One case showing the problems of criminal law in America

Edgar Coker was 15 when he had consensual sex with a girl one year younger than himself. The girl, however, terrified of her father, decided to claim she was raped. Edgar was arrested. And he was offered a deal. If he pled guilty his sentence would be much easier, but if he insisted on his innocence, even though he was innocent, he would be tried an adult. Prosecutors love to force people to pled guilty by holding threats over their heads—and whether they really are guilty or not matters none to these petty bureaucrats wanting to become major bureaucrats.

Edgar and his family thought his only chance of surviving the justice system was a guilty plea otherwise the prosecutor would make his life a living hell. Worse, the defense attorney knew the girl had made such claims previously and then, when the judge ordered Edgar be put on the disgusting "sex offenders registry" she did nothing to protest the move—which amounts to a life sentence of harassment.

Then the girl admits she lied. The girls mother joins those defending Edgar and demanding justice. With some effort they got him released from juvenile detention—it's nice to know that they don't incarcerate innocent people for too long after they were proven innocent.

So, everything's good, except for that sex offender registry, but is that such a big deal?

"The family has moved several times, twice because of complaints from neighbors who learned that Edgar Coker Jr. was on the registry. Once, a neighborhood girl made a false sexual allegation against one of his brothers, and someone else left this note on their door when they lived in Stafford County: "We don't want a rapist living in our neighborhood."

As for Edgar he had to receive special permission to go to high school. But he couldn't take that. Seeking a job requires him to reveal he is a "sex offender" even though he isn't. So he doesn't look for work. He sits at home, afraid. What they are finding is that his innocence isn't enough to get Edgar removed from the sex offender registry. They have all sorts of methods and excuses to put people on the list, but apparently no one is sure how to remove someone. Once damned always damned. Edgar's mother says she doesn't believe "that anyone can undo the damage that has been done to him." And, remember, he is innocent of any crime.

People have to realize the Sex Offender Registries have become a sick joke. People are listed on them for the most inane things. Stopping to take a piss at the side of the road is now a "sex" offense. A kid can streak a school event and suddenly find he's a sex offender. The Puritans in America have criminalized virtually everything having to do with sex and nudity so things which before were considered normal are now sex offenses. Kids running around a playground slapping one another's butts were arrested as sex offenders. A woman who gave a blow job to another student when in high school has been on the sex registry for decades and continually loses her home over it, because of the cruel zoning laws that apply to sex offenders only.

We had one case where a man was arrested as a sex offender because he hired a stripper. The prosecutor said he used a stolen credit card and therefore committed a crime for sexual purposes. The theft of a credit card put the man on the sex offenders registry for life. A teenage boy was with a friend who robbed a Dairy Queen, for that he is on the sex offenders list. Apparently a customer was under 18 years of age and the robber made him stay in the store during the robbery. In Georgia forceable detention of a minor is a sex crime—unless I'm sure, if the schools do it. So you can be a sex offender without doing anything sexual.

The registries are a major reason that many sex offenders just choose to disappear now. The registries actually make it more difficult for released offenders from returning to a normal life and increases the risk of reoffending. The registries also tie up police resources because they have to visit all offenders periodically, even those who haven't reoffended and are doing well. It doesn't allow police to prioritize which ones to keep track of. So, in fact, police have made cursory visits to serious offenders and missed things like women being held captive in the back yard. With only a few minutes to spend at each location the visits are more routine than investigatory now. It didn't used to be that way, but the registry makes it so.

And, we have had individuals use registries to gain information on individuals and murder them. One case was a young man who had sex with his girlfriend who was slightly under the state age of consent. It wasn't rape, but that didn't matter. He was executed when he opened his door to a stranger, his mother witnessed the murder. In other cases these registries are so out of date that addresses that haven't been in use for decades are still listed. People who have done nothing but move into a new house have found themselves harassed as sex offenders because of someone who lived in the house some years before. The registries have been a disaster and need to go. At the very least they should be accessible to law enforcement only, and not to any moron with a gun and half a brain.

Original report here




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

Australia: Bungling cops shoot one of their own and try to blame it on a Vietnamese guy

And why weren't they in uniform? The Viet guy had no way of knowing they were cops. He has a good self-defence case. The whole operation reeks of overconfidence and incompetence

WHEN the screaming stops, all that can be heard is anguish in the voices of police as they realise Constable William Crews cannot be saved. "I don't know who shot him, him or me. He's dead," the officer who fired the fatal round is heard to say. Another officer is recorded saying: "Mate, he's dead."

The graphic police-recorded video that captured Constable Crews' final moments was played yesterday at a committal hearing for Phillip Nguyen, the man accused of the young officer's manslaughter.

The 26-year-old officer's family were in court to watch the footage, which also shows the trainee detective lying motionless on the floor of a Bankstown garage.

Nguyen, 56, accused of firing the first shot during the shootout that erupted as officers carried out a search warrant on September 8, 2010, is charged with Constable Crews' manslaughter on the grounds of excessive self defence.

Burwood Local Court was told the police operation, conducted by the Middle Eastern organised crime squad after receiving information that drug deals were being done from within the garage, was deemed to be "low-risk", with Constable Crews among officers dressed in plain clothes.

The search warrant video was the first piece of evidence tendered during the two-week committal hearing for Nguyen that will determine if the case can proceed to a Supreme Court trial.

Gunfire is heard soon after the tape begins, followed quickly by screams of "officer down".

Police can be heard screaming at Nguyen to "drop your gun it's the police, there's a police officer down with a gunshot to the head" before pleading with him to "throw the gun out, we will not hurt you".

The screaming stops soon after and is replaced by the distressed voices of officers as they try to save their dying colleague.

The court heard Nguyen believed officers were "fake police" because they weren't in uniform and thought they may have been robbers.

Crown prosecutor Sevinch Morkaya told Magistrate Brian Maloney that the shot fired by Constable Crews' colleague "was not a careful, well-aimed shot". "His intention was to shoot the accused, but that was the shot that ultimately killed the deceased."

Original report here. (Via Australian police news)




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

Have the British cops finally got it right this time?

Man, 40, charged with golf club murder of teenager Rachel Manning 11 years ago (after fiancé served six years in jail before being cleared)

Rachel Manning had been strangled before her killer battered her face with a car crook lock. Her body was found in the grounds of Woburn Golf Club, in Milton Keynes, Bucks, on December 12, 2000.

A middle-aged man appeared in court today charged with the murder of a teenager whose half-naked body was found dumped in the grounds of one of Britain's most exclusive golf courses 11 years ago. Shahidul Ahmed, 40, from Bletchley, appeared at Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court and was remanded in custody. He will next appear at Luton Crown Court on December 14.

The investigation into the death of Rachel Manning, 19, was re-opened after her fiance Barri White was cleared of her murder after serving six years in jail. He was in the public gallery for today's hearing.

Rachel had been strangled before her killer battered her face with a car crook lock. She was found in the grounds of Woburn Golf Club, in Milton Keynes, Bucks, on December 12, 2000.

