EU Gestapo defeated in EU court

"Gestapo" is short for "Geheime Staatspolizei" or "Secret State police". And it was precisely official secrecy that was used oppressively but eventually defeated in this case

A tennis player today won his case at the European Court of Justice against airport security staff who believed that his racquets posed a terrorist threat and threw him off a flight. Judges ruled that the unpublished European Union register of hand luggage restrictions could not be enforced because passengers had no way of knowing exactly what was prohibited. The EU list shows that racquets are not specifically banned from the cabin. However, it contains a catch-all prohibition on "any blunt instrument capable of causing injury". An over-eager airport official might still argue that racquets fall into that category.

BAA tonight advised tennis travellers at British airports to play safe and store their racquets in the hold. A spokesman said that even if they escaped a ban as a terrorist weapon, they would most likely exceed the size limits for cabin baggage.

The case was brought by Gottfried Heinrich, Austrian tennis enthusiast. On his way to a tournament he was thrown off a flight at Vienna airport in 2005, having already cleared general security screening. It highlighted what one legal adviser called the "fundamental absurdity" of European anti-terror regulations from 2003 that outlawed a range of possible weapons from the aircraft cabin - but were not made public for security reasons. The EU eventually published the secret list last summer, finally explaining why passengers had found that skateboards, golf clubs and fishing roads were not allowed in the cabin.

Mr Heinrich was so angry that he brought a compensation case against the Austrian authorities for failing to inform him that he was carrying banned items. The Austrian court felt that the matter was of such great importance to all airline passengers in the EU that it referred it up to the ECJ in Luxembourg. After winning his case today, Mr Heinrich is now able to pursue his compensation case at the court in Austria.

Ignasi Guardans, a Spanish MEP who campaigned on behalf of Mr Heinrich, said: "It was utterly illogical to produce a list of banned objects from cabin baggage yet not tell anyone what they were."

A spokesman for BAA said: "Our view is that tennis rackets will clearly contravene the hand baggage size regulations of 56x45x25cm, and therefore we would definitely recommend to passengers that these are placed in their hold luggage. Even if they were smaller than that, it is worth noting that the regulations prohibit "sporting bats, cues and darts" from being taken aboard."

Sarah Ludford, a Liberal Democrat MEP, said: "This categorical judgement is a victory for democracy and openness, and a slap in the face of the European Commission and EU governments who thought Kafkaesque methods acceptable. "The Court has now agreed with our protest that it cannot be right for 500 million EU citizens to be told to obey laws they cannot read for themselves."

Original report here. (Via PC Watch)



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

Punish those responsible for wrongful convictions, forum hears

Punishing those responsible for wrongful convictions and skepticism of authorities would help prevent miscarriages of justice, a legal forum heard Saturday. The conference, held just two days after Ontario's top court quashed a man's 37-year-old murder conviction, also heard Canada needs an independent agency to investigate claims that an innocent person is languishing in jail.

The forum at York University, organized by the school's Criminology Society, featured three men who fought lengthy battles to have their murder convictions overturned, and one still fighting to clear his name.

One of them, William Mullins-Johnson, who spent 12 years in prison after being convicted of raping and suffocating his four-year-old niece, said those involved in wrongful convictions need to be held to account. Mullins-Johnson was ultimately exonerated after experts concluded the young girl had died of natural causes and no crime had occurred. "Injustice has been corrected, but there is no justice served here," he said. "Hold the ones that did this to people like us criminally responsible and send them to jail."

Even so, Mullins-Johnson doubted anyone could devise a fool-proof method of preventing wrongful convictions. "They're built into the system," he said.

Rob Baltovich, who was acquitted last year of killing his girlfriend in Toronto after he spent eight years in prison, said people have to "think critically" in cases involving the criminal justice system, he said. "Don't just take the word of a person in authority. Ask questions." Baltovich warned against tunnel vision - when police and prosecutors focus on a suspect to the exclusion of others and often taint witnesses in the process. They then tend to ignore evidence an accused is innocent, he said, because no one wants to admit a mistake might have been made. "Who wants to take responsibility for that?" Baltovich said.

University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach said the main reasons for wrongful convictions are faulty witness identification, witnesses such as paid informants who lie and flawed expert evidence. Roach said Canada needs a publicly funded, independent agency - along the lines of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in Britain - which has the power to delve into possible miscarriages of justice. Such an agency would take the politics out of such probes and ease pressure on groups such as the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, which lack the manpower and finances to deal with a myriad of cases, he said.

Ottawa has so far refused to set up such a body. "That is just wrong," Roach said.

Alain Olivier, a Quebecer who spent more than eight years in jail in Thailand for drug dealing after initially being sentenced to death, said he was still fighting to clear his name. Olivier maintains he was the victim of an RCMP sting gone wrong - that police knew they had mistaken him for his twin brother but refused to admit it. Public pressure is critical in forcing authorities to take another look at such cases, he said. "They all thought I would die in Thailand," he said. "They try to exhaust everybody until somebody dies."

Also on the panel was Romeo Phillion, who initially confessed to killing an Ottawa firefighter in 1967, then spent 31 years in prison protesting he had nothing to do with the murder. Phillion's murder conviction was quashed on Thursday and a new trial ordered.

Original report here



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

The useless British police again



Guess which of the two above is the thug

Two catastrophic errors by police allowed the convicted knife offender Karl Bishop to be free on the streets to murder Rob Knox, the Harry Potter actor. Bishop, 21, is facing life in jail after being found guilty at the Old Bailey of killing Mr Knox outside a bar in Sidcup, Kent, last May. Two months before the murder, he had been named as a suspect to police twice in two days over an alleged burglary and a knifepoint robbery. Inexplicably, officers investigating the claims failed to speak to Bishop or question him, despite his long and violent criminal record going back to his early teens. The inquiries were still "live" in May last year when Bishop, who had only been recently released from jail for slashing two men across the face, stabbed Mr Knox and four of his friends with two kitchen knives, in a 90-second frenzy.

Mr Knox, 18, who had just finished filming for the new film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, had confronted the killer after he had earlier threatened his younger brother Jamie at knifepoint. Scotland Yard admitted that the blunder would cause "concern" to the public and the victim's family. When police chiefs learned of the mistake, they called in the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate and launched a force wide review of all outstanding knife offences.

Two police officers, a constable and a sergeant, have been given written warnings. They were based at Plumstead, the same station recently revealed to have failed to identify Robert Napper before he killed Rachel Nickell in 1992, despite him being named by his mother as a rape suspect years before.

Bishop, "a habitual knife carrier" was well known in the area and had two previous knife convictions, one of them for slashing two men in the face in 2005. He served two years of the four-year sentence and nine months after his release, he murdered Mr Knox on May 22 last year. The killing followed a series of incidents, including one at the same Sidcup venue, the Metro bar, the previous week in which Bishop made a "chilling'' prediction. After a row with Mr Knox and his friends, which ended with a fight, Bishop said: "I'm going to come back and someone's going to die".

