Polygamy Pays in Cable TV World

by Diane Dimond

Laws are laws. You follow them and there’s no problem. You break the law and you’ll likely go to jail. Well, not so fast. Some laws are selectively enforced, even after a suspect admits felonious wrongdoings on national television. A prime example concerns the state of Utah and its law against polygamy.

Even though Utah has one of the broadest laws against plural marriage, there are more than 20,000 mostly secretive polygamist households tucked away in enclaves all over the sparsely populated state. Some are disheveled, disorganized compounds with poor sanitation, access to stores, health care and organized education. Other polygamists maintain their lifestyle in well-heeled homes with plenty of amenities. Utah’s felony law states that no man “shall marry, purport to marry or co-habitate with multiple wives.” But it’s a crime the state rarely prosecutes unless a man takes an underage bride. That, according to Paul Murphy, of the Utah Attorney General’s office, is considered child sexual abuse and “punishable under the state’s child bigamy law which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison.”

Enter into this picture one Mr. Kody Brown, a fundamentalist Mormon who lives with multiple wives in Lehi, Utah. He likes to say his faith “rewards good behavior,” so why, he asks, stop with one good marriage when you could have more? Knowing that prosecution in his state would be unlikely this handsome, blond, 41-year-old salesman went public with his polygamist lifestyle. He and his three wives signed with The Learning Channel to be the stars of a reality show called “Sister Wives.” In the opening episode Kody announced that since “love should be multiplied not divided” he had decided to take another wife. His first three got together to pick out the new woman’s ring. Everyone seemed content with the arrangement. Now, between wives Meri, Janelle, Christine and his newest addition, Robyn, Mr. Brown is head of a household that includes four wives, 13 children and three step-children.

Kody Brown openly lives a lifestyle that is against the law and no one has made a move to stop it. No arrests have been made even though every Sunday night TLC offers up more juicy details (read: more evidence) of the crime. Officials in Utah insist they were watching Brown’s activities even before TLC came to town, and, now that the state’s worst-kept secret has been exposed for the whole nation to see, the Utah county prosecutor has begun an “official investigation.” Too bad it takes TV exposure to launch an inquiry.

Mostly I wonder about the Brown children and how the glare of all this national attention will affect them in the long run. And, I wonder if executives at TLC are secretly hoping for a ratings-grabbing arrest scene for their Daddy? Wow, that sure would drive eyeballs to the channel!

Earlier in the decade, another Utah resident thought it wise to go on national television--on programs like "Sally Jesse Raphael," "Judge Judy" and "Dateline"--to literally brag about his polygamist lifestyle. Tom Green was part of a breakaway fundamentalist Mormon group, and he eventually took seven wives and had more than 30 children. After numerous TV appearances during which he nearly dared state officials to try to prosecute him – they did. He was ultimately convicted on several counts of bigamy, one count of failure to pay child support and later he was tried and found guilty of one count of child rape for having sex with his 13 year old “bride.” She gave birth to their first child when she was 14. Green spent six years in prison.

As defiant of the law as Kody Brown has been it seems highly unlikely that his case will go the way of Tom Green’s. First, Brown didn’t take any underage brides. Second, there’s no hint of any child endangerment among his seemingly happy and well cared for children. And third, Utah prosecutors have declared that they simply don’t have the manpower to prosecute cases like Brown’s. Guess they only investigate if national TV shows embarrass them into it.

“Once a week or so I get a phone call asking why we don’t just round up all the polygamists,” Murphy told me. “But can you imagine? First, we’d have to build new prisons to hold them all. Then, we’d have to devise a whole foster care system to accommodate their children.” He’s got a point, I guess.

It’s been reported that the Brown family is looking to come out from the shadow of their situation and “looking for understanding.” I’m betting that the money they make from the now-renewed second season series is also part of their motivation.

Janelle Brown, the mother of six of Kody’s children, told PEOPLE magazine she wants the criticism of her family and lifestyle to stop.

“If we raise productive, contributing members of society who are moral and ethical, that’s our final goal,” she said.

Gee, I thought abiding by the laws of the land was the moral and ethical way to live a life. Maybe I got that wrong.

Read More

Anatomy of the Michael Jackson Trial Part 2: Why The Prosecution Lost

by Anne Bremner

Last month, I discussed the anatomy of the defense in the Michael Jackson trial. Today, we turning our attention to the prosecution and dissecting why they lost the case.

The Prosecutor Was Too Personally Involved

The overzealous prosecution of the Michael Jackson case can be compared to that of the prosecutor in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables. Thomas Sneddon’s near obsession with Michael Jackson invoked images of Inspector Javert's pursuit of Jean Valjean. Like Javert, Sneddon seemed willing to chase Michael Jackson to the ends of the earth, regardless of the substantive bases for criminal charges. For example, Thomas Sneddon executed more than 100 search warrants at the Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos, California. Compare that with a handful of search warrants executed at the Parker Ranch in connection with Charles Manson’s multiple and horrific homicide charges.

During the course of the trial, Sneddon displayed several hundred images of legal pornography depicting women that had no bearing on the pedophilia charges. Sneddon also tried to make Michael Jackson out to be an evil monster when, in fact, at worst, he was a troubled pedophile (if one were to believe the prosecution's charges). Finally, Sneddon laughed and scoffed and gloated during public statements about Jackson. Everyone in Santa Barbara County and the Valley knew that Thomas Sneddon had been pursuing Michael Jackson, prior to this prosecution, for well over a decade without success.

Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon that translated to “Tom Sneddon is a Cold Man.” Fans sang it every day outside of court and displayed pictures of a devil-horned Sneddon and photos of Jackson as the Messiah.

