Judge lets British police thug off

Despite video evidence of brutality

A woman dragged across a police station floor before being thrown into a cell by a sergeant – who has now been cleared of assaulting her – says she believes he should never be put in charge of prisoners again.

Pamela Somerville said Sergeant Mark Andrews’ acquittal on appeal last week appeared to show there was ‘one rule for the police and another for members of the public’.

But she hoped the high-profile coverage of her ordeal would prevent similar cases happening elsewhere.

In a case highlighted by The Mail on Sunday, Sgt Andrews was captured on CCTV footage from the police station dragging Ms Somerville, 59, across the floor before throwing her in a cell.

Andrews, 37, who joined Wiltshire Police eight years ago after serving in the Army, was sentenced to six months in prison in September after being found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was cleared on appeal last week but now faces an internal disciplinary inquiry.

‘The public has a right to have every confidence in the police and I would rather leave it to them to make their own mind up about whether justice has been served,’ said Ms Somerville.

‘It’s very sad and very disappointing because I have been living a nightmare for two-and-a-half years since this happened. I just want to get on with my life. I only hope to God that Andrews is never again put in charge of a custody suite.’

The case was brought after a fellow officer, PC Rachel Webb, reported the incident to senior officers and gave evidence against Sgt Andrews. Sgt Andrews, who is married with two young children and has remained suspended from duty on full pay, spent six days in prison before being released on bail pending his appeal.

During his trial, CCTV footage was shown of the 6ft 3in policeman dragging 5ft 2in Ms Somerville, who weighs 8st, across a custody suite, throwing her head-first into a cell and leaving her unconscious and bleeding heavily from an eye gash.

But on Thursday at Oxford Crown Court, after conceding that Sgt Andrews ‘could have done things better’, appeal judge Mr Justice Bean quashed the conviction saying he was satisfied that Sgt Andrews had not deliberately meant to harm Ms Somerville.

He said her injuries ‘were probably caused by her falling to the floor after letting go of the door frame’. Sgt Andrews told the appeal that Ms Somerville was the most unpredictable prisoner he had ever come across and had been abusive. He added: ‘I don’t think I did anything wrong.’

Ms Somerville, a privately educated former market researcher, was orig­inally detained in July 2008 for failing to provide a sample for a breath test after being found asleep in her car. She denied any wrongdoing and the charges were later dropped due to insufficient evidence.

Last night Ms Somerville, who is now partially blind in her left eye and is awaiting cataract surgery, said: ‘The CCTV footage of what happens speaks for me as well as the fact there is to be an inquiry. ‘I had no idea there were CCTV cameras in police cells until I was shown the footage of what happened to me. But now the public know that too, which must be a good thing.’

Wiltshire’s Assistant Chief Constable Patrick Geenty, who had branded Sgt Andrews a disgrace to the force after his conviction, said: ‘The force has decided that it is appropriate for an independent force to hold an internal conduct hearing in early December. ‘This will examine the conduct of Sgt Andrews in respect of his dealings with Pamela Somerville throughout this incident.

'The result of that hearing will be made public and Sgt Andrews will remain suspended from duty until the hearing. He will continue to receive full pay for as long as he remains a member of the force.’

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Aggressive British cop gives woman fatal heart attack

A police firearms officer has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter after a woman died following a road-rage row outside her home. Christine Roche, 64, had a heart attack at the wheel after being accosted by an off-duty police officer, who lost his temper after she clipped the wing mirror of his car.

The 34-year-old officer is said to have flipped after the minor accident, which happened in thick fog in a suburban street in Hillingdon, West London. The PC got out of his car, leaving his children in the back seat, to remonstrate with Mrs Roche’s 71-year-old husband Patrick, who was sitting in the passenger seat.

Sources said the constable ranted at the pensioner before reaching inside the car to grab the keys from the ignition and storming off. Mrs Roche, who is said to have a pre-existing heart condition and was recovering from a heart operation last week, later collapsed at the wheel. She was treated by paramedics on the pavement but was pronounced dead at the scene at around 4.30pm on Tuesday.

The PC, a licensing officer for the Met’s elite firearms unit C019, was arrested the following day at work on suspicion of manslaughter.

Yesterday the victim’s family would only say that they ‘needed some space’ in order to come to terms with her death. The mother of two had lived in the area for more than a decade with her husband and son Matthew, 28.

Witnesses said she had been driving erratically when the accident happened on a road close to a school, described by locals as a ‘rat-run’ for traffic.

A source said: ‘She was driving erratically and she clipped his wing mirror. ‘He got out of the car and started having a go at her and her husband. ‘Then he reached into their car and took the key out of the ignition. He caused quite a scene and someone said we should call the police but he answered, “I am the police”.’

One local, who owns a shop nearby, said: ‘The couple clipped the policeman’s wing mirror or something like that – just a small prang. ‘He was ranting and raving and then apparently the woman had a heart attack. ‘I suppose she got stressed or something. It is a tragedy. ‘It is so sad. I feel sorry for them all, including the policeman. It’s not what you expect when you clip someone’s wing mirror.’

The policeman is understood to live locally and be married with children. Last night one local said: ‘He is a friend of mine. He lives nearby. He is a quiet family man. ‘I haven’t spoken to him since the incident but he is a very nice man.’

The unnamed PC, who is responsible for approving firearms certificates but is not an operational police marksman, was interviewed at a South London police station and released on bail until mid-December. The officer has now been suspended from duty pending an investigation by the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has also been informed.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: ‘At approximately 4.30pm on Tuesday, November 16, an altercation occurred in Hillingdon, after which a 64-year-old woman was pronounced dead at the scene. ‘A serving Metropolitan Police officer has been arrested in connection with the inquiry.

‘The 34-year-old, who works in central operations, was arrested on Wednesday, November 17, at his place of work on suspicion of manslaughter, and was taken to a South London police station. He has now been bailed to return in mid-December pending further inquiries.’

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Cops bust seven men playing chess in upper Manhattan park

Is there anything as thuggish and brainless as an American cop? One policeman or a park ranger politely moving them on would surely have been enough

A squad of police officers in bulletproof vests swooped into an upper Manhattan park in New York and charged seven men with the "crime" of playing chess in an area off-limits to adults unaccompanied by kids - even though no youngsters were there, the New York Post said.

"Is chess really something that should be considered a threat to the neighbourhood?" Inwood resident and mum Joanne Johnson wrote Mayor Bloomberg, the City Council and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly after the raid.

"This incident is an embarrassment to the officers from the 34th Precinct who felt that it was necessary to use their badge and authority to issue such a random summons." All seven suspects were issued with desk-appearance tickets, the site said.

The chess tables where they were ticketed for "failure to comply with signs" are in a fenced-in area where posted notices read: "Adults allowed in playground areas only when accompanied by a child under the age of 12."

Police said the rule protects kids from paedophiles or others who might want to harm them, the site said.

A police source added, "It’s the broken windows theory ... small things can turn into bigger things. Some citizens may see it as police harassment, but God forbid something happens to a child, people would be complaining, Why didn’t the police enforce these rules? That’s what they would be griping about."

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Wrongful Imprisonment compensation taxable?

As a tax lawyer, I believe exonerated prisoners who receive damages for wrongful imprisonment should not have to pay tax on their awards. See Tax On Wrongful Imprisonment Needs Reform. Perhaps for that reason, people have been gleefully emailing me the IRS’s latest: IRS Chief Counsel Advice 201045023. Everyone seems to be reading it by the headline the tax press is (inappropriately) giving it, proclaiming “wrongful conviction recoveries are now tax free!”

Since I’ve long argued for this view, I hate to be a killjoy. Unfortunately, that’s not what it says—not by a long shot. In fact, this IRS ruling says only that a victim of wrongful imprisonment who “suffered physical injuries and physical sickness while incarcerated” can exclude his recovery from taxes and can structure it just like other physical injury victims. We already knew that.

After all, the debate over these recoveries has focused (probably incorrectly) on the factual question whether the wrongfully jailed person experienced physical injuries or physical sickness while unlawfully incarcerated. If so, the damages are tax free, just like more garden variety personal physical injury recoveries. If not . . . well, we don’t like to talk about that one.

Admittedly, there are usually significant levels of physical injuries and sickness, especially in long term wrongful imprisonment cases. For that reason, as a practical matter, we tend to use the hook for tax free treatment we know appeals to the IRS. But is this appropriate under the circumstances?

