Sparks fly between old lady and Texas cop

A traffic stop for speeding in Travis County, Texas, led to the Tasering of a 72-year-old great-grandmother by a deputy. Feisty Kathryn Winkfein apparently so frightened the law-enforcement officer when she "used some profanity" and "got violent" that he felt it necessary to subdue her with a potentially dangerous jolt of electricity.

Winkfein was reportedly doing 60 in a construction zone where the posted speed limit was 45 when she was pulled over. She was ticketed but declined to sign the ticket, leading the police officer to place her under arrest lest civilization collapse for want of the surrender of a penny's worth of ink.

At this point, the stories diverge. According to Precinct 3 Constable Richard McCain, Winkfein cursed and refused to cooperate. She says nothing of the sort occurred. "I wasn't argumentative, I was not combative. This is a lie," the woman told a news reporter for Fox 7.

Either way, it's difficult to see how the issuance of a speeding ticket to an elderly woman devolved to the point where a grown, trained law-enforcement officer could be considered justified in subjecting the speeder to an electric jolt intended to disrupt her nervous system -- no matter what command of profanity she displayed.

Given that the speeding ticket had already been issued, it's also difficult to understand what purpose was served by prolonging the encounter and demanding a signature. A similar incident in Utah in 2007 between a state trooper and a motorist also resulted in a Tasering after the driver declined to sign a speeding ticket. In that case, the officer escalated the matter to a violent conclusion even though Utah law doesn't actually require a signature. Texas law apparently follows the same reasoning, considering the signature merely a promise to appear in court, not a necessity for the validity of the ticket itself.

Jared Massey, the Utah motorist, was ultimately awarded $40,000 as compensation for the abuse he suffered at the hands of Trooper Jon Gardner.

The use of Tasers is controversial because, while they are often presented as non-lethal devices, they are actually less-lethal alternatives to firearms. According to Amnesty International, "[s]ince June 2001, more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers." Tasers can interfere with proper cardiac function, even resulting in death. Logically enough, people with pacemakers, such as might be expected among older people, are at particular risk, according to a 2007 study.

A research paper prepared for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (PDF) found that some Tasers give an even bigger jolt than intended, with resultingly higher risks to the proper function of the heart.

As such, Tasers make the most sense in situations where force has to be used, as alternatives to shooting or clubbing a suspect; they aren't appropriately applied to suspects who have simply annoyed police officers.

After being Tasered along the road for failing to put pen to paper, Kathryn Winkfein was taken to jail and booked for resisting arrest and detention. Not surprisingly, she's hired a lawyer.

Original report here. (Video at link)



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

CA: Killer BART cop ordered to stand trial for murder

Given the near immunity of cops, he no doubt thought he would get away with it but he was dumb enough not to note that a lot of bystanders were videoing what was happening on their camera phones. There's probably still a good chance that he will eventually get off, though

Former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle was ordered Thursday to stand trial for murder by a judge who told him he didn't believe the explanation defense attorneys gave for his killing of an unarmed passenger. After listening to seven days of testimony, Judge C. Don Clay concluded that Mehserle hadn't gotten his stun gun and his service pistol mixed up when he shot Oscar Grant in the back at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland early New Year's Day. "There's no doubt in my mind," Clay said at the close of the former officer's preliminary hearing in Oakland, "that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun and not a Taser."

The decision set up the first murder trial of a California peace officer for a line-of-duty killing in nearly 15 years. It prompted sobs of relief from Grant's family members, who spoke of having a sense of justice restored. "This is going to be huge for people of color," Cephus Johnson, Grant's uncle, said outside court. "The community lacks faith in the judicial system when it comes to police officers."

Mehserle, who is white, was not accused by prosecutors or Grant's family of a racial motive in the shooting of Grant, a 22-year-old African American who lived in Hayward and worked at an Oakland supermarket. But the outcry over Grant's death had racial overtones, with some African American leaders complaining that police officers often avoided consequences after brutalizing black people.

Mehserle, 27, showed little reaction as Clay made his ruling in Alameda County Superior Court. But earlier in the day, as Clay pushed defense attorneys to wrap up their case, Mehserle's father reacted angrily and suggested the hearing had been unfair. "No justice in Oakland," said Todd Mehserle, a Napa resident, loud enough for reporters who were in court to hear. "They want to see what they want to see. This town is a sham."

During the preliminary hearing, Clay heard prosecutor David Stein and defense attorney Michael Rains spar over whether Grant had resisted arrest, whether he had his hands behind his back when he was shot and whether the train platform had been chaotic and scary for officers.

One crucial point of disagreement was whether Mehserle acted like a man who had accidentally fired a gun. Rains, who argued that Mehserle lacked the malice necessary for a murder charge, said in his closing remarks that the officer had intended to stun Grant with a Taser after thinking that he saw Grant reach for a gun. Mehserle announced to a second officer, "I'm going to Tase him," Rains said, and then blurted out "Oh s-" after firing his pistol. "We have an intent to tase," Rains said.

But Stein referred to his last witness on Thursday, BART police Officer Terry Foreman, who spent more than five hours with Mehserle after the shooting and spoke to his friend and colleague in subsequent days. Foreman testified that Mehserle, at times crying, had talked about the shooting - saying, "I thought he had a gun," and, "He was going for his pocket" - but had never once said he meant to fire his Taser. Stein said Mehserle had also never mentioned his Taser while on the platform.

"Human nature tells us that not only would (Mehserle) have acted differently on the platform, I don't think you would have been able to shut him up," Stein said. "I think he would have said repeatedly, to anyone who would listen, 'Oh my God, I made a mistake.' "

In the end, the judge said Mehserle's state of mind remained a mystery because the officer had never spoken to investigators and hadn't taken the stand at the hearing. Clay said he had never heard of an officer-involved shooting in which the officer never made a statement. Mehserle resigned rather than talk to BART police internal affairs investigators.

Clay said Mehserle's apparently stunned reaction after the shooting could have indicated many things - including that the officer couldn't believe he had shot an unarmed man in front of hundreds of witnesses.

The judge said earlier in the day that Mehserle's statement to other officers that he thought Grant had a gun "changes the dynamics." "It's deadly force against deadly force," Clay said. "That might be his mind-set." As for the Taser explanation, the judge noted that testimony showed Mehserle had held his weapon with both hands, whereas the right-handed officer had been taught to hold a stun gun with his left hand. Clay also said Grant and four friends who were detained with him at the station for allegedly fighting on a Dublin-Pleasanton train "did nothing to justify the use of deadly force."

Stein played video footage Thursday that called into question the actions of the officer who detained Grant and made the decision to arrest him for allegedly obstructing police. The officer, Tony Pirone, testified earlier that Grant had belittled him for being a transit officer and called him a profane name. Stein's video clip appeared to show Pirone mocking Grant before his arrest by leaning in near his face and shouting the same profanities back at him. Then, when Grant is forced to the ground, someone can be heard shouting, "Yeah!" Stein said it was Pirone, though the officer said he didn't remember. "I don't know why I would say that," Pirone said of the exchange. "That's not language I would normally use."

The defense also presented key evidence Thursday after calling a video expert to the stand. The expert said prosecutors' assertion that Grant had his hands behind his back when he was shot was wrong. He showed an image that he said captured the exact moment of the shot; Grant's left hand appeared to be in the air and moving toward his back. But Clay cut short the testimony, saying he didn't need expert help to understand the footage.

Mehserle remains free on $3 million bail. He was ordered to return to court June 18 to be arraigned.