When he did return as promised, he was armed with two kitchen knives, 11 and 12 inches long. On his way back to the bar he ran across Jamie Knox, 17, and his friends, and threatened them with the blades before continuing on to the bar. Rob was alerted to what had happened by a phone call and came out of the bar to confront Bishop just as he arrived. The knifeman was soon surrounded by a semi-circle of youths and Rob had to be held back as Bishop goaded them, shouting: "Who's going to make my ****** day?"

As well as the murder charge Bishop, who refused to leave the cells to hear the proceedings in the dock yesterday afternoon, was found guilty of wounding Rob's friend Dean Saunders, 23. He was found guilty on majority verdicts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Charlie Grimley, 17, and Nicky Jones, 20. He was also found guilty by a majority of wounding Andrew Dormer, 17, but cleared of wounding another friend, Tom Hopkins, 19. Bishop will be sentenced tomorrow

Asked about the blunders, a spokesman for the Met said: "Lessons have been learned from what happened in this case and measures have been taken, including the introduction of a new system to monitor centrally the progress of action to arrest suspects for all violent crime offences, including knife crime".

Original report here (Via PC Watch)



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

36 years of solitude

Suborned testimony again

What's left of Albert Woodfox's life now lies in the hands of a federal appeals court in New Orleans. By the time the court hears his case on Tuesday, the 62-year-old will have spent 36 years, 2 months, and 24 days in a 6-by-9-foot cell at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. An 18,000-acre complex that still resembles the slave plantation it once was, the notorious prison, immortalized in the film Dead Man Walking, has long been considered one of the most brutal in America, a place where rape, abuse, and violence have been commonplace. With the exception of a few brief months last year, Woodfox has served nearly all of his time there in solitary confinement, out of contact with other prisoners, and locked in his cell 23 hours a day. By most estimates, he and his codefendant, Herman Wallace, have spent more time in solitary than any other inmates in US history.

Woodfox and Wallace are members of a triad known as the "Angola 3"—three prisoners who spent decades in solitary confinement after being accused of prison murders and convicted on questionable evidence. Before they were isolated from other inmates, the trio, which included a prisoner named Robert King, had organized against conditions in what was considered "the bloodiest prison in America." Their supporters believe that their activism, along with their ties to the Black Panther Party, motivated prison officials to scapegoat the inmates.*

Over the years, human rights activists worldwide have rallied around the Angola 3, pointing to them as victims of a flawed and corrupt justice system. Though King managed to win his release in 2001, after his conviction was overturned, Woodfox and Wallace haven't been so lucky. Amnesty International has called their continued isolation "cruel, inhuman, and degrading," charging that their treatment has "breached international treaties which the USA has ratified, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture." Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has taken a keen interest in the case and traveled to Angola last spring to visit with Woodfox and Wallace. "This is the only place in North America that people have been incarcerated like this for 36 years," he told Mother Jones.

Meanwhile, the prevailing powers in Louisiana, from Angola's warden to the state's attorney general, are bent on keeping Woodfox and Wallace right where they are. The state's Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, has thus far steered clear of the controversial case. Conyers, though, who has spoken with Jindal about Woodfox and Wallace, says the governor seemed "open-minded."

For his part, Conyers is optimistic that Woodfox's fortunes, at least, could soon change. On Tuesday, Nick Trenticosta, who is one of Woodfox's lawyers, will have 20 minutes to convince the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the decision of a district court judge in Baton Rouge, who last July overturned Woodfox's conviction for the 1972 murder of an Angola prison guard. The murder, for which Wallace was also charged, occurred while Woodfox was already serving a sentence for armed robbery. Trenticosta, a longtime Louisiana death penalty attorney who heads the New Orleans-based Center for Equal Justice, will argue that his client received inadequate representation from his court-appointed attorneys when he was retried in 1998, as well as during his original trial in 1973. Better lawyers, he'll argue, would have shown that Woodfox's conviction was quite literally bought by the state, which based its case on jailhouse informants who were rewarded for their testimony. The primary eyewitness to the murder received special privileges and the promise of a pardon. One of the corroborating witnesses was legally blind, while another was on the anti-psychotic drug Thorazine; both were subsequently granted furloughs.

Woodfox's lawyers will also make the case that the state failed to provide his previous defense attorneys with crucial information about the witnesses—ensuring that they were unable to cross-examine them effectively—and lost physical evidence, which was inconclusive at best, and possibly favorable to the defendant. (A spokeswoman for the Louisiana State Penitentiary said the prison, as a matter of policy, would not comment on an ongoing case.)

Depending on how the appeals court decides, Woodfox may get a chance at another trial, where this time he'll be represented by a team of highly skilled lawyers. If given that opportunity, Trenticosta told Mother Jones in a recent interview, he and his colleagues will go beyond just refuting the evidence that led to their client's conviction. They intend to reveal the identities of the real murderers of prison guard Brent Miller, who, Trenticosta says, are now dead. He says his team has "numerous witnesses who saw" the murder and others "who have good information." (Asked for the names of the witnesses and others with specific knowledge of the murder, Trenticosta said he would reveal their identities only if there is another trial.) Of Woodfox and Wallace, Trenticosta says, "They were targeted. They were set up." The lawyer believes the state of Louisiana is determined to prevent Woodfox from being retried in order to "cover up a coverup."

The state's case against overturning Woodfox's conviction will be argued by Kyle Duncan, a University of Mississippi law school professor who is an admirer of the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He will likely take the usual position in these types of cases, arguing that Woodfox's previous defense attorneys, despite what Trenticosta might say, had every opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, so no new trial is warranted. But Duncan is little more than a mouthpiece; the force behind the state's appeal is Louisiana attorney general James "Buddy" Caldwell Jr. The former prosecutor, who moonlights as an Elvis impersonator, is a politically ambitious Democrat. Since his election in 2007, Caldwell has fought efforts by Woodfox and Wallace to overturn their convictions. After Woodfox's conviction was overturned last year, Caldwell declared, "We will appeal this decision to the 5th Circuit. If the ruling is upheld there I will not stop and we will take this case as high as we have to. I will retry this case myself…I oppose letting him out with every fiber of my being because this is a very dangerous man."

Caldwell shares this position with Angola's warden, Burl Cain, a devout Baptist who has a reputation for proselytizing to the inmates under his watch. Cain, who has likened the Black Panthers to the KKK, is adamant that the aging Woodfox is and always will be a menace to society by virtue of his political beliefs. He has said that Woodfox is "locked in time with that Black Panther revolutionary actions they were doing way back when…And from that, there's been no rehabilitation."

After a three-judge appelate panel hears arguments on March 3, it will be at least six weeks, and possibly many months, before it rules on the appeal. If it concurs with the district court's decision, Woodfox will be retried or released. If it overrules the lower court, his conviction will remain in place, and his defense team will have to go back to the drawing board.

More here



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

Another trigger-happy dickless tracy

See a similar case in Australia. Are women too nervous to be frontline police?