Put another way, is that really why the victim is getting most of the money? Usually no. It may be difficult or even impossible to separate out all of the multiple levels of horror, all the losses that can never be made up. But in many cases, the loss of physical freedom and civil rights is at the root of the need for reparations. A payment for a loss of freedom should be tax free in its own right.

I commend the IRS for saying what it did say in IRS Chief Counsel Advice 201045023. But that isn’t the issue. The IRS issued a series of rulings in the 1950s and 1960s, involving prisoners of war, civilian internees and holocaust survivors. Sensibly, the IRS ruled their compensation was tax free irrespective of whether they suffered physical injuries. Then the IRS “obsoleted” these rulings in 2007, suggesting the landscape has changed.

The IRS has still not addressed whether being unlawfully locked up is itself tax free. This is a worry, since the Tax Court (affirmed by the Sixth Circuit) dangerously held in Stadnyk that persons who step forward saying they didn’t experience physical injuries or physical sickness will have a taxable recovery. Stadnyk was a very short term incarceration case, but it may portend continuing adherence to the IRS canard that “there must also be physical injury.”

It is wrong as a matter of tax policy and as a matter of social justice to tax these recoveries. It is also wrong to leave this area of the tax law to develop piecemeal so some people are paying tax. The continuing myopic focus on the accompanying injuries or sickness will foment tax disputes about these issues.

It’s time for the IRS to say it clearly and unequivocally. That’s a headline I’ll underscore.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Australian police force finally has to admit fault

But they spent a lot of taxpayers' money trying to avoid doing so. It tells you a lot about their dishonest mentality. Note also their policy of not prosecuting Muslims. They are a parody of a police force

VICTORIA Police spent almost $300,000 of taxpayers' money on a failed attempt to beat an officer's complaint that he was called a "f---ing wog" by a superior.

Former senior sergeant Mario Benedetti, who last month won a bravery award for running into a burning house to save a sleeping couple, secretly taped the insults in 2008.

He said he would not have taken the matter further had he not been called a "wog" during a meeting with fellow officers. Mr Benedetti said even after he decided to take action, it could have been ended with an apology, averting the expensive 12-month legal stoush. "It's absurd that they spent that sort of money," he said.

Documents obtained by the Herald Sun under Freedom of Information show how police command continued to write big cheques before giving up and settling with Mr Benedetti, who quit the force earlier this year.

At the height of its spending, Victoria Police coughed up $85,000 in one month to defend four members against Mr Benedetti's claims there was a "sustained and systematic campaign to subject me to detriment on the basis of race, impairment, industrial activity and employment activity". Last November, police command told the Herald Sun it rejected Mr Benedetti's complaint and the allegations would be defended.

It was not the first time Mr Benedetti - the former officer-in-charge at Moonee Ponds police station - had stood up to top brass. In November 2008, he spoke out in anger after charges he laid against members of an out-of-control mob were quietly dropped, without consultation. He said at the time he suspected the charges might have been dumped because the youths set to face court were of north African descent. He said he was later investigated for speaking out.

Mr Benedetti was last month awarded the Royal Humane Society's highest honour for risking his life while off duty at a fire in Preston.

Police Association secretary Sen-Sgt Greg Davies said it was a shame the matter was allowed to drag on to such an expensive conclusion. "If you're going to settle something, it's good sense to do so before the matter runs out of control," he said.

A Victoria Police spokeswoman said the force "recognises that litigation is expensive and can take time" and did everything it could to avoid that process. [Really???]

Original report here. (Via Australian police news)




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Reversing a death sentence. Ill. man tells story of escape from death row

He survived two execution dates but lost one third of his life. He sat on death row for 12 years. He then spent five and a half years on life without parole-all for a murder he did not commit.

Randy Steidl, a member of Witness to Innocence and the Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, spoke in the Abbott Auditorium Tuesday night about his experience spanning a 15-year period in which he lost every appeal he had.

"It was basically an exercise in futility…it wasn't until I finally got to federal court in 2002 that I got any release after almost 16 years of a wrongful conviction," Steidl said.

In 1986, Steidl was accused of murdering newlyweds Karen and Dyke Rhoads in Paris, Ill.

During the July 4 weekend, the couple was murdered by being stabbed roughly 50 times and their house was set on fire. Three days after the murder, five police officers took Steidl and his co-defendant, Herb Whitlock, out of a bar in handcuffs. Steidl and Whitlock cooperated and were released.

"Seven months later we were arrested and charged with double murder on testimony of the town drunk and some mentally ill woman," Steidl said.

The witnesses were Darral Herrington and Debbie Reinbolt. There was no forensic evidence tying the men to the crime, according to Steidl, and it was revealed that both witnesses were paid-one of them $25,000-to testify.

"We weren't released because of the system," Steidl said. "We were released in spite of it."

According to Steidl, Illinois is second to Florida for the number of people exonerated from receiving the death penalty. Illinois has exonerated 20 individuals. Florida has exonerated 23.

"I want to give people the perspective that you can release an innocent man from prison," Steidl. "You cannot release an innocent man from his grave."

Steidl's experience took a toll on his family, as well as the victim's family. "I saw the pain and the anguish on their face [of the victim's family]," Steidl said, "and that just continues to open a wound."

When Steidl was released in 2004, he was released into the world of computers and cell phones, all of which he had to adjust to. "After all of those years, it was like being Rip Van Winkle waking up after 20 years walking into a whole new world," Steidl said.

Steidl was allowed three visits per month where he saw his family. Steidl said it was great seeing his family walk in the door, but it was hard for them. "[That is] something no family should have to go through; no children should have to go through," Steidl said.

Steidl was convicted when he was 35 years old and got out at 54. "My kids weren't kids anymore," Steidl said. "They were adults."

Steidl said he saw 12 men executed while he sat on death row and they "didn't go out kicking and screaming" because death was a relief. "They were being released," Steidl said. "Five minutes on that gurney after decades on death row-they were being released."

Senior criminal justice and political science major Robert Levi Carwile of Olney attended Steidl's speech because he is in the class that put the event on, Political Science 472 and a human rights class.

"It's a very moving story," Carwile said. "Obviously, the man had a lot taken from him his entire life. It's sad that this is not the only isolated incident in the state of Illinois or across the country."

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Eight Myths of Justice

Innocent Americans are routinely convicted and incarcerated. The new book False Justice explains how

In the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Kansas v. March, Justice David Souter and Justice Antonin Scalia conducted a public debate within their opposing written opinions. Discussing the fates of death row prisoners, Souter opined that in such high stakes cases, innocent men and women are too often found guilty. The “unusually high incidence of false conviction” is probably caused by “the combined difficulty of investigating without help from the victim, intense pressure to get convictions in homicide cases, and the corresponding incentive for the guilty to free the innocent,” Souter wrote.

Scalia countered that wrongful convictions are rare in capital cases because they “are given especially close scrutiny at every level, which is why in most cases many years elapse before the sentence is executed.”

For 40 years, I have researched, written about and obsessed over wrongful convictions. Souter’s thinking—heavily reliant on the research of Samuel Gross, a University of Michigan law professor who has demonstrated that wrongful convictions are more prevalent than most law enforcement insiders understand—is spot-on. Scalia’s is misguided, informed by a judicial culture more interested in speedy convictions than thorough investigations.

The law enforcement personage who recognizes the problem of false convictions is a rare and refreshing breed—and often comes from unlikely corners of the political ring. Republican politician Jim Petro, experienced an epiphany during his term as Ohio attorney general that surprised him, his wife Nancy and many of his supporters. The epiphany? Petro realized that a significant number of prisoners who say they are innocent are indeed innocent. He realized that wrongful convictions occur in multiple Ohio county courthouses and in federal courts. He realized that the number of wrongful convictions can be minimized, and that police, prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys can perform their jobs better. His newfound cause was well suited to his law-and-order way of thinking—when wrongful convictions occur, the actual perpetrators (murderers, rapists, burglars, etc.) go unpunished, and often murder or rape or burglarize again.

In my years of research, I have heard only a few prosecutors acknowledge the breadth and depth of the problem. In his new book False Justice: Eight Myths That Convict the Innocent (January, Kaplan), Petro outdoes them all.

Most of the cases that raised red flags for Petro, and now benefit from his lawyering, are Ohio cases. Petro was especially gripped by the cases of Clarence Elkins, Michael Green and Roger Dean Gillispie, convicted felons whose exonerations in Ohio are completed or pending.

