gave a message to campus protesters: 'Thank you for not waiting' until the police completed their investigation. Activities of these campus protesters, as we now all know, included such items as the 'wanted' poster and branding the team 'rapists.'"

By this time, Reade Seligmann's ironclad alibi was not a secret and fair-minded people, especially Duke faculty, should have been outraged that Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong had refused to consider evidence of his innocence and instead had him indicted. What does it take to make Professor Davidson realize that Mr. Seligmann's indictment on rape, kidnapping and sexual assault charges was a travesty of justice?

Professor Johnson's concise summary of the pertinent facts set forth in the then current issue of Newsweek: "According to the magazine, during or within the 16 minutes after the time of the alleged rape, Seligmann placed eight calls on his cell phone, was waiting on a curb a block away from the site of the alleged rape, where he was picked up by a cab; and he then went to an ATM machine, a fast-food restaurant, and card-swiped his way into his dorm. The cab driver has given a statement, cell-phone records exist of the eight calls, the ATM withdrawal slip was saved, and the card-swipe was timed by Duke's security system."

Professor Johnson's opinion then: "At this stage, we don't know whether a crime was committed in this case. But unless Seligmann had contact with the accuser before the alleged crime (which no one is claiming) or his defense team has engaged in a massive doctoring of evidence that fooled both Newsweek and ABC, it seems unlikely that Seligmann (who has no prior record of any misconduct, and who has received an outpouring of support in recent days from those who know him) committed any crime. In the words of Newsweek-hardly known as a bastion of overstatements-Selgimann's 'lawyer was able to produce evidence that would seem to indicate it was virtually impossible that Seligmann committed the crime.'"

Professor Johnson's musing: "How many of the Duke 88 would affix their signatures to a public affirmation that they are 'listening' to the exculpatory evidence of a student at their own institution, and expressing concern that local authorities could be veering toward a miscarriage of justice regarding Seligmann? Or do they 'listen' only to versions of events that conform to their preconceived worldview, like the student at North Carolina Central, seeking 'justice for things that happened in the past'?"

Professor Davidson's characterization of THE AD: "The ad said that we faculty were listening to the anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house."

The students with good reason to be anguished were the members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team! The Duke Three's joint defense team described the AD in their December 15, 2006 motion to change venue much more completely:
"On April 6, 2006, 88 members of the Duke University faculty endorsed a public statement denouncing the Defendants. The statement asserted unequivocally that something must have 'happened' to the accuser, that these members of the faculty had committed themselves to 'turning up the volume,' and said 'thank you' to the protesters who had participated in the protests noted above and who were distributing 'wanted' posters of the Duke Lacrosse team throughout the community. The faculty members endorsing this public statement included some of the most well-known members of the Duke faculty and even department heads: three academic departments and thirteen of the university's academic programs formally endorsed the statement."

Had these faculty members lost their faculties? How many of them have any shame? Professor Davidson insists signing the statement was an act of courage: "The insults, at that time, were rampant. It was as if defending David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann necessitated reverting to pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women. Many black students at Duke disappeared into humiliation and rage as the lacrosse players were being elevated to the status of martyrs, innocent victims of reverse racism."

They ARE "victims of reverse racism," Professor Davidson. Fortunately, they are alive. Professor Davidson is adamant: "I am positive I am not the only professor who was and continues to be adamant about the necessity for fair and impartial legal proceedings for David, Collin and Reade while also being dismayed by the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened on March 13."

Signing on to THE AD did NOT encourage "fair and impartial legal proceedings," as the joint defense motion for a change of venue demonstrated.

Professor Davidson finds stripper parties "sleazy, to say the least." At last, a point of agreement, Professor Davidson. Hopefully, you also agree that it's "sleazy, to the say the least," when a female Duke sports team does the same, and concede, as I do, that it's legal in North Carolina.

Professor Davidson: "That those women were women of color underscores the appalling power dynamics of the situation." "Women of color" were not ordered, Professor Davidson. If they had been rejected on the basis of color, you'd be complaining about that. The problem was having a stripper party, not a desire to humiliate any "woman of color," so please don't overstate the problem.

Professor Davidson: "The ad we signed explicitly was not addressed to the police investigation or the rape allegations. The ad focused on racial and gender attitudes all too evident in the weeks after March 13. It decried prejudice and inequality in the society at large. 'It isn't just Duke, it isn't everybody, and it isn't just individuals making this disaster,' the ad insisted."