San Bernardino County prosecutors have filed 14 felony charges, including murder, against two men accused of starting a shootout with Chino police that resulted in an officer killing a bystander.

Daniel Balandran, 23, of Rubidoux, was slain when an officer mistook him for a suspect in a Jan. 31 robbery of a Papa John's restaurant on Central Avenue.
He was at a neighboring McDonald's, trying to flee the nighttime gun battle that ensued when suspects Joel Anthony Jaquez and Edward Ramon Cisneros encountered police outside the pizzeria, officials have said.

Special allegations for Jaquez include use and discharge of a handgun. Cisneros faces special allegations of using a handgun.

Both men were wounded, as was a Chino police officer. The officer who fired the fatal shot remains on leave. Her name has not been released.

Balandran and a friend had spent the day at a skate park and were eating in a car parked outside the neighboring McDonald's when they saw the shootout. They left the car and ran in the opposite direction, meeting two police officers coming around the back corner of the McDonald's.

According to an attorney for Balandran's family, one of those officers shot Balandran without asking him to show his hands or drop to the ground. Chino police and San Bernardino County sheriff's homicide detectives, who investigated the shooting, have declined to comment on specifics.

"It was reckless conduct," attorney Mark Algorri, of Pasadena, said. "If the person who shot my guy was a civilian, there could definitely be a manslaughter charge filed."

Algorri said he is talking with Chino officials and has not filed a wrongful death claim on behalf of Balandran's family.

Original report here



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

Australian police goons again

Cops use Taser on a young girl who was already held down! They must think it is a punishment device and that they are judge and jury

The CMC has blasted the Queensland Police Service after an officer Tasered a teenage girl at South Bank last year. The CMC (Crime and Misconduct Commission) has accused Queensland police of failing to learn from its mistakes after an investigation into the unnecessary Taser use on a girl, 16. CMC chairman Robert Needham said there was a "concerning pattern" in the handling of critical incidents and urged Commissioner Bob Atkinson to rein in his troops.

The CMC spoke out after overseeing an internal police investigation into the use of the Taser on the girl, who failed to obey a police order at South Bank in April last year. The incident came months after The Courier-Mail revealed Police Minister Judy Spence had sidelined the service's top brass and brokered a deal with the police union to give Tasers to every frontline officer. Ms Spence's intervention came barely halfway through a 12-month trial and in the middle of the union election. Yesterday Ms Spence's office said the minister would not comment on the CMC criticism until she had read the report. "I'm not expecting it to happen today," a spokesman said.

However Ms Spence's office reversed its stance and released a statement after The Courier-Mail sought comment from Premier Anna Bligh. "The Commissioner of Police has advised me the Queensland Police Service will completely re-examine every aspect of this entire matter," Ms Spence said.

The South Bank incident was one of at least nine complaints against officers for using Tasers inappropriately. The girl, 16, had defied a move-on order and was being held down by two security guards when an officer used a Taser on her thigh.

A magistrate later ruled the officers did not give adequate directions and threw out a charge of obstructing police against the girl. Mr Needham labelled the actions "very poor policing". "The commission expected the QPS to use the incident as a learning opportunity for the officer involved and for Taser training generally, but there is no evidence to show this has occurred," he said. "My observations of QPS failure to learn from mistakes are not limited to this case." He urged Mr Atkinson to "send a strong message to all police that they must objectively assess and learn from policing incidents".

Solicitor Margaret Brain, of Slater and Gordon, said she was preparing civil action against the police on the girl's behalf. "It was a violent incident that has traumatised her," she said.

Mr Atkinson acknowledged the matter "could have been handled better" and said police would "carefully consider" issues raised by the CMC. "It's probably the most severe criticism the CMC have expressed of the Queensland Police Service for many years, and that concerns me," he said. Police Union president Cameron Pope could not be reached for comment.

Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)




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

Coroner criticises double standards by British police

Allowing police to collude before giving evidence is unbelievably bad practice

The coroner who oversaw the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot dead after being mistaken for a terrorist, has accused police of applying double standards in the wake of the killing. Sir Michael Wright said there was a "stark difference" in how police and the public were treated with officers allowed to confer before writing their witness statements while civilians were not.

He also pointed to confusion over the Scotland Yard command structure in the run-up to the shooting on a train at Stockwell London Underground station on July 22, 2005 and "systematic failures" in how information was handled.

His comments came as he published his recommendations to Scotland Yard and the Home Office on the case following a three-month inquest last year. He said it had become clear that officers had been allowed to work on their accounts together "for a period of many hours". "There was a stark difference between their experience and the treatment of civilians, who were required to give their accounts promptly and independently," he said. "Officers were not cross-examined on the basis that their evidence was the product of independent recollection."

Mr de Menezes was shot dead following a mix-up as police pursued suspects following a failed series of bombings in the capital the previous day. The inquest jury returned an open verdict on the shooting after Sir Michael ruled out the possibility of finding unlawful killing. But they rejected officers' evidence that they shouted "armed police" before opening fire and disputed that the Brazilian had walked towards officers before he was killed.

Sir Michael said that the "unprecedented" situation faced by officers, after the failed bombings the day before, offered some explanation for the shooting. But he said that the verdict nevertheless pointed to "systematic failures" and called for procedures on how information identifying suspects is passed on to be reviewed.

Nick Hardwick, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, called for "determined and continuing efforts" to prevent a repeat of the failures which led to the tragedy. The Justice4Jean campaign group said a public debate about what it called the "shoot-to kill policy" is long overdue.

Original report here



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

Outrage as man who raped girl, 4, walks free

THE Opposition has demanded that the Director of Public Prosecutions urgently appeal against the sentence of a 24-year-old man who escaped jail despite pleading guilty to raping a four-year-girl as she slept at her grandmother's house. The man, who cannot be named, was given a two-year suspended jail term in the District Court in Sydney on February 5 after he pleaded guilty to breaking into a house at Gulmarrad near Yamba in November 2007 and sexually assaulting the girl.

Police were called to the house on November 22 after the girl's grandmother discovered her car had been broken into. When they arrived, the girl told them that a man had been inside the house overnight and had sexually assaulted her. The man was arrested five days after the attack when police matched him to DNA on clothing found at the scene.

He was charged with sexual assault of a person under the age of 10 as well as several other charges including break and enter. The man spent 14 months in prison awaiting his sentence but walked free after his appearance last month. The shadow attorney-general, Greg Smith, said the Director of Public Prosecutions should urgently consider an appeal and described the sentence as "unbelievable". "It seems totally inappropriate for the court to impose such a light sentence where the maximum penalty for such an offence is 25 years. An explanation is required," he said.

Mr Smith said the leniency of the sentence sent a poor message to the community. "The community have a right to expect the punishment to fit the crime. Here the crime was against a four-year-old child," he said. The girl's MP, Steve Cansdell, said he was "angry and disgusted" the man had been released. "I have had a crisis meeting with shadow attorney-general Greg Smith and he has agreed the NSW Opposition will do everything possible to convince the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal this ridiculously lenient sentence. "Crimes against children, particularly those of a sexual nature, deserve the harshest possible punishment, but instead this animal is out on the streets, walking and possibly stalking his next victim."