Petro and his wife, a business consultant, rely heavily on the Elkins, Green and Gillispie case studies in hope of dispelling eight “myths” about the criminal justice system:

•Everyone in prison claims innocence. Most inmates make no such claim because guilt is obvious. Lots of prisoners complain about police cutting corners or prosecutors offering overly harsh plea bargain terms, but rarely do they deny their crime completely.

•The American criminal justice system almost never convicts an innocent person. Nobody can know the census of innocent inmates. But hundreds of documented cases exist, and Petro, among others, suggests the number reaches into the tens of thousands.

•Only the guilty confess. False confessions show up in at least one quarter of documented wrongful convictions.

•Wrongful conviction is the result of innocent human error. Numerous cases have yielded evidence that police and prosecutors had reason to doubt the validity of the arrest, but made the arrest anyway.

•An eyewitness is the best testimony. Sometimes that is true, but numerous well-designed research studies suggest the odds of accurate eyewitness identification are no better than 50-50.

•Conviction errors get corrected on appeal. Appellate judges tend to side with the prosecution because finality is an overwhelming value within the court system.

•It dishonors the victim to question a conviction. In fact, many victims and their loved ones want the actual perpetrators to serve prison time.

•If the justice system has problems, the pros will fix them. In researching the more than 2,300 criminal justice jurisdictions across the United States, I have found that the pros almost never initiate the repairs. Instead, those repairs begin with innocence project advocates, journalists through their public investigations, law professors, and the rare state legislators and public officials willing to buck against the criminal justice establishment.

Any well-informed primer on wrongful convictions is welcome. Even better is a primer by somebody like Petro, who has the credentials to move reform proposals to center stage. 

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Doing time

The title of the film Conviction is perfectly ambiguous, focusing on both the guilty verdict of the defendant in a murder case and on the unshakable belief of his sister that he is innocent. The movie is based on the true story of Betty Anne Waters, who spent 18 years earning a GED, a BA, and finally a law degree in order to get her brother released from prison, and who now serves as an attorney for the Innocence Project. Along the way she lost her marriage and fulltime custody of her children; her brother Kenny lost his relationship with his daughter, who was a toddler when he was arrested. As presented in the film, the case involved dirty politics, suborned witnesses, and the rush to remove criminal types from the community, even if they are not actually guilty. And it demonstrated the indefatigable love of a sister and a brother.

The film opens with a walk through the bloody murder scene, reminding the audience that a brutal crime has been committed, and a victim is dead. It's appropriate to remember the victim in any crime story. But convicting the wrong man is also a crime of violence, a crime often overlooked in the rush to convince voters that the district attorney's office is doing its job to keep criminals off the streets.

After the murder, Kenny (Sam Rockwell) is immediately brought in for questioning, because he has a record as a barroom brawler and petty thief. Kenny takes the arrest with the wisecracking aplomb of a man who is constantly hauled downtown every time a crime has been committed. Betty Anne (Hilary Swank) arrives at the jail with the same longsuffering resignation of a sister who has done it all before. He is released, and all is forgotten — until two years later, when he is arrested for the murder and eventually convicted, with a sentence of life without parole.

The film uses flashbacks to show the kind of life Kenny and Betty Anne had as children. Their mother has nine children by seven men, and is often absent. As they grow up, they are in and out of foster homes and in and out of trouble, mostly trespassing and vandalism. Kenny in particular is seen as a wisecracking hothead, the kind of guy who has a biting sense of humor and makes everyone laugh, even when they're exasperated. Because of their difficult background, the two siblings are unusually close.

When Kenny is convicted, Betty Anne vows to get him out by earning a law degree. She doesn't even have a high school diploma, and she is often at the bottom of her class. Her husband leaves her, and eventually so do her sons, who choose to move in with their father because their mother is so focused on her brother. In many respects, when Kenny goes to prison, so do Betty Anne, her family, and Kenny's daughter.

During her legal studies, Betty Anne comes across a brand new line of evidence: DNA testing. She contacts Barry Scheck, founder of the Innocence Project, and the search is on to gain access to evidence that has been locked away for 18 years and possibly destroyed. As the movie tells it, far from serving the cause of justice, police officers and prosecutors involved in the case do everything they can to stonewall the new investigation and prevent the truth from coming out. Barry Scheck (Peter Gallagher) drily explains, "People don't like to admit when they've made a mistake."

One must recognize that this film is a dramatization, not an analytical report; one must allow for dramatic license in its telling of this particular story and its representation of the characters. Betty Anne Waters has said about the film, "The movie is so true to life. Not every scene happened, but every emotion happened." But the family of Katharina Brow, the woman Kenny Waters was accused of killing, have hired Gloria Allred to represent them in a suit for not presenting Brow in a better light.

The film emphasizes a number of problems that actually exist in the criminal justice system, especially as it is applied to poor people. Too often, police and prosecutors justify a swift arrest and conviction with the "unshakable belief" that "if he isn't guilty of this, he's guilty of something." In the film, Kenny can't afford the $25,000 to hire a private attorney, so he uses a public defender, whose case load is too heavy to give any real attention to his clients. The prosecutor takes one look at Kenny's juvenile record and believes it is in the public's best interest to get him behind bars. This is not untypical of the system. In addition, like many small-time criminals accused of hefty violent crimes, the Kenny whom we see in the film is at the mercy of police officers and prosecuting attorneys who have the power to coerce testimonies from petty thugs and frightened acquaintances willing to lie to protect their own freedom. Juliette Lewis gives an astounding performance as the pathetic, broken-toothed former girlfriend who testifies against Kenny after investigators threaten her with losing custody of her child.

A person who has been wrongly accused and convicted faces a double dilemma: the agony of knowing he did not commit the crime, and the knowledge that he will probably never earn parole. A person who is truly guilty can serve the minimum time, go before the parole board, express contrition and regret for the crime, and get out. A person who is not guilty must either lie and pretend to be sorry for the crime, or maintain his innocence and never get out, because parole boards never grant parole to convicts who do not acknowledge their remorse. Catch-22. If the inmate does decide to lie, that confession can be used against him if he ever earns the chance for a retrial. Consequently, convicts who have been wrongly accused of murder almost never get out.

The emergence of groups such as the Innocence Project, however, is changing the system. Kenny Waters was convicted because he had the same type of blood as the perpetrator, Type O. But O is the most common of blood types. It was easy to convict defendants on the strength of matching blood types, but DNA evidence is much more precise and individualized. Since DNA testing became admissible as evidence, 254 prisoners have been exonerated and released from prison. I personally know three people who spent two decades of their lives or more in prison for crimes they did not commit. If it weren't for the Innocence Project, they would still be behind bars.

But in many ways, they are still imprisoned. They have each lost 20 years of technology, job training, and social experience. Their children have grown up without them. Many such people have earned large financial settlements from the state, but no one can give back the time they lost. People like Betty Anne Waters and Barry Scheck are true heroes who understand the meaning of the word conviction.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

TX: DNA shows wrong man executed

His death was no loss and well-deserved but how many others have been similarly railroaded?

A Texas man was condemned to death and executed in 2000 on the basis of hair that did not belong to him, according to the results of a DNA test released on Thursday.

A test by Mitotyping Technologies published by the Texas Observer magazine - which fought a three-year legal battle to gain access to the evidence - showed that Claude Howard Jones was "excluded as the contributor of this questioned hair".

Jones - who had a long criminal record - had insisted that he was waiting in the car when his accomplice killed Allen Hilzendager during a liquor store robbery.

He was convicted of the 1989 murder and denied several appeals, largely on the basis of that single strand of hair that police found at the scene. Forensic science was limited at the time to examining the hair under a microscope, where it appeared to belong to Jones.

The DNA test posted on the magazine's website found that the hair most likely belonged instead to the victim. Analysing hair under a microscope was later abandoned after it was deemed inconclusive and obsolete with the development of DNA testing. Jones requested a DNA test and a stay of execution until it could be performed, but he was denied by then-governor George W. Bush.

Documents obtained by the Texas Observer and the Innocence Project showed that "attorneys in the governor's office failed to inform Bush that DNA evidence might exonerate Jones", the Observer wrote. Bush, embroiled in the 2000 presidential election recount at the time of the execution, was a proponent of DNA testing in death penalty cases and had previously halted another execution so key evidence could be tested.