Despite attacks by the defense on Sneddon’s personal involvement and motions that he try the case (apparently so they could attack him further), Sneddon stayed front and center in the prosecution of Jackson.

The Opening Statement – Nightmare in Neverland

It has been stated that 80 percent of all jurors make up their mind during the opening statement and do not change their minds, regardless of the evidence produced at trial, with respect to their initial conclusions. Sneddon’s opening statement was disorganized and weak. It contained personal attacks, and had virtually no visual aids. The prosecution did not get a pretrial ruling from the court on pedophilia pattern evidence such that they could make sense of that evidence prior to the introduction of evidence. Jeffrey Toobin, my colleague at CNN, opined that Thomas Sneddon’s opening statement was the worst that he had ever heard. Many publicly agreed.

The “Mother of All Mothers – the Attempted Extortion of Peter Pan by a Family of Actors and Con-Artists”

“You’d do anything for money. Money, Money, lie for it, spy for it, kill for it, die for it.” --Michael Jackson, “Money” from History CD

The defense successfully argued that if you cannot believe this family beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit. The reason that the jury acquitted, for the most part, was because they did not believe the accuser’s mother, nor did they believe her family. The mother was only called to testify to support the conspiracy counts, which were demonstrably weak. Had she not been called to testify, the resulting acquittal may not have ensued. The mother took the Fifth Amendment before the jury on perjury and welfare fraud. On direct examination, she snapped her fingers at jurors, asking them to pay attention to her,and accusing them of not doing so. Remember, juror number 5 paraphrased the reactions of the jury in the now infamous sound bite: “Don’t snap your fingers at me, Lady.”

When asked about how she would have escaped from Neverland and whether that would have been via a hot-air balloon, she snapped, “That’s just one of the ways.” She quibbled about whether she was allowed, during the time that she was allegedly falsely imprisoned, to have a full body wax, or whether it was a partial body wax. She admitted that she had access to the police during the time of false imprisonment, and had left the ranch on many occasions. She wanted to go to Rio De Janeiro with Jackson. She traveled with him, accepted his gifts, and used his credit cards. She saw no evidence that her son was being molested by Michael Jackson.

She filed a false claim against J.C. Penney, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted and beaten by them. She was paid $165,000 by J.C. Penney. She failed to report this money to the welfare authorities while she was receiving full welfare. She lied on welfare forms under penalty of perjury. She lied under oath during the course of the J.C. Penney case, saying that her husband had never beaten her, and then, during the course of her dissolution alleging under oath, that her husband had beaten her. She prompted her children to lie, saying that at least one was molested by their father, and told a paralegal in the firm that assisted her that she lied and had her children lie. She told the paralegal that if the paralegal were to repeat it to anyone, she “would be killed by the Mexican mafia.” She said she wanted her children to be actors and actresses, and she needed to help them get money through Jackson.

She also made newspaper appeals for money for her son’s cancer treatment, when in fact that treatment was covered by insurance. A newspaper editor testified that she believed the mother was a con artist. She got money from celebrities, such as Masada, George Lopez and Louise Palanker, purportedly for cancer treatment, and spent it on herself. She even took money from charitable sources meant to benefit her cancer-stricken son and spent it on a breast augmentation and a tummy-tuck for herself. To gain sympathy and money, she claimed to many that she lived in a barn with chickens. Michael Jackson, arguably, was just the next extortion target in a series of many from a woman who had always relied upon the kindness of strangers, not unlike Blanche Dubois in Tennessee Williams’ play, A Streetcar Named Desire.

A videotape was played six times during the course of the trial, during the mother’s testimony and the testimony of her children and other witnesses that was created during the time of the alleged false imprisonment. In it, the mother and children waxed eloquent and rhapsodic about Michael Jackson: “He is our father–we lived as a family off of a box of cereal and he rescued us,” they said. And, “Jackson is God.” This family would have had to be Academy Award-winning actors to have falsely praised Jackson in this manner. The video was made at the same time child welfare authorities had interviewed the entire family, when the family had denied any molestation.

A Trail of Tainted Witnesses

“I don’t trust anyone except for my mother, and I don’t trust her half the time.” --Michael Jackson.

Never has there been such a parade of tainted witnesses (save for potentially organized crime cases). The prosecution called witness after witness against Michael Jackson who had sued Michael Jackson, owed Michael Jackson millions of dollars from jury counterclaim verdicts against these witnesses who had been found guilty of stealing from Michael Jackson, had sold their stories to the tabloids, or had been fired by Michael Jackson. It was an incredible parade of tainted witnesses.

Three witnesses for the prosecution took the Fifth, including a travel agent who was accused in a federal investigation of unlawful surveillance and profiting of Jackson, and a former employee of Jackson who robbed a Jack-in-the-Box during the course of the trial and ended up in custody in Las Vegas.

The one victim who did testify for the prosecution was not credible to the jury. His mother had sold her story to the tabloids. He had not disclosed the molestation until the time of trial. The jurors were overheard laughing purportedly after hearing his testimony, “He tickled me. Michael Jackson tickled me. Boo hoo.”

Very little evidence was presented during the course of the trial, other than the legal pornography (which the defense successfully argued could not be called pornography). There was little evidence pertaining to other victims (again, the defense was able to successfully argue that the word victim could not be used during the course of the trial). McCauley Caulkin, like other alleged victims, sang Michael Jackson’s praises and denied abuse.

The Prosecution Did Not Prepare Their Witnesses

The mother’s testimony was a disaster for the prosecution. Thomas Sneddon sat in the front row of the courtroom with his head in his hands while she testified.