A spokesman for the DPP refused to comment, saying his office was awaiting a transcript of the judgment.

Original report here

DPP appeals against rape sentence

THE Director of Public Prosecutions lodged an appeal yesterday against the sentence of a man, 24, who pleaded guilty to raping a girl, 4, as she slept in her grandmother's house. The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, raised concerns about the sentence with the DPP after the Herald revealed that the man, who cannot be named, was given a two-year suspended jail term after pleading guilty. Mr Hatzistergos would not comment on the case but said it was worth remembering that the maximum sentence for sexually assaulting a child under 10 years was 25 years, and the standard minimum sentence was 15 years. "I referred the matter to the director because there were understandable concerns about this particular sentence, and I believed it required further analysis," Mr Hatzistergos said. "It's an abhorrent crime."

Police were called to a house at Gulmarrad on the North Coast on November 22 after the girl's grandmother discovered her car had been broken into. When they arrived it emerged that the young girl had been sexually assaulted. The man was arrested five days after the attack when police matched him to DNA.

Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)




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

Wonderful! British police officers to be charged over fraudulent conviction case

Fifteen people, including nine retired and three serving police officers, are to be charged with perverting the course of justice and perjury in connection with the murder of a young woman more than 20 years ago. Lynette White, 20, a prostitute, was found stabbed to death in a flat in Cardiff on Valentine's Day, 1988. Three men were sentenced to life for her murder in 1990 but their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal in 1992.

The latest prosecution is believed to involve the biggest number of current and former members of the police force to be summonsed together. A member of police staff and two civilians have also been summonsed.

In 2003, after new DNA evidence was uncovered, Jeffrey Gafoor pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to murdering Ms White. He said that he committed the murder alone. Then, in December last year, three people who were witnesses in the original murder trial were sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for perjury. Their evidence had helped to convict the three innocent men, Stephen Miller, Tony Paris and Yusuf Abdullahi, who became known as the Cardiff Three. Two others, the cousins Ronald and John Actie, were acquitted.

The flawed conviction of the Cardiff Three revealed police techniques described by then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, as "almost passing belief". Police had used oppressive and bullying techniques in interviews with the suspects. "It is hard to conceive of a more hostile or intimidating approach by officers to a suspect," Lord Taylor said.

The re-investigation, which was supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, has led to the CPS Special Crime Division announcing the new prosecutions. The former and current officers as well as the member of police staff are to be prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The two civilians are to be prosecuted for two counts of perjury in relation to the evidence they gave at the murder trials. They are all due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court next month. The maximum sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is life imprisoment; the maximum for perjury is seven years.

In 2008 the CPS secured perjury convictions against Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Leanne Vilday, civilian witnesses at the original trial. Following these convictions, lawyers reviewed the evidence against police officers suspected of moulding, manipulating and fabricating evidence.

Tom Davies, IPCC Commissioner for Wales, said: “It is important for South Wales Police and the people they serve that this miscarriage of justice was properly dealt with. “In all of this we must not forget that Lynette White died at the hands of Jeffrey Gafoor and my thoughts are with her family and friends. "It is vitally important for public confidence in the police service and the complaints process that the full story of this re-investigation is told in public. The trial of these 15 people will enable that to happen. “The IPCC decided to supervise this investigation over three years ago and I have gone on record numerous times to praise the thoroughness and professionalism of the investigation team. "This has been a long and complex investigation and we and the police have worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to get to [yesterday's] announcement. "I am satisfied that this has been thoroughly investigated and the matter has now passed to the judicial process. It would be inappropriate to comment further."

In a statement released through their lawyer, Mr Paris, Mr Abdullahi, John Actie and the family of his deceased cousin Ronnie said they never regained the lives they had before they were allegedly “fitted up”. “Our lives have been utterly destroyed by being branded brutal murderers,” they said.

Colette Paul, Assistant Chief Constable of South Wales Police, said: “At the forefront of our thoughts today is Lynette White, who was so brutally murdered on 14th February 1988. “These developments will once again bring back painful memories for her family and friends and all who knew her. “The serving of summonses marks another crucial phase in this investigative and prosecution process.”

Original report here



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

Australian police can do no wrong

The usual farce of police investigating one-another. An innocent woman was shot for no good reason by a panicky dickless tracy and the police are going to cover up for their dickless tracy until hell freezes over. She is not fit for police work and should be removed

A woman shot by police has accused investigators of a cover-up after the junior officer involved was cleared without a written report. Susan Bandera, 48, was critically injured when she was shot twice by police responding to a dispute at a North Parramatta unit block on December 21. She is alleged to have lunged at officers with what was initially thought to be a knife but later found to be a fork.

At the time, NSW Police Deputy Commissioner for Operations Denis Clifford said he was satisfied by an initial report from the critical incident team, which said the policewoman "acted appropriately" when she fired her weapon at Ms Bandera. "It is important to note that this interim report centred only on the actions of the police officer in the discharge of her firearm," Mr Clifford said on January 2. "The exact circumstances of the earlier confrontation are still being investigated and will be the subject of a further report."

But, after a freedom of information request to NSW Police, The Sun-Herald has learnt "neither an interim report document nor a final report document" exist. Instead, the junior officer was cleared based on two "verbal briefings" between Mr Clifford and the investigation manager from Gladesville Police in the days following the shooting.

Ms Bandera, who is waiting for her shattered spine to heal around the bullet fragments, which doctors deemed too dangerous to remove, said the police were "a law unto themselves". "It's changed my life," she said. "I want [the officer] to be charged just like everybody else and I don't think she should work for the police force any more. My kids nearly ended up with no mother." Ms Bandera said she had not been contacted by police since early January and her legal team had trouble obtaining documents.

"I want the truth to come out, which is that I was being attacked and police shot me," she said.

Sonni Michael Angelo, 23, who was arguing with Ms Bandera before police arrived - but denies attacking her - said there was no need for the officer to shoot Ms Bandera after the pair were sprayed with capsicum spray.

A police spokesperson said it was common to use "a number of methods, including verbal" to deliver the findings of an interim investigation. No one has yet been charged over the incident. Police said there would be a final report when the investigation was complete.

Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)



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

Shocking pictures of US police goon 'assaulting 15-year-old girl in cell'

US prosecutors have released video footage of a sheriff's deputy kicking a 15-year-old girl, pulling her hair and throwing her onto a cell floor. The surveillance video was released in the assault case against Deputy Paul Schene, who is accused of using excessive force on the girl. Schene, 31, pleaded not guilty to fourth-degree assault on Thursday.

The incident last November began after the girl was brought in for a car theft investigation, according to court documents. The footage shows the attack beginning after the girl enters the cell at suburban SeaTac City Hall and kicks off one of her shoes toward the deputy.