Mr White, now aged 30, was jailed for life in 2002 for her murder, only to be freed after being acquitted of killing her at a retrial.

Mr White's co-accused, Keith Hyatt, 58, served two-and-a-half years for perverting the course of justice, relating to the post-death battering of the victim’s face, before also having his conviction quashed.

Rachel had been on her way home from her future mother-in-law's 40th birthday party in Milton Keynes when she disappeared.

She had left Chicago’s nightclub in Milton Keynes, dressed in a Seventies-style outfit of white, knee-length boots with platform heels, short black skirt, white blouse and blue wig.

The event, on December 9, 2000, was a late party to mark future mother-in-law Sharon Shaheed’s 40th birthday. Rachel, Barri and other friends went on to another club, going their separate ways around 2.15am.

Her body was then found by a man walking his dog on the morning of December 12, in undergrowth at Woburn Golf Club, with the stoplock discovered 1,600ft away.

It was in 2002, at Aylesbury Crown Court, Bucks., that Mr White was convicted of her murder and jailed for life. Mr Hyatt was convicted of moving her body and disfiguring her and was subsequently jailed for five years.

A large campaign then began to have the men freed and the convictions quashed, with Dr Peter Bull, ‘the father of geo-science forensics in the 1990s’, who worked on an investigation for BBC’s Rough Justice programme, labelling the evidence 'totally implausible'. That programme was aired in March 2005, three years before Mr White finally walked free.

Detective Superintendent Rob Mason, leading the investigation said yesterday: 'The man [Shahidul Ahmed] was arrested at his home address at 7am this morning.

'He was due to answer police bail on December 12 but was re-arrested after new forensic evidence came to light. 'Due to the fact this is a live investigation and we have someone in custody, I am unable to give any further details at this time. 'Rachel’s family have been informed.'

Original report here




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

Latino Man Wrongly Convicted of Murder?

Hollywood actor Martin Sheen is using his political muscle to try and help a Latino man he says was wrongly convicted of murder.

At a press conference Monday, Sheen, who is Latino himself, said he met with the man, Jon-Adrian Velasquez, hours earlier and believes his case “cries out for justice.”

The meeting with Velasquez "confirmed my belief that he is an innocent man," the actor said. "I came away inspired. He is a young man on fire with the truth."

Sheen's appearance trained some star power on a case that involves a longstanding issue getting new attention from the U.S. Supreme Court: the reliability of eyewitness identifications of suspects.

Convicted of fatally shooting retired police officer Albert Ward in an underground betting parlor in 1998, Velazquez is serving 25 years to life in prison. But he and lawyers Robert C. Gottlieb and Celia A. Gordon are trying to persuade Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus. R. Vance Jr. to reinvestigate the case and exonerate Velazquez. Vance's office is reviewing the case, spokeswoman Erin Duggan said Monday.

With no DNA or other physical evidence against Velazquez, "this case is strictly the result of eyewitness misidentification" from photo arrays and lineups that weren't properly conducted, Gottlieb said.

Retired from the police force since 1977, Ward, 59, was in a Harlem betting parlor when two men came in and announced a stickup on Jan. 27, 1998, authorities said. Ward pulled his gun and fired, and the robbers fired back, hitting him in the face and killing him, according to authorities.

After a witness picked Velazquez's photo out of a police book, that witness and three others identified him in an in-person lineup.

Velazquez and another man, Darry Daniels, were charged. Daniels, who pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 12 years, testified during his plea that Velazquez was his partner in the robbery and had shot Ward. Daniels wasn't called to testify at Velazquez' trial.

Two eyewitnesses have since given Velazquez's lawyers sworn statements recanting their identifications of him, and the other two who identified him now say they aren't sure, his lawyers said.

While the suspect was described as a black man with braids, Velazquez is Hispanic and wore his hair short, his lawyers have noted.

His mother, Maria, has long said Velazquez couldn't have been involved in the shooting because he was on the phone to her, from his home, moments before it happened. But "as his mother, I wasn't believed," she said Monday.

Eyewitness identifications are a venerable and crucial part of the criminal justice system, but they also have played critical roles in many cases in which people were wrongly convicted and later exonerated through DNA evidence.

The Supreme Court heard arguments last month in a case involving a New Hampshire man who was convicted of theft based on eyewitness testimony; he wants to extend judges' power to exclude such testimony in some circumstances. The high court hasn't yet ruled.

Since taking office nearly two years ago, Vance — a former defense lawyer — has taken the unusual step of establishing a unit that explores claims of wrongful convictions.

It has received about 100 referrals and reinvestigated about a dozen, Duggan said. One case was dismissed before trial; another case is on track for retrial after the initial conviction was vacated, she said. Prosecutors concluded two other convictions were sound; they're continuing to review the other cases.

Velazquez's lawyers say they're hopeful prosecutors will reach the same conclusions they have about the case.

"I don't think there's anybody who's fair-minded who's not going to be outraged by this," Sheen said Monday. He became aware of the case through his own lawyer, who is a friend of Gottlieb's. Sheen said he'd read Velazquez's voluminous submission to the DA's office and part of the trial transcript.

He went to meet Velazquez intending to encourage the inmate not to lose heart, but instead, "he's encouraging us. He's telling us to stick to it like a stamp," Sheen said. "He's telling us that justice will prevail."

Original report here




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

British police force that failed to sack officer who 'had sex with married mistress while on duty' is under investigation

A police force which initially failed to fire a hero officer who allegedly had sex with his mistress while on duty is to be investigated itself, it emerged today. The police watchdog will look at how Gwent Police dealt with the controversial case relating to armed response officer Pc Shaun Jenkins.

The 35-year-old was only fired after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) ordered a re-investigation of his case. The IPCC said today that it was 'concerned' at how Gwent Police dealt with such a serious complaint. It fears the matter could potentially undermine public confidence in the complaints system itself.

Jenkins, who had two awards for bravery, was sacked in December 2010 for gross misconduct. It followed allegations he drove to the home of his lover for afternoon sex while an officer apparently waited outside in a squad car. Jenkins allegedly wore his uniform and left his loaded firearm on the dressing table during the 40-minute daylight tryst.

His secret life unravelled when the woman's husband found out and complained and Jenkins was hauled before police chiefs. When he was given a final warning but allowed to continue patrolling the streets of Caerphilly, the woman's husband complained to the IPCC. It ordered the re-investigation of the complaint which culminated in Jenkins being sacked.

Now it has decided to investigate the way Gwent Police dealt with the disciplinary matter. 'The IPCC has received a voluntary referral from Gwent Police which relates to how a complaint received by the force on November 2, 2010 was dealt with and the subsequent disciplinary action on December 2, 2010. 'The investigation is into how a complaint was dealt with against a police officer who was alleged to have had sex on duty with the complainant's wife.

'The complainant appealed to the IPCC about the discipline outcome, which was a final written warning. 'The IPCC upheld the appeal and the force then held a full powers misconduct hearing which decided to dismiss the police constable.'