No sale, Professor Davidson. The 88 HAD to realize that by issuing the statement they were supporting false accuser Crystal Gail Mangum's claim that felonious things happened, not just condemning racism and sexist.

Professor Davidson: "The lacrosse incident is a textbook example of what Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson calls 'social disaster' (a phrase used in the ad). 'Social disaster' refers to complex power arrangements that underpin even minor events and give those events symbolic (and disturbing) meaning for society as a whole."

The Duke case is a textbook example of an opportunistic black stripper lying to avoid incarceration and then cooperating with an even more opportunistic prosecutor who saw his chance to win an election against a rival (a female rival, Professor Davidson) by treating her lies as truths and manipulating manipulable black voters in Durham County, North Carolina, his duty as a prosecutor and the code of conduct for a prosecutor and the Constitutions of the United States and North Carolina and the statutes of North Carolina and the guidelines for identification be damned!

Professor Davidson: "The lacrosse incident became one of the top news stories of 2006 because Americans saw the case as symbolic of many of their deepest social concerns. Race, gender, sexuality, class, athletics, the South, poverty, privilege, the younger generation: those are some features of the brew that captured the world's attention and fed its moral voyeurism."

The Duke case became a huge story because the mainstream media treated lies as truths, because those lies suit their agenda. Professor Davidson on why she stands firm and affirming that she is caring:

"Like the other faculty members who signed the ad, I constantly receive e-mails asking me to rescind my signature. Some people write out of real misery for their children, Duke students who are distraught that their friends may have been falsely accused and unfairly treated. They believe professors have sided against the lacrosse players, and they are outraged. If we had written what they suppose, we would deserve their anger. But we didn't.

"I empathize deeply with these parents and friends. I regret the additional pain they felt when they heard about this ad. However, when I send them the actual ad, they are often surprised that it does not condemn the lacrosse players but focuses on larger campus and national concerns. I was touched, recently, when one mother concluded our thoughtful exchange by noting that she still didn't like the ad, but hoped that her daughter would have the opportunity to take a class with me someday."

Sometimes graciousness can be taken too far.

Professor Davidson: " On the other hand, most of my e-mail comes from right-wing 'blog hooligans.' These hateful, ranting and sometimes even threatening folks don't care about Duke or the lacrosse players. Their aim is to make academics and liberals look ridiculous and uncaring. They deliberately misrepresent the faculty and manipulate the feelings of those who care about the lacrosse players in order to foster their own demagogic political agenda. They contribute to the problem, not to the solution."

I disdain the hater mongers on both sides, but please be advised that others get hateful mail from the Left and you are contributing to the problem, not the solution," "Hooligan" is an anti-Irish epithet. Would you use the expression "blog niggers"? Are anti-Irish epithets fine with you? Looking to Mr. Nifong for inspiration on word choices is dicey.

Professor Davidson's word choices speak volumes about her lack of objectivity.

Example: "Who is that exotic dancer? A single mother who takes off her clothes for hire partly to pay for tuition at a distinguished historically black college."

Ms. Mangum is an ex-convict stripper/pole dancer whose lies caused enormous pain, suffering and expense and who just gave birth to her third out-of-wedlock child.

Professor Davidson: "Of course the lacrosse story makes Americans of conscience cringe."

We agree again, Professor Davidson, but for different reasons. Fortunately, Professor Davidson is not completely disconnected from reality: "There is also a different kind of social disaster in this incident, one that we didn't know about in April. I refer to a prosecutor who may well have acted unprofessionally, irresponsibly and unethically, possibly from the most cynical political motives. If it turns out that Mike Nifong has no evidence (as he insisted he did back in the spring), he will have betrayed the trust of an entire community and caused torment to these young men and their families. He will have added greater skepticism at every imaginable level to an already shaky legal system."

"[M]ay well have" and "If." At least Professor Davidson at last acknowledged the possibility!

Professor Davidson appreciates that there will be unfortunate consequences from the prosecution that was a persecution: "Nor is it only the lacrosse players who will be marked forever by this case. Will future rape victims dare to step forward after such a spectacle? Will African-Americans with legitimate grievances be willing to demand justice in the wake of this public debacle? On every level, this has been a social disaster."

Yes, there was a downside to a persecution based on bogus charges for society too.