However, the most ill-prepared witness was Deborah Rowe, the former wife of Michael Jackson. She testified that Michael was a wonderful father, that there was no conspiracy in the case save for one against Michael Jackson where he was the victim: a conspiracy of opportunistic vultures who make money off of making him look bad and taking advantage of his naiveté and childlike trust. She also testified that the prosecution was overreaching, that Michael Jackson was wonderful with children, and that he was a child at heart. Even after she went to dinner with the prosecutors, the next day her testimony was even worse for the prosecution, and she slammed their case every chance she got. She characterized all of the prosecution’s co-conspirators of Jackson people who made millions and millions of dollars off this case by pointing a finger at Jackson.

The accuser and his siblings were not prepared to testify. In fact, the accuser was caught in many demonstrable lies while on the stand, and forgot important facts that had been outlined in opening statement. In California, the jury is instructed, “If you find that is witness had willfully lied before you, you are entitled to disregard all of their testimony.” At the end of the day, the jurors requested a read-back of the accuser’s testimony and found that he had lied willfully before them, so they disregarded all of his testimony. Once the case was gutted thusly, and by the mother’s lack of credibility (wherein the jury found that she was a liar who caused the children to lie on multiple occasions, including in the accusations against Michael Jackson), the game was over.

The prosecution introduced the Martin Bashir documentary. This allowed the defense to introduce the outtakes, thereby putting forth sympathetic testimony of Michael Jackson, where Michael Jackson did not have to take the stand and face the rigors of cross-examination. At the outset of the trial, the prosecution introduced Martin Bashir’s documentary wherein Michael Jackson said that he shared his bed with children, that it was not sexual, and it was ignorant to believe that he had sexual interest in children. In this documentary, Jackson is shown holding hands with the accuser in this case.

However, on balance, the documentary had more to offer the defense than the prosecution. First, it contained footage of Michael Jackson singing everything from Thriller to his hits from his childhood Jackson Five days. Michael Jackson was not only tapping his foot, but the jurors were tapping as well. The documentary also allowed the defense to put outtakes of Michael Jackson before the jury, where he explained his view of the world and this case. He stated that he was the patron saint of children, that he loved children, that it hurts to be him, that he is misunderstood, that he is taken advantage of, that he loves only animals and children because they understand him, etc., etc. This testimony was not cross-examined.

The prosecution did not find out enough in the course of jury selection.

“Michael Jackson is just like us.” --Juror Number 5

In any high-profile case, the prosecution should find out the jurors’ attitudes about the instant case. The prosecution can simply give the jurors a sheet of paper and ask them to record everything they have ever heard about the case. If this is done, the prosecution can glean from the answers whether those jurors have any kind of attitude for or against the prosecution in the underlying case. In addition, in this case, the prosecution did not find out enough information about whether these jurors intended to write books about the case. We now know that five jurors wanted to write books and one was working on a book deal during jury selection. This, of course, will influence the way jurors vote in a case. Wanting to write a book generally means they are on the side of the celebrity.

The prosecution did not combat the hopeless but not serious factor: The Neverland Celebrity Animal Party and Pajama Day.

“Life doesn’t imitate art, it imitates bad TV.” --Anonymous

The trial throughout was in many ways just plain funny. Starting with the parade of comedians who testified for the prosecution on Jay Leno--George Lopez, Jaimie Masada, and Louise Palanker--and ending with Michael Jackson’s description of wanting to have a celebrity animal party for his chimp, Bubbles, and for Cheeta, Lassie and Benji the dog.

The judge himself was funny and kept the jury in stitches throughout the trial. The problem is when the entire trial is truly funny, the seriousness of the charge can be lost. Many opined that Michael Jackson showing up in his pajamas one day was devastating for the defense. I always said on the air that I thought it was brilliant, and great for the defense. This is because he looked cute. These were not Hugh Hefner pajamas with slippers. These were little kid pajamas with little--where one could imagine bunny--slippers. There he sat before his mom and dad in front of the jury wearing his pajamas all day. Of course, every night on Jay Leno there was something about Michael Jackson, including one night when Leno showed up in his pajamas, his Sponge Bob T-shirt and slippers, accompanied by an umbrella carrier.

Michael Jackson’s personal magician Majestic was in the courtroom, together with all kinds of fans in funny outfits who voiced responses to the testimony. Outside of court, there were Michael Jackson impersonators with umbrella holders and Michael Jackson puppets. "The Daily Show" aired a spoof on the trial, as did Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel, on an almost-nightly basis. On the day Leno testified, he later joked in his monologue that he had stolen the judge’s gavel. The next morning, when the judge took the bench he looked around the courtroom and queried “has anybody seen my gavel?” The jury erupted into gales of laughter, evidencing the fact that they had watched Leno the night before (and probably throughout the trial).

Michael Jackson's cause was helped by amusements ranging from his chimpanzees “chimps – those chimps, you know they love snacks” to throwing popcorn and pop on Macaulay Caulkin and riding go-carts with 10-year-olds, to entering on the red carpet every day with an umbrella holder, an entourage and fancy costumes. The mother of the accuser’s family had attempted on numerous occasions to bilk money from legions of comedians who testified in the case, culminating with the testimony of George Lopez, where each of the comedians basically did standup comedy on the stand in front of the jury.

A reporter from New York and I had just one gesture at each other during the course of the trial, which was to throw our arms up and say “whee,” because it was all about carnival rides, comedians, celebrity animal parties and crazy happenings inside and outside of court. Robert Musil had a wonderful line in The Man Without Qualities: “It is hopeless but it is not serious.” That really describes the Michael Jackson trial: it was a circus. It wasn’t really a tragedy as it was presented to the jury, it was a comedy.

