MEDIA AND THE MISSING

by Pat Brown

  Once upon a time when someone went missing, posters with their faces (example left) were stuck in store windows, and that was about it. Times have changed and missing people, at least those who can pull heartstrings on television for a large enough portion of the viewing population, become stars (usually their final role). The supporting cast, on the other hand, may go on to book contracts and movie options. Even if no other projects are in their future, they get to be stars of a reality show. Some get a kick out of this, but others suffer painfully in the limelight, desperately giving interview after interview in hopes of finding their loved one.

Add to this mix news hosts and talking heads, all in there for their own variety of reasons. They may wish to keep the public informed, help save a life, promote a cause, sway viewpoints, and make a buck. In truth, it is likely a combination of all of these motives.

Law enforcement also uses this platform to learn more about the victim and the suspects, disseminate information, and hopefully, find the missing person. Their presence in the media can bring positive or negative attention to their department. Some cops just like being on air.

And let’s not forget the audience. They play a part as well. They bring ratings, public opinion, and sometimes tips that actually help solve a case. This media bonanza brings understanding and confusion, facts and misinformation. It is a volatile mix.

Now, the stage is set. Enter the actors. This week’s drama involves missing eight-month-old Gabriel Johnson of Tempe, Arizona. He is the perfect missing baby: white, blonde hair, impish smile. Enter the mother. In her good pictures, she has the look of an angel: soft golden hair surrounding a heart shaped face, a dimple in her chin. But Elizabeth Johnson has added just the right spice to the sweetness. She is a femme fatale with a dangerous streak lurking beneath her innocent looks, and she delivered the best line of the show when she, while on the run in Texas with the child to avoid the custody battle, told the father of the baby: “I killed him.” She went on to give a horrifying description of a cold deceased baby stuffed into a diaper bag and tossed in a dumpster.

The law caught up with Elizabeth in Florida. Gabriel was nowhere in sight. Her grandpa’s car, which she “borrowed” to make her escape from Arizona, was found in San Antonio. One day after the baby was last seen by video camera, Mom jumps a bus, backpack over the shoulder, leaving the vehicle, the baby clothes, and the baby car seat behind in the motel room.

But, now, when the police asked her where Gabriel is, Elizabeth had a new story. She was magically approached by a couple wanting a baby in a San Antonio park and so she gave the child over to them. Abysmally ridiculous story, but apparently believed by a great many people. Why? Second Act! Enter the Smiths.

 A more brilliant twist couldn’t have been thought of in a fictionalized story of a missing baby (and I would have liked to written it and sold the movie rights). The focus, once strictly upon the mentally disturbed protagonist, suddenly shifts to Jack and Tammi Smith, an Arizona couple who met Elizabeth in the airport and quickly became aggressive prospective adoptive parents of Gabriel Johnson. They took Elizabeth under their wing, working with the disturbed mother to hand over custody to them, in spite of the fact that the father of the baby, Logan McQueary, wasn’t willing to go along with the plan. After the baby went missing, the Smiths showed up continuously on television show after television show -- The Today Show, The Early Show, Nancy Grace, Geraldo, Dr. Phil, etc. -- showing little sadness and appearing extremely nervous. They both twiddled their thumbs as they talked, and many viewers commented that Mrs. Smith often nudged her husband or grabbed his leg. They thought she was trying to stop him from spilling some beans. A common feeling among the television audience is that there was something not quite right about the couple. They thought the Smiths had helped hide Gabriel or adopt him out to another couple in some “underground” baby railroad. The police apparently agreed, because they kept saying there were “indications” the baby was alive.

Act Three: The pressure heats up and the Smiths, now still to an extent enjoying the thrill of television stardom, are seeing the other, not-so-pleasant side of fame -- a thing called scrutiny with the surfacing of facts one might wish remained hidden. The police get a search warrant and dig their way through the Smiths' home and computers. Tammi  finally has to admit to everyone that she has not actually been totally honest -- that she helped Elizabeth deceive the courts with false information, including naming her own cousin as the father of Gabriel, even though he never met Ms. Johnson. Then it surfaced that Ms. Smith has a criminal record for forging checks back in Tennessee, and now her tarnished image makes people even more suspicious of her. If she will lie and cheat, how far will she go to hide Gabriel?