Unsurprisingly, Professor Davidson sees herself as part of the solution instead of part of the problem (like Mr. Nifong!): "It is an educator's job to bring the lessons of history to bear as we try to understand the full and on-going social implications of what happened long before March 13, 2006, and will continue long after. Studying this social disaster must be on the lesson plan for our future, no matter what happens next in this miserable incident."

Unless and until Professor Davidson accepts that she is part of the problem, she won't be part of the solution. Keep studying, Professor.

Report here



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

Missouri: Police Roadblock Harassment Caught on Tape

St. Louis County, Missouri threaten to arrest a teenager for refusing to discuss his personal travel plans

A teenager harassed by police in St. Louis, Missouri caught the incident on tape. Brett Darrow, 19, had his video camera rolling last month as he drove his 1997 Maxima, minding his own business. He approached a drunk driving roadblock where he was stopped, detained and threatened with arrest when he declined to enter a conversation with a police officer about his personal travel habits. Now Darrow is considering filing suit against St. Louis County Police.

"I'm scared to drive for fear of being stopped at another checkpoint and arrested while doing nothing illegal," Darrow told TheNewspaper. "We're now guilty until we prove ourselves innocent to these checkpoint officers."

On that late November night, videotape confirms that Darrow had been ordered out of his vehicle after telling a policeman, "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you, officer." Another officer attempted to move Darrow's car until he realized, "I can't drive stick!" The officer took the opportunity to undertake a thorough search of the interior without probable cause. He found nothing.

When Darrow asked why he was being detained, an officer explained, "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight." The threats ended when Darrow informed officers that they were being recorded. After speaking to a supervisor Darrow was finally released. "These roadblocks have gotten out of hand," Darrow told TheNewspaper. "If we don't do something about them now, it'll be too late."

Report here -- including full transcript.



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

Australia: Outrage over killer's rights

Victorians have branded the justice system that lets the brutal killer of great-grandmother Marie Greening Zidan roam Melbourne's streets under a shield of anonymity a disgrace. The Herald Sun has tracked down the 21-year-old, who was released on parole just before Christmas after serving little more than six years' jail for bashing, sexually assaulting and choking the 73-year-old in 2000. Most of his time was served in youth detention as he was 15 and his friend 16 when they attacked Mrs Zidan in her Seaford home while her intellectually disabled son Peter lay terrified in another room.

The killer's identity and new address cannot be made public without court permission because of his age at the time of his offence. The law bans naming offenders under 18 without special permission from the Children's Court. It has never been granted in a serious criminal case.

News that one of the killers was enjoying his freedom sparked outrage from Herald Sun readers. Most anger was directed at a justice system many described as disgraceful and out of touch. "You have to wonder if the lawmakers/ministers would have the same level of disregard if the victim was their mother or grandmother," wrote Andrew of Seaford.

Leya Baykiz said she wanted to know where the man was living because she was afraid for her young daughter. Mark Ryan of Melbourne said: "Name and shame, as well as apply some type of justice. It places such a poor and unacceptable value on Mrs Zidan's life."

The State Government refused to respond yesterday, but the State Opposition called for the right of young offenders to anonymity to be scrapped. Acting shadow attorney-general Andrew McIntosh said the onus should be on children accused of homicide or rape to convince a judge their case and identity should not be openly reported, not the other way around. "It's about the community having confidence in the criminal justice system," he said.

The courts have refused bids by the Herald Sun to lift the order protecting the man's identity now that he is an adult. Mrs Zidan's family have long campaigned for the cruel duo to be publicly identified in the interests of protecting the public. They were charged with murder but struck a deal with prosecutors and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Neither has admitted who killed Mrs Zidan and sources within the juvenile system have told the Herald Sun they have shown no remorse for taking her life in order to steal just $10 in loose change. They were both jailed for nine years with a minimum of six. The one still in jail has also applied for parole but is yet to be freed

Report here


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

Australia: Killer cop case to be reviewed

Former NSW chief justice Sir Laurence Street has promised a fully independent review of the decision not to charge a Queensland police officer over the death in custody of an Indigenous Palm Islander. Sir Laurence was appointed yesterday to give a second opinion on the decision of Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Leanne Clare not to charge Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley over the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee in a Palm Island police cell in November, 2004. State deputy coroner Christine Clements had earlier ruled that Snr Sgt Hurley caused his death.