Tom Davies, IPCC Commissioner for Wales, said: 'I am concerned at how Gwent Police dealt with a serious complaint, as this could potentially undermine public confidence in the complaints system. 'I have therefore decided this matter should be investigated by IPCC investigators. 'The case itself has recently been reported extensively in the media and relates to a firearms officer.

'We will publish our findings in due course, which I hope will help allay any public concerns about the way police complaints are dealt with.'

Original report here




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

Jonathan Whitworth’s dismissed civil suit

Last week, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey granted summary judgement to dismiss the civil rights suit (raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) of Jonathan Whitworth, Brittany Whitworth, and their son. The civil rights claim stems from a February 2010 Columbia, Missouri SWAT raid that went viral when police footage was obtained by the Columbia Tribune.

At issue in the motion for summary judgement was whether the police officers’ discretionary behavior was reasonable, in the context of the situation, and whether it violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)).

Such motions, under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are to be looked at in the most favorable light to the non-movant (Whitworth).

In reality, law enforcement is afforded such favorable light, via judicial imaginings of what might have been reasonable, that “qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)

It is no surprise that Judge Laughrey was able to rationalize a context in which it might have been reasonable for an officer to kick Jonathan Whitworth in the head while he lay face down, unarmed, before a fully armed SWAT tactical unit.

“Thus, even if Hendrick indeed kicked Whitworth, a single kick to force swift compliance with an order, and to deter hesitation incompliance with future orders from a dangerous suspect, would be objectively reasonable in this context. It is also uncontested that Whitworth suffered no injury from this contact except pain.” Whitworth v. Bolinger

In the execution of the warrant, a paramilitary SWAT team entered the Whitworth’s family home. Police fired seven shots while in the Whitworth home. Both of the Whitworth family dogs were shot. One of the dogs was killed. The couple’s seven year old child was witness to the raid. Jonathan Whitworth was kicked in the head. Brittany Whitworth and her child were directed at gun point. As a result of the the raid, the police were able to find some drug paraphernalia and a small amount of cannabis. The police, initially, charged the Whitworths with child endangerment.

“The Court agrees that ideally officers would execute search warrants without pointing a gun at women and children not suspected of committing a crime. On the other hand, where officers are aware that a dangerous suspect and two large dogs are on the property, a reasonable officer could, in the heat of the moment, rely on such tactics to prod individuals to move swiftly through a potentially dangerous situation. This is especially true, where shouting and gun-pointing occurred as Mrs. Whitworth and P.M. stepped over Mr.Whitworth–who was lying on the floor–and the danger of resistance by any of the Whitworths was arguably at its highest. In this context, the behavior alleged by the Whitworths did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The SWAT officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.” Whitworth v. Bolinger

This is entirely consistent with scores of cases wherein citizens were plainly wronged and yet can find no corrective, civil recourse.

The Whitworth warrant was predicated on unnamed sources that claimed Jonathan Whitworth was a major cannabis dealer. That was more than five years after Columbia, Missouri passed a proposition to make the enforcement of cannabis the lowest priority by law enforcement. The measure passed by a 61% to 39% vote.

An estimated 130-150 SWAT raids occur everyday in the United States. That is some 40,000-50,000 paramilitary operations every year.

We are simultaneously escalating domestic paramilitary activity, increasing immunity from prosecution, and ceding budgetary control.

Original report here




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

Australia: Bad evidence convicted woman of killing her children, says - academic

WHEN Kathleen Folbigg was jailed for 30 years, there was almost universal condemnation for a mother who had done the unthinkable: killing four of her children as they lay in their beds.

A headline after the NSW Supreme Court guilty verdict read: "Incapable of love, compelled to kill: the diaries of a tortured mother."

Now, after six years researching the case, a legal academic living in Canada believes Folbigg was wrongly convicted based on unreliable evidence from medical experts.

And Emma Cunliffe is calling for NSW to introduce the same "last resort" mechanism that was used in the Northern Territory to quash Lindy Chamberlain's murder conviction.

The attack on the reliability of expert evidence in Folbigg's trial follows a court ruling on Friday allowing Jeffrey Gilham a retrial on his charge of murder, and possibly even an acquittal, after evidence from experts was found to have been flawed.

The claims by Dr Cunliffe in her book Murder, Medicine and Motherhood stand against the combined weight of the jury verdict in Folbigg's 2003 trial and two unsuccessful appeals.

The arguments also seek to address the damning impression made by Folbigg's diaries, in which she wrote of her third child Sarah: "I know I was short tempered and cruel sometimes to her & she left. With a bit of help."

Folbigg was the unremarkable Singleton mother whose trial became a media sensation when she was charged with killing Caleb, Patrick, Sarah and Laura between 1989 and 1999. The children were aged 19 days, eight months, 10 months and 19 months when they died. At its simplest, Dr Cunliffe believes that because no cause of death could be established for

Folbigg's four children, there was never enough evidence to convict her of their murders.

And she says in the absence of medical evidence and a confession, circumstantial evidence from Folbigg's diaries and her husband, Craig, was not enough to convict her. "At the end of the day I felt that the diaries worry me, but they don't satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt," she said.

She argues medical experts at the trial failed to give evidence that fully reflected the prevailing uncertainty in the scientific community about repeated unexplained infant deaths in a single family.

And she says the experts' evidence became misleading to the extent "it was unreliable under evidentiary rules". "They gave a very incomplete account of the medical research that then existed," Dr Cunliffe said.

Folbigg is serving a reduced sentence of 25 years in protective custody at the Silverwater women's jail, where her only visitors are Salvation Army officers and a few friends. She has maintained her innocence, writing in a letter quoted in the book Inside Their Minds: Australian Criminals: "I'm simply waiting for the truth to be seen or uncovered or proven."

Dr Cunliffe, who spoke in Sydney on Saturday at a conference about the use of expert evidence, started her research for a doctorate with fixed views about Kathleen Folbigg.

"I came to the case believing her to be guilty," Dr Cunliffe, an assistant professor of law at the University of British Columbia in Canada, said in an interview. "It was really the process of investigation that made this thing fall apart for me."

Dr Cunliffe's views have won support from prominent forensic pathologists, who also believe a review of Folbigg's conviction should be considered by the NSW Attorney-General, Greg Smith.

Professor John Hilton, a former director of the NSW Institute of Forensic Medicine, was a prosecution witness in the Folbigg trial who gave evidence about the post-mortem examination he conducted on Sarah.

"I think Emma has done a very good job. Her book is a valuable contribution to this whole matter and is deserving of notice by the relevant authorities," Professor Hilton said.

Professor Stephen Cordner, the director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, has reviewed the book for the Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. He was not involved in the Folbigg case.

"I think she's written a very even-handed book based on substantial research and persuasively concludes … that Kathleen Folbigg has been wrongly convicted," he said.

Dr Cunliffe says the medical uncertainty that existed at the time of Folbigg's trial and the appeals had since moved to a consensus view: that repeated unexplained infant deaths in a single family can and do occur.