'We believe this case is beyond just police misconduct, it's criminal misconduct,' King County Prosecutor Daniel Satterberg said. 'This is clearly excessive force.' Schene was investigated previously for shooting two people - killing one - in the line of duty in 2002 and 2006. Both times his actions were found to be justified, said Ian Goodhew, prosecutor's deputy chief of staff.

Calls to Schene's lawyer, Anne Bremner, were not immediately returned Friday. However, she released a statement to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in which she said the video does not tell the whole story. Bremner had asked Judge Catherine Shaffer not to release the video to the media. 'As we argued to the judge, it will inflame public opinion and will severely impact the deputy's right to a fair trial,' Bremner said.

In the video, a deputy kicks the girl, pushing her back toward the wall. The deputy then strongly backs the girl against the wall and slams her to the floor by grabbing her hair. A second deputy enters the holding cell, while the first deputy holds the girl face down to the floor. The first deputy appears to hit the girl with his hands. The girl is then lifted up and led out of the cell while the first deputy holds her hair.

The second officer shown in the video was a trainee at the time and is not under investigation. According to court documents, the girl complained of breathing problems after the incident and medics were called to check her. A short time later, she was taken to a youth detention centre and booked for investigation of auto theft and third-degree assault, the latter accusation dealing with her conduct toward the deputy. The girl has pleaded not guilty to taking a motor vehicle without permission, and was never formally charged with assault.

Schene told investigators through an e-mail conversation with his lawyer that once he was assaulted by the girl kicking her shoe at him, he entered the cell to 'prevent another assault,' according to court documents. Schene also said the girl failed to comply with instructions in the holding area. Prosecutors said Schene did not explain why he struck the girl after he had her in a holding position on the floor.

Original report here

Video at link above



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

Wis. man freed 23 years after wrongful conviction

More bite-mark nonsense

A man sentenced to life in prison for killing a woman in 1984 had his conviction overturned and was released Friday after spending 23 years behind bars. Robert Lee Stinson, 44, walked out of the New Lisbon Correctional Institution in street clothes and hugged his sister and members of the Wisconsin Innocence Project. A judge vacated the sentence after the Project argued that bite-mark analysis and DNA evidence that didn't match evidence from the crime scene, defense attorney Byron Lichstein said.

Stinson was convicted in 1985 of first-degree murder in the death of a 63-year-old Milwaukee woman. Evidence suggested she had been raped, and her body also had eight different bite marks, Lichstein said. At trial, two forensic odontologists testified that Stinson's teeth were a match, even though Stinson was apparently missing a tooth in a place where the bite marks indicated a tooth, Lichstein said.

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said in a statement Friday that Stinson's conviction was not wrongful, and that he was convicted based on "state-of-the-art scientific evidence available at the time of his trial." "The question today is whether there is newly discovered evidence in this case to warrant a new trial, and we agree that such evidence exists," Chisholm said. The statement did not specify the evidence. Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Norman Gahn said he has six months to decide whether to retry Stinson.

Lichstein, who last spoke to Stinson on Thursday, said his client was happy but in shock. "I don't think it had completely sunk in," Lichstein said. "Personally, I feel a real sense of relief. It's been a long time coming for Mr. Stinson."

Stinson's conviction was based almost exclusively on evidence suggesting that bite marks matched Stinson's teeth, Lichstein said. The lawyer said he did not know why special technology was necessary if the missing tooth could have indicated there was no match. "I wish I could tell you. I wasn't around back then," he said.

DNA taken from saliva on the victim's sweater also did not match Stinson.

For a decade, attorneys and even some forensic experts have ridiculed the bite-mark identification as sham science and glorified guesswork. Critics say human skin changes and distorts imprints until they are nearly unrecognizable. As a result, courtroom experts end up offering competing opinions. But odontologists insist the science is sound if applied properly.

Since 2000, at least eight people in five states who were convicted largely on bite-mark identification have been exonerated, according to the Innocence Project.

Original report here



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

Real perpetrator caught in Texas sex-assault case that led to wrongful conviction

Negligence all round

All the while that Ricardo Rachell, wrongfully branded a child predator, sat in jail accused of assaulting an 8-year-old, similar attacks on young boys in his Houston neighborhood continued. Rachell churned through the system, from his arrest in October 2002 to jail to trial and finally to prison with a sentence of 40 years.

Still, more children were assaulted. An 8-year-old in November 2002. Another five weeks later. And a 10-year-old in October 2003. But in 2003, records show, police closed in on a registered sexual offender, Andrew Wayne Hawthorne, who lived less than two miles from Rachell and who later pleaded guilty to assaulting three boys. But none of this, according to the Houston Chronicle's review of court and police records, led anyone to question whether Rachell was the wrong man. Not two police investigators working in the 30-officer division that pursued both cases. Not prosecutors. And not Rachell's trial attorney, who dismissed his client's pleas to investigate the other suspect.

Last week, after more than six years in custody, a judge ordered Rachell, 51, released because new DNA evidence cleared him of any involvement in the assault. Instead, the evidence points to another man as the attacker - though prosecutors have repeatedly refused to identify him, or say whether Hawthorne is the man, citing a continuing investigation. Houston police officials also have declined to discuss Hawthorne's conviction, referring questions to the district attorney handling Rachell's case.

Emma Rodriguez, the HPD sex crimes officer who investigated Hawthorne in 2003, said Wednesday she could not talk either because "it is going to be connected to that other case." Hawthorne is now in prison in Amarillo, serving a 60-year-sentence.

The sexual assaults on children that followed Rachell's Oct. 23, 2002, arrest brought panic to the south Houston neighborhood clustered near Scott Street and Old Spanish Trail. Business owners plastered their stores with police sketches of a suspect. Apartment managers warned their tenants of the predator at hand. FBI officials and U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee held community meetings. And at least one news story quoted HPD officer Lisa Clemons, the same officer who arrested Rachell, on the details of the attacks. She also has declined comment.

Rachell sent a copy of that story to his trial attorney, Ron Hayes, who acknowledges he received it in December 2002 - six months before Rachell was to face a jury - but decided not to investigate. "I received from Mr. Rachell the newspaper article about other sexual assaults," Hayes said in an affidavit provided for one of Rachell's appeals. "Since there were very few similarities and connection between the sexual assaults and the sexual assault Mr. Rachell was accused of committing, I did not believe that this information from Mr. Rachell merited much investigation."

In their investigation, HPD officers noted similarities among the unsolved attacks. "We finally recognized a pattern," Rodriguez, the HPD juvenile sex crimes investigator, told reporters Oct. 25, 2003. "Through our research we discovered a bike was being used in all of the cases, and then things started building, started looking familiar." She also noted the attacker's use of a knife and promises of money for doing small doing odd jobs - patterns also present in the attack for which jurors wrongfully convicted Rachell, evidence now shows. Two weeks later, on Nov. 12, 2003, with the help of DNA evidence from one of the unsolved attacks, police arrested Hawthorne. They considered him a suspect in five attacks, but only charged him in three.