Former chief judge of the District Court Pat Shanahan was initially appointed to review the case, but quit over a perceived conflict of interest after it was revealed he'd sat on a panel that appointed Ms Clare the DPP.

Sir Laurence said today he was "utterly detached" from all parties involved in the case, having only read the occasional article. "It's an important matter in the public arena but I have no personal embarrassments or baggage, if you like, from the past," he told ABC Radio. "What I can say is I am, in fact, utterly detached from it. "I'm aware of it simply as an Australian citizen." Sir Laurence said he anticipated no difficulties in discharging his professional duties. "But I don't minimise the sensitivity and importance," he said. "It's got to be done properly and carefully and thoroughly and correctly."

Sir Laurence's appointment has been welcomed by the Indigenous community, which called for an interstate appointment to ensure the impartiality of the reviewer. Sir Laurence will work with Brisbane barrister Peter Davis and expects within five weeks to finalise a report to be presented to the Queensland parliament.

Report here

Background -- from Dec. 16, 2006:

National tensions over indigenous justice erupted yesterday as the Howard Government and Aboriginal leaders demanded an independent review of the decision not to charge a police officer over a death in custody. A day after authorities announced no criminal or disciplinary charges would be laid against Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley over the death of a drunk Mulrunji Doomadgee on Palm Island two years ago, federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough urged Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to arrange for a review or second opinion in the case.

Mr Brough, a Queenslander, pointed to the "stark differences" between state Deputy Coroner Christine Clements's findings that Sergeant Hurley caused Doomadgee's death, and Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare's decision on Thursday not to lay any charges over the incident. "This strikes me as a reasonable case for a second opinion, and the matter may not be resolved in the minds of concerned people unless that occurs," Mr Brough said.

Senior indigenous Labor figures Warren Mundine and Linda Burney immediately rounded on the state Government for letting the decision stand. But Mr Beattie refused to intervene yesterday, instead suggesting Ms Clare use her powers to initiate an independent review, as she had done in a similarly contentious case in the past. "That's her decision. We will not have any political interference either from my Government or from Mal Brough," he said. Ms Clare refused to comment last night. And her office would not detail the extra evidence she considered, in addition to that raised at the inquest into Doomadgee's death, in deciding not to prosecute.

The coronial inquest was told that Doomadgee, who was drunk and had been arrested for swearing, struck Sergeant Hurley in the face at the Palm Island watchhouse and a "scuffle" ensued. Sergeant Hurley said he landed on the concrete floor of the watchhouse beside Doomadgee. However, the prisoner suffered four broken ribs and his liver was torn in two. In findings delivered in September, Ms Clements said "these actions of Senior Sergeant Hurley caused the fatal injuries" and the officer's failure to check on Doomadgee in his cell was "callous and deficient".

An initial autopsy report on Doomadgee's injuries sparked riots on the island in December 2004. Alleged riot ringleader Lex Wotton yesterday called on Mr Beattie to go to Palm Island, explain what had occurred and "hear our cries". "This will traumatise a whole generation of indigenous people," he said. Doomadgee's former partner, Tracey Twaddle, and his grieving sisters plan to launch a civil action against Sergeant Hurley.

Mr Beattie's stance was supported by federal Opposition indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jenny Macklin, but Labor Party president Mr Mundine said the law had "turned its back on Aboriginal people". "The Beattie Government need to bloody do something - they can't just can't sit there and do nothing while this is going on," Mr Mundine said. "They need to stop bullshitting and sitting on their hands. "There's been a number of incidents in the last few years in Queensland and what's ever been done about them?"

Ms Burney, ALP vice-president and a NSW state Labor MP, said the Queensland Government must hold an independent review of the DPP's decision. "On the basis of community concern, there is probably justification for another look at it," she said. But Ms Macklin said "the important thing is for us all to recognise that the DPP is independent of politics".

Prominent Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson accused Ms Clare of "driving indigenous people to depths of despair" and called for her NSW or Victorian counterparts to undertake a review. "Ms Clare's competence has been under question since day one," Mr Pearson said. "She has been appointed DPP in an orgy of political correctness by the Queensland Labor Government. "Nobody in Queensland can have confidence in her judgment, and the Government should forthwith, for the confidence of the indigenous people in this state's legal system, seek a second opinion from a Director of Public Prosecutions in another jurisdiction."