"Because the DNA testing doesn't implicate another shooter, the results don't prove Jones's innocence," the Observer wrote. "But the hair was the only piece of evidence that placed Jones at the crime scene. So while the results don't exonerate him, they raise serious doubts about his guilt."

A Texas judge is considering whether another man executed on the basis of out-dated forensic evidence was indeed innocent. Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting a 1991 fire that killed his three daughters. Experts have testified that the evidence used to prove the fire was arson was flawed.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Four police SWAT officers shot during drug raid in San Antonio

I must confess that I am rather pleased by this news. It's about time one of these goon squads got a taste of their own violent medicine. Maybe they will eventually figure that using SWAT teams to chase after drugs is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Violence begets violence

FOUR San Antonio police SWAT officers were shot today during a drug raid.

The officers were met by a hail of assault rifle fire when they attempted to enter a Southeast Side residence around 2.30pm local time, the San Antonio Express-News said.

They returned fire but did not hit any of the people inside - among them a woman and a small child.

The target of the raid eventually surrendered and now faces multiple counts of aggravated assault as well as attempted capital murder.

One of the wounded officers was initially listed in critical condition and underwent surgery late in the day, said Brooke Army Medical Centre spokesman Dewey Mitchell.

Another officer was listed in serious but stable condition, while the other two sustained lesser injuries and were taken to University Hospital.

It was not immediately clear if any narcotics were recovered at the scene, police said.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Federal marshal's description of fatal shooting conflicts with video footage

Matthew Itkowitz, an off-duty deputy U.S. marshal, was being beaten and threatened with a gun in an alley off Melrose Avenue when, in fear for his life, he managed to draw his own weapon and fatally shoot his attacker. At least, that's the story Itkowitz told Los Angeles police.

What really happened that night in the Fairfax district is less clear-cut. Witnesses' accounts of what happened before the shooting vary. But footage from a surveillance camera, which has never been made public, calls into question the deputy marshal's claim of self-defense. A copy of the tape was reviewed by The Times.

The footage of the March 5, 2008, encounter, coupled with other evidence from the scene, raises a disturbing possibility: that a drunk cop fatally shot a man in the back to settle a score.

Whether prosecutors see it that way is another matter.

After knocking back shots of tequila at a Mexican restaurant a few blocks from their apartment, Itkowitz and his wife, Alexandra, began to argue as they walked home. The couple, both in their 30s, were having problems in their marriage and were discussing a separation.

Itkowitz became angry, his wife would later tell police. She said her husband pushed her and took a baseball cap from her head and swatted her. She was crying as she followed him down an alley they used as a shortcut home.

One witness told police she heard Itkowitz tell his wife: "You're out. You're gone. We're done."

Still crying, his wife responded, "You're drunk."

Itkowitz turned and walked quickly back toward her. Frightened, she ran to a group of people standing near the rear entrance to a tattoo parlor and asked for help. One of them was Ryan Gonzalez, the manager of the shop, who was closing up for the night.

Gonzalez, 26, had a long rap sheet and had done time in prison, including a 21/2-year sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon. That night, he had been drinking and marijuana was detected in his system, according to an autopsy report.

At 5 feet 6 and 160 pounds, Gonzalez may not have looked formidable. But he had a chiseled body and quick hands, and those who knew him say he was not one to back down.

"He was cool with people. He was not an instigator," his stepfather, Ray Smithen, said in an interview with The Times. "But if you antagonized him, that's a different story."

Itkowitz described Gonzalez as combative. He told detectives that Gonzalez pulled a gun from his pocket and said: "You know who I am, homey. I'll … kill you."

Itkowitz said he tried to calm the situation, telling Gonzalez: "Whoa, dude … everything's cool."

Caroline Cardenas and Alicia Simmons, witnesses with no connection to either man, described the encounter differently.

Although police said Cardenas initially told them it seemed as though Gonzalez was the aggressor, she later testified that she heard Itkowitz swearing at Gonzalez, telling him, "This isn't your business, mind your own business."

Gonzales, she said, told Itkowitz: "Calm down and go home."

Simmons told police she saw Itkowitz "backing Gonzalez up against a wall" and "Gonzalez … holding his hands palms out and saying 'Hold up, hold up.' "

However the confrontation began, there is no doubt it came to blows.

Itkowitz told police that Gonzalez punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground. He said he then told Gonzalez that he was a law enforcement officer, pulled out his wallet and showed his driver's license. Gonzalez snatched it from his hand.

Itkowitz said he was "trying to focus on that gun" when — without warning — Gonzalez hit him in the face again, knocking him to the ground a second time.

Itkowitz said he shuffled backward, trying to create some distance, and told Gonzalez, "It's cool, it's cool."

Then, "in a split second," as Gonzalez turned his head, Itkowitz lifted up his shirt, drew his weapon and fired. "I popped up … and I just started firing," he told police.

Images from a surveillance camera mounted on a wall behind Mao's Chinese restaurant show Gonzalez twice knocking Itkowitz to the ground. But they do not show that any shots were fired during the fight or immediately afterward.

Rather, the footage shows the two men walking together down the alley after the fight in the direction of Itkowitz's apartment. At one point, Gonzalez pulls out an object that prosecutors later said could "be reasonably inferred to be a handgun" and points it at Itkowitz's head.

Gonzalez then places it back in his waistband and motions for Itkowitz to leave. He turns around and heads toward the tattoo parlor.

As Gonzalez walks away, Itkowitz can be seen removing a gun from the waist of his pants and holding it behind his right leg.

Still walking toward the tattoo parlor, Gonzalez turns back toward Itkowitz and again motions for him to leave. When he doesn't, Gonzalez walks several steps back in Itkowitz's direction.

He's about 10 to 12 feet away when Itkowitz raises his gun and fires.

After the shots, Gonzalez runs east toward the tattoo parlor. Apparently wounded, he stumbles and falls, as Itkowitz gives chase.

Gonzalez gets back up, runs a little farther, then falls again. Itkowitz catches up.

He fires at least two more times, based on shell casings recovered at the scene. The video footage does not conclusively show Gonzalez's position when the final shots are fired. But the trajectory of one of the bullets suggests that he was either falling or on the ground, officials determined.

Three of the five shots that hit Gonzalez, including the fatal bullet, struck him in the back, according to coroner's officials.

When patrol officers from Los Angeles Police Department's Hollywood Division arrived, they found Alexandra Itkowitz hiding under a car. She had heard her husband calling her name, she told the officers. But she didn't come out because "she thought that Itkowitz was going to shoot her next."

The LAPD's Robbery-Homicide Division, which specializes in complex or potentially high-profile crimes, was assigned to the case. The results of its investigation were submitted to the Los Angeles County district attorney's office two months after the shooting.

Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley's office then conducted a "substantial independent investigation" of its own, which included calling several witnesses before a grand jury.

In their report, prosecutors wrote that Matthew Itkowitz's description of the shooting was "patently inconsistent" with the video footage. They also noted that the footage shows him reentering the alley after the shooting and picking up at least two unknown items from the ground before police arrived.

Prosecutors said Alexandra Itkowitz's sworn testimony in the case was "significantly inconsistent" with what she had earlier told detectives. The nature of the changes "strongly suggests that she has been influenced to support the statement [her husband] made to the police."

Nevertheless, prosecutors concluded in July that "there is insufficient evidence to prove that Itkowitz did not act in self-defense."

The district attorney's 10-page report does not explain why detectives apparently did not interview Matthew Itkowitz on the night of the shooting. Nor does the report say whether police performed a blood-alcohol-level test on Itkowitz, who had admitted having "four or five shots" of Patron tequila that evening and, according to his wife, had seven.

Also missing are details regarding the gun that Gonzalez allegedly pointed at Itkowitz. The report says it can be reasonably inferred to be a handgun based on the surveillance footage. But there is no mention of whether a gun was found.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Cooley, told The Times that a gun was recovered by police in the alley near the area where Gonzalez was first shot. But she declined to elaborate. She said the district attorney's investigative materials have been subpoenaed by the Department of Justice and that prosecutors in her office could not discuss the case.

Gibbons referred inquiries to Scott Caron, a private attorney retained to represent the district attorney's office in its dealing with the Justice Department. Caron referred questions to the office of Los Angeles County Counsel Andrea Ordin. Asked which lawyer in the 250-attorney office was handling the matter, Caron said he was not authorized to say.