A registered sex offender, Hawthorne's DNA profile already was in a state database from a case in 1992. Facing a charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child, Hawthorne accepted a deal and pleaded guilty to indecency with a child. He served eight years in prison.

In Rachell's case, biological evidence that could have definitively cleared him never was tested before his conviction. No one has been able to explain why. His trial attorney insists that he had no idea that any such evidence existed. The assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, Jimmy Ortiz, now a defense attorney, has not returned multiple phone calls seeking comment on the case.

Prosecutors overseeing the effort to officially overturn Rachell's conviction have said the rape kit and victim's clothing always have been available and should have been tested then - on the request of either the prosecution or the defense.

Records show that Clemons, the officer who led the investigation against Rachell, checked a sexual assault kit and a bag of clothing into the police property room on Oct. 21, 2002, one day after the attack. Less than two months later, HPD shut the DNA division of its crime lab, amid concerns about the accuracy of its work. The evidence that Clemons submitted to the property room never was mentioned until last year, when Rachell appealed for DNA testing. That evidence, which ultimately cleared him, was still sitting in the property room, records show.

Mayor Bill White said Wednesday that he will review HPD's investigation of the case, adding, "I don't have a complete briefing of the chronology of that particular case, but I will get one and review it."

In the Hawthorne case, it was the FBI that processed the DNA evidence that led police to their suspect. With the HPD DNA lab closed and the continuing assaults on children, federal analysts stepped in. "If our lab had been up and running as it should have been, we could have had this processed earlier," Acting Police Chief Joe Breshears said then. Once confronted with the DNA evidence, Hawthorne pleaded guilty and accepted a 60-year sentence. He is at the Clements Unit in Amarillo.

Original report here



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

Australian cops kill black with pepper spray

If there were four of them holding him down, why did they need to spray him at all?

A man died shortly after being held on the ground by four police and sprayed with capsicum spray, an inquest heard yesterday. Coroner Greg Cavanagh was told the man's friends warned police not to spray him as he suffered from asthma. The man - who cannot be named for cultural reasons - was taken from the Palmerston home where the incident happened on January 1, 2008, to Royal Darwin Hospital but died later that night.

Eyewitness Simon Pascoe told the coronial inquest that people at the house had told police to let the man go and be careful because he had asthma. "Every time we tried to warn them, they said: 'Don't come any closer or we're going to use our spray on you'," he said.

The inquest heard there had been an argument over "grog" at the house, and a woman had called the police and told officers that the man needed to go to the sobering-up centre. An autopsy found he only had a blood alcohol concentration of .035 per cent. [legal to drive]

The inquest into the man's death will run concurrently with an inquest into the death of Alice Springs filmmaker Bob Plasto. He was arrested and ground-stabilised in Darwin on December 22, 2007 after staff at the Cavanagh Hotel called police when he was behaving irrationally. Police took him to Royal Darwin Hospital for a mental health assessment - but not until after he waited in a caged police car at the Darwin watch house for a shift change. He was pulled to the ground by police officers at the hospital and kept in custody while he was in hospital for several days before he died.

Original report here (Via Australian Politics)



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

British policeman hauled before court and suspended for 20 months for defending himself against yob who headbutted him

Another example of British prosecutors being on the side of the criminal

A police officer told of his anger yesterday after being taken off front-line duty for a year and hauled before a court for defending himself against a suspect who he thought was about to headbutt him. Sergeant Bob Woodward spoke out after the case against him collapsed at the start of his trial when it emerged the supposed victim would not appear - because he was on the run after skipping bail over a separate violent attack.

The officer, a married father of three with 30 years' unblemished service, retires in April but said the episode had soured his last year in the force. Condemning the criminal justice system, he claimed his experience - the second time he has been wrongly accused of assaulting a drunken suspect - would make other officers think twice about confronting violent individuals.

Sergeant Woodward, 52, said Ashley Pearson had lashed out at him in July 2007 as they stood together in a custody suite at Cannock police station in Staffordshire, where Pearson had been taken after being arrested for an alleged breach of bail. The 6ft 8in policeman said he blocked the blow and pushed his attacker on to a desk, chipping Pearson's front tooth.

Pearson did not make a formal complaint but Staffordshire Police launched an investigation following an anonymous tip-off. Details were passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service which decided to prosecute Sergeant Woodward. He was taken off front line duties early last year when formally summonsed for assault and has since been doing other work or been on sick leave. The officer has now been fully reinstated after the case against him collapsed at Birmingham Crown Court on Monday.

Sergeant Woodward had previously been acquitted over an incident in July 2002 when he tried to stop a drunken yob spitting at him by pushing his face away. On that occasion, he had to endure seven months of anxiety before he was cleared.

The sergeant, from Hednesford, Staffordshire, said yesterday: 'There is something wrong when police officers end up in the dock for doing their job while thugs are left free to laugh at the justice system. They were ludicrous prosecutions. When they told me I was being charged I could hardly believe my ears. 'I had to keep it secret from my 80-year-old mother or it would have worried her to death.'

Announcing the CPS would offer no evidence against Sergeant Woodward, Zaheer Afzal, prosecuting, told Judge Sean Morris on Monday: 'Regrettably our main witness is not here today, and we have not been able to find him.'

David Mason, defending, said he found it ' staggering' that the case had taken so long to get to court, telling the judge: 'The officer thought he was going to be headbutted and was using reasonable force to protect himself from a clearly drunk, violent and aggressive man.' Pearson, from Cannock, Staffordshire, ended up in jail for an unrelated matter. He was released and has been on the run since February after being bailed on suspicion of being involved in a pub 'glassing' attack.

Original report here. (Via PC Watch)





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

Virginia man to receive state compensation for wrongful conviction

A bill approved by state legislators last week will compensate a Hampton man for seven years he spent in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Teddy Pierries Thompson maintained his innocence in a 2000 robbery, but was convicted after being identified by one of two victims, according to the bill which passed the General Assembly. Thompson was 17 at the time of his arrest.

Thompson said he had rented time at a Virginia Beach recording studio the night of the robbery and produced a receipt in court. The other robbery victim testified at a pretrial hearing that Thompson was not the man who robbed him. Thompson was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to 16 years in prison. He continued to fight the conviction in court.

In 2007, a Hampton judge vacated Thompson's conviction because the witness who identified him said he'd made a mistake, according to the bill. Thompson will receive more than $50,000 in a lump sum, plus an annuity of more than $207,000 to be paid monthly to him for 25 years. He also will receive up to $10,000 in tuition costs for college or technical training. Thompson will receive the money after Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signs the bill.

Original report here

Background

Thompson, who went to prison in 2001 at age 18, was freed Monday, two months after Antonio Mitchell recanted and told law enforcement officials he'd identified the wrong person. Thompson had served more than six years in prison, and could have served at least 10 more. Thompson said he harbors no bitterness toward Mitchell, who once said he was "100 percent sure" Thompson was one of two men who robbed him and a friend at gunpoint on March 26, 2000.