A spokesman for Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine said last night the Government was powerless. "The DPP is independent and free of political interference and it is up to the DPP to seek any review," he said. But indigenous lawyers plan to meet Mr Shine next week to discuss their options. The south Queensland principal legal officer of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service, Greg Shadbolt, said while a referral to an interstate DPP would be sought, other options might include filing a private criminal complaint to a magistrate to determine if there is a prima facie case against Sergeant Hurley. "Given the findings of the coroner, one would have thought there is sufficient evidence to put before a jury for a jury to decide," he said.

Palm Island Acting Mayor Zac Sam said the council was also investigating whether a civil case could be brought against Sergeant Hurley. Sydney lawyer Stewart Levitt, who is representing several alleged Palm Island rioters, said he intended to file a complaint against the Queensland Government to the UN. Mr Levitt said the DPP's decision not to charge Sergeant Hurley provided further "evidence that a black life if not worth the same as white life in Queensland".

But Police Minister Judy Spence said she supported Ms Clare's decision and could understand why it was difficult for people to see how two arms of the judicial system could come to two different conclusions. "It's really a different test of evidence in each jurisdiction. I just remind people that it is common for judges to disagree." Mr Brough said it was possible that both Ms Clare and Ms Clements were correct in law. National Indigenous Council member Wesley Aird said the Beattie Government, by not intervening, was sending a message that police officers were more important than vulnerable Aboriginal people. "This community is just getting kicked while they are grieving. This wouldn't happen to a non-indigenous community," he said. Former Fraser government Aboriginal affairs minister Fred Chaney, co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, called on Mr Beattie to "restore confidence in the administration of justice". Doomadgee's sister, Valmai Aplin, said she did not know whether she could be strong enough to carry on without achieving justice for her brother. "In my heart I feel that my brother's soul will never rest until the person who did that to him is behind bars," she said.

Report here



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

NEGLIGENT BRITISH POLICE TO FACE THE MUSIC AT LAST

Two police constables accused of misconduct after a mother of three was killed by her mentally ill former partner could be the first officers to face a public disciplinary hearing. The Warwickshire officers face allegations of gross misconduct after investigations into the handling of the case of Collette Lynch, 34, who was stabbed to death by Percy Wright.

Two days before Ms Lynch was killed, Wright came to her home in Rugby and screamed that he was going to cut her throat. He then smashed the front room window before leaving, promising that he would be back. Wright was never arrested, although police visited him. The incident was not recorded as a crime. On February 3, 2005, Wright stabbed his former partner on her doorstep and wounded her mother.

The case could become the first to be heard in public after the Independent Police Complaints Commission decided to use new powers to lift the usual secrecy around its hearings and order exceptional cases to be opened. As The Times reported yesterday, the commission has a case under consideration and refused to identify it. Police sources believe that the case is the death of Ms Lynch.

It would meet the criteria set out by Nick Hardwick, the chairman of the commission, who said that the case would involve allegations of gross misconduct, or the most serious neglect of duty. It would be a case where issues of public interest were not aired at an inquest or trial.

Wright pleaded guilty to manslaughter in August 2005 on the ground of diminished responsibility and was sent to a secure psychiatric unit for an indefinite period.

Mr Hardwick also pointed to the case in 2004 of the showjumper Tania Moore as an example of the sort of case that could be heard in public. She was shot dead by her former boyfriend Mark Dyche after police in Derbyshire failed to act on his threats. Six officers were later disciplined in private.

At the conclusion of the commission's investigation into the Lynch case, John Crawley, a commissioner, said: "Our investigation leaves one with an acute sense of a tragedy unfolding in slow motion." He said that Ms Lynch was subjected to a "frightening incident of domestic violence" involving criminal damage to her home by her estranged partner.

There were failings in the local health system but the police performance was poor. While they attended the scene "the police did not investigate the incident, or record or otherwise treat it as a crime or follow any of the requirements in the force's domestic violence policy and other applicable policies".

Wright was not arrested then or "on a subsequent opportunity the following day when police visited him with mental health and child-protection officials, despite repeated reports that he carried knives and more than one report from the domestic violence incident that he had threatened to cut Colette's throat".