Original report here



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

Son David Bain cleared in New Zealand family killing case

Originally found guilty on the basis of guesswork only

A NEW Zealand man has been found not guilty of murdering five members of his family in 1994 after a retrial described by his lawyer as the country's most extraordinary case. David Bain, 37, was in tears yesterday after the verdict. He was accused of killing his father, Robin, 58, mother, Margaret, 50, and three siblings, Arawa, 19, Laniet, 18, and Stephen, 14, with a .22 rifle after returning from his morning paper round in the southern city of Dunedin. Mr Bain has always maintained his father killed his family and then turned the gun on himself.

He spent 12 years in prison after being found guilty in 1995 of shooting his family with the rifle, but he was released in 2007 after the Privy Council in London ruled that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

During the trial, witnesses said Laniet Bain had told them her father had an incestuous relationship with her and she was preparing to tell the rest of the family.

An exhausted Mr Bain found it difficult to speak after the verdict, but he was quick to praise former All Black Joe Karam, who led the fight to free him. "All I can say is that without Joe and his solid strength, without the love of the people who have supported me since day one, I wouldn't have made it through this far," Mr Bain told cheering supporters. "Joe has been there through everything for me."

The panel of five men and seven women took just 24 hours to reach their unanimous verdict after a gruelling three-month trial that has dominated New Zealand's headlines.

Summing up on Tuesday, the prosecution told a court packed with journalists and members of the public that the first jury got the verdict right. Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery painted a picture of a heartless, uncaring brother who framed his father.

He even went as far as to set up an alibi on his paper round, breaking his routine to walk onto a property so a dog would bark, and later telling police the dog owner would remember him, Mr Raftery said. Just two days after the deaths, he had planned the funerals in detail right down to which song to play for each family member, the jury was told. Mr Raftery argued that because Stephen Bain had had to "fight like hell to stay alive" it was unlikely he had been attacked by his father, who was described by many as 58 going on 78. Mr Raftery concluded by recalling words Bain said to a friend soon after the killing: "I always seem to end up hurting those I love."

Lead defence counsel Michael Reed QC described Bain as a "a really nice guy with a lovely smile and a nice way about him. He is not a murderer". Robin Bain had "flipped" and killed his family, he argued. He described the school principal as a man who feared his teenage daughter would reveal their incestuous relationship. "There was a great risk for Robin," Mr Reed said. He said the father was a "reclusive sort of guy" who was suffering depression, was "shabby and unkempt and had a strong body odour". His marriage was disintegrating and he lived in a van.

A suicide note typed on a computer in the home read: "Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay." The note has been challenged as a plant by David to shift guilt to his father. But Mr Reed said the correct comma usage made it more likely the work of an older, meticulous computer buff such as Robin than the then 22-year-old David.

Mr Reed picked apart the "ego-driven" police investigation and the "messy" prosecution case, wrapping up with: "His life has not been his own now for nearly 15 years. "Put David out of his misery, return him to freedom with a not-guilty verdict on all charges."

Original report here



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

Huge and repeated British bureaucratic incompetence led to sadistic killings

Rules are for other people to follow. People in the British justice system do as they please if and when they get around to it

A SADISTIC killer who tortured and murdered two French students was jailed for 40 years yesterday after a series of blunders in the justice system left him free to roam the streets when he should have been in prison. Dano Sonnex, 23, and his accomplice Nigel Farmer, 34, were jailed for stabbing Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez 244 times before setting fire to their bodies in a scene of "unimaginable horror". Sonnex was jailed for life by the Old Bailey and ordered to serve a minimum of 40 years while Farmer was given life with a minimum of 35 years.

The victims' families said they intended to prosecute the authorities over systematic failings by the Probation Service, courts and police. Guy Bonomo, Laurent's father, said that the parents knew that their children would be alive today "if the British justice system had not failed us".

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, apologised to the families for the blunders that left Sonnex on the streets of South London when he should have been back in custody for breaking the terms of his release from an earlier jail sentence for robbery.

David Scott, the chief probation officer in London, quit his post in February over the failings. He expressed his "utter regret" that the crimes occurred while he was head of the capital's probation service.

The judge told Sonnex and Farmer that they had only escaped being jailed for the rest of their lives because of their ages. However, Mr Justice Saunders said the minimum terms could well mean that Sonnex, from Peckham, and Farmer, of no fixed abode, would never be released.

Farmer was also found guilty of burglary, a charge that Sonnex had already pleaded guilty to. Both men were also found guilty of false imprisonment and arson. All the verdicts, including the murder convictions, were majority decisions of 11 to 1.

In court, Mr Bonomo's father smiled at a flush-faced Sonnex as he was led to the cells. Sonnex mouthed the words "f*** you" before Mr Bonomo mockingly blew a kiss at his son's killer.

The two murderers broke into the bedsit in New Cross, South London, where the two French biochemists were asleep, in June last year. They forced their victims to strip, then hooded and tied them up before repeatedly beating and stabbing them for their bank cards and PINs in a three-hour "orgy of bloodletting".

After torturing the students, Sonnex went to a cash machine to withdraw money while Farmer ransacked the flat and seized PlayStations and mobile phones they could sell later.

Sonnex withdrew pounds 365 from Mr Bonomo's account but when the machine swallowed Mr Ferez's card the killers took their revenge by stabbing their victims over and over again.

The judge said: "The facts of this case are truly horrific." He said the victims were "talented, decent young men" who were "entirely blameless" for what happened.

Evidence showed that Mr Bonomo was chased around the room as he was stabbed 194 times while Mr Ferez was stabbed 50 times. "I am satisfied that the only possible reason for the number of stab wounds is that the killings were sadistic," the judge said. "The killers got pleasure from what they were doing."

Outside the court, the students' families were praised for their courage while Guy Bonomo labelled his son's killers "animals".

Earlier, jurors had wept as statements about the impact of the deaths were read out.

Mr Straw, who has met the families twice, said Sonnex "could and should" have been in custody at the time of the killings. He said he took "full responsibility" for failings by the Probation Service but had never considered resigning and instead had set about putting things right.

The only person to lose their job for the failings is Mr Scott. He was effectively forced from his job after an inquiry found a series of failings.

Sonnex confessed in 2004 to a prison doctor in Portland Young Offender Institution when he was serving eight years for robberies that he thought that he "could kill". This was never shared with the rest of prison staff, although that was legally required.

Sonnex was rated as high risk and refused parole twice because of drug use, violence and vandalism, including setting fire to his cell.

Bureaucratic failings meant that Sonnex was classed as medium risk on release after serving two thirds of his sentence in February 2008.

Repeated communication breakdowns, including a printer malfunction, meant that his case never reached Mappa, a high-level tracking group including police and probation services that supervises the most dangerous offenders.

Within two days of his release, Sonnex returned to his life of crime. He tied up a pregnant woman and her partner, threatened them and demanded money. They were too terrified to give evidence against him and police took no action.

His probation officer gave him a verbal warning rather than starting the process to recall him to jail or reassess his risk.

Weeks later he was arrested for handling stolen goods, charged and remanded to custody by Greenwich Magistrates' Court. But three weeks later magistrates released him on bail rather than returning him to jail. They thought that he was already serving a sentence.

His probation officer, who had failed to insist that Sonnex abide by the conditions of his release licence and attend courses, started proceedings to recall him to jail. It took 33 days instead of 24 hours. When the recall was approved it then took the Metropolitan Police 16 days to go to arrest Sonnex instead of the 96 hours set as a target. The police arrived to arrest Sonnex six hours after the two French students had been murdered.