"Based on my findings that the jury was misled about the state of medical research at the time of the Folbigg trial, and coupled with the developments in medical research that have occurred since 2003, I believe that Kathleen Folbigg's conviction is unsound and should be reviewed," she said.

Original report here




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

Even police dogs enjoy a double standard

Police are routinely judged by a different standard, a double standard under the law that allows them to pepper spray peaceful by-standers, to beat into unconsciousness unresisting 'suspects' and, generally, to violate every civil liberty protected by the Constitution. The police do so with impunity. They can (and they do) get away with murder while the the average, non-uniformed person is tossed into jail for forgetting to pay a traffic ticket.

A recent news story illustrates how deeply embedded this double standard has become. An “off-duty” and unleashed police dog was enjoying a walk with his partner when he spotted an 8-year-old boy playing hide-and-seek with his cousin. The dog attacked the running child, dragging him to the ground, shredding his sweatshirt, puncturing his T-shirt and leaving marks on the boy's arm.

What is the police response? They praise the dog's record as a crime-buster and drug-sniffer. No mention is made of sanctioning the police officer or taking the dog off the street. Any other dog would be 'put down' for attacking a child without provocation; any other owner would be liable in civil court. But this dog was excused with the explanation that he could not distinguish between a fleeing suspect and a playing child...in short, the dog was just doing his job.

"They're [police dogs] trained that anything running could be a potential threat, and all he's doing is reacting and doing what he was trained to do," explained Sergeant John Rusnak from the Campbell Police Department.

The Agitator makes an interesting observation: “And if someone had come to the kid’s defense and shot the dog, as on- and off-duty cops routinely do, that person would be in custody right now. Of course, the problem isn’t the dog, it’s the handler. And when cops kill the family pet, the problem also usually isn’t with the dog.”

It is my understanding that no police dog attacks without a verbal command. If I am incorrect, then every police dog out there is a standing menace to every child it encounters. Clearly this dog is a vicious loose-cannon and this officer was negligent. There is no mention of any sanctions or repercussions for the officer. Apparently leash laws do not apply to everyone. As Orwell observed in Animal Farm, “"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Orwell was speaking of the pigs. So am I.

Original report here




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

Former New Orleans cop sentenced to five years for Katrina shootings cover-up

A FORMER New Orleans police officer was sentenced to five years in prison Thursday local time (today) for his role in covering up the shootings of unarmed civilians in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Robert Barrios had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice over the September 4, 2005 shootings in which two people died and four others were injured, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported.

Fellow former officers Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon and Anthony Villavaso were each found guilty earlier this year on counts of violating the civil rights of those killed and injured in the shootings and of participating in a cover-up of the incident, though a federal jury found that none of their actions rose to the level of murder.

Sergeant Arthur Kaufman was also found guilty of involvement in the cover-up. Those five officers are scheduled to be sentenced in district court on February 14, AFP reported.

The shootings, one of the darkest stories to emerge from the chaotic days following Hurricane Katrina, took place on the east side of the Danziger Bridge in New Orleans.

Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon and Villavaso reportedly fired indiscriminately on the civilians after responding to reports of looting and reports that someone had been firing at police.

Before sentencing Thursday, Barrios, 30, said, "I hope the families find it in their heart to forgive the role I played in this."

US District Judge Eldon Fallon told him that police officers were both given great responsibilities and significant respect. "We expect [police] to live up to that responsibility. When they lie to us, it creates a problem not only to the people you lied to and hurt but all of us."

Original report here




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

Botched trial of corrupt British cops

Was the botch deliberate? Looks like it. Cops covering for cops again

The biggest trial of police officers in British legal history collapsed in farce yesterday – leaving taxpayers with a bill of more than £30million.

Britain’s top prosecutor, Keir Starmer QC, said he was ‘extremely concerned’ that an eight-year probe into alleged corruption surrounding one of the UK’s most infamous miscarriages of justice had fallen apart. A judge threw out the case after he said the trial had become ‘unfair’ after key evidence was binned. [By another cop!]

The prosecution admitted crucial papers surrounding the murder of prostitute Lynette White – stabbed 50 times in February 1988 – had been destroyed by one of the corruption investigation officers.

Last night there were demands for an inquiry into the fiasco.

More than 23 years after Miss White’s murder, eight former officers went on trial in July this year accused of framing three innocent men for her death. Stephen Miller, Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris, who became known as the ‘Cardiff Three’, were wrongly jailed for the 20-year-old’s murder in 1990.

They were later freed by the Court of Appeal in 1992 when a judge heavily criticised the original police investigation.

South Wales Police mounted an eight-year inquiry into the case which led to the eight officers being accused of fabricating evidence to frame the ‘Cardiff Three’ and two other men, cousins John and Ronnie Actie who were acquitted in 1990.

Chief superintendent Thomas Page, 62, and chief inspectors Graham Mouncher, 59, and Richard Powell, 58, were alleged to have colluded with five other detectives – Michael Daniels, 62, Paul Jennings, 51, Paul Stephen, 50, Peter Greenwood, 59, and John Seaford, 62 – to pervert the course of justice.

Four other ex-policemen, also jointly accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, were due to stand trial separately next year.

Mr Justice Sweeney halted the trial at Swansea Crown Court, telling the jury: ‘When a trial has become irredeemably unfair it must stop.’

All of those involved, including the four who were due to stand trial, were cleared after it emerged that the officer who led the corruption inquiry, Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Coutts, had ordered files of evidence be destroyed.

South Wales Police Chief Constable Peter Vaughan yesterday referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The accused officers have remained suspended since 2005 on full pay. Legal experts said the cost of the police inquiry and bungled prosecution would top £30million. But the bill is expected to rise as the acquitted officers are considering suing for malicious prosecution.

Thomas Page said: ‘I’m just relieved that it’s all over now after six-and-a-half years. ‘This would have been my seventh Christmas on bail and we’ve just had stalling tactics from the prosecution.’

Simon Clements, the CPS reviewing lawyer in the case, said: ‘We were satisfied at the time that this was a case which should go before a jury for trial.’

Original report here




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

Senate Rejects Amendment to ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill

The Senate has overwhelmingly voted down an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have provided oversight to check the military’s power to arrest U.S. citizens as suspected terrorists on American soil and detain them indefinitely without trial.
Guard Tower

“The Senate soundly defeated a move to strip out controversial language requiring mandatory detention of some terror suspects, voting it down 61 to 37 and escalating a fight with the Obama administration over the future course of the war on terror,” reports the National Journal.

The amendment, introduced by Colorado Senator Mark Udall, was an attempt to weaken Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which would basically turn the entire “homeland” into a battlefield and allow the military to arrest individuals accused of being terrorists and detain them indefinitely without trial. Americans would be stripped of all constitutional rights and posse comitatus would cease to exist.