Mr Crawley said: "Colette was grievously ill served by a succession of officers, staff and their supervisors who failed to ask questions, failed to listen properly, failed to make adequate records [a fundamental police professional discipline] and above all failed to follow policies in respect of the management of incidents of domestic violence and to take prescribed actions and ensure follow through thereafter."

After the visit the force closed down the original incident on its system and took no further action.

Yesterday, Warwickshire Police said that a final date for the discipline hearings had yet to be decided and that the force was waiting for guidance from the commission. It had not been told whether the Lynch case would be made public.

Report here



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

NYC INSISTS ON GUILTY PLEA TO RELEASE INNOCENT MAN

It's a bargain made under duress so possibly could be challenged

Joshua Rivera won't be home for Christmas, but he's still expecting to have his happiest New Year in more than a decade. "The first thing I want to do is go to church, get on my knees and thank God," Rivera told The Post during an interview on Rikers Island, where he's awaiting his release after 13 years behind bars for a crime that new witnesses say he did not commit.

"In my mind, it hasn't happened yet," he said of his impending freedom. But that hasn't stopped him from making a lengthy to-do list. Rivera said he wants to ride the subway again. He'd also like to see Yankee Stadium, Ground Zero and Times Square. "I also want to see the Intrepid," he said, unaware the massive aircraft carrier has been hauled from Manhattan's West Side to Bayonne, N.J., for repairs.

Rivera, 36, was sentenced to life in prison in 1995 for murdering Gulf War veteran Leonard Aquino in Woodside, Queens. He is getting out as part of a plea deal after new witnesses surfaced to say he wasn't the shooter. Rivera said he met one of those witnesses at Elmira prison, and "wanted to stab him." He held back when an older inmate convinced him to use the man to his advantage instead.

Although he maintains his innocence, Rivera agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter and be sentenced to time served. "I thought that my freedom was more important than fighting this any longer," Rivera said. "I could have fought and stayed here. But there was no guarantee. "This is a guaranteed door that I am walking out of."

Rivera said a big part of his decision to cop to the lesser charge was his two teenage children - even though the guilty plea removed any chance he had of suing the city and will always be on his record. "You can't put a price on freedom. There's more to life than money," he said. "What's important is that you're there for your children."

He said he harbors no bad feelings toward the gang members that he used to hang with, even though he took the fall for the shooting and they never once visited him. Rivera said he'd like to open a food store in Florida, where his wife Rosa lives with their kids Jose, 16, and Kianna, 13. But before that, he'll take a trip to Astoria Park, where he played and swam as a child. When he gets there, he'll sit in the middle of the big field - and just "meditate."

Report here




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

YIKES! JURORS WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DECIDED!

Better procedures clearly needed

A throwaway question in a rare survey of jurors has produced a disturbing finding: most of the juries did not realise what verdict they had just delivered. The 277 jurors were questioned immediately after delivering their verdicts in 25 trials involving child sex assault. The first question was "What was the verdict in the case?" But in only six of 25 juries surveyed could all the jurors correctly state their verdict. In one trial 10 jurors reported reaching three different verdicts. In two other trials, jurors said they had found the accused innocent of some charges, when they found the person guilty of all of them.

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which received permission to interview the jurors, had been conducting a study into the use of video evidence and had not expected to make a finding about the post-trial puzzlement of jurors. In 40 per cent of the trials at least one juror - and as many as four - who returned a not guilty verdict said, erroneously, that the judge had directed them to do so.

A barrister who has reviewed jury trials for the Law Reform Commission, Paul Byrne, SC, said the results were disturbing and that most juries seemed to have a good grasp of their role. "It is a fairly surprising thing that a jury, when surveyed, would get something as fundamental as a verdict wrong," Mr Byrne said. "In sex assault prosecutions there are often a number of different incidents and the jury is told pretty clearly that they are to give different verdicts for each count. I find it hard to believe they would not appreciate that. I would think that it is a relatively straightforward task and so important that they would not get it wrong."

Mr Byrne said the jurors who were surveyed probably understood their verdicts but may have been confused by legal language. "It's fairly unusual to get this kind of research into jury verdicts," he said. "I can't think of an explanation for this finding . I have certainly had instances of jurors being visibly distressed while giving what is a unanimous verdict, indicating . they didn't really agree or felt uncomfortable with it . But I have never had a case where a juror has said later they did not agree with the verdict."