Original report here



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

One of Britain's top Muslim cops shows form we have come to expect from Muslims (Though he'd be a novice in Chicago)

He is also a big whiner about "discrimination"

One of Britain’s most senior Muslim police officers is to stand trial in the summer on charges of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. Police Commander Ali Dizaei, 47, appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court today and was told he must stand trial at Southwark Crown Court in August. The maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment.

Mr Dizaei, president of the National Black Police Association (NBPA), has been suspended from the force since last September. The allegations follow an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). They are linked to an incident outside the Middle Eastern Yas restaurant in Kensington, southwest London, on July 18 last year. Mr Dizaei, who was wearing his uniform, arrested a young businessman, Waad Al-Baghdadi, after a row in which he claimed he was poked with the mouthpiece of a hookah water pipe.

Mr Dizaei is accused of making false allegations of a crime and other acts which led to the “risk of imprisonment pending trial and wrongful conviction and punishment” of Mr Al-Baghdadi. He is also accused of wilfully engaging in misconduct to the extent that it amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust in his office as police commander.

Wearing a pink tie and shirt with a black suit, Mr Dizaei spoke only to confirm his name during the five-minute hearing. He was represented by the human rights solicitor Imran Khan, who declined to comment to reporters outside the court.

In his role as president of the NBPA, Mr Dizaei lined up with critics of Sir Ian Blair’s regime and was a close confidant of the former assistant commissioner Tarique Ghaffur. Last December, Mr Dizaei launched a claim against Scotland Yard, claiming “systematic” racial discrimination

Original report here



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

Former chief, two other ex-cops convicted in security racket

Not much of a surprise in Chicago

A federal jury deliberated just five and a half hours today before convicting a the former police chief of suburban Melrose Park and two other former officers of fraud, extortion and racketeering. Federal prosecutors call the case a decade-long reign of corruption.

Former chief 61-year-old Vito Scavo was found guilty on all counts. Witnesses said he ordered police officers to work for a security guard company he controlled and squeezed businesses to hire the firm to provide security.

Scavo's attorneys argued that the allegations against him were false.

Also convicted were 53-year-old Gary Montino and 55-year-old Michael Wynn. Three other former officers have pleaded not guilty and are to be tried later.

Original report here



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

After 21 Years in Prison – including 16 on Death Row – Curtis McCarty is Exonerated Based on DNA Evidence

An evil prosecutor and an inept forensic scientist. This case is from 2007 but I have not mentioned it before

Oklahoma City case is one of the worst cases of government misconduct in the history of the American criminal justice system, Innocence Project says

Curtis Edward McCarty, who was convicted twice and sentenced to death for the same murder in verdicts that were both thrown out based on evidence of his innocence and an extraordinary pattern of government misconduct, was released from prison this morning after a judge dismissed the indictment against him that would have led to a third trial. The prosecution said today that it will not appeal the decision – finally clearing McCarty after 21 years of wrongful incarceration, more than 16 of them on death row.

In 1986, McCarty was convicted of a 1982 murder in Oklahoma City and sentenced to die. Citing misconduct by the prosecutor and a police lab analyst, the Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction, and McCarty was retried in 1989. He was again convicted and sentenced to death. In 1995, the appeals court upheld his conviction but threw out his death sentence; in 1996, he was sentenced to death again. In 2005, the Court of Criminal Appeals again overturned his conviction, citing the continued pattern of government misconduct – and new DNA tests showing that semen recovered from the victim did not come from McCarty.

“Every piece of evidence in this case, including evidence that was used improperly to secure convictions, now shows Curtis McCarty’s innocence,” said Colin Starger, the Innocence Project Staff Attorney on the case who argued the motion to dismiss the indictment in a three-hour hearing yesterday afternoon. “Semen recovered from the victim, material under the victim’s fingernails and a bloody print the perpetrator left on the victim’s body all come from someone other than Curtis McCarty.”

Robert H. Macy, who was the Oklahoma County District Attorney for 21 years, prosecuted McCarty in both of his trials. Macy sent 73 people to death row – more than any other prosecutor in the nation – and 20 of them have been executed. Macy has said publicly that he believes executing an innocent person is a sacrifice worth making in order to keep the death penalty in the United States.

Macy committed misconduct in the manner that he prosecuted McCarty and presented the case to the jury. His misconduct was compounded when he relied on Joyce Gilchrist, a police lab analyst who falsified test results and hid or destroyed evidence in order to help secure McCarty’s convictions. Gilchrist was the lead forensic analyst in 23 cases that ended in death sentences (11 of the defendants in those cases have been executed).

“This is by far one of the worst cases of law enforcement misconduct in the history of the American criminal justice system,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. “Bob Macy has said that executing an innocent person is a risk worth taking – and he came very close to doing just that with Curtis McCarty.”

Macy’s conduct in prosecuting McCarty was singled out in the Court of Criminal Appeals ruling that overturned McCarty’s first conviction; that ruling noted that the case was “replete with error” and referred to Macy’s conduct as “improper” and “unprofessional.” In each of its rulings overturning McCarty’s convictions, the appeals court noted that Gilchrist initially said hairs from the crime scene definitely did not match McCarty, then changed her records and testimony to say they definitely matched him (years later, Gilchrist either hid or destroyed those hairs when they were sought for DNA testing).

The prosecution also claimed that semen on the victim’s body came from McCarty, while DNA testing now shows that it did not. The prosecution maintained that McCarty acted alone in the crime, until evidence began to emerge that he was not the perpetrator; at that point, the prosecution began to say McCarty had an accomplice (though no evidence of multiple perpetrators was ever found or introduced).

McCarty was charged in 1985 with stabbing and strangling 18-year-old Pamela Kaye Willis three years earlier in Oklahoma City. Willis, an acquaintance of McCarty’s, was found dead in the kitchen of a friend’s home on December 10, 1982. Hairs and other biological evidence were collected by police at the crime scene. Gilchrist, who testified in both of McCarty’s trials, was fired in 2001 for fraud and misconduct in McCarty’s case and others.

DNA testing conducted on post-conviction appeal in 2002 showed that sperm recovered from the victim’s body did not match McCarty and the Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the second conviction in 2005. The Innocence Project became involved in the case in 2003; attorneys Perry Hudson and Marna Franklin also represent McCarty.

“For anyone who believes the death penalty is being carried out appropriately in this country, and anyone who believes that prosecutors and government witnesses can always be relied on to pursue the truth, this case is a wake-up call,” said Peter Neufeld, Co-Director of the Innocence Project. “Three separate times, an innocent man was sentenced to die because of the actions of an unethical prosecutor and a fraudulent analyst.”

McCarty is the 201st person in the United States exonerated through DNA evidence – and the 15th of those 201 who has served time on death row. McCarty is the ninth person to be exonerated by DNA evidence in Oklahoma and the third to be exonerated from the state’s death row. Robert Miller was exonerated based on DNA evidence in 1998 after serving more than 9 years on death row in Oklahoma for crimes he didn’t commit. Macy prosecuted Miller, and Gilchrist provided forensic testimony leading to his wrongful conviction.

Original report here



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

Drug dealer avoids jail in daughter's killing

Charged with murder in the 1999 death of his 2-year-old daughter, Frank Howard boasted he would not spend a day in prison.

"If I do plead guilty there, I won't get a day for it," Howard, 39, testified in an unrelated Washington, D.C., drug case in 2004, though he insisted he was innocent.

A drug dealer in Washington in the 1990s, Howard later reached a plea deal that spared him a lengthy sentence in his daughter's death before he began a new life in the federal witness protection program in the fall of 2007, according to court records.