Prosecution Had Too Many Misfires in the Twilight Zone of the Jackson Trial.

“Let the circus begin.” --P.T. Barnum

Watching the prosecution was like watching misfire after misfire as witness after witnesses stated the opposite of what was anticipated by the prosecution. And, the prosecution did not present a systematic case or consistent themes to the jury. It appeared that they just decided to throw it all up there and see what happens, and by virtue of their attitude of indignation and arrogance, convince the jury of the facts, about which they were convinced would lead to a conviction of Michael Jackson. The prosecution also failed to understand that the burden of proof is far higher when one is prosecuting a celebrity, and that the jury will want, in this day of CSI programs, some concrete evidence upon which to hang their hat if they are to convict a celebrity. There was no such corroboration and physical evidence, nor was there corroboration and believable testimony. During my briefings as legal expert by the International Press during the course of the trial, my most consistent quote was Dorothy Parker’s “what fresh hell is this,” as each day brought more misery for the prosecution during the presentation of their case in chief.


The Prosecution Bored the Jury

“Oh Baby give me one more chance” --Michael Jackson, “I want you Back” from The Jacksons

Trials should be theater, but they shouldn’t be bad theater. In what only can be described as reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson trial (the prosecution’s presentation of DNA, other evidence, and testimony from medical examiner), this prosecution team spent day after day on the minutia of telephone records and fingerprint evidence. They also bored the jury by presentation of irrelevant pornography and other evidence. It was shocking that when the prosecution did go through all the foundational requirements for the introduction of evidence, they just continued it day after day until the foundation of the evidence was completely undermined. When they brought in bag after bag of evidence and go through the chain of custody in front of the jury (instead of having it done pre-trial or by stipulation), they never did open the bags to show the jury what was in them. I put in my notes during those days that "it’s in the bag,” and it never came out. Even male-based pornography was not shown to the jury during the prosecution’s case in chief. Lessons were not learned from the O.J. Simpson trial by these Southern California prosecutors.

It isn’t often the defense is aided by the prosecution in a high profile criminal case. In this,and the OJ Simpson case, we saw prosecutors repeatedly and inexplicably misstepping while on their marks. Such anomalous results have been nothing short of astonishing. In the cases of the crime(s) of the century de jour, where the public cried out for conviction and justice, the prosecutors stumbled, fell and thereby made history.

Read More

Good Versus Evil: An Inside Look at 'Wanted Undead or Alive'

by Andrea Campbell

Many historical stories about vampires, ghosts and other phenomenon are based in whole, or in part, on real happenings. People have always been superstitious and afraid of many things such as apparitions or no matter. My guests today, Janice Gable Bashman and Jonathan Maberry, are here to talk about these concepts and more.

AC: Welcome. Today we are talking about the book Wanted Undead or Alive. Can you give Women in Crime Ink readers a short synopsis?

JGB: Wanted Undead or Alive deals with the struggle of good versus evil in film, comics, pop culture, world myth, literature, and the real world. Everything from vampire slayers to paranormal investigators to real life/legendary heroes to FBI serial-killer profilers.

AC: How is the book organized?

JM: Each chapter tackles a different theme. Serial Killers, Vampires, Ghost Hunting, and so on. We also have interviews with experts ranging from Stan Lee to real FBI profilers.

JGB: And, the book is fully illustrated by top horror, comics and fantasy artists.

AC: Tales are passed down through history, but how does one separate fact from fiction?

JM: That’s often impossible. History is filtered through personal viewpoints and often unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts. Mix that with the supernatural, paranormal, celestial, and the unknown, and you get a grab-bag of accounts that often rely on belief.

That said, the purpose of the book isn’t to prove anything. It’s an exploration of the themes of good and evil (and their variations, like good and bad, our side and their side, etc.) and how those concepts have manifested in politics, religion, art, literature, folklore, pop culture, comics, and our modern world.

AC: In the book you say that evil is intention. In fact, in criminal law there is the act, but it is not a crime without intent. Why is there that distinction?

JM: Many crimes are committed accidentally or during a moment of confusion, such as an argument, a riot, a natural catastrophe. Intent is key because that speaks as to why a crime was committed. In the book we use an example: driving a car up onto a lawn and running over a puppy is a violation of several laws. Does that make it a crime? Deliberately chasing the puppy up onto the lawn with the intention of running it over is definitely a crime. Or is it? Cold facts are not big picture enough to make that determination. What if the puppy is rabid and is about to bite a toddler in a sandbox? Would using the car to save the child still be a felony? Or does it then become an heroic act? Intent matters.

AC: Wanted Undead or Alive is actually a complete guide of many different evil entities. Can you speak to that?

JM: Evil, badness and corruption exist in all aspects of human culture. Not just the extremes of evil, but its shades and variations. For example, if a vampire believes himself to be of a different species from human, then can human values of good and evil apply? We don’t apply them to, say, sharks or tigers and yet they prey on humans. Or, if a person rises from the grave as a vampire –their first night as a vampire, in fact—are they innately evil? If a vampire hunter tries to stake them that first night, before the vampire has even had a chance to hunt for human blood, why is the hunter not the evil felon and the vampire the innocent victim? Evil is all about shades of gray.

AC: Why is it that readers are drawn to evil do you think?

JGB: Readers are drawn to evil because it speaks to us, to that deep dark part of humans that we all, at least most of us, would prefer to keep buried and well hidden. Evil fascinates us because it scares us. We search for a way to conquer it and gain control of it, to make sense of our lives.