Confusion surrounding whether or not the bill would apply to American citizens was firmly put to bed by Republican Congressman Justin Amash yesterday, when he pointed out that the language clearly gives the executive branch the power of discretion to decide who is a terrorist, whether they are a U.S. citizen or not.

Amash described the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the bill as “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.”

Senator Rand Paul has introduced a separate amendment that strikes Section 1031 from the bill altogether, but seeing as the Senate firmly rejected Udall’s watered down version, it’s unlikely Paul’s will be met sympathetically.

Although President Obama has threatened to veto the bill, political observers aren’t convinced that he will do so.

“He has said he will. Whether he will is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs,” Daphne Eviatar, Senior Associate, Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program, told Democracy Now.

Eviatar’s organization has which has obtained signatures from 26 retired military leaders urging the Senate to vote down the legislation if the ‘indefinite detention’ provision is not removed.

“This would be the first time since the McCarthy era that the United States Congress has tried to do this,” warned Eviatar. “In the 1950’s, that was actually repealed before it was ever used. In this case have seen the administration very eagerly hold people without trial for 10 plus years in military detention, so there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t continue to do that here. So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents as well as of people abroad.”

Original report here




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

More bad law coming up

Amend S. 1867 to Prevent Indefinite Detention of Americans!

Drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, S. 1867, the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act contains a dangerous provision allowing American citizens to be detained by the military under the Authorization of Use for Military Force (AUMF) against Afghanistan.

Rep. Justin Amash, one of only five Republicans to vote against the House version earlier this spring, wrote on his Facebook page, the act would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.”

Completely ignoring the Constitution, Senators Levin and McCain are basically creating a provision giving the (current and future) President dictatorial powers to decide whom the military should arrest and whether they should be tried in military tribunals or civilian courts at the President's whim.

Thankfully, Senator Paul has introduced an amendment (SA 1062) to repeal the offending Sec. 1031 of S. 1867.

You can help stop this egregious provision from passing by contacting your senators today at 202-224-3121 and urging them to vote YES on Senator Paul's Senate Amendment 1062 to strike Sec. 1031 of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Original report here

Further commentary

Congress is now considering legislative language to mandate indefinite military detentions of US citizens suspected of present or past associations with alleged terrorist groups, with or without evidence to prove it. More on that below.

The 2006 Military Commissions Act authorized torture and sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, and prosecute alleged suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), hold them (without evidence) indefinitely in military prisons, and deny them habeas and other constitutional protections.

Section 1031 of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act contained the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA). The phrase "unprivileged enemy belligerent" replaced "unlawful enemy combatant."

Language changed but not intent or lawlessness. Obama embraces the same Bush agenda, including keeping Guantanamo open after promising to close it, allowing torture there and abroad, and treating US citizens as lawlessly as foreign nationals.

MCA grants sweeping police state powers, including that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever....relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission (including) challenges to the lawfulness of (its) procedures...."

MCA scraped habeas protection (dating back to the 1215 Magna Carta) for domestic and foreign state enemies, citizens and non-citizens alike.

It says "Any person is punishable... who....aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures," and in so doing helps a foreign enemy, provide "material support" to alleged terrorist groups, engages in spying, or commits other offenses previously handled in civil courts. No evidence is needed. Those charged are guilty by accusation.

Other key provisions include:

• legalizing torture against anyone, letting the president decide what procedures can be used on his own authority;

• denying detainees international law protection;

• letting the executive interpret or ignore international and US law;

• letting the president convene "military commissions" at his discretion to try anyone he designates an "unprivileged enemy belligerent," detaining them indefinitely in secret;

• denying speedy trials or none at all;

• letting torture coerced confessions be used as evidence in trial proceedings, despite US and international law prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment at all times, under all conditions, with no allowed exceptions;

• letting hearsay and secret evidence be used; and

• denying due process and judicial fairness overall.

On May 21, 2009, Obama addressed national security and civil liberties issues, including Guantanamo detainees, military commissions, and torture.

Saying his "single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe," he bogusly claimed Al Qaeda "is actively planning to attack us again (and) this threat will be with us for a long time...."

He added that uncharged detainees "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people" (with or without evidence to prove it) will be held indefinitely without trial.

Obama's March 7, 2011 Executive Order authorized military commission trials for Guantanamo detainees with revamped procedures, despite pledging to close the prison.

Congress Considers New Freedom-Stripping Legislation

On October 17, 2011, the ACLU addressed Section 1031 of S. 1253: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, saying it "significantly curtails existing protections against indefinite detention without charge or trial."

It goes beyond previous laws by hardening them extrajudicially.

The last time Congress authorized indefinite detentions for uncharged US citizens without trial was in 1950. The Emergency Detention Act provision of the Internal Security Act authorized incarceration for those considered likely to commit espionage or sabotage.

It was never used, then repealed by the 1971 Non-Detenton Act, stating:

"No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress."

At issue was never again subjecting US citizens to lawless internment the way Japanese Americans were treated in 1942, forcing loyal citizens into War Relocation Camps.

Section 1031 of S. 1253 "would be the first exception to the statute's protections." Subsection (d) provides US citizens "little or no" indefinite detention protections domestically or abroad.

The provision refers solely to "citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States." However, the Constitution fully protects them.

"Section 1031 could cause cleared naturalized United States citizens and cleared immigrants to be sent to a foreign country, even in the absence of any wrongdoing."

Subsection (c) provides four options:

• indefinite detention without charge;

• military commission trials;

• trial by another tribunal; or

• transfer "to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

Even someone erroneously arrested and cleared of wrongdoing could be held indefinitely without charge, given non-civil trials, or sent abroad.

Post-9/11, Arab and/or Muslim Americans lawlessly experienced "roundups" because of their faith and ethnicity. Latino immigrants face similar abuse.

Section 1031 would authorize similar practices. Military forces could be used. US citizens would be terrorized, detained and held indefinitely without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, baseless allegations or none at all.

No reasonable proof is required, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Under subsection (b)(1), indefinite detentions can follow mere membership or support for suspect organizations.

US citizens at home and abroad could be detained. Presidents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

Constitutional, statute and international law won't apply. Martial law will replace it. As a result, anyone for any reason or none at all could be indefinitely detained for life without charges or trial.

Section 1031 exceeds the laws of war. Its ambiguities and excesses would institute extrajudicial national security state terror. No one anywhere would be safe.

It calls "covered persons" anyone captured or detained, even unconnected to hostilities. In other words, the executive could order anyone indefinitely incarcerated on his say alone. The provision would exceed current presidential authority.

Like the companion House bill, detention would be authorized based on alleged prior associations with suspect groups. US military personnel anywhere in the world would be able to seize US citizens and others.

Anyone could be incarcerated for life with no possibility for redress. Section 1032 requires suspects held in military custody, outside constitutionally mandated civil protections.

Due process and judicial review won't apply. Police state lawlessness could terrorize anyone suspected of terrorist group ties without proof.

In other words, presidents could order anyone imprisoned for life without cause. Despotic regimes operate this way. So would America more extrajudicially than ever.