Attorney Michael J. Grobaty, who has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Gonzalez's family, said in an interview with The Times that the lead prosecutor on the case, Sergio Gonzalez, told him that one reason it took so long to decide whether to file charges was that the matter had been controversial within his office and that Cooley himself needed to make the decision. [Gibbons said Cooley was briefed on the shooting, but was not personally involved in deciding whether to bring charges.]

Itkowitz, who still works as a deputy U.S. marshal in Los Angeles, declined to talk to a reporter about the shooting. He filed for divorce in April. Alexandra Itkowitz, now living east of San Diego, sat down for what turned out to be a brief interview earlier last month.

"I've tried to forget what happened that night," she said in an interview with The Times. "I don't know how to explain this. I'm afraid I might say something that…"

Her voice trailed off as her father walked into the living room and asked what was going on. The father, who is retired from a federal law enforcement agency, advised her to stop talking.

"You don't have to do this," he said. "You need to call Matt. You need to see what Matt's lawyer says."

Gonzalez's mother and stepfather told The Times they remain convinced he died sticking up for someone in trouble. "He was always out for the underdog," said Alice Smithen.

Ray Smithen said Gonzalez humiliated Itkowitz in front of his wife — and that's what got him shot. "He was drunk and he was mad and he wanted to get even," Smithen said.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Watchdog Blogger arrested for filming in public

The abuse of power and use of intimidation tactics to prevent video recording in public places goes on.

Ron Clark, one of two La Crosse Watchdog Bloggers, was arrested, cited, and released on October 26 for merely displaying his videocam and because of "his attitude," according to the La Crosse Tribune, quoting the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse campus police chief, which suggests that possession of "attitude" is illegal in La Crosse.

The incident happened at a local political debate at UW-L that some politically influential people have attempted to declare off limits to anyone with a camera except those whom they approve, such as officially sanctioned local media like WXOW Channel 19, a co-sponsor of the event.

Clark hadn't even been filming the debate but was attempting to record the interaction between police and fellow Watchdog Mike, whose last name has been held by request.

As almost always happens between law enforcement officers and a citizen with a camera, to the point where it's become a stale statist cliché, Clark reports that he was physically assaulted and abused during his arrest.

Mike contacted the Libertarian News Examiner with a recent, and apparently typical, run-in with the rights deniers.

Last week Mike attended a debate between two local candidates and found himself being harassed by members of the League of Women Voters, campus professors and a candidate's campaign worker because he was openly filming the debate participants.

They confronted him, argued with him, demanded that he stop recording, stood in front of him to block his view, and even called him an expletive.

Mike's response was simple in its logic, that he was merely attempting to exercise his first amendment right of Freedom of the Press. It's not as though he was trespassing on other people's property, Mike insists. "Keep in mind that UW-La Crosse is a public University, funded by your tax dollars," he wrote on his blog.

The video posted here was uploaded to the pair's La Crosse Watchdog Blog last night and shows Congressman Ron Kind becoming irritated with the bloggers and then attempting to grab their camera.

More videos, an arrest report, and a Ron Clark interview are posted at La Crosse Watchdog Blog.

Original report here. See the original for links and video




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

OH: Thuggish use of stun guns by Franklin County sheriff's office

The Franklin County sheriff's office has used stun guns in an "excessive, cruel and inhumane" fashion that deprives prisoners of their constitutional rights, the U.S. Department of Justice says.

The Justice Department asked this week to join a civil lawsuit by individuals who say they were shocked in a "callous and sadistic manner" by deputy sheriffs assigned to the jail. Their case was filed in U.S. District Court in Columbus in July.

The Ohio Legal Rights Service, an independent state agency that supports the rights of the disabled, filed the lawsuit on behalf of a number of prisoners. It asked the Justice Department to review the lawsuit; the department's motion was filed Wednesday.

The defendants in the case include Sheriff Jim Karnes, Chief Deputy Steve Martin and a number of sheriff's deputies and commanders.

Kerstin Sjoberg-Witt, legal director of the Legal Rights Service, said she welcomes the Justice Department's involvement and hopes to work with the sheriff's office to reach a resolution.

The agency reviewed 180 times Tasers were used on prisoners between January 2008 and May 2010, virtually all of which were ruled appropriate by the sheriff's office. The lawsuit contends that deputies used stun guns on individuals who posed "no threat of violence or harm to themselves or others" and that the practice had become standard operating procedure.

The agency cited examples including:

• A 24-year-old woman who was stunned four times after she objected to being forcibly strip-searched with male officers present. She had been arrested for driving without a license.

• A woman who told guards she was pregnant. She was stunned after being unable to remove a tongue ring because her hands were slippery. Officers refused her requests for a paper towel until after using a Taser on her.

The sheriff's office argues in court documents that deputies' stun-gun use "did not constitute excessive force."

Its policy permits stun guns to be used for self-defense, to protect an inmate or staff member, to disarm someone or to control a combative inmate. The policy says Tasers should not be used on inmates in handcuffs, leg irons or restraint chairs or who are known to be pregnant.

Karnes and Prosecutor Ron O'Brien both declined to comment on the case because there is an ongoing lawsuit. The Justice Department also would not comment on the case.

Sgt. Jim Gilbert, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police chapter, said the union supports the deputies named in the lawsuit. "We support the use of Tasers when dealing with combative inmates who potentially could harm themselves as well as the deputies or other staff members," Gilbert said. "The deputies acted in accordance to their training and with the equipment provided to them by the sheriff's office."

He said the sheriff's office reviewed each case and found that the stun-gun use was appropriate. He said videotapes would have been made of each incident. "Our deputies know that their actions constantly are being recorded," he said.

Tom Hemmert, community affairs officer for the Legal Rights Service, said the videos have been entered as evidence and cannot be publicly released.

Gilbert said FOP attorneys are reviewing the lawsuit to determine whether the union should become involved.

Representatives from all the parties involved in the lawsuit are scheduled to meet Tuesday for a court-ordered mediation to determine how the case will proceed. According to the Justice Department motion, the Legal Rights Service asked the department's civil-rights division to review the lawsuit in July.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Maryland man challenges denial of gun purchase

Daniel Hubert Ross is still paying for killing his wife four decades ago. This is not a plea for sympathy. A jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and a judge sentenced him to spend the rest of his life behind bars in a North Carolina prison. There is no doubt that Ross shot his wife.

But Ross argued that he hadn't been allowed to adequately explain his claim of self-defense, and he appealed his 1969 conviction. The case bounced through state courts, then federal courts, and finally landed in the highest court of all, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justices ruled in his favor in 1984. Prosecutors decided not to retry the case and dismissed the charges. Ross was set free after 14 years of incarceration, and a judge later expunged his record. Daniel Hubert Ross is no longer a convicted felon.

But records have a way of lingering, and Ross, who now lives in Maryland and works for the federal government, discovered that in January when he tried to buy a hunting rifle at a pawnshop in North Carolina.

The clerk took his name, disappeared for a few moments and returned with bad news. A criminal background check listed his murder conviction, and the clerk couldn't accept his $300 or give him a gun. Felons are barred from owning firearms.

The clerk inadvertently dredged up a part of Ross' past he thought he had buried, both legally and mentally, forever. After the pawnshop check, his old conviction surfaced again when he said he was denied access to a White House tour. And his employers at the Environmental Protection Agency, where he helps approve grants, began asking questions.

Last week, Ross, acting as his own lawyer, sued the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, demanding that his record reflect the Supreme Court's decision and that he be allowed to buy the hunting rifle.

Ross says in his suit that the government has "created and continues to create roadblocks to basic necessities making it extremely easy for law enforcement, employers and others to discriminate" against him "in employment, education, professional licensing and loans to rebuild his life, support his family and become a productive member of the community."

Ross, who lives in Prince George's County, had worked as a security guard and owned a handgun in Virginia. He said police are improperly using his arrest record to impugn his integrity. He's seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from labeling him "an irresponsible and dangerous felon."

I'm usually leery of writing about lawsuits filed by people without attorneys. Anyone can file anything in court, accusing anybody of anything, but at least when a lawyer draws up the papers, it usually demonstrates that someone with a legal background believes the argument has some merit.

But I was intrigued by Ross' claim. There is no doubt that he shot and killed in wife during an argument, though he said he was unable to adequately prove his claim of self-defense, that his wife stabbed him in the back of the neck and he "turned around shooting."