AC: What is a monomyth?

JM: It’s a concept coined by James Joyce but explored in great depth by Joseph Campbell in his ‘The Hero with a Thousand Faces’. In short, if you look at myths from around the world there are some story lines that seem to crop up everywhere. Similarities abound, even in cultures that can’t easily be historically connected, such as the Navajo and the Greeks.

AC: Two part question here: Vampires have an incredibly long history. What new facts did you unearth from the past and how did you possibly choose what to tell?

JM: We focused on the vampire hunter, and on the myths and misconceptions associated with folkloric vampirism. For example, we discuss the various ways in which a person can become a vampire. Being bitten by a vampire is the least common way, by the way. A common way is to be born with a caul, an amniotic membrane covering the face, that in some cases indicates the presence of evil within the newborn. Vampire species created through this means include the Wume of Togo, the Nachtzehrer of Germany, the Strigoi of Romania, the Upier and Ohyn of Poland; while in other cultures it’s a sign of great positive spiritual power.

AC: So what’s up with ghost hunters?

JGB: In many cultures, ghosts are feared; others embrace spirits. The fascination with paranormal phenomenon is nothing new. In fact, inventor Thomas Edison (1847-1931) was convinced it was possible to design a device to communicate with ghosts, although he never created one. Modern technology has given ghost hunters the means to seek and obtain scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts and other phenomenon. Today’s ghost hunters use photographs, video footage, sound recordings and a variety of other equipment to scientifically collect evidence of ghost activity.

AC: What did you learn about behavioral profilers?

JGB: What we see on TV or in the movies or read about behavioral profilers is only part of the picture. The word profiler refers to an aspect of the job and not a job title. Profilers attempt to determine the type of person who committed a crime based on patterns and similarities among killings. In addition to trying to catch serial killers, behavioral profilers work on all types of crime, help law enforcement establish probable cause and obtain search warrants, and help prosecutors with jury selection and ways to cross examine the killer.

AC: Who did you interview and how did you approach such an undertaking? Did working together help and how did that come about, your co-authorship?

JM: We worked separately for most of the project. We divided the topics and generally conducted the research on our own until we had a draft of a chapter. Then we swapped drafts so that the other person could review it, make any changes, additions or deletions. Then we each did a pass on the full book so that it had a uniform voice.

JGN: Over the course of the book we spoke with Stan Lee, Mike Mignola (creator of Hellboy), horror actresses Amber Benson, Amy Lynn Best, Christa Cambpell and Monique DuPree; authors Charlaine Harris (True Blood), Rachel Caine, Shiloh Walker, Russell Atwood, James Moore, Charles Ardai; filmmakers John Carpenter, Lloyd Kaufman, Mike Watt; and so many others.

AC: What will you be doing for promotion?

JGB: We’ve already had a bunch of book signings and have more in the works. We’ve been interviewed or reviewed on numerous blogs and written guest posts for others. We also have a strong presence on Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Word of mouth is one of the strongest and most effective means of marketing, and we’re using these platforms to help spread the word.

***

Jonathan Maberry is a New York Times bestseller, multiple Bram Stoker Award-winner, and a writer for Marvel Comics. He has written a number of award-winning nonfiction books and novels on the paranormal and supernatural, including The Cryptopedia, Vampire Universe, They Bite, Zombie CSU and Patient Zero. His latest novel is Rot & Ruin. Visit Jonathan’s website here.

Janice Gable Bashman has written for The Big Thrill, Novel & Short Story Writer's Market, the Writer, Wild River Review, and many others. Visit Janice’s website here.

Read More

Where is the Outrage?

by Pat Brown

I doubt we can find very many people who feel bad for Ingmar Guandique, the man convicted of killing Chandra Levy. My own heart is not bleeding for him. On the other hand, my brain is about to explode. Why am I hearing no outcry about this frightening guilty verdict that the jury arrived at after an incredibly short trial with pitiful evidence? It is hard to see how any prosecutor would have even wanted to try this case with what he had to work with. It is horrifying that a jury would convict on emotion rather than solid facts. As much as I have never been totally enamored with the Innocence Project's overuse of DNA to disqualify all other solid evidence, they and I agree that this miracle conviction is a stomach-turning travesty. While Guandique is hardly innocent, as far as criminal matters go, he did attack two women and has a history of other criminal activities. Past criminal activities of an individual do not prove a similar criminal activity is that individual's doing unless evidence proves it so.

There, my fellow citizens, is the problem. Guandique was a good scapegoat; no, a great scapegoat. No one cares if Guandique stays in prison for decades. In fact, even I prefer he remains incarcerated forever. I don't really give a fig about Guandique's suffering because he is clearly a predator and hardened criminal who needs to be behind bars. But, I do care that our justice system is convicting people without credible evidence.

First, let's take a look at what evidence got Guandique a life sentence for the murder of Chandra Levy:

• He attacked two other women within the same park, though he did not succeed in either raping or killing them. He was, in fact, trying to rob them.
  
• An inmate who knew Guandique in prison said Guandique confessed to him.

No witnesses put Guandique on the trail at the time Levy was theoretically murdered. No evidence was found in Guandique's home linking him to the murder. Guandique, a known thief, did not steal Levy's ring or her Walkman. The only DNA evidence from the crime scene came from Levy's leggings, and, although it was from a male, it did not match Guandique. There was no videotaped confession with details only the killer would know. In fact, the details of the supposed confession Guandique made to his prison mate were not very convincing. Guandique passed the polygraph.