Tyranny will replace constitutional law. Middle of the night arrests could become common. No one anywhere would be safe, including unjustly accused citizens.

The ACLU calls indefinite detention without judicial review "an appalling abuse of power. We know that our government has already mistakenly detained hundreds of people on suspicion of terrorism over the past 10 years."

"Many have languished in custody for years with no way to even assert their innocence or address the evidence against them. All people are entitled to due process."

Imagine new likely power abuses, including claiming OWS protesters threaten America.

Imagine human and civil rights workers, as well as anti-war activists targeted.

Imagine anyone challenging wealth and power interests at risk.

Imagine an America more than ever not fit to live in, and nowhere to hide.

Original report here




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

Police 'killed deaf cyclist with stun gun after he failed to obey instructions to stop'

A police officer killed an elderly, deaf and mentally disabled man riding his bicycle by shooting him with a Taser stun gun after he failed to obey instructions to stop.

Roger Anthony, 61, was killed as he made his way home in Scotland Neck, South Carolina, after officers responded to a 911 call about a man who had fallen off his bicycle in a car park. The caller told dispatchers that the man appeared drunk and that it looked like he had hurt himself.

Officers said they repeatedly told Mr Anthony to get off his bike, but when he didn't respond, they shocked him. The state Office of the Medical Examiner hasn't yet determined a cause of death.

Family members claim Mr Anthony had hearing problems and suffered from seizures. Now they're considering whether to file a lawsuit against the town. His brother Michael said: 'What did they tase him for? It's hurting me. It's really hurting me.'

Scotland Neck Mayor James Mills said he wouldn't blame the family for suing. 'There has been no information that this man was a threat to anybody,' he said. 'If I was a family member, I'm sure I'd be thinking the same way.'

Mills said he has tried to get information from the police department about what happened to Mr Anthony, but they have turned him away.

Police Chief Joe Williams says the officer is on administrative leave while the SBI conducts its investigation. He declined to comment further. Anthony's family said they hope the case is resolved soon.

Mr Anthony's niece, Porsha Anthony said: 'I'm sad. I lost an uncle. 'Hopefully it will be rectified so that not another family in Scotland Neck has to go through this'.

The State Bureau of Investigation in South Carolina said they are looking into Mr Anthony's death.

Original report here




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

Wisconsin exonerated Forest Shomberg, then abandoned him

It's hard to get a conviction overturned when the original trial judge is presiding. It's even harder when the prosecution is opposed. So attorney Byron Lichstein was not optimistic when he appeared before Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler on Nov. 12, 2009, seeking the dismissal of Forest Shomberg's conviction for the sexual assault of a UW-Madison student in 2002.

"I was thinking our best shot was going to be in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals," says Lichstein of the Wisconsin Innocence Project at UW Law School. Plus, he adds, "I always try to manage expectations because I don't want a client to have false hope."

But at about 4 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, after a two-day hearing, Fiedler issued his ruling. Based in part on new DNA evidence, all charges against Shomberg were dropped and he was free to go.

But where to? Shomberg, 45 at the time, had just spent six years behind bars, two of them in the state's most notorious prison, the Wisconsin Secure Facility Program (formerly Supermax) in Boscobel, where he was confined most of the day to a six-foot-by-six-foot cell.

Lichstein lent Shomberg a cell phone so he could make arrangements to be picked up at the Dane County Jail, and jail staff rustled up some civilian clothes for him to wear. Eventually Shomberg's fiancée at the time came to get him.

There had been no preparations for reintegrating Shomberg into the community, acknowledges Lichstein. "We hadn't been in touch with social workers or family to get a support system in place."

Shomberg is now back in jail, serving out a one-year sentence for possessing a firearm he bought to commit suicide. Due to a prior felony conviction, Shomberg is prohibited from having a gun.

Lichstein and other supporters say Shomberg did not stand much of a chance when he walked out the courthouse door a free man two years ago. "There was no transition," says Michael Lieberman, Shomberg's current attorney. "There was nobody there to help give him any structure."

And there's a sad twist. Had Shomberg's 2002 conviction stood, the state would have provided him upon release with, among other services, counseling and job assistance. "Ironically, he would have been entitled to more benefits upon release if he had actually been a rapist and served out his entire sentence," Lieberman wrote in a sentencing memo to the court.

Keith Findley, founder and co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, says this is a common plight facing all those exonerated by the state. "If you're guilty of a crime, you get more support from the state when you're released than if you're innocent."

Lichstein does not fault the Department of Corrections for this lapse. "They have no authority over people whose conviction is overturned," he says. "There is nothing crafted to deal with this kind of situation."

But the state fails to make reparations to exonerated people in other ways too. "Lawsuits are almost impossible to bring because most of the actors have various types of immunity from lawsuits," says Findley.

And the Wisconsin Claims Board — authorized to compensate individuals injured in a variety of ways by the state — is now "horribly out of date," says Findley. "It's the least adequate compensation package of any in the nation."

Shomberg is still waiting for resolution on the wrongful imprisonment claim he submitted to the board. Even if he prevails, the most Shomberg could receive is $5,000 per year of incarceration, with total compensation capped at $25,000. "The compensation amounts are so horribly outdated and grossly inadequate they're really a slap in the face of the people who have been wrongly convicted," says Findley.

With advances in DNA technology, and an increasing number of wrongful conviction rulings over the last 10 to 15 years, this is an area that needs addressing, says Lichstein.

Findley is working with state Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) on draft legislation that would update the state's monetary compensation for victims of wrongful conviction and provide them with other types of support once released from prison.

The bill "taps into existing social services" and makes the system responsible for ensuring that exonerated people know about resources and how to access them, says Findley.

People released after a wrongful conviction react in a variety of ways, he says. "Some go out and rise above it and enjoy inspiring success. Others really struggle, but everyone who goes through this is damaged in one way or another. [Wrongful conviction] is a very damaging thing to do to a human being."

A victim of repeated child sexual assault, Shomberg struggled with panic attacks, post-traumatic stress disorder and attention hyperactivity disorder even before his six years in prison. He remains sensitive to loud noises from the time spent at the Wisconsin Secure Facility Program, and his vision is permanently damaged from, as his attorney puts it, "staring at walls just six feet away for 23 hours a day."

After being released, Shomberg battled depression and had trouble finding work. He sought help for his drinking problem but, without anyone monitoring his progress, did not follow through.

Because Shomberg is now back in the system, he will have access to services. "Treatment is finally available to him," says Lieberman.

After finishing out his one-year incarceration sentence — he has about six months more to go — Shomberg will be on supervision for two years and assigned to a federal probation officer, says Lieberman. Shomberg will spend his first year outside prison in a halfway house, where he will have structure and receive alcohol treatment.

Says Lieberman: "He will transition back from being an inmate to being a free person again."

Original report here




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

Post-conviction DNA testing proposal stirs debate among advocates, DAs

Massachusetts lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would grant convicted criminals the right to test DNA evidence that could prove their innocence. But district attorneys in the state have raised specific concerns that, while they support the concept of DNA testing, the bill has major flaws.