The Supreme Court's case revolved around whether North Carolina law at the time unfairly placed the burden of proving self-defense on defendants and whether the judge should have instructed the jury that they could consider Ross' claims.

Justice William J. Brennan wrote the opinion, ruling unconstitutional the state's law shifting "to the defendant the burden of disproving an essential element of a crime." The chief justice at the time, William H. Rehnquist, dissented, scoffing that the "decision will make less sense to laymen than it does to lawyers."

The real question, of course, is whether Ross' past should prevent him from buying a gun. Common sense would seem to say that since he's no longer a convicted felon, and since he's had a clean record since he was released nearly a quarter-century ago, he should enjoy all the rights bestowed on all citizens.

Did North Carolina and federal authorities simply fail to update Ross' criminal record to indicate he won on appeal? Should the cops have erased the record altogether? Or does the conviction still matter when you want to buy a gun, even if the conviction was overturned? And why can't North Carolina authorities simply look up the court record and correct their own record? No one would answer those questions.

Federal authorities kept referring me to Justice Department lawyers who would not comment on the question generally, saying it was hypothetical, and then declined to comment on the specifics of Ross' case, saying the details were not public.

Either way, the feds say it's up to the state of North Carolina to fix Ross' record if it needs fixing, and then they will go from there. And authorities in that state refused to comment on the case. That might give you a good indication of why Ross is taking this to court.

Ross' official denial is in the form of a letter from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which conducted a "Firearm Denial Appeal Review." That letter informed Ross that the information he gave them - including the Supreme Court decision and the judge's ruling to expunge his record - was "insufficient to authorize your eligibility to purchase or redeem a firearm."

An FBI spokesman in Washington, Bill Carter, declined to comment on Ross or his lawsuit but said his investigators rely on information provided by local authorities. "We can only go by what the state has in its records system," he told me.

He sent me to Steve Fischer, a spokesman for the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division located in West Virginia, a repository for criminal background files. He too said that "the system is only as good as the information" it has.

That brings us to North Carolina, and another dead end. Noelle Talley, the spokeswoman for the North Carolina Department of Justice, which oversees that state's Bureau of Investigation, which sent Ross' criminal background information to the feds, said the law prohibits her from releasing information about criminal records. "However, any individual has the right to review his own criminal history record and challenge it if needed," Talley said in an e-mail.

Ross told me he hasn't requested that information from North Carolina and said the federal authorities should have his up-to-date information regardless of what the locals have on file. "It's a game," he said, "and I'm not going to play it."

Trying to resolve this through North Carolina officials might give Ross a better chance at correcting his record. It might be as simple as convincing the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation of the judge's order to expunge his conviction.

But maybe the issue is more complicated. Maybe Ross has found another quirky case worthy of judicial input. And maybe he gets another chance to seek help from the U.S. Supreme Court. It's been a while, but someone there might still remember him.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Killer cop Mehserle gets only two years

Black lives are cheap, apparently. The claim that he didn't know he was using a pistol is absurd

A judge has sentenced a white former transit officer to two years in prison in the shooting death of an unarmed black man on a California train platform. When Perry issued his sentence, the mother of victim Oscar Grant shouted, "Oh my!"

Perry, however, threw out a gun enhancement that could have added 10 years in prison and said there was overwhelming evidence indicating it was an accidental shooting.

Lawyers for Mehserle argued the gun enhancement was written into law to punish robbers and other armed criminals.

Mehserle was convicted in July of involuntary manslaughter in the videotaped, New Year's Day 2009 killing of 22-year-old Grant in Oakland.

Perry had wide discretion when sentencing the 28-year-old Mehserle. Prosecutors sought prison time for Mehserle, whose lawyers argued for probation.

Mehserle testified during the trial that he thought Grant had a weapon and decided to shock him with his stun gun but instead pulled his .40-caliber handgun. Grant was unarmed and face down when he was shot. The incident let to rioting shortly after the shooting.

Sentencing came after the family of Grant urged a judge to impose the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter. Four relatives of victim Oscar Grant and his fiancee pleaded with Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Perry to order Mehserle to prison for 14 years.

Wanda Johnson, Grant's mother, cried as she gave a victim impact statement. "I live every day of my life in pain," she said. "My son is not here because of a careless action."

The family continues to maintain that it was murder when Mehserle shot Grant. Mehserle was a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer responding to a report of a fight.

Mehserle, shackled and wearing a jail jumpsuit, also stood before the judge before sentencing and apologized for the shooting, which he contended was accidental and not racially motivated. "I want to say how deeply sorry I am," Mehserle said. "Nothing I ever say or do will heal the wound. I will always be sorry for taking Mr. Grant from them." He also cried during portions of his 10-minute statement.

Earlier, the judge said he had received more than 1,000 letters urging a harsh sentence.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Mother convicted of 'cooking' her month-old baby to death in a microwave oven has ruling overturned

Crooked prosecutors and lying witnesses!



An Ohio woman who was convicted of 'cooking' her month old baby to death in a microwave had the ruling dramatically reversed today. China Arnold, was sentenced to life in prison without parole in 2008 for killing 28-day-old Paris Talley in August 2005. But the 2nd District Ohio Court of Appeals in Dayton ruled that the woman should be freed.

Defence attorney Jon Paul Rion said today that he's thrilled with the ruling and said he 'realised from the first day' that Arnold was innocent.

The 30-year-old continued to deny killing her baby after going through two trials in the case. The first ended in a mistrial and she was sentenced following her second trial.

Montgomery County prosecutor's office spokesman Greg Flannagan said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling before commenting.

The conviction was apparently reversed based on prosecution misconduct and claims that they hid witnesses, disobeyed court orders and subverted the judicial process according to Mr Rion.

The state's star witness Linda Williams also recanted her story. After Arnold was convicted, Ms Williams came forward and said that she lied to the jury about the mother confessing that she put her daughter in a microwave oven.

In September 2008, Arnold was spared the death penalty when the jury deadlocked during the sentencing phase after her conviction on aggravated murder.

Arnold had a criminal past and was convicted of abduction in 2000 and forgery in 2002. She had lived with her children and her boyfriend Terrell Talley at the time of the baby's death.

Prosecutors said that Arnold placed Paris into the microwave after an argument with Talley over the baby's paternity. She told investigators that she was intoxicated. Arnold took Paris to the hospital the following day but she succumbed to her injuries.

Arnold was initially arrested but then released due to lack of evidence. She was re-arrested in November 2006.

The death was ruled a homicide caused by hyperthermia, or high body temperature. The absence of external burns ruled out an open flame, scalding water or a heating pad as the cause.

Arnold and the child’s father had apparently gone out for a short time and left Paris with a babysitter, Rion said. The mother didn’t sense anything out of the ordinary until the next morning, when the child was found unconscious.

Mr Talley had later claimed that his son told him he had pulled the baby's lifeless body out of the microwave after a neighbour's boy had put her in there. This claim resulted in a mistrial.

However at the second trial, the mother of the boy in question managed to prove that he was not at the residence when baby Paris died and Arnold was convicted of murder.

Arnold will be back in Montgomery County in a few days and once she returns will be held in Montgomery County jail pending a bail hearing. She is now expected to be granted a new trial.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

An interesting letter recently received

The letter alleges a less-than-keen police investigation of a complaint by a boy that he was sexually molested by his father

Oct.12th, Lok, an 11yr.old missing Native American boy from Portland Or. was last seen getting off the school bus in front of his father's home.

Oct.14th His grandma Deanna Clark drove him from Olympia Wa.returning him to the Portland police sexual victim's assault crime unit, where he filed a police report against his father Marcus Lee Ball. They took Lok into P.C. where he still sits today, yet the pedophile is still on the streets!

Detective Karen Mack called me & asked if Ii new of any other children accusing him of this crime

RE: investigation against Marcus, I told her about my grandson & Lok's older bro. Jack from 8yrs. ago, also 1 1/2 yrs. ago Lok filed a report in Lacy Wa.

She told me those don't count. She needs recent alligations of other children accusing him but only from Multnomah county, not Clackamas, WA. or any other county. Because they do things differently here. I asked why do you need other children to come forth? On his own Lok said he did it!