On July 30, Mitchell told investigators that another man has since acknowledged being the robber, and even offered to return the money he took. Investigators who interviewed him believe Mitchell was being truthful in recanting his identification of Thompson. "I know people make mistakes," Thompson said of Mitchell.

He's not as forgiving when it comes to the criminal justice system. Thompson said Hampton detectives were quick to target him, and that the jury went with the word of one person over strong counter evidence in Thompson's favor. "I have nothing against the jury, but you're supposed to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," he said. In this case, he asserts, there should have been lots of doubt - especially since he had witnesses and documentation placing him at a Virginia Beach recording studio at the time of the robbery.

Doubt should also have been raised, Thompson said, when the other robbery victim said Thompson was the wrong man. Although a written statement from that victim was allowed in court, that victim failed to show on two scheduled trial dates.

Original report here



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

Police harass reporter

Yes. In America, not Russia

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan is asking a Detroit judge to consider whether felony police obstruction charges by the Wayne County prosecutor’s office against a freelance reporter could have a chilling effect on journalism. Diane Bukowski, a freelance reporter for The Michigan Citizen, a Detroit-based newsweekly focused on the state’s African-American community, was arrested and charged with five felony counts of obstructing police officers while reporting from the scene of a fatal police chase on Election Day on Detroit’s northeast side. In her story, Bukowski reported:

A Detroit motorcyclist returning from the polls Nov. 4 was allegedly hit by two Michigan state troopers during a chase on the city’s northeast side. The impact of the crash pushed him into a pedestrian who was also killed, then into a pole, according to one eyewitness.

Bukowski said that she was arrested as she stood photographing the scene of the crash, an officer seized her camera and erased pictures. At a preliminary hearing in front of 36th District Court Judge Beverly Hayes-Sipes in December, three of the five charges against Bukowski were dismissed. “The case at bar raises important issues, including whether the First Amendment rights to freedom of the press are being abridged by a prosecution that is pursued for retaliatory or other improper purpose,” the Michigan ACLU wrote in its brief in support of Bukowski’s motion that the charges against her be dismissed.

The ACLU wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged the important role played by the press in serving as a check against abuse of power by the police and prosecutors.

The charges against Bukowski are particularly troublesome, the group wrote, because of her “long, distinguished history of exposing government irregularities and corruption.” The ACLU noted that Bukowski has reported on allegations of illegal strip and cavity searches by police in southwest Detroit and the refusal of Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy to prosecute police involved in killings.

“ [T]he danger is real that any ruling or verdict by the court that is adverse to the defendant’s interest (whether deserved or not), will be perceived by many as retaliation for her journalistic work,“ the group wrote. “These suspicions can be bolstered by questions about why the defendant is being prosecuted zealously given the absence of allegations that any real harm in the way of physical injuries or property damage resulted from her actions. Such perceptions and questions can chill journalist’s aggressive pursuit of information that the Constitution’s framers believed was essential to a healthy democracy.”

A spokeswoman for Prosecutor Kym Worthy denied the charges were retaliation against Bukowksi. “We do not bring cases to retaliate,” said Maria Miller, spokeswoman and assistant prosecutor for Wayne County. “Her case was charged and is being prosecuted because we believe we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the charge in this particular case.” Miller declined to answer further questions.

A motion to dismiss the remaining charges against Bukowski will be heard by Judge Michael Hathaway on Feb. 20 at 9 a.m. A trial date for the case has been set for April 27. “We are hoping for dismissal,” Bukowski told Michigan Messenger, “but my attorney said he is prepared to go to trail. There is no evidence to back up their charges.” She added that video from a news team and numerous eyewitness accounts support her innocence.

Supporters have formed the Committee to Support Diane Bukowski and Freedom of the Press to draw attention to the case. The groups members include state Rep. Lamar Lemmons Jr. (D-Detroit), Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, Michigan Citizen publisher Catherine Kelley, several union locals and dozens of civil rights activists and community groups.

Original report here



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

Your dog is not safe when police are around

My contempt for the American police certainly can't go any lower. But some people who read this blog still cling to the fantasy that they are a decent lot. I say they are not. The "good" cops may not violate rights immediately but they know the ones who do and usually cover for them. Cops are criminals with permits to be criminals.

Take what a cop did to Lee Ann Hutts as an example. The cop in question is a sheriff's deputy from Pinellas County, Florida. Hutts had done nothing wrong at all. The thug in uniform was Sgt. Robert McGuire. People should know that McGuire is armed and dangerous and a threat. He is violent. McGuire is also not very intelligent. He had gone to a mobile home park to investigate a robbery. But like the terminally dumb he kept getting lost and couldn't find the home he was looking for. So he randomly went to the home where Hutts lives with her fiance and a roommate.

Hutts had a dog that was known to bark but was also known to be gentle and playful. When the door bell rang the dog started barking -- dogs do that. Stupid cops get upset because dogs don't respect their authority (but neither do I). Hutts and a neighbor both say the dog never left Hutts side and never came at McGuire. McGuire ordered the dog to be removed. Hutts tried to lock it in a bedroom but got out. At this point McGuire kicked the dog. Of course McGuire claimed "he shooed the dog with his foot." Cops seem to use what little brain power they have to come up with creative ways to lie about what they did. "No your Honor, I didn't kick him in the teeth. I shooed his cavities with my foot."

McGuire, as you might expect, claims the dog tried to attack him. Kick me and I might attack him too. The neighbor who witnessed the event said that was not true. Imagine that, someone implying a police office might lie. What would surprise me is when one tells the truth. In response to the non-existent "charge" by the dog McGuire pulled his gun and shot the animal in the head. Hutts was covered with blood.

She rushed the dog to a vet and was told it would cost $3,000 to perform surgery. She couldn't afford that and took some pain killers and brought the dog home where it died. Neighbors are so upset they called the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and filed a complaint against this disgusting police officer. One neighbor told the SPCA that the dog "was a total sweetheart. There's a gazillion cats around here, and they're not even scared of him."

Remember that Hutts did nothing wrong. McGuire couldn't find where he wanted to go so he knocked on her door. Her mistake was answering the door. I have repeatedly said that decent people should never cooperate with the police without a lawyer present. The police are a threat to you and your family. Hutts should have asked, through the door what the officer wanted. If he said he was lost she should note that she has no wish to speak to him and will not open the door unless he has a search warrant or arrest warrant. He had neither of course. Her willingness to cooperate with the police is the reason her beloved pet ended up dead.

Police officers in America are out of control. They believe they are little Gods entitled to act any way they wish. They are easily provoked, have little intelligence, and quickly resort to violence. Your innocence is of little concern to them. You risk yourself, and those you love (including pets) merely allowing cops to speak to you on your property. If you have important evidence in a crime your best bet is to take some friends and collectively go to a police station to make a report. Do not speak to the officers at the scene or at your home alone. They can not be trusted.