The proposed bill was passed unanimously by the state Senate during the summer and is currently pending approval in the House of Representatives.

Massachusetts is one of two states, along with Oklahoma, without a post-conviction DNA testing law. In addition to providing the post-conviction DNA testing, the proposed bill would also require the state to preserve evidence in a trial for the length of the convict’s prison term.

Gretchen Bennett, director of the New England Innocence Project, said the proposed bill would provide clear mechanisms to allow post-conviction DNA evidence testing. Bennett said this is a better alternative to keeping post-conviction DNA testing a decision for judges, who in many cases were the ones to deliberate over the convict’s trial. “The problem is right now we don’t have a process,” Bennett said. “It’s up to individual judges. Instead of judges’ opinion, it should be process. Justice should be evenly administered across the commonwealth. Everyone should know the rules and play by the rules.”

Bennett emphasized that the proposed law would not allow convicts to be exonerated simply based on the DNA testing results and that a DNA test request would not be considered a motion for a new trial. But Bennett said the proposed law could allow the defendants to obtain the test results for use at a potential new trial.

Currently, the ability for prison inmates to have evidence in their trials tested for DNA is governed by Rule 30 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 30 allows convicts to argue their innocence in court, despite the number of appeals filed previously, if a judge decides that justice has not been done.

However, Bennett said that in the cases she is advocating for, to prove that justice has not been done, it first requires DNA testing of evidence that prison inmates currently don’t have a right to.

“Our system is obviously fallible, as is every human system,” Bennett said. “Even if it’s a tiny percentage, it’s still a few people, and a few people too many. This (wrongful conviction) could happen to anyone and absolutely ruin their lives. I would not want to spend a day in prison, let alone years.”

District attorneys across the state have said that they support the concept of post-conviction DNA testing.

“We are committed to the imperative and the principle of justice,” said Bristol County District Attorney Samuel Sutter. “And justice mandates that we do everything we can to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent.”

However, Sutter and other district attorneys have identified several aspects of the currently proposed post-conviction DNA testing bill now on Beacon Hill that they consider major flaws.

Sutter said one major flaw is that the proposed bill allows “virtually unlimited opportunity” to DNA testing for defendants who professed their guilt through an extensive colloquy with a judge during their trial, resulting in lengthy prison sentences.

“To me, that’s not reasonable,” Sutter said.

While there have been 23 post-conviction DNA testing exonerees in other states who pleaded guilty during their case, Sutter said this has never happened in Massachusetts, perhaps because the colloquies are so extensive here.

Sutter added that the only caveat in this situation would be a North Carolina v. Alford plea, which, if made during a trial, allows the defendant to enter a guilty plea (in the hopes of avoiding a harsher sentence) while also maintaining that he did not commit the crime. This type of plea is very rare in Massachusetts because the court wants certainty, Sutter said.

Another flaw Sutter identified is the cost of unlimited motions for post-conviction DNA testing — testing that costs thousands of dollars — and the cost of unlimited preservation of evidence.

Cape Cod and the Islands District Attorney James O’Keefe, who is vice president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, brought up one example in which requests allowed for post-conviction DNA testing in anything except mistaken identity would result in a harmful and counterproductive situation. His example was a conviction for aggravated rape and murder of an elderly woman, with the defendant claiming it was consensual, before later requesting for DNA testing.

O’Keefe said the currently proposed bill does not allow a judge to consider the circumstances of the defendant, while Rule 30 does.

Despite the flaws Sutter pointed out, the Bristol County District Attorney stressed that the basic principal of access to DNA testing to exonerate the innocent is something he and his colleagues completely support.

Original report here




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

IL: Two men angry over what they say is wrongful murder conviction

Harold Richardson and Michael Saunders didn’t mince words about how miserable they felt for what they say is their wrongful conviction. “I’m mad as a m----------- right now,” Richardson, 33, said Friday — his first day of freedom after 17 years in prison for the 1994 murder and rape of Nina Glover. “I lost the Christmas spirit, all of that [while I was incarcerated]. I’m hoping to get it back now.”

Saunders, who also spent 17 years behind bars for the prostitute’s slaying in Englewood, said he’d be lying if said he wasn’t bitter. “I’m very, very angry,” the 32-year-old told reporters outside Cook County Jail. “There’s a lot of resentment.”

On Wednesday, Criminal Court Presiding Judge Paul Biebel Jr. tossed out the men’s convictions and ordered a new trial for them and two others. Biebel, in his ruling, cited mostly new evidence that linked dead felon Johnny Douglas’ DNA to Glover’s body.

Officials with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office said they were reviewing the judge’s order. But Saunders expects that prosecutors will eventually recommend that the charges be dropped.

“The proof is already in the pudding. Everyone knows we didn’t commit this crime, and we’re just waiting for our day in court for us to be vindicated,” he said. “I’m here for the long haul.”

Saunders, who said he was beaten into confessing to the crime, said he wanted to enjoy the day and spend time with his 17-year-old daughter.

Richardson said he was planning “to chill” with family, friends and lawyers later in the evening.

Despite their anger and bitterness, both men had smiles on their faces Friday. “It’s a new beginning, man, and I’m just happy to be free,” Saunders said. “This is the most beautiful day of my life. …Words can’t describe how I’m feeling.”

Terrill Swift, 34, and Vincent Thames, 34, have already been released after serving more than a dozen years for the crime.

Original report here




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

Australian police force loses one -- and it costs them

Supreme Court of Victoria rules person is entitled to do runner if not under arrest

A SUPREME Court judge ruled today that a person who is not under arrest is entitled to do a runner from police seeking to question them.

Justice Stephen Kaye said Sydney man Andrew Hamilton was under no obligation to stop and speak to police when they approached him after receiving a complaint over an unpaid restaurant bill.

The judge said that it was an ancient principle of the common law that no one has to stop and speak to police or answer their questions, and there was no legislation in Victoria that alters that right. "The respondent (Mr Hamilton) before being placed under arrest did not have any obligation to stop when requested to do so, or to answer questions asked of him," Justice Kaye said.

The judge dismissed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions and made a costs order in favour of Mr Hamilton.

Mr Hamilton had a charge of resisting police thrown out earlier this year after a magistrate found it was not illegal for him to bolt and that he had resisted nothing.

It was alleged he ran from a Taco Bill restaurant in March last year after an argument about an unpaid $136 bill.

Justice Kaye said that in the appeal against the magistrate's decision, the DPP argued that the Crimes Act imposes a duty on a person to state their name and address to an officer if it is believed on reasonable grounds they have committed an offence.

But the judge said it was conceded the police who tried to stop Mr Hamilton never got to the stage of asking for his name and address because he bolted.

"(The Crimes Act) does not contain any provision which expressly empowers police to detain a suspect, or take a suspect into custody, for the purposes of questioning the suspect," Justice Kaye said. "The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial, and indeed radical, detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the common law for centuries."