"Frank Howard should have been held accountable, and the fact he wasn't is upsetting," said Prince George's Police Detective Chuck Richardson, one of the investigators in the 1999 killing of Howard's daughter, Keontaye Smith.

The story of Frank Howard, who has gone from an accused child killer to a federally protected witness, provides insight into the little-known deals prosecutors sometimes make to convict high-profile crime figures — and how criminals who cooperate can benefit in unexpected ways.

Howard declined to comment for this story through the Justice Department.

Leniency in the death of his daughter was never part of Howard's deal with federal prosecutors to testify against former associates in a violent drug-trafficking organization in Washington that authorities dubbed "Murder Inc."

Federal prosecutors in Washington said they took no position in the Keontaye Smith case, a separate investigation headed by Prince George's County authorities, who delayed their case for years as Howard cooperated with federal prosecutors.

Howard eventually pleaded guilty to child abuse in his daughter's death in 2006. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. But his plea deal also essentially allowed him to go free the next year. The agreement let Howard serve his 2006 sentence for child abuse "concurrent" with another eight-year sentence he was nearly finished serving in the unrelated federal Murder Inc. drug case, according to court records.

Like Howard, Keontaye's mother, Tamara Smith, also pleaded guilty to child abuse, but she was incarcerated after getting sentenced to six years in prison.

More here



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

Trigger-happy British cops face prosecution

Mainly because the victim's family kept a heavy glare of publicity on the police complaints procedure, it would seem

Police marksmen who controversially shot dead a barrister face a manslaughter investigation by prosecutors, it emerged yesterday. Seven officers fired 11 shots into Mark Saunders at the end of a five-hour siege of his London flat, in which he exchanged fire with the specialist firearms squad. His family claim the successful divorce lawyer could have been arrested 'peacefully' after he began firing a shotgun randomly from his Chelsea home.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission launched an investigation into the shooting by Scotland Yard's elite CO 19 unit. Now the police watchdog has completed its inquiry and announced the file will go to the Crown Prosecution Service for it to decide whether to bring charges.

Oxford-educated Mr Saunders, 32, was killed at his £2million flat off the Kings Road last May after spending an afternoon drinking. The former Territorial Army soldier legally owned a 12-bore shotgun which he began firing. While a police helicopter hovered overhead, he shot at officers and hit a house opposite - then marksmen ended the stand-off.

A post-mortem examination found Mr Saunders, whose wife Elizabeth is also a barrister, was hit at least five times and shot in the head, the heart and liver by several weapons. The IPCC began an investigation into the incident, as is routine in police shootings, but Mr Saunders' family began questioning whether lethal force had been necessary to stop him.

His sister Charlotte said five months after the incident: 'I question whether they had to kill him. 'I firmly believe that this could have been brought to a peaceful conclusion. Mark had no hostages, he was holed up in his own home, surrounded by scores of officers and the area had been evacuated.' She claimed a senior IPCC member told her officers had a 20-minute opportunity to use a Taser gun on her brother which would have incapacitated him. Miss Saunders, 26, also highlighted video footage which apparently showed her brother had not fired his gun for 20 minutes when marksmen opened fire and was talking to officers only ten seconds before he died. 'If police were in range for Taser guns why didn't they Taser him then? Why didn't they throw in the CS gas then,' she asked?

She also dismissed suggestions that her brother committed 'suicide by cop', denied he was an alcoholic or depressive, or an angry man jealous of his wife's professional success. His family went to the High Court seeking a judicial review in an attempt to have the IPCC inquiry into his death declared unlawful. They argued - in a case echoing concerns raised about procedure in the wake of the shooting of Brazilian John Charles de Menezes in 2005 - that allowing firearms officers to confer about their accounts gave rise to the risk of collusion. Mr Justice Underhill dismissed the claim but expressed concern about the practice and the Association of Chief Police Officers later effectively ended it.

Charlotte Saunders has launched a legal action for damages against the Met. She has also cited the IPCC in her High Court proceedings for negligence.

In a statement, the IPCC said: 'As in all IPCC cases, the investigation report was passed to an IPCC commissioner to decide whether the case should be referred to the CPS. 'On this occasion it was decided that the case did meet the criteria for referral.' An IPCC spokesman added: 'We find the facts and then it is up to the CPS to say whether those facts amount to criminal charges.'

If prosecutors decide there is no case to answer, the officers could still face disciplinary charges. A date for the inquest has yet to be fixed.

Original report here



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

Chicago man sues Chicago, police over wrongful conviction

Chicago justice: Man who spent more than 12 years in prison says he was framed to clear case

A Chicago man freed a year ago after DNA cleared him of a rape for which he spent 12 years in prison has alleged in a federal lawsuit that he was framed by Chicago police. Dean Cage, 42, was convicted in 1995 of the rape of a 15-year-old girl on the South Side after she identified him in a police lineup and said she recognized his voice.

Cage, who had just moved to Chicago from Arkansas and was working at a supermarket, was arrested a week before Thanksgiving 1994 after police said a tip stemming from a published composite sketch led them to him.

Cage, who had no criminal record, repeatedly denied that he had committed the rape but was convicted in a bench trial and all of his appeals were denied. For years, Cage wrote to the New York-based Innocence Project, asking them to take on his case. In 2006, the project persuaded the Cook County state's attorney's office to test Cage's DNA against evidence taken in the case. The tests excluded Cage as the rapist, charges were dropped and he was freed in May 2008.

Since being freed, Cage received a "certificate of innocence" from the state, allowing him to seek compensation for his years in prison, which he is in the process of doing, said his attorney, Jon Loevy. But last week Cage sued the City of Chicago, a police detective who investigated the rape and other unnamed officers, alleging that he was framed to simply clear the crime.

The lawsuit alleged that Cage looked "nothing like" the composite drawing and that evidence at the time showed the victim had several sexually transmitted diseases that Cage didn't carry. The suit accused officers of manipulating the victim to implicate Cage and refusing to investigate other possible suspects, even after Cage was cleared by DNA of another rape. The suit alleged the case's primary detective may have influenced the victim while conducting the lineup.

In an interview Tuesday, Cage said he has struggled for the last year to adjust to life outside of prison, spending time with his three sons, one of whom recently graduated from high school. Finding work has been difficult, as he is still trying to expunge his record, he said. He recently began working in a barbecue restaurant on the South Side. His mother won't let him travel alone in a car, preferring to send family members to transport him. He rides his bike from home to work, he said.

"It's been kinda rough," Cage said with his mother at his side. A scrapbook of exoneration cases he kept for years while in prison lay open before him. "If I didn't have the support of my family, I don't know what I would have done," he said.

Cage said he's filing suit in the hope of obtaining money to start his own exoneration project for other inmates who may have been wrongfully convicted. He said he also wants to provide for his sons.

Original report here



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

Some recent Australian police experiences

(Via Australian Politics)

Abusive police in court

I can see no reason why police should abuse suspects so I hope they lose this one. Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and in this case the accused WERE innocent. There was not even enough evidence to take them to court. Unless they are being physically attacked, the police should be polite at all times -- as in the old British tradition

THREE men questioned by police on Sydney streets are suing the New South Wales Government, saying the officers made defamatory comments about them within earshot of passers-by. Alleged statements such as "we are stopping you because you guys were ... intending to steal" could cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and restrict the way police conduct routine investigations, The Australian reports.

The NSW Government recently tried to have the men's cases thrown out of court. However, a NSW District Court judge not only gave the two separate cases the go-ahead, but ordered the Government to pay the men's legal costs. Payouts of up to $250,000 can be awarded if comments are found to be defamatory.