Recap: DNA from the crime scene does not match Guandique and nothing else links him to Levy's murder.

Why are we not all raising hell over this? Guandique could have committed the crime, but so could Condit or one of his buddies, and so could I, for that matter. We really don't know if Guandique is guilty (and neither does that jury), and we don't know if Chandra Levy's murderer is still at large. This is not justice.

Now, let's take a look at other cases that haven't gotten near a courtroom for lack of enough evidence for the prosecutor to feel comfortable presenting the case.

The case I wrote about in my book, The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths, is a good example. My suspect in the case, Walt Williams, is still free in spite of:

• He confessed to being on the path near the location of the murder at the time of the murder.
• The night of the murder, he threw away all the clothing he had worn (including his shoes) after being on the path where the homicide occurred.
• He wrote a story about killing people in the park just weeks before the victim was found murdered in a park.
• He said the following day to the girlfriend who had ended their relationship hours before the murder in response to her question if he was going to do something stupid (like suicide), "You don't know what I have already done."
• He covered his body in long pants and long sleeves the day after the murder in spite of the fact the temperature was in the high eighties
• He failed the polygraph and gave a phony alibi.
• There is no DNA left from the crime that does not match him.

Walt Williams remains free because there is not enough conclusive evidence to convict him. He could have been a nut job who was coincidentally near the area of a crime and because he is a bizarre person, he said and did strange things that made him look like he should be the killer. I tend to think this is not the case, but I agree with the prosecutor that even though the evidence is strong enough to make him the number one person of interest, it is not absolute proof that he committed the crime.

What about the man who said he murdered Ronni Chasen, the Hollywood publicist, for $10,000? By the time I got on "The Early Show" and gave commentary on this crime, the story went like this: The police had been doing surveillance on a man named Harold in connection with the shooting of Chasen. Ronni Chasen was shot in her car as she drove home from a film premiere through the quiet streets of Beverly Hills. Chasen had been shot five times in the chest and shoulder through her passenger window as she waited at a light.

Some pundits claimed it was a hit because the killer used a 9mm pistol with cop-killer ammunition (hollow-point bullets) and made a tight pattern of his shots. So, the theory was a professional hit man had killed Ronni on behalf of either someone in her will or someone who was angry with her. When the police moved in on Harold, a middle-aged ex-felon with weapons and drug charges on his record, at his crummy Hollywood hotel, he pulled his weapon and blew his brains out. He had told someone he would never allow himself to be taken back to prison.

I was asked, "Could Harold be the killer of Ronni Chasen?" I said it was possible. I did not believe the shooting to be all that professional because I also own a 9mm with that ammo, and I could shoot a pretty tight pattern if my target was only a few feet away. I surmised that if the police had followed information from Chasen's life to Harold, and Harold blew his brains out as soon as the police showed up, maybe he was linked to the crime, knew why the police were there and he offed himself. He could be a good suspect, because, although he wasn't a professional hit man (and, as I said above, I didn't think the murder had to be a professional hit), he was a thug who needed money, and I wouldn't doubt he would be willing to kill to get some.

Bombshell tonight: Harold is no longer a good suspect. Turns out, Harold was a bit off his rocker. He was going around telling all kinds of crazy stories, including one that he killed Chasen and another that he wanted to go out in a big blaze. Someone called America's Most Wanted with that tip and they turned the tip into police. There was nothing linking good ol' Harold to Chasen except his own big mouth, plus the gun he used to kill himself was not used to kill Chasen.

Oh, but, there is the point. Let's say someone wants to put the Ronni Chasen's murder to bed, close it out, considered it solved. All that has to be done is for a story to go out that another ex-felon heard that Harold sold a 9mm after Chasen's murder to someone whose name he can't remember. If Harold had survived the shot to his head, he could have been hauled into court and the ex-felon could testify to Harold selling off the murder weapon (or one like the murder weapon. "One like" is terminology commonly used to convict people without actually having the solid evidence).

Remember, you heard it here if the case is closed with the deceased Harold as the guilty party.

So, how does this happen in our criminal justice system and our courts, this use of scapegoats to close cases? And why?

The why part is the most important. For the prosecution to move forward with a case that lacks conclusive evidence, or for the police department to close a case without solid proof of the suspect being dead and guilty, there has to be a reason. The most likely scenario involves a case that is really dogging the police department. Either the press is making their lives miserable or the family and community just won't let it rest. It gets to the point where closing out the case would stop the negative publicity in its tracks. The Chandra Levy trial came on the heels of a major police trashing by a series of articles written in The Washington Post.

The Martha Moxley murder case got Michael Skakel convicted on little-to-no evidence after former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman published his book, Murder in Greenwich, condemning the police of incompetence. The 2003 Florence Jean Hall murder in Covington, Tennessee, was closed with the conviction of an ex-felon employee on a questionable confession and zero physical evidence, in my opinion, because the fairly wealthy family had some pull in town. Otherwise, the family of this woman would have come under more serious scrutiny and James David Johnson would never have been convicted (or they would have been convicted with him). Politics and expedience are the motivators behind taking a weak case to court.

So, this leaves the question, if the prosecutors were so successful with these weak cases, why aren't more people railroaded? The answer is the proper ingredients have to be in the mix and it has to be worth it. The important ingredients are an emotional case the community wants resolved, a very sympathetic victim with devastated family members in the courtroom, a darned good political and economic reason to take the risk, and a really good fall guy that the jury is all too happy to convict.

Guandique? Total low-life criminal. Michael Skakel? A smug Kennedy with a big mouth who says stupid things. James David Johnson? A dangerous ex-con who is no loss to the community.