The court heard that when approached by police in Collins St, Mr Hamilton, 24, ran and was chased on foot and in a squad car.

Ignoring police sirens and calls for him to stop, Mr Hamilton - who was later cleared of responsibility for the restaurant bill - was eventually arrested near Flinders St station.

Original report here. (Via Australian police news)




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

British cop tries to destroy evidence

A veteran policeman is fighting to save his job after being sacked for trying to hide a dead colleague's affair from his family.

After Detective Constable Ian Morton died in a car crash, Sergeant Neil Salter asked another officer to destroy his phone in case it contained 'awkward' text messages, the High Court heard.

But that officer instead reported Sgt Salter to his superiors at the Dorset Police, and the long-serving sergeant was asked to resign.

A tribunal ordered that he should be reinstated at a lower rank, but the police force is now appealing that decision, arguing that Sgt Salter's 'operational dishonesty' made him unfit to continue his 22-year career.

Whilst investigating DC Morton’s death in October 2008, Sgt Salter uncovered evidence that he was, unbeknownst to his partner, having an affair with a female special constable from another force, with whom he had spent the night before his death.

He therefore instructed a junior officer to 'find and destroy' DC Morton’s mobile phone, which he feared would contain compromising texts.

After an internal disciplinary inquiry, Sgt Salter - who fully admitted a 'one-off aberration' - was 'required to resign' by the Dorset Chief Constable in November 2009, Mr Justice Burnett heard yesterday.

The independent Police Appeals Tribunal stepped in to save Sgt Salter’s career in July last year when it directed his reinstatement in the force, at the demoted rank of constable. But in court John Beggs QC, for the Chief Constable, argued that Sgt Salter had tried to 'suborn a junior officer' in 'a deliberate and premeditated attempt to destroy evidence' in the midst of a criminal investigation.

He told the judge: 'Put shortly, such operational dishonesty, from a supervising officer of many years’ standing, cannot be tolerated within the police service where honesty and integrity are of paramount importance'.

Due to his unblemished record of police service, Sgt Salter had been 'allowed the dignity of resignation rather than being dismissed', the barrister added.

However, Michael Ford, for Sgt Salter, said his motive 'was to protect another officer’s family' and he swiftly admitted 'a one-off aberration in an otherwise unblemished career'. He was 'genuinely sorry for what had happened'.

He had quickly apologised to other officers and the junior colleague he instructed to destroy the mobile phone had said Sgt Salter acted out of 'misguided loyalty towards the family of DC Morton to protect them from further upset'.

No evidence was in fact destroyed due to the junior officer’s 'courage' in informing his superiors and Sgt Salter 'accepted that he made a very bad decision', the court heard.

However, the chief constable's lawyer argued that to allow Sgt Salter back on the force could damage the public’s 'trust and confidence' in the police.

Mr Justice Burnett has reserved his decision on the Chief Constable’s appeal and will give his ruling at a later date.

Original report here




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

Extraordinary couple weds after each spent more than 15 years in prison on murder charges before being exonerated

Sonia Jacobs and Peter Pringle had something unique in common when they tied the knot at a star-studded ceremony in New York. Both served at least 15 years on Death Row, one in America and one in Ireland, after being convicted of killing police officers..

And both were finally freed after their murder convictions were overturned when they were able to prove they had been unjustly accused.

Their extraordinary story was revealed following the wedding attended by actresses Brooke Shields, Marlo Thomas and Amy Irving.

'We have each lived a nightmare,' said Ms Jacobs, 64, before the ceremony. 'Now it's time to live our fairy tale,' she added.

The couple met in Galway, Ireland, at an Amnesty International conference where Ms Jacobs was speaking out against capital punishment.

Ms Jacobs, known as 'Sunny', was a 28-year-old 'vegetarian hippie' when she was arrested after a 1976 shootout with two policemen in Florida in which the officers were killed.

She was a passenger in the car with her husband, Jesse Tafero, but the driver, Walter Rhodes Junior, struck a deal with prosecutors and blamed the married couple for the shootings. A jailhouse informant also told police that Ms Jacobs confessed she was involved.

It was only after her husband, who had a prior criminal record, was executed in a Florida electric chair in 1990 that the informant recanted and Rhodes admitted he had fired the fatal shots.

She was eventually released in 1992 nearly 17 years following her arrest, after the conviction was overturned on repeal.

When he first heard the mother-of-two's story, Mr Pringle, 74, said he was 'blown away by the horror of what happened to her. 'I knew I had to speak to her,' he told the New York Times.

The Irishman knew better than most what she had gone through. He was sentenced to death for the 1980 murder of two policemen during a bank raid in Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, said to have been carried out by a radical faction of the Irish Republican Army.

His June 8, 1981, hanging was commuted by the Irish president and the conviction was quashed after evidence emerged showing his 'confession' was written before he'd even been interviewed about the killings. By that time, he'd spent 15 years behind bars.

After their first meeting, the couple teamed up in the US and more than a dozen other countries to give speeches about human rights and campaign for abolishing the death penalty.

'Sure, Peter and I were also physically attracted to one another, but it was deeper than that,' Ms Jacobs told the Times. 'You know what happens to attractive, it becomes wrinkled and fat.'

The couple now lives at Mr Pringle's cottage home in Ireland.

'Sunny teaches yoga, I live on a pension. We have two hens, two ducks and eight goats. We both milk the goats and Sunny makes cheese. It's really a nice, simple life,' said Mr Pringle.

Original report here




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

WA: Perverted black cop pleads guilty in shooting case



Sounds like a plea bargain with minimal penalties

The Mount Rainier officer who allegedly lured a 20-year-old man to his home to be in a pornographic video, then shot him when he tried to flee, pleaded guilty Monday, according to the Washington Post.

Gene Gillette, a 3 and ½ year veteran with the police, pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder, attempted fourth-degree sex offense and use of a handgun, according to the Post.

A grand jury previously indicted the 27-year-old on multiple charges, including attempted murder and sexual offense, in connection with a July 2 shooting in Capitol Heights.

A victim in the shooting, a 20-year-old man, said he was lured over to Gillette's residence when he was told there would be women to shoot a pornographic film, sources earlier told ABC7.

Once the victim arrived, he found no women at the residence. Instead, sources say, Gillette wanted him to perform sexual acts with him. When the victim tried to flee in Gillette's personal car, the officer opened fire, hitting him four times and seriously wounding him.

Gillette originally said that he had shot the victim in self-defense while he was being carjacked. He later claimed that the relationship was consensual and he acted in self-defense because he was being robbed.

Sources earlier confirmed that at the time of the July 2 shooting Gillette was already being investigated for another incident where he allegedly discharged his weapon in his home.

In that case, the claim is that Gillette tussled with a man whom he'd lured to his home on the false pretense of a concert after-party.

The victim claims that when he realized Gillette wanted to perform oral sex on him he tried to get away, sources say.

A fight ensued, sources says, and the man discharged Gillette's weapon. Nobody was hit.

Original report here




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