In both cases, none of the men can identify any members of the public who are said to have heard and witnessed the alleged defamatory comments made by the officers, but the court ruled they did not have to provide further details because it would be an "unnecessary expense" at that stage of proceedings.

In the first case, David Moses and Tangiwai Kawenga are suing the police for defamation over an incident in inner-city McEvoy Street in September last year. Police arrived after receiving a call that a criminal offence had taken place and arrested and charged the pair. At the time, one of the officers allegedly said to Mr Moses: "You're robbing women", "you're a thief", and "you have stolen from women". Mr Kawenga claims a police officer said to him: "You're under arrest -- you're a piece of shit ... you're f**ked -- you're going to jail."

The pair say officers were speaking "in a loud voice within the hearing of passers-by and residents of premises adjoining George Street, many of whom were standing at and near their front fence observing the police and (Mr Moses and Mr Kawenga)", according to court documents. Mr Kawenga tried to argue that the words "you're under arrest" were also defamatory but this was knocked out by judge Judith Gibson last week and he and Mr Moses were ordered to pay costs.

The charges against the pair were later dropped and no further action was taken against them.

In the other case, police were called to the exclusive watch store TAG Heuer, in Sydney's King Street luxury shopping precinct, in June last year. Staff had pressed the "hold-up button" while Michael Lassanah and another man were in the store. Police arrived shortly afterwards.

Mr Lassanah said he was defamed when police spoke to him on the footpath outside and allegedly said: "The manager of the TAG shop said you were intending to steal from the shop. We are stopping you because you guys were in the TAG shop intending to steal. You were intending to steal. Don't go into that shop. You were intending to steal."

Mr Lassanah is suing for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment and says police kept him on the footpath for an hour and searched him "in the presence of the general public".

Seeking to have the cases dismissed, the NSW Government unsuccessfully argued in the District Court that it was protected by defences available to the defamation laws. The matter will return to court in September.

NSW Police have yet to give their version of events. But a spokesman said yesterday: "It should be noted that this is an interim finding only and not final, and police will leave it in the hands of the courts to make a decision. The NSW Police Force has always stood behind its officers who carry out their duties in good faith."

SOURCE

Murder calls to police emergency number ignored

A CIVILIAN police radio operator in Queensland ignored two triple-0 calls which may have helped save a man's life, it has been revealed. Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson said the calls were received at the Maroochydore Police Communications Centre on Monday night, about 10 minutes apart. Both calls are believed to have been made by a woman screaming that someone was in trouble.

Mr Atkinson said it was "highly likely" both calls related to the death of a 48-year-old man whose body was found near a Nambour creek about 6.30am (AEST) on Tuesday. James Albert Madden, 23, of Nambour, has been charged with the man's murder. Kilah Johnelle Jones, 17, of Yandina, faced Maroochydore Magistrate's Court yesterday charged with being an accessory. Jones was granted bail, while Madden did not appear yesterday and his case was adjourned for six weeks.

Mr Atkinson yesterday admitted it was his "biggest fear" that the man's death could been prevented had information from the 000 calls been relayed to police. "The person who took the calls is a civilian radio operator . . . who has been in that position for six months," Mr Atkinson said. "He brought the matter to light today when he became aware of the murder charge and related it to the two phone calls he received on Monday night."

An inquiry has been launched by the Ethical Standards Command. "The investigation will focus on the origin, nature and appropriateness of any response to any such call," Mr Atkinson he said. He said a civilian radio operator usually would pass on such information to the duty sergeant at the communications centre. "It's early days yet but it doesn't appear as though that happened," he said. "We have grave concerns that this information that was provided at the time was not acted on." [I'm guessing that the operator brought the matter up because he DID pass the info on to the cops]

SOURCE

More useless police

Emergency calls 'not answered'. It is common in the USA for police to arrive within a couple of minutes of a robbery call, often quickly enough to catch the robbers. That's a dream in Australia

South Australia's Police Minister has ordered a review of the emergency response to an armed hold-up at Torrensville in Adelaide. Witnesses to the robbery at Grech Jewellers on Monday afternoon say they were put on hold for up to 10 minutes when they tried to telephone 000. When shop owner Bruce Bubner heard a gunshot at the jewellery shop, he says he called 000 straight way. But he says he waited eight minutes, then hung up.

"It was worrying that David (jeweller) could have been lying in there waiting for the police to arrive, you know, he could have been injured," he said. "I saw other people on the phone as well and I figured that they had made contact. "As it turns out, when I talked to Theresa at the snack bar, she hadn't made contact either."

Opposition police spokesman David Ridgway says the lack of response is a worry. "The system if it can't cope then it needs to be upgraded or there needs to be a full explanation about why that happened," he said.

Witnesses say police took 20 minutes to arrive. SA Police Minister Michael Wright has ordered a report on the response. "I don't think we should make any assumptions at this stage. What we do know is there was a very high volume and that may have caused the difficulty," he said. Police are searching for the two men armed with a shotgun and a tomahawk who robbed the store.

SOURCE


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

Arrogant and law-defying British top cop

A chief constable could face jail and an end to his 35-year police career for defying a High Court order to return computers suspected of holding a huge collection of child abuse images to a controversial expert witness. Colin Port, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, was served with a High Court summons alleging contempt of court at his force headquarters yesterday. But Mr Port is adamant that he will not return 87 hard drives and 2,500 photographs of abuse seized from the home of Jim Bates, a forensic computer analyst.

Senior police sources told The Times yesterday that Mr Port believes that returning the material before it is analysed and investigated would be “tantamount to a neglect of duty”. One said: “He thinks the public would be appalled if he were to hand over these hard drives, which are suspected of containing images of child abuse, without examining them with a view to identifying the children, rescuing them and preventing any further abuse.”

Avon and Somerset Police’s inquiry into Bates began last year, soon after he provided a statement as an expert witness for the defence in the case of a Bristol man charged with possessing child abuse images that went to court in September 2008. Bates, 68, is seen by some as the founding father of forensic computer analysis but his credibility was undermined when he was convicted in March last year of falsifying his qualifications and given a six-month suspended prison sentence.

Police and prosecutors were concerned when, despite his conviction, Bates obtained a copy of the suspect’s computer hard drive by saying that he was an assistant to a defence witness. The computer expert was investigated on suspicion of conspiring to possess indecent images of children and police obtained a warrant from magistrates to search his home. A haul of material — hard drives, memory sticks and hard copy images — was seized from Bates’s home in Leicestershire by Mr Port’s officers in September last year.

Lawyers for Bates sought a judicial review of the legality of the search of his home and won a High Court ruling that the warrant obtained by police was not properly obtained. Two judges said that the search warrant was illegal because the police did not inform the magistrate who granted it that Bates’s possessions might include legally privileged material relating to other court cases. The effect of that ruling was to require Avon and Somerset Police to halt their investigation into Bates and return the material taken.

Mark Spragg, Bates’s solicitor, said: “You cannot simply take legally privileged material or special procedure material — the police failed to tell the magistrate that Mr Bates had acted as a prosecution and defence expert many times. “The High Court therefore made an order for the return of the material. Mr Bates needs that order to carry out his job as an expert computer analyst and the material is currently being withheld from him illegally.”

As a pioneer of forensic computer analysis, Bates has been used widely by police and prosecutors in the past. He has lectured at police training colleges. The authorities became concerned about his retention of material from court cases, but Mr Bates argued that he had to retain casework in case of future appeals. The Crown Prosecution Service said Bates was no longer used as an expert witness and that confidential guidance concerning him had been issued to all prosecutors in 2006.