The bureau's director, Don Weatherburn, said the findings were surprising. "If jurors genuinely do not understand the range of verdicts, we may need to do some more work in telling them what is going on."

Report here



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

Appeal hinges on shaky "confession"

Heavy police pressure again and selective use of evidence allowed by the judge

It was no surprise that a jury convicted Richard Kolacki of first-degree murder. After all, he provided the gun and a getaway car to the killer who shot an Alviso grocer in February 1993. He confessed to police that he knew the killer, William Harley, planned to commit a robbery when Kolacki drove him to the store. And that knowledge made him legally responsible for murder.

But Kolacki's case, which seemed open and shut, has become one more controversial Santa Clara County jury trial, marred by trial judge errors and compounded by a faulty appellate review. In a federal court petition, Kolacki says jurors never learned that his confession was false, given under duress. And he says the judge's errors, coupled with new evidence, caused an injustice. Bolstering his contention, three jurors now say they would never have convicted him had they known then what they know now.

In its series ``Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice,'' the Mercury News documented that a sizable percentage of Santa Clara County jury trials have been marred by questionable conduct of prosecutors, judges and defense lawyers, or appellate justices in their review. Such errors increase the small but significant chance of wrongful conviction.

The danger is heightened when a prosecution is based on certain kinds of evidence, such as eyewitness identification or a jailhouse informant. And earlier this year, the state Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice identified false confessions as another significant source of wrongful convictions. ``Most people do not believe that an innocent person would confess to a crime,'' said Richard A. Leo, a University of San Francisco law professor. But Leo, a false-confessions expert, said the pressures of police interrogations can cause some suspects, worn down by the process, to tell police what they want to hear -- even if it is false.

Kolacki's interview with two detectives was recorded on three cassettes. Superior Court Judge Paul R. Teilh permitted jurors to hear the tapes of Kolacki confessing that he knew Harley intended to commit a robbery. But Teilh did not allow jurors to hear the lengthy first cassette, in which Kolacki insisted he did not know Harley was planning to do anything but collect some money. Higher courts later found Teilh's ruling wrong. Only after jurors voted to convict both men in 1996 did Harley tell them that Kolacki had no idea Harley intended to commit robbery. Kolacki has passed a polygraph supporting that contention. But lawyers in the state Attorney General's Office say Harley's statements and the jurors' reaction have been considered and rejected by the state courts.

A cold-blooded killing

The Feb. 11, 1993, murder of Antone Amireh, 60, who operated the Marina Market in Alviso, was cold-blooded: A bullet was fired from a revolver held to the back of his head, according to testimony, and his cash register was emptied. A forensics examiner later concluded that the murder weapon was the revolver police recovered later that night, when they responded to a report of a disturbance at a Southwest San Jose apartment complex. The arriving officers were directed to the apartment of Kolacki's uncle, who was also a friend of Harley's. Inside, police found Harley, who had pointed the revolver at someone before it was wrested away. He was arrested.

The next day, an alert jailer was struck by the similarity between Harley and a sketch of the suspect in Amireh's killing, which was based on accounts from witnesses who saw a man running from the store. Police returned to the apartment and found a sweatshirt bearing the words ``The Hog Farm,'' which matched the description of the suspect's clothing. Police learned that the gun belonged to Kolacki, who was staying with his uncle. Police brought Kolacki, who had prior misdemeanor convictions but no felony record, to the station for two hours of questioning with breaks.

According to transcripts of the interview, Kolacki told police during the first, and longest, session that he had taken methamphetamine, smoked pot and drunk liquor hours before they brought him in for questioning -- information that one juror later testified would have caused her to distrust his confession. On tape, Kolacki initially denied that he was with Harley at all that afternoon. But under questioning by the two detectives, he repeatedly changed his story, gradually implicating himself further and further. The officers eventually got Kolacki to admit that he gave Harley a ride to Alviso so Harley could collect a debt. Kolacki told them Harley took Kolacki's gun ``because he, he figured the guy had a gun, and he didn't want the guy to shoot him.''

The officers pushed harder. They told Kolacki they knew he was still lying and he would be in worse trouble unless he told the truth. They falsely told him that Harley had already told them all about the crime. During interrogations, police are permitted, under past U.S. Supreme Court decisions, to lie to suspects. What they cannot do is coerce a confession through force, threats or promises of leniency. Sgt. Jeff Ouimet told Kolacki that the officers already knew Harley, not Kolacki, was the shooter, according to the transcript. ``There's no sense lying about it. You knew he was gonna do the robbery. You didn't know he was gonna kill the guy, though. But you knew he was gonna do the robbery,'' Ouimet told Kolacki. Kolacki insisted he did not know about the robbery.