So why isn't Walt Williams on the list? First of all, Williams has no criminal record. Most scapegoats are ex-convicts or felons that look the part (Michael Skakel was an anomaly in the scapegoat world). The case is twenty years old, the family of Anne Kelley has never made waves, the community hardly remembers the crime and the media never has given the murder more than a short paragraph right after it happened. Maybe if my book makes enough of a stir or it gets made into a movie depicting the police and prosecutor in the worst way, then Walt Williams will be brought in and a jury will convict him in spite of that pesky reasonable doubt issue. Or, maybe, to prove me wrong, they will simply claim that newly found DNA matches a deceased sex murderer in prison and close the case down without showing us the actual DNA match. Or, worst of all, maybe they will find a rapist who just happened to be in the area at the time and railroad him.

Maybe they will say it was Ingmar Guandique because, after all, Anne Kelley was murdered in a park, too! I am sure they can convince a jury that this would have been the first crime for the then ten-year-old illegal immigrant, a violent product of the El Salvadorian Civil War and the Mara Salvatrucha aka MS -13 gang, big for his age and already a violent predator. Ingmar Guandique raped and murdered Anne Kelley as an initiation to the gang which operates in the area of her murder (and it is actually true the MS-13 gangs exist within a half mile of the homicide location; the path passes through their territory).

Before you start labeling this theory ridiculous and not worthy to be presented in a court of law, go back and look over the evidence that got Guandique convicted of Chandra Levy's murder. There isn't any.

Read More

My Christmas Reindeer

By Kathryn Casey

Christmas begins early at our house. The tree goes up right after Thanksgiving, a faux pine but a beautiful one, with artificial snow sprinkled about its branches. It’s always a full weekend of hauling boxes, unpacking ornaments, putting out the whimsical Santa that stands in our front hallway, and climbing up on the ladder to put the spindly glass ornament on the top of the tree. But for me, there’s really no Christmas tree without one special ornament, a reindeer with a red nose: Rudolph, of course.

This particular ornament takes me back to my childhood in Wisconsin. I don’t remember not having it. As far in the past as my memory travels, it hung on my parents’ Christmas tree. To see it, I imagine most folks would wonder why it’s so special. It’s made of plastic not gems or even blown glass. It doesn’t sparkle. It has no value. But to me, it’s irreplaceable.

My mother kept it in a green box, in amongst her collection of ornaments. There were many. Some my maternal grandmother crocheted, others my father’s sister and mother made of wax paper and sparkles during the Great Depression (photo right). As a small girl, I heard the stories of how my father sold the tiny creations door-to-door, desperate for money to buy food and wood for the stove. I think of the trials many are enduring today, with a rocky economy and so much trouble in the world, and those small tattered stars remind me that there have been tough times before, and always we’ve persevered.

Of all the ornaments, however, for me the reindeer was exceptional. I don’t know why except that my mother (us together in a very old photo above) must have known that I liked it, and she’d always entrusted it to me to hang on the tree. When I was small, the ornament hung just a few feet off the floor, because that was as far as I could reach. As I grew older, it claimed a higher place. As a teenager, I remember standing on a stool and hanging it nearly at the top.

The years passed. After I married and moved to Texas, I visited often, but I rarely traveled home for Christmas. Yet every December, my mother called to tell me the house was decorated and that my reindeer had a place of honor on their tree. I loved hearing that. Although I was far away with a family of my own, somehow knowing that little reindeer hung on my parents' tree made me feel closer to them.

The decades skated past without notice, and we all grew older. In the late nineties, my mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. She changed in small ways at first. I returned home one fall and found that after she’d dress to go out with me, she’d forgotten where we were going. She couldn’t remember how to make her favorite cream cheese and chip beef appetizer spread, and she repeated stories, time and again. The disease progressed, until one terrible visit when I realized that she didn't know my name. When my father couldn’t care for her any longer, I returned home to help him find a nursing home. Those were dark days, ones I’m glad I will never have to relive.

Four years ago, my mother died. Afterward we moved my father out of the house he’d shared with my mother, the one where I grew up. I helped pack, and the third day into the task, I found myself in the basement standing over an aging ping-pong table, surveying a hodgepodge of boxes and Christmas decorations.

My mother had always been a precise woman. After the holidays ended, when we took the tree down, she’d carefully wrapped and packed each ornament, protecting them for the following year. But what I found were ornaments strewn about, nothing wrapped, many as broken as her mind had been by the unabated onslaught of the disease. I spent hours weeding through, saving what I could. Eventually, I found my reindeer not in the box where my mother had kept it but discarded in a sack of artificial pine boughs ringed with lights. Perhaps that’s where she’d hung it the last year she’d used it? I’ll never know.

When I left for Texas at the end of that week, the reindeer ornament was carefully wrapped in tissue paper inside my purse. That Christmas, after the rest of the tree was decorated, I unwrapped it and held it in my hands. Then I anchored it front and center. For a long time, I stood and looked at it, remembering. Sad at first, I soon found myself smiling, realizing how happy my mother would have been to see it there.

When the holidays ended and the tree came down, I didn’t want to put it away. Instead, I found a place for Rudolph on a shelf in a cabinet in my office, where I can glance at it while I write. It’s on display year round, and whenever I notice it I think of days long past. I picture my mother holding it out to me, and remember how I stretched my arms so high to hang my reindeer on our Christmas tree.