Bates fears that he is being targeted by police because he has become an outspoken critic of the conduct of Operation Ore, a nationwide police investigation into online child abuse that began in the late 1990s and led to thousands of arrests.

The expert had helped in the prosecution of a number of early Operation Ore cases before expressing his concerns about the inquiry. He is now assisting people who are appealing against their convictions and another group who are taking civil action. Papers from Bates’s work on the Operation Ore appeals are understood to be among the material seized by police that he wants returned.

Tony Butler, a former spokesman on child protection for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said he understood why police would need to retain and examine images of abuse. He said: “Technology has advanced to such an extent that we can gain a lot of clues from a photograph. It is possible to identify a child, where the abuse took place and possibly prevent further abuse.”

Original report here



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

Another Australian police goon

Teen boy 'taped policeman's baton threat'

A 14-YEAR-OLD boy says he used his mobile phone to secretly record a police officer's threat to assault him with a baton. The boy said he was intimidated by Leading Senior Constable Matthew Lake, who he said threatened to shove a baton up his backside. The officer has been put on alternative duties while the Ethical Standards Department investigates.

The 20-minute one-on-one interview - over an accusation the boy pushed a younger child off his bike and punched him repeatedly - was at Narre Warren station last Thursday. According to a tape heard by the Herald Sun, Sen-Constable Lake warned he'd circulate the boy's photo to other police so they could harass him.

The boy said the officer also waved a baton at him during repeated threats. He said that when Sen-Constable Lake left the interview room at one point, he turned on his mobile phone recorder. On his return, Sen-Constable Lake advised the boy anything he said could be used as evidence in court.

He then asked if the boy wanted the matter to end in court. Recorded was this comment: "If I hear one more complaint . . . about your behaviour, I'll shove this thing so far up your a***. . . you won't know what day it is."

The boy was eventually given a warning; on leaving, he told his mother he had been threatened. She phoned Sen-Constable Lake, told him the interview had been recorded, then taped several heated conversations with the officer. The registered nurse said he tried to calm her, apologising and explaining he was trying to teach her son a lesson and handled it the "wrong way".

She said she was not permitted to sit with her son during the interview, which is against police regulations when dealing with a child. "The more I listen to it, the more angry I get. I feel terrible I didn't go into that room," she said. "I said 'Don't be rough with him'. When my son got out of there he was pale. He couldn't breathe." She said her son suffered an asthma attack soon afterward and had to be put on a ventilator pump. The next day he was prescribed sedatives because he could not sleep.

She said she would seek legal advice over the unprofessional and damaging conduct. "I feel abused," the boy said. "He's a big guy. He stood over me . . . he had a baton and I thought he was going to hit me. He was waving it in my face."

Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)



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

Exporting corruption

Last month, a South Tucson, AZ, cop who ran his department's asset forfeiture program was convicted of stealing over $560,000 from it. This month, the cop who handles asset forfeiture funds in Spring Lake, NC, was arrested for stealing $2,900. Another cop was arrested for having seized the money in a hotel room under false pretenses.

Will these arrests "fix" asset forfeiture, or will corrupt cops simply learn that it's safer to pocket some of the money they seize before it's officially counted? Retired police captain Peter Christ of L.E.A.P. suggests this is already common.

Under civil asset forfeiture, police can seize money or property upon "probable cause" that it was connected to a crime. The onus then falls on the owner to prove innocence. Police departments use the proceeds to help fund their budgets.

"Probable cause" can include the mere fact of carrying a large amount of cash, or a police dog's sniff of drug residue on your property. One may have a legitimate reason for carrying the cash, and the residue may have been left over from the previous owner. It doesn't matter. The police can seize your property to enrich their departments, and it's often too risky and expensive for you to fight for its return.

Civil asset forfeiture breeds corruption. It's immoral and unconstitutional. But instead of abolishing it, the U.S. is exporting it...

The State Department has faulted Mexico for its lack of asset forfeiture laws. U.S. Marshalls are instructing the Mexican government on asset forfeiture. The World Bank and the United Nations have co-published a guide to help developing countries implement asset forfeiture procedures. The U.S. contributes billions to these institutions.

The supposed reason to promote asset forfeiture abroad is to "fight corruption." But giving law enforcement the arbitrary power to seize personal property is like combating ignorance by censoring newspapers, or strengthening democracy by arresting opposition leaders. Civil asset forfeiture is inherently corrupt and it may be about to get worse...

It's long been assumed that as a recession leads to budget crunches, police tend to write more speeding tickets for the revenue. There's now solid evidence to demonstrate this. We can surmise then that police will also increase searches, raids, and seizures to generate more revenue.

Original report here



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

Chicago cop gets arrested in teen's hit-and-run death

At 1.30 am, going through a red light and "swerving" the cop was probably drunk. I wonder if they will use that to exculpate him? No doubt he was under "stress". What both the cop and the kids were doing out late at night in a rough area is a question. One Chicago certainty: The cop will do no jail time



Terrence Booker had planned to pick up his 13-year-old son, Trenton [above], from school Friday afternoon for a holiday weekend of family barbecues just weeks shy of the boy's 8th-grade graduation.

But he instead received a heartbreaking phone call in the middle of the night that his son had been killed in a hit-and-run collision while riding his bike with friends about 1:30 a.m. Friday after sneaking out of the house.

Later Friday, Chicago police acknowledged that an off-duty officer had struck Trenton on South Ashland Avenue with his car and then drove off.

"That car tore him to pieces," Booker, 40, said outside the home of Trenton's mother, Barbara Norman. "He was dead when he hit the ground."

Police said an internal investigation would take place into the conduct of the off-duty officer, age 39 with 17 years on the force. He was stripped of police powers. A police spokeswoman confirmed that it was a hit-and-run collision. No criminal charges had been filed against the officer by Friday evening, but the investigation continues.

It was the second fatal crash involving an off-duty Chicago police officer in recent weeks. Officer Joseph Frugoli, 41, was charged last month with reckless homicide and DUI after a fiery April 10 crash on the Dan Ryan Expressway that killed Andrew Cazares and Fausto Manzera, both in their 20s.

Witnesses said Trenton and at least one other boy were riding their bikes in the left southbound lane of Ashland Avenue near 81st Street when a black Dodge Charger approached from behind, swerving and speeding.

Though witnesses said the light at the intersection had turned red, the car did not slow as it approached the boys, striking Booker's bike and flipping him in the air, said Brian Jackson, a witness.

The car continued southbound on Ashland and later was found by police in the 1900 block of West 82nd Street, four blocks from the collision, said Sgt. Antoinette Ursitti, a police spokeswoman.

A steady stream of relatives and friends visited Trenton's home. He was in 8th grade at nearby Cuffe Math, Science and Technology Academy. Trenton's father said his son was loyal and friendly -- the only boy among five sisters -- still figuring out who he wanted to be. "He wanted to be everything in the world," Booker said. "Nothing but dreams."

Booker said he was furious that it was a police officer behind the wheel of the car that hit his son. "It's outrageous. It's a shame that a police officer [who] is supposed to uphold the law, that he would do something like that," Booker said later Friday. "You hold your badge and honor as an authority and you leave someone down in the road you know you just hit? It's terrible."

Original report here



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

Monitoring device shows up mistaken eyewitness evidence

Lucky for the wearer

The electronic monitoring device Andrew Lorenzana wears on his ankle lets authorities know where he is at all times. It also proved that he could not have taken part in a robbery earlier this month. The Lorain County prosecutor dropped robbery, assault and kidnapping charges this week against the 19-year-old Lorain man. He had been arrested after the victim of a May 10 robbery identified him as one of the attackers. But surveillance records showed he was nowhere near the Sheffield Township home.