Ouimet responded, ``Well, I'd believe you if you said you knew he wasn't gonna shoot the guy. I'll believe that.'' Kolacki relented: ``He said he was gonna do a robbery and I didn't want nothin' to do with it. I gave him a ride over there and I was gonna leave him there.'' The officers took a break and the questioning continued, recorded on two additional cassettes, as they sought details to bolster the version that Kolacki knew in advance a robbery was in the works.

Tried together

Harley and Kolacki were both charged with first-degree murder, and Deputy District Attorney Peter Waite sought the death penalty. The case against Kolacki was built on the felony-murder theory: He had participated in a robbery, so he bore equal responsibility for the killing.

Before trial, both defendants' attorneys tried to keep jurors from hearing Kolacki's admissions. His attorney argued that the statement had been coerced by police, but Judge Teilh disagreed: ``I don't see anything but normal police interrogation in the course of the examination.''

Harley's attorney said the tapes would violate Harley's right to confront witnesses against him. U.S. Supreme Court rulings generally prohibit prosecutors from introducing out-of-court statements by co-defendants that implicate others on trial. But Teilh noted that Harley's name was not used on the later tapes. (The officers and Kolacki refer to the shooter only as ``he.'') Therefore, Teilh decided, he would allow jurors to hear the two later tapes, but not the first tape, on which Harley was repeatedly referred to by name. Teilh also denied a request to try the defendants separately, which would have permitted Kolacki to introduce the full interview -- with his initial denials and his statement that he had been doing drugs and drinking earlier.

Although the jury convicted both men of first-degree murder, they agreed that only Harley should face the possibility of a death sentence. As jurors heard testimony to determine Harley's fate, the case against Kolacki took a surprising twist. Harley took the stand for the first time: ``Myself, I knew that I was going there to do a robbery of a store. And Rick didn't know. Richard Kolacki didn't know this at all. He had no idea of it.'' Instead, Harley said he had told Kolacki he was going to collect a drug debt. The jurors voted to send Harley to prison for life without parole. Kolacki was sentenced to 25 years to life.

In 1998, the 6th District Court of Appeals upheld both convictions. The unanimous opinion of a three-judge panel, written by Justice Eugene Premo, says Teilh erred in handling the case. Harley and Kolacki should have been tried separately so that Kolacki's full interview could have been introduced. The court also found fault with Teilh for allowing only part of the tapes, saying the pronoun ``he'' did not disguise that police and Kolacki were referring to Harley. Nevertheless, the panel wrote, there was enough other evidence to convict Harley, and the errors were deemed harmless. But while considering the tapes' effect on Harley, the panel never examined whether it was unfair to Kolacki to introduce the later portions without allowing jurors to hear his initial denials.

Kolacki continued to press for a new trial. At a 2003 hearing before Superior Court Judge James Emerson, Harley's trial lawyer, Craig Kennedy, testified that Harley privately told him midway through the trial that he never told Kolacki he planned to commit robbery. At that hearing, Kolacki's new lawyer, Clifford Gardner, also presented the testimony from jurors who said they would have voted to acquit Kolacki had they heard the excluded portions of the taped interview or Harley's statement that Kolacki was not aware of the robbery plan. ``It would have made a difference,'' Elise Saito testified. ``I would have found him not guilty.''

Emerson found fault with Teilh's rulings. He also criticized the logic of the 6th District's opinion and its failure to address Kolacki's claims -- a highly unusual reproach by a lower court judge. But Emerson ruled the series of errors did not warrant a new trial. For the judge, the key was a detail in Harley's testimony at the sentencing proceeding: that he told Kolacki he was going to Alviso to recover a drug debt. Because Kolacki knew the debt was based on an illegal transaction, he still could be convicted of committing murder under the felony-murder rule, wrote Emerson. Kolacki's attorney, Gardner, counters that Emerson's analysis is flawed: Because there was never any discussion during trial of whether Harley told Kolacki that the source of the debt was drugs, Kolacki never had an opportunity to rebut the claim. The matter is now before U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel.

Report here


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