I asked her if they did forensic exams on him and she told me that was none of my business! This investigation is a farce: Marcus is telling everyone he passed a lie detector test & Lok recanted his statement! I asked Detective Mack about this & she said she's not giving out info., she's only taking it!

Does this mean when a child reports to the police that they have been raped they need other children to say the pedophile also raped them in order to convict him? If that's the case then I plan to make alot of noise about it by taking it to the Ore. Legislator.

I think when a child makes a police report and they take that child into P.C. they should also take the accused into P.C. and have a professional counselor that specializes in body language of sexually abused children & pedophile to do an interview, while the detective's do the investigating.

There are many factors & many law's that have been broken by the Ore. & Wa. L.E. surrounding this case, including violation's of Lok's civil right's (federal)

Lok is an enrolled member of the Colville Confederate Tribe in eastern Wa. They have continually put Lok in danger. For 8yrs his father has been raping him, while the L.E. has continually called him a liar.

On one occasion A Lacy Wa. detective interviewed Lok w/o consent, scared him into recanting by threatening to hook him up to that big lie detector machine, told him "your father was hooked up to it, & the machine said he was telling the truth so that means you're lying!!" Then he told us the recorder accidently shut off when we asked for the transcript.

Marcus Ball was cleared. (this is the short version,much more to this incident)

We have all legal documents to back up everything I'm telling you. I have also sent e-mails to the FBI because the Indian Child Welfare Act was violated. They are now working with the Colville Tribal Court's ordering CSD to return Lok to his Tribe. They are also investigating the judge who violated that Act by illeagally placing Lok in his father's & grandma's custody.

She previously had ordered Marcus to take a sexual deviate test, it's a 3 part test but he only did one part of it. In the test he admitted to several other children accusing him of raping them. But he did'nt do the other 2 parts of the test. Though he didn't finish the test she said it was admissible

I'm also preparing a letter to send to the Justice Dept. RE: the 8 yrs. of repeated malpractices by the Or.& Wa. LE , in hopes they will refer it to the Section of Cival Right's Division

My main concern right now & why I am writing to you, is to ask you to please put this out to the Public. When Lok was missing everyone was so very concerned & praying for his safe return. Then the Portland LE lied to them by saying Lok had been found by Wa. LE in the Seattle area that he is safe & in good spirits!!

That was a straight out and out lie they told the public (using the excuse that it could hurt an ongoing investigation)

Everyone thinks he is now safely at home with his father. They deserve to know the truth! I also want to let them know not to forget Lok Chante Marcellay and that he still needs their prayers.

Sincerely Deedee Lopez-Myers (Lok's Auntie)



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Careful, photogs, that camera may still get you arrested

Questions still linger weeks after Americans won the right to photograph federal facilities without fear of being ridden to the pavement with a fist around their throats and a knee in their backs by government-sanctioned stooges bearing badges.

The first question might be how we lost such a right in the first place.

A second question is whether the settlement of a suit on October 18 between the New York chapter of the ACLU on behalf of libertarian activist Antonio Musumeci and the Department of Homeland Security will make any significant difference.

The lawsuit was launched after Musumeci, known to fellow libertarians as "Bile" for his "Blog of Bile," was arrested on November 9, 2009, while filming the arrest of freedom activist and Tyranny Fighter Julian Heicklen in front of the US District Courthouse in Manhattan where he was distributing Fully Informed Jury Association literature.

In the court settlement, the DHS admitted that it has no authority to prohibit individuals from photographing the exterior of federal buildings.

Does this mean, then, that the officer who illegally arrested Musumeci and confiscated the memory card from his camera will be prosecuted, disciplined, or in any way held accountable for his actions? Breath-holding is not recommended.

Also, the Federal Protective Service is required to send a memo its officers instructing them that they cannot prohibit photography of federal buildings.

Will this memo be followed? Here's a clue. After the conquest of Mexico the King of Spain memoed his people in the New World to treat all indigenous peoples with compassion and humanity. Result? The King covered his ass while his captains and clergy continued to rape, pillage, and plunder.

A recent article by Carlos Miller of Photography Is Not A Crime noted, "The settlement states that the DHS will have ten days to deliver the memory card to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where they plan to use it as evidence in the case against Julian Heicklen, whom Musumeci was videotaping when he was detained."

So the last lingering question is how can the government use an illegally obtained memory card as evidence against an illegally arrested citizen? But let's not forget, this is not the Land of the Free, this is the Land of the Empire.

Good luck Julian Heicklen and good luck to all photographers.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Canadian thug cops

As Quang Hoang Tran sat handcuffed to a chair in an interrogation room, Const. Will Vander Wier sucker-punched him, breaking his jaw in two places.

The provincial Special Investigations Unit (SIU) cleared the Peel Region police officer and Tran was subsequently convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery.

But the seven-year-old case was turned on its head last spring when the Court of Appeal for Ontario threw out Tran’s conviction because, in the words of Justice Gloria Epstein, the Peel officers “beat him up” and “attempted to cover up their shocking conduct by destroying evidence, lying to fellow officers and perjuring themselves before the court.”

The court’s ruling in June outlined a flawed justice system in the Tran case — from the SIU to the prosecutor’s office — that allowed Const. Vander Wier to go unpunished.

The ruling prompted the SIU to reopen the case. Vander Wier was later charged with assault. His case is before the courts.

Today’s story is one of an ongoing series probing police conduct in Ontario. A Star investigation of two decades of SIU cases has found police officers are treated far differently than civilians when accused of beating, shooting, running over and killing people.

Monday, we told you the story of an innocent accountant whose arm was broken by York Region Police when they wrongly accused him of stealing a car. The SIU did not lay charges.

In the Tran case, a man accused of vicious home invasions has now gone free because there was what the appeals court called “police brutality” during the interrogation of the accused.

Tran and other alleged gang members were accused of terrorizing two families, including sexually assaulting a woman by placing a gun in her mouth and vagina, carving a dollar sign into a man’s back, and pushing an 8-year-old girl down and telling her to “say goodbye to her parents,” the appeals court ruling states.

The home invasions took place in Mississauga in 2002. Some people were arrested and pleaded guilty. They implicated others, including Tran, who surrendered to police on March 27, 2003.

Const. Vander Wier and his partner, John Conway, drove to Hamilton, where Tran had surrendered to police in that city. According to testimony by Conway later at Tran’s trial, they had little evidence against Tran other than the allegations in a co-accused’s statement.

The following is an account of what happened according to transcripts from Tran’s original trial and the appeal court ruling that overturned his conviction.

During the drive from Hamilton to Mississauga, the Peel detectives tried to get a statement from Tran, who invoked his right to silence.

One detective told him if he did not speak “it’s going to be the hard way.” At the police station, he was shoved and punched by both detectives, Tran testified at his trial. He said he was dragged along a metal railing and his head was slammed into a door.

He said detectives told him he would be made to “feel how the (home invasion) victims felt” if he did not cooperate.

According to the appeals court ruling, the detectives put Tran in an interview room that was not equipped with a video camera. Vander Wier punched Tran in the ribs and the jaw. Tran’s jaw bled “profusely.”

The detectives gave up on their attempt to get a confession and moved him to an interview room that had a camera, trying to get him to say he hit his chin on the table. “Have you been treated improperly?” Conway asked Tran on the video recording. “Have we been treating you fairly?” Tran stared at the floor and kneaded his fists.

“You feeling okay? You said your stomach’s not feeling good? Not too long ago you were on the ground,” Conway said.

The version given by Vander Wier and Conway, when questioned later, was that Tran hurt himself by falling to the ground when he was alone in the room.

Expert testimony heard at trial supported Tran’s version of events. The expert said Tran’s jaw, broken in two places, was “consistent with a blow to the jaw, not a fall.” Tran’s jaw had to be wired shut and to this day he suffers from migraines.

After the assault, the detectives cleaned the blood, which Justice Epstein said was an attempt to “conceal their misconduct.”

Tran’s trial lasted four months in 2005, including a lengthy portion devoted to the assault in the interrogation room.

The trial judge ruled Tran had been beaten by police. In his 2006 verdict, the trial judge convicted Tran of conspiracy to commit robbery and sentenced him to 14 months in jail. However, he was found not guilty of robbery, the more substantial charge.

Tran appealed his conviction. Justice Epstein, after reviewing the case, said the misconduct in the case that started with the police assault continued into Tran’s trial.