Lorenzana's attorney, Anthony Rich, said the device is tamper-proof, so it could not have been removed. That would have sent out an alert. The incident should serve as a cautionary tale, he said, against reliance on eyewitness identification. "I think this just proves eyewitness identification isn't as great as people think it is," he said. The woman told police three times that Lorenzana was on the scene, said Rich, "And she was absolutely wrong."

Lorenzana was fitted with the ankle bracelet - which works off the Global Positioning System - when he was released on bond in a murder case. Lorenzana and Avery Taylor, 19, of Lorain, are charged with murder in the Feb. 4 death of Christopher Lundberg. The 35-year-old Lorain man died the day after he was shot by two men during a drug deal in Lorain, police said.

In late February, Lorenzana and Taylor were released from Lorain County Jail after their bonds were lowered from $1 million to $50,000. Both had to wear the GPS devices.

The victim of the May 10 robbery said four or five men banged on her door, claiming to be police officers. She said Taylor pushed her onto a couch, put a pillowcase over her head and put a gun to her head, according to the police report. The robbers took $1,350. She fingered Lorenzana in the crime.

Lorain County Sheriff's Capt. John Reiber said he cannot explain what happened. "I was shocked," he said. "She identified him by name, but I guess it was a case of mistaken identity. "I can't explain what happened. But the GPS showed he was not there."

Police are looking for several other suspects in the robbery.

Original report here



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

Black British footballer convicted of killing girlfriend in double jeopardy case

His victims were also black

A footballer yesterday admitted killing his former girlfriend, more than six years after he was cleared of the crime. Mario Celaire, 31, is the first person to be convicted of a crime for which he had been found not guilty by a jury. The double jeopardy rule that prevented anyone from being tried twice for the same crime was changed in 2005 for cases where “new and compelling evidence” could be produced.

In Celaire’s case, the new evidence included a confession to his new girlfriend that he battered Cassandra McDermott, 19, to death in November 2001. He then tried to kill Kara Hoyte, who was also 19, but she survived and was eventually able to give evidence against him. At the Old Bailey yesterday he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempted murder.

Celaire, a former Brentford player, was with the non-league club Maidstone United when he was arrested in 2007 in an investigation that would bring him back to court. He was known to the club’s fans as Mario McNish, having changed his name the year before.

In 2002 the Old Bailey was told that he beat Ms McDermott unconscious at her mother’s house in Norbury, South London, after years of domestic violence. He failed to do anything to help her or to raise the alarm and she choked to death on her own vomit.

The victim’s sister, Andrea, found her body almost 24 hours later. Celaire claimed that Ms McDermott was alive and well when he left her and the jury acquitted him of murder and manslaughter after deliberating for less than three hours.

But in February 2007 he admitted the killing to Ms Hoyte, a part-time model, after she found papers relating to the court case at a flat in Walthamstow, East London. He then flew into a rage and struck her on the head with a hammer.

Doctors thought that Ms Hoyte would die from her brain injuries. But nine months after the attack, despite paralysis down one side of her body and extreme difficulties communicating, she was able to speak to detectives.

Prosecution lawyers applied to reopen the inquiry into Ms McDermott’s killing and successfully got the acquittal quashed in the Court of Appeal.

Celaire was due to stand trial for murder yesterday until the prosecution accepted his guilty pleas. Ms Hoyte was due to give evidence via video link with the help of a doctor. Because of the severity of her injuries, provision had been made for her to write down or draw some of her evidence with cameras relaying images back to the courtroom.

Simon Denison, QC, for the prosecution, said that the families of both victims had been consulted before a decision was made to accept the guilty pleas.

Cassandra McDermott’s mother, Jennifer, 58, and two older sisters were in court to see Celaire finally admit his guilt.

Later Ms McDermott, who has set up a domestic abuse charity in memory of her daughter, said: “The change in his plea is an indicator that he knew he couldn’t get away with it. We have waited years and, luckily for us, we haven’t waited in vain.”

Sophia Springer, 39, Cassandra’s sister, said: “To have the acquittal overturned is a great achievement for us.” Andrea McDermott, 37, described how Celaire had “haunted” the family over the years by turning up at places where he knew they would be.

She said: “The double jeopardy rule will give so many people a chance to go back and fight again. We didn’t give up, friends didn’t give up and the police didn’t give up.”

Michael Borrelli, QC, for Celaire, successfully applied to the court for his client to be given a psychiatric assessment before he is sentenced on July 3.

Original report here



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

Alabama police officers fired over car chase beating

Honest prosecutors!

Five Alabama police officers have been sacked after a video emerged showing them brutally beating an unconscious man. The officers were pursuing a black suspect in a high-speed chase through Jefferson County when the man lost control of his van and fell out of the vehicle as it flipped over.

The driver, Anthony Warren, lay motionless on the verge at the side of the road as the officers leapt on top of him kicking, punching and beating him with a baton.

Mr Warren has filed a compensation claim for more than $100,000, saying the beating left him with injuries including severe concussion and a skull fracture.

The assault took place in January last year but the video only came to light this week. Prosecutors for the district attorney of Jefferson County, Brandon Falls, found the tape in March while preparing their case against Mr Warren, who received a 20-year sentence for first-degree assault for hitting an officer with his van in the chase.

The state Bureau of Investigation is considering charges against the experienced officers and Chief A. C. Roper of the Birmingham Police Department called the actions “shameful". “We’ve terminated over 50 years of combined service due to 10 seconds of injustice,” he said. “In addition to these terminations, we’re also reviewing our supervisor’s actions, reporting mechanisms and policies.”

Original report here. Video at source



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

Former Illinois trooper writes book on Rhoads killings

A Terre Haute native took his mission with the Illinois State Police seriously when he was tasked with reinvestigating a 1986 homicide. Michale Callahan’s dedication uncovered what he believes is the wrongful conviction of two men, and a conspiracy to cover up the faulty investigation and government corruption.

His book, “Too Politically Sensitive,” details Callahan’s long journey to not only reveal the errors in the investigation of the slaying of newlyweds Dyke and Karen Rhoads, but also the political corruption in the state of Illinois. The title comes from a supervisor’s statement that the case was “too politically sensitive” to be reopened.

Callahan’s book was released Monday during a Defenders of the Innocence reception at the Illinois governor’s mansion. “We have had nothing but positive comments so far,” Callahan said in a telephone interview of the response to the book. “I think people in Illinois are really unhappy about this case and how it was handled.” Area residents are invited to two upcoming book signings — from 5 to 7 p.m. Thursday at the Vigo County Public Library, and 2 to 4 p.m. Sunday at Waldenbooks at Honey Creek Mall — to meet Callahan and talk to him about how homicides can be “too politically sensitive.”

The July 6, 1986, killings of the Rhoads newlyweds was highly covered in area media, as were the trials of Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock, both of whom were convicted of murder in June 1987.

Fourteen years later, Callahan drew the assignment of reviewing the case. It was 2000 and he was the newly promoted investigations commander of District 10 in east-central Illinois. The homicide case was to be featured in an upcoming episode of CBS’ “48 Hours,” which examined whether Steidl and Whitlock had been wrongfully convicted. And the case also had drawn the attention of the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project and The Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

Callahan said he learned Steidl and Whitlock were railroaded into prison. But as he tried to uncover the truth behind the wrongful convictions, pressure from superiors in the Illinois State Police and then-Gov. George Ryan’s administration thwarted his investigation.