Read More

The Lost Girls

by Deborah Blum

Winter is the season of carbon monoxide poisoning, unfortunately. Every year about this time, public health officials and poison control centers sound the warning. "Carbon monoxide threat grows as winter nears," announced a news story from Maine this week. "Avoid carbon monoxide when heating your home," echoed one from Arizona. Still, not everyone hears these messages and takes protective measures. Far too often we see stories like this one from California: "Three hospitalized with in-home carbon monoxide poisoning." Or even worse, this headline from Indiana: "2 South Bend men die of carbon monoxide poisoning." So, as a reminder to us all that this is a very dangerous gas, I'm reprinting my favorite post on carbon monoxide from my chemistry and culture blog at the Public Library of Science, Speakeasy Science. Its original title was "Poison in the Night," and when you read it, you'll see why.

There it was, the sound of an engine, that low, steady grumble. The little girls heard it, and they told their mother. They were just 11 and 12. "You parked the car in the garage and it's still running," they said. But she told them they were wrong. "Oh, no," she said, "it's just the fan cooling down the motor. It's a big car, you know, and it gets hot."

Nothing to worry about. Not even worth looking at. So, the little girls gathered up some snacks and went to watch a movie, giggling the way you do with your best friend. They were having a slumber party at the 11-year-old's home, after all. The mother went to bed, sleeping away the soft May night. The car kept running. A Ford Escape, with a big gas tank to burn, keeping up that low growl in the closed garage, the rumble in the dark.

In the morning, the mother woke up feeling sick, dizzy, disoriented, knowing that something was wrong, and that the air itself was wrong. She reached for the phone and dialed 911, calling for help. She went into the garage and there it was, the running car. She turned it off, investigators say, threw the keys on the kitchen counter and stumbled into a shower stall to wait for the rescuers.

The house was quiet when the rescuers arrived and the air was wrong. They had to go back outside to gear up, put on their protective masks and oxygen tanks. They took the mother away and saved her at the hospital. But the little girls stayed behind. One lay on the kitchen floor, the other on the carpet in the family room. Still as death in that all-wrong air. The families buried them side by side in a cemetery. They were best friends, you know, in Boca Raton, Florida, where they lived.

The mother tried to make it different, to at first change the story. She was afraid; she couldn't bear it. The car was defective, Loretta Wilson told the police. She couldn't turn it off and she didn't realize that the garage vented into the house, too close to the family room where the little girls were laughing and watching that movie. But the police tested the car. It clicked on and off perfectly, like the good machine it was. Slowly, slowly they coaxed the whole story out. The way her daughter Amber had asked her about the running car, the way she'd turned away. Almost six months later, in December of last year, they charged the mother with manslaughter, or culpable negligence, in the deaths of the little girls, Amber and her friend, Caitlyn Brondolo, side by side now in the warm Florida ground.

If there had been a trial, there were too many things that a prosecutor could have said. He could have said that we've known, almost since the invention of the internal combustion engine, that fuel does not burn perfectly in such machines. That among the byproducts of that imperfection is the gas carbon monoxide: colorless, odorless, deadly. That it comes from such a simple formula, just an atom of carbon and atom of oxygen needed to make a CO molecule. And, that it kills simply, too. It just binds to the proteins in our blood that carry oxygen, muscling that life-sustaining gas out of the way. That carbon monoxide suffocates the body as it saturates the bloodstream. The federal government estimates that it kills about 500 people a year and sickens more than 15,000. We've known for a good hundred years or more that people die from letting carbon monoxide seep into an enclosed space. Not just any people, the faceless numbers, but friends and lovers, husbands and wives, our sons and daughters.

"Ultimately, this difficult case is about an assignment of responsibility," Palm Beach County state attorney Michael McAuliffe wrote in a statement for the public. "While no evidence exists that Ms. Wilson intended to harm the children, this tragic event reinforces the unwavering principle that parents and guardians of children have the paramount responsibility to protect their children and those in their custody."

The mother pleaded guilty on December 19, 2009, the day after she was arrested. A judge sentenced her to five years probation, psychological counseling, and community service through educating others about the dangers of carbon monoxide. The case itself was enough to remind anyone to install carbon monoxide detectors, check leaky gas appliances, keep their families safe. But the mother with her guilt and her grief and her daughter gone to the warm ground, no one could be untouched by that. She could help keep others safe. So they thought, so they hoped.

That is, until this summer drew to its end and they tallied the numbers in Palm Beach County. Last year, in all of 2009, four carbon monoxide poisonings, including the mother and the lost girls. This year, so far, 28 poisonings and three dead. One death from a boat left running in a boat house. Two dead from--yes, unbelievably, but yes--cars left running in closed garages. A 29-year-old woman who forgot to turn off her Lexus. An elderly man who didn't remember that his Lincoln sat rumbling in his garage while the air in that house went wrong. Six rescuers who went to his house were sickened by that poisoned air; the levels, so they said, measured 150 times above safe.

As if we are ever safe. Still, experts puzzled over why this was happening. Maybe, one said, we just haven't persuaded enough people to buy carbon monoxide detectors. The old man didn't have one, did he? Nor the young Lexus owner, nor the man with the boat. But, why not? Why not install some common-sense protection after a hundred years of knowing that we do leave cars idling, that gas appliances do leak, that carbon monoxide is a silent drift of poison in the air, and that people do die.

The mother could have answered that one, maybe. She could have told them that you don't need the detector because you're so sure that it will never be you. The poison gas is always destined elsewhere. You just know it will seep into someone else's life--odorless, colorless, unrecognized. So, when you hear that low growl of warning in the garage, and when the little girls ask, you just laugh, tell them it's nothing, send them off to watch a movie, and let yourself drift to sleep while the night closes in around them.

Read More