Despite the trial judge’s ruling that there was “overwhelming” evidence of police beating Tran, Crown attorney Stephen Laufer still asked if Vander Wier could sit with him at the prosecution table to prepare witnesses. The trial judge said no and banished both Vander Wier and his partner to the hallway during the trial. The Crown allowed Vander Wier to prepare witnesses outside the court.

At the appeals hearing, Justice Epstein said that was wrong. She described Laufer’s attitude toward Vander Wier’s brutality as “cavalier,” even approving of such abuse.

Epstein said the Crown’s conduct was “evocative of an alignment with police.” Laufer declined to comment for this article.

Justice Epstein also took issue with the SIU investigation into Tran’s allegations of police brutality. The SIU director at the time, John Sutherland, had decided not to charge Vander Wier or his partner. “There is no evidence of any effective response to the police brutality here,” Epstein stated in her ruling.

Sutherland, now a judge with the Ontario Court of Justice, did not return the Star’s calls for comment. Officers Vander Wier and Conway declined through a Peel Regional police representative to comment for this article.

The SIU did not do its job, the appeals court judge wrote. Nor did the oversight agency, Epstein continued, provide an earlier court hearing in the Tran case with its reasons for clearing Consts. Vander Wier and Conway, except to say the decision was “confidential” and “justified.”

The Star found the SIU did not issue a media release about the incident in 2003, and the public was not informed. The agency does not tell the public about half of the cases it takes on.

After the SIU decided not to lay a charge, Tran, 24 at the time, went before a court to persuade a justice of the peace to lay a criminal charge against Const. Vander Wier. The justice of the peace agreed with Tran and issued the charge of assault causing bodily harm against the officer.

But Tran did not show up for a court appearance and the Peel Regional prosecutor’s office, which works closely with Peel police officers such as Vander Wier, withdrew the charge. They did not provide any reasons for doing so, said Peter Zaduk, Tran’s lawyer.

Epstein’s blunt language caught the attention of current SIU director Ian Scott. In July of this year, he reopened the case and charged Vander Wier with aggravated assault. Conway was not charged.

Tran declined, through his lawyer, to comment for this article. Seven years later, he still has trouble chewing without biting his tongue, suffers from chronic jaw pain, loose teeth and migraines.

Conway is a detective in Peel Region’s robbery unit. Const. Vander Wier, because of his recent charge, has been temporarily moved off the front lines to the Peel police IT department.

The Star wins legal battle to obtain crucial photo

To get the photo depicting Quang Hoang Tran’s injury, the Star made four trips to a Brampton courthouse, two appearances before a judge and searched musty boxes filled with bullets, a hatchet and countless documents.

Throughout its ongoing investigation of police conduct in Ontario, the Star’s requests for information have been met with roadblocks and refusals.

When the Star first asked for the photo, a Brampton courthouse official told a reporter that the photo — filed as an exhibit in a court file — was off limits without a judge’s approval. That’s a frequent roadblock the media hits when trying to obtain exhibits filed in public court cases.

A Star reporter submitted an application to argue the case in front of a judge. Another courthouse official said it would take 30 days before a court could hear the matter. But Justice Bruce Durno heard the request by reporter David Bruser less than 10 days later. The picture shows Tran holding open his mouth to reveal metal links wiring his jaw.

The lawyer for Peel Region Police officer Will Vander Weir, who now faces an assault charge, argued publication of the photo could taint jurors and witnesses at Vander Weir’s upcoming trial. But Justice Durno ruled for the Star, saying the newspaper could publish the photograph.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Supreme Court declines to hear wrongly accused man's Patriot Act challenge

The surveillence of him was plainly in violation of the 4th amendment but the court found an excuse not to examine that issue at all



A Muslim American from Oregon who was wrongly accused of involvement in the 2004 Madrid train bombing has lost his bid to have part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act declared unconstitutional.

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up Brandon Mayfield’s challenge to FISA provisions adopted under the Patriot Act that allowed the government to bypass the usual constitutional safeguards and authorize surveillance and covert searches of his home and office. A federal court judge had agreed with Mr. Mayfield’s claim.

Mayfield, a lawyer in Portland and a US military veteran, was subjected to an extensive counterterrorism operation after FBI experts matched a Mayfield fingerprint in the FBI database with a single print found on a bag containing detonators near the Madrid terror attack site.

Federal authorities planted listening devices in his office, throughout his house – including in his bedroom – and tapped his phones. He and his family were kept under surveillance. Agents conducted “sneak and peak” searches, entering the home when the family was away. The agents were so clumsy the family thought they had been burglarized.

Eventually, Mayfield was arrested as a material witness and imprisoned for two weeks although authorities did not possess the requisite probable cause to believe he’d committed a crime.

Spanish authorities expressed doubt about the FBI’s fingerprint match. They were investigating North Africans as possible suspects in the train bombing, and Mayfield had no connection to Spain or North Africa.

Mayfield was released after the Spanish National Police matched the latent fingerprint to an Algerian man, Daoud Ouhnane. He remains a fugitive.

Mayfield’s fingerprints were in the government’s database because he had served in the US armed forces. Other than the fingerprint, there was nothing suggesting Mayfield’s involvement in the bombing or terrorism. But he did share one characteristic with the bombers. He was a Muslim. Mayfield was also an outspoken critic of Bush administration policies.

After his release, the US government issued a rare apology to Mayfield and his family, and paid a $2 million settlement. Under the agreement, Mayfield dropped his lawsuit against the government, except for the portion of his claim that challenged the constitutionality of two provisions of FISA.

Mayfield charged that the provisions, allowing electronic surveillance and authorizing physical searches, violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

A federal judge agreed with Mayfield that the provisions violate the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause. An appeals court panel reversed, ruling that Mayfield’s settlement with the government had resolved his case and that he no longer had legal standing to challenge the alleged Fourth Amendment violation.

The appeals court did not examine the Fourth Amendment issue.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Crooked authorities in Texas town won't face up to their mistakes

Town still covering for its worthless cops

Lubbock has taken a “ludicrous” position on examining a 25-year-old police investigation that led to a wrongful conviction, the survivor of the state’s first posthumous pardon recipient said Thursday after addressing the City Council.

Cory Session told the council the city risked becoming known for the death of his oldest brother, Tim Cole, in prison for a rape he didn’t commit after a flawed 1985 Lubbock police investigation and 1986 guilty verdict from a Lubbock County jury.

Officials “from the statehouse to the White House” already recognized Lubbock as the place where his brother was wrongfully convicted for a rape, he said.

The city must work with the Innocence Project and other experts to conclusively determine how mistaken eyewitness identification and other flaws led the department to settle on Cole, a Tech student, instead of another man whom police had in custody for similar crimes.

Session and the Innocence Project of Texas has sought to question officers involved in the original investigation, and proposed reforms to the modern Lubbock Police Department’s eyewitness identification procedures.

The department has changed procedures since 1985, but not in ways promoted by the national Innocence Project and adopted by the Dallas Police Department and other agencies. “A travesty of justice has been done, and we need to figure out how to keep it from happening again,” Session said.

The Council should not be scared of the idea of a lawsuit, either, he added, noting the family had not pursued compensation made available under state law now named for his brother. “The final decision is my mother’s, and only hers, and if you pick up the phone, you might be surprised,” Session said.

But earlier communication from Jeff Blackburn, Innocence Project of Texas chief counsel, may have made such a cooperative effort difficult for the council to stomach.

A tough-worded letter from Blackburn accused the Lubbock Police Department of framing Cole. It was sent earlier this month, ahead of a community meeting challenging the council to take action on the case.

It was still clearly on the mind of South Lubbock Councilman Paul Beane. He asked Blackburn if he regretted the accusation, or painting the department with such a broad brush after the attorney described his hopes for a cooperative and transparent effort with the city. “I think the facts are very clear that they did,” Blackburn answered. “Frankly, I think they’re deserved,” he added after the public comment session.

Session thanked Central Lubbock Councilman Todd Klein for a letter of support he sent early in the process asking for a pardon for Cole. He also recounted, to nods from Mayor Tom Martin, meeting the mayor at the state Capitol in 2008, and said the mayor pledged at the time to “do whatever it takes.”

But he took issue afterward with comments from City Attorney Sam Medina and Councilman Floyd Price that the city could not take a role in compelling cooperation from the former police investigators involved in his brother’s case. “Get real, man,” Session said outside the meeting. “People have been connecting the dots for years.”

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here