During his 20-year career in investigations, Callahan was promoted to sergeant, master sergeant and lieutenant. He retired from the Illinois State Police in March 2005, and a year later he received The Edmund Burke Award from the National Lawyers Association for his efforts to uncover the truth in the case. Callahan has spent much of the past three years working on the book.

“It was a lot of research — thousands of documents. It took a lot of rewrites and a good editor,” Callahan said Tuesday morning. The book has several layers, from corrupt public officials to drug-dealing motorcycle gangs to pizza joints associated with the Sicilian Mafia. “It’s a living document,” he said. “The book has multiple meanings, and one of those is about the First Amendment.”

Callahan has a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was retaliated against by ISP command for speaking out on a matter of public concern. That case now focuses on whether, as a public servant, Callahan is guaranteed First Amendment rights when it comes to his employers.

The book names names, Callahan said, but does not accuse anyone of any crime. “They are named as suspects in the initial investigation, so they are in the book,” Callahan said. “The big question is why these people get excluded from the later investigation.”

The case still draws interest from people in the Paris, Marshall and Chrisman, Ill., areas, he said, and he thinks people in his native Terre Haute also will find the details he has uncovered interesting.

Callahan attended Wiley High School and was in the first graduating class of Terre Haute South Vigo High School. He graduated from Indiana University with a bachelor’s degree in forensic studies, and left graduate school to begin a 25-year career in law enforcement.

A preview of Callahan’s book is available at www.toopoliticallysensitive.com.

Original report here



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

Breaking the code of silence

Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs President Wayne Quint were both furious – Wayne had steam coming out of his ears, according to one associate – at District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, and more specifically at his press spokesperson, Susan Schroeder, for a few matter-of-fact comments she made after a recent mistrial. When asked why the office was not going to retry the excessive force case against a deputy who used a Taser on a handcuffed suspect, she gave an honest answer: "We argued in closing arguments that we felt there was a code of silence – what is it? A thin blue line. We're very disappointed. … It's very important for the District Attorney's Office to have ethical and law-abiding law enforcement officers."

The D.A. believes OC deputies had "blue amnesia" – they lied, or conveniently "forgot" critical facts – when testifying in a case involving one of their own. It's the latest incident in a string of cases involving sheriff's deputies who allegedly covered up for their misbehaving colleagues, ranging from the D.A.'s allegations of departmental perjury and witness tampering following the John Chamberlain jail murder in October 2006 to the possible cover-up by sheriff's officials of a deputy, Gerald Stenger, accused last year of child molestation.

The jury voted to acquit the Taser-happy cop, Christopher Hibbs, by an 11-1 verdict. According to Rackauckas, speaking at a press conference on May 12, it did so because the key witnesses changed their stories.

Deputies painted a clear picture of Hibbs and his Taser abuse in an internal investigation and before the grand jury. But they told differing accounts of the event once the trial got under way. The public knows that cops frown on "ratting out" one another, even though this undermines the rule of law. While a "code of silence" is no surprise, the sheriff's overreaction to a few words certainly is surprising.

There's little that would shock me coming from union chief Quint, a guy who once publicly threatened to release criminals in the neighborhood of a rival union official. But the personal attacks he unleashed on Schroeder – a vitriolic letter sent to deputies statewide with a big photo of her, along with demands for her resignation – were indecent. (Quint said, "Since the communication was to my membership which consists of 1,850 fully sworn peace officers the likelihood of targeting Ms. Schroeder for harassment is a ridiculous assumption." He obviously hasn't followed the many news stories of police abuse or been on the receiving end of one of those "we hope you don't get pulled over" e-mails.)

"My concern is when the association sends out this letter telling hundreds, maybe thousands, of deputies that this is a person we dislike and here is her picture, then there may be repercussions to this," Rackauckas said. "[I]t might invite harassment." On her departmental blog, Hutchens wrote that "Recent statements by a prosecutor about a 'code of silence' as part of a 'thin blue line' are an affront to all in law enforcement. In my 30 years in law enforcement I have never heard a prosecutor make such an irresponsible claim." One will find little outrage over the details of the alleged perjury, however.

"Why are they so offended by what I said?" Schroeder asked. "Why aren't they offended by what the deputies did?"

Those are my thoughts exactly. Responsible leaders would assure the public that blue amnesia isn't tolerated and leave the personal criticisms to behind-closed-door meetings. At least Rackauckas did the right thing. He stood by Schroeder and laid out the facts to the sheriff's department, the union and the media. The facts make Schroeder's case.

On Sept. 13, 2007, Deputy Christopher Hibbs and Deputy J.C. Wicks observed a suspicious-looking man in a trench coat walking the streets at 2 a.m. in Anaheim.

The suspect, a parolee named Ignacio Lares, ran away and, with the help of an off-duty Los Angeles officer who was in the area at the time, they caught him. Hibbs used a Taser on Lares, who was resisting being cuffed. Other officers show up. Wicks writes up the police report and includes the Taser incident in it, which is required under department policy. No problem.

The cops catch a fleeing bad guy, use a Taser to subdue him and file a report.

But then in December, Hibbs is about to be transferred to Villa Park. As part of that hiring process the higher-ups get wind of locker room banter about the possible misuse of a Taser. As it turns out, Hibbs didn't just use the Taser once on Lares that night, but he used it at least one other time while Lares was handcuffed in the back of the squad car. After an interview with Deputy Chris Thomas, an officer who arrived on the scene, the sheriff's department concluded in a memo: "Thomas saw Hibbs attempting to question the subject, again, handcuffed in the back of the unit, and when the subject refused to answer or was belligerent, Hibbs used his Taser to 'drive stun' the suspect. According to Thomas, he used the Taser several times."

Or as the boys in the locker room jokingly mimicked the sound of a Taser (according to one deputy's testimony): "What's your name, what's your name, clack, clack, clack, clack. Tell me your name, clack, clack, clack, clack." Lares reportedly was crying and pleading for mercy. At the grand jury, deputies were clear about what happened that night. Thomas, for instance, said he did not see anything that justified the use of the Taser in the back seat of the car and explained that "it was in my mind that this is enough, we have to stop this."

But as the case moved toward trial, the sheriff's department – which handed information about the Hibbs incident and cooperated with the D.A. – called the D.A. and said that the witnesses were going "sideways." According to an internal affairs interview, Thomas said he "could only hear the sounds of a deployed Taser, but he did not actually see Hibbs deploy it." At the grand jury, Thomas thought that the Taser use had gone too far and testified that there was no obvious reason for it, but in his new interview he suggested that "there had to have been justification for it."

At the grand jury, Wicks said he could see Lares through the window and never heard him struggle or do anything that would justify the Taser use. At the trial, Wicks said he couldn't see Lares or inside the vehicle. At the grand jury, Sgt. Robert Long testified that department policy requires that the person who uses a stun gun must document it in the report, but at the trial he claims that there is no such requirement. The sergeant who wrote the memo explaining what Thomas saw, Robert Gunzel, testified at the trial that his report wasn't based on facts, but on assumptions. At the trial, the deputies even changed their minds about where they were standing when Hibbs used the Taser.

After the D.A.'s press conference last Tuesday, Hutchens and Quint calmed down, happy that Rackauckas said the code of silence accusation applied only to specific cases and not to accepted departmental behavior. But Hutchens and Quint were long privy to the details of this case.

They know about Stenger and Chamberlain and everyone knows about convicted witness-tamperer and ex-Sheriff Mike Carona.

Yet they decided to protest so much that anyone would suggest there's a code of silence in the department and so little about the alleged bad behavior by their deputies. Methinks this problem might be bigger than any one wants to let on.

Original report here



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