In case after case they routinely kill people's dogs. In every case they sound like a broken record claiming that the dog attacked them. Dogs never known to attack anyone suddenly become violent around cops and lunge --- hmmm, perhaps dogs are smarter than we give them credit for. In more cases than I remember witnesses to the incidents have testified that the cop is lying and the incident did not take place as he claimed. In all the cases, as far as I can remember, the local authorites claim the cop did the right thing. It doesn't matter how many people testify that the cop is a violent, lying predator. Unless they have film they don't matter when they question the actions of one of the Little Gods in Blue. (Another reason I'm an atheist.)

Just remember that the cops are your enemy. And I mean that literally. They are not out to serve and protect. They must be seen as a criminal gang and you must steer clear of them as much as possible. Any attempt on your part to be helpful, which is what Hutts was doing, can lead to very severe consequences for you.

Original report here



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

MO: After wrongful conviction, Kezer is seeking more than an apology

Joshua Kezer says he doesn't harbor any ill will toward Kenny Hulshof. But that doesn't mean he's not angry. On Wednesday, Kezer became a free man for the first time in nearly 16 years. The man who put him in jail was Hulshof, the ex-congressman and failed gubernatorial candidate who at the time was a special prosecutor working for the attorney general's office. According to the judge who set Kezer free, Hulshof never should have tried the case.

He ignored evidence that pointed to another suspect, said Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan in a scathing opinion that concluded Hulshof prosecuted an innocent man. As Hulshof argued Kezer's guilt to jurors in successfully obtaining a 60-year sentence for the killing of 19-year-old Angela Mischelle Lawless, this is what he said: "You are our only hope. We put him at the scene, we put a gun in his hand, we put the victim with him, we have got blood on his clothes …"


But jurors weren't told the truth, Callahan — himself a former prosecutor — wrote in his 44-page opinion: "We now know that none of what Mr. Hulshof said in that final summary was true. (The) testimony putting him at the scene is totally discredited. No gun was ever found, and there is no credible evidence that he ever had a gun … There is now uncontroverted evidence that he was not at the Halloween party ... New testing indicates there was no blood on his jacket."

Callahan's opinion criticized the entire judicial process. But for Kezer, Hulshof is the name he remembers. Asked as he was released whether he is angry at Hulshof, Kezer took a long pause while standing in the prison lobby. "Do I feel anger from time to time? Yes," he said. "I'm not going to act like I'm superhuman. … But I think that Hulshof has to live with his own actions. I'm not going to be judge and jury."

All too often, prosecutors do act like both judge and jury, says University of Missouri journalism professor Steve Weinberg. An investigative journalist by trade, Weinberg has had Hulshof in his sights for some time. In the late 1990s, Weinberg and the Center for Public Integrity embarked on an investigative project that studied 30 years of criminal cases and 12,000 opinions. Published in 2003, "Harmful Error" concluded that prosecutorial misconduct in U.S. courts is widespread.

The study found that between 1970 and 2003, judges or appeals courts cited prosecutorial misconduct in more than 2,000 criminal cases in which verdicts were reversed. Many of them, like the Kezer case, found a claim of "actual innocence."

Weinberg said that in his research in Missouri, Hulshof's name comes up over and over again when talking to defense attorneys about prosecutors who had a reputation for going too far. "This case is not at all surprising in terms of what Hulshof has done," Weinberg said. Hulshof has been accused by defendants of prosecutorial misconduct in at least five murder cases, other than the Kezer case. In four of those cases, death sentences were overturned because of trial errors, though the convictions stood.

In one 1996 case, Hulshof obtained a murder conviction of a Springfield banker, but the case was overturned because of inappropriate evidence Hulshof introduced at trial. In a second trial, the banker was acquitted of killing his wife.

Weinberg, who like Hulshof lives in Columbia, was instrumental in bringing the Kezer case into public view. In 2006, after Columbia social worker Jane Williams had been working for a decade to try to free Kezer from prison, Weinberg challenged his graduate journalism students to look into the case. Master's student Ben Poston, now an investigative reporter at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, took the challenge. Poston's yearlong investigation was published in the Post-Dispatch in 2007. Now, nearly two years later, Kezer is free.

Hulshof has refused interview requests since the news of Kezer's release broke. He issued a statement that indicated he still believes the man he helped convict is guilty.

Weinberg said he's not surprised that Hulshof is sticking to his guns. "I just don't get the inability of prosecutors to say I'm sorry," he said. "We all make mistakes. Hulshof owes Kezer an apology." Kezer wants more than an apology. He says he plans a civil suit against the state for being wrongfully convicted. The case will pit an innocent man who had been jailed from the time he was 18 against the prosecutor who put him there. The man at the helm of the state Kezer seeks to sue? That's Gov. Jay Nixon, Hulshof's boss during the Kezer trial. Nixon defeated the former prosecutor in the race for governor.

Kezer believes a corrupt system run by politicians put him in jail and stole his youth. Now he wants them to pay. "I'm the winner today," Kezer said as he was released from prison. Then he turned his thoughts to Hulshof. "My life from this day forward will prove him wrong."

Original report here



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

Determined coverup of wrongful conviction by crooked British police

Merseyside Police offered an extraordinary list of excuses in refusing to provide documents relating to the Eddie Gilfoyle case. The force refused one request by The Times for a list of documents in the case, saying that it might break health and safety laws to hand it over. It has declined to provide a single internal record to the newspaper in spite of requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) filed nearly a year ago. At one point the force said it calculated that the cost of responding to a request for information by The Times would be “24,483.33 pounds including 50 for copying/printing”.

This week Merseyside Police was forced to order an urgent search for long-lost notes from an internal inquiry into blunders made by police who attended the scene of Mrs Gilfoyle's death, after it wrongly told the newspaper that they never existed. Only after The Times faxed copies of what appeared to be the documents to the force's headquarters did the Assistant Chief Constable admit the notes had been taken. The Times has now reported Merseyside Police to the Information Commissioner.

The Times asked in March last year for information relating to the internal inquiry, known as the Humphreys report. In a separate request, The Times asked for a copy of the Police Complaints Authority report into the flawed murder investigation. Merseyside Police wrote back saying that it would take “58,760 minutes or 979 hours” to respond to the request and 13 hours had already been spent reaching that conclusion. The maximum time for an FoI request is 18 hours so only 5 remained. The Times then asked for “a list of the documents and statements mentioned in your reply”. Carl Dewhurst, a disclosure analyst, responded in June last year saying he had decided to “exempt” the records under various grounds:

Investigations: Mr Dewhurst said: “This report may yet be of relevance to any future legal proceedings in respect of the man convicted of the murder from which this report resulted. Any release of the information may prejudice such proceedings.”

Health and Safety: “It is a fact that this case caused documented harm to the health of a number of parties involved in this enquiry. Due to the risk of releasing personal information, no expansion of this evidence can be provided in respect of this exemption.”

Personal data: “The information requested contains much personal information from which a person may be identified by name. It would be unfair to release such detail without their consent.”

The Times then exercised its right to an internal review of the decision to withhold information, saying that the police decision to keep the list of documents secret was remarkable and unacceptable, and that the reasons for doing so could not be justified.

Original report here



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