All the players are now out in front of the audience, at least most of them, as the father of Gabriel Johnson has kept a low profile. He has done only a few minutes of television, telling his side of the story as to how Elizabeth hurt and neglected the baby, went into violent rages, and how she and the Smiths tried to take his baby away. He was the perfect innocent in the story, and the media purposely kept any negative information about him as quiet as possible. Slowly, some less flattering facts began to leak out, that Logan McQueary is a repeat felon, a burglar, and a parole breaker, and he was still violating the law after Gabriel was born. Still he continues to be cast as the tragic hero who has innocently fallen victim to evil-doers.

Act Four: All show hosts, commentators, and television viewers on board! The discussion is at times somber, outraged, questioning, analytical, and, occasionally, amused. Behaviors and personalities are dissected and clashing conclusions argued. I did my bit, except I got booted off a number of shows because of my early harsh take that Elizabeth killed the baby and no mysterious couple or hiding place existed. I never bought Elizabeth’s story that she made up the baby homicide because she wanted to hurt Logan; I believed she offed the baby and then bragged about it. In spite of the fact the Elizabeth was willing to give the baby to the Smiths (to get rid of it and piss off Logan) and, although I believe she is perfectly capable of giving the baby to a stranger in the park, the likelihood of her finding a sterile young white couple almost immediately upon her arrival in Texas strains credibility. Even more so, this couple would have to be willing to break the law and continue to hide the baby in the face of a massive law enforcement baby hunt.

The Smiths did love doing television. As a regular commentator who spends a lot of time in green rooms, I can tell you their behavior really wasn’t that odd. People love doing television, getting to be in the national media on the shows they have always watched and never imagined being a part of, and to be treated like a Hollywood celebrity. The Smiths, even if they were concerned for the well-being of Gabriel, are likely not able to resist the pull of fame. As to Mrs. Smith’s nudges and grabs, also not so strange when you are on television with someone else and both of you have been told to keep it short. Do I think they gave some assistance to Elizabeth that was not so kosher? Yes. Do I think they hid Gabriel? No. It serves little purpose for them and would require finding other people willing to go to a federal penitentiary for kidnapping. 

What about Logan? Do I think he cares about his baby? Sure, possibly, to some extent. Do I think he would be a good father? No. Do I think Logan is telling the truth about Elizabeth and the Smiths? Possibly, but probably with a version that benefits his image.

And then we have Elizabeth. Here is a person I have no if, ands, or buts about. Her absolutely cold demeanor in discussing how she dumped her baby on complete strangers and her calm in the midst of this storm shows me a person with no conscience, no empathy, no sense of right and wrong. She is a psychopath. She is capable of dumping or killing her child as the mood suits her. I think the baby became an annoyance in San Antonio when she had to pay someone to leave him with while she went out, as her CraigsList babysitter stated, “In club clothes” for two hours during the day. In other words, she had to give up money to make money. Maybe she decided it was cheaper to medicate Gabriel while she was off doing her thing, or maybe she simply got angry at having to care for him and ended her bout with motherhood through foul play. The biggest truth told by any of  the actors in this drama is likely Elizabeth’s coldblooded statement to Logan of the blue baby in the bin.

What will be the conclusion of this sad reality show? It remains to be seen. The police are finally admitting the baby is not likely alive. Elizabeth Johnson hopefully will spend the rest of her life in jail and spare us all a long trial. Logan will have to deal with the results of careless mating, criminal behavior of both himself and his girlfriend, and the loss of a son. The Smiths will get a book deal, which will prove that persistence and petty criminal acts pay off.

The trend in reality crime drama is probably here to stay, for good or bad. I just wish it would have a happy ending more often.

Read More

Betty Broderick, Convicted Double Murderer, Eligible for Parole

UPDATE: Elisabeth "Betty" Broderick has been denied parole for her conviction of fatally shooting her husband and his new wife. During the Jan. 21 hearing, which was heard two months earlier than originally scheduled, Broderick told the California parole board, "I allowed the voices in my head to completely take over. I took the lives of two wonderful people who were loved by many." After board members asked for details of the shooting in which Broderick shot the couple using a .38 caliber handgun, she told them, "Linda [the new wife] came at me and the gun went off." After the no-parole ruling, Richard Sachs, a San Diego prosecutor, told CNN that Broderick showed no remorse. The former socialite won't be eligible for parole again for another 15 years.

by Cathy Scott

It’s a new year and a new opportunity for La Jolla socialite Betty Broderick, who in 1989 murdered her ex-husband and his new wife by creeping into the couple’s bedroom before dawn and shooting them as they lay sleeping. Incarcerated since 1991, Betty is eligible for parole this March -- the first time since her second-degree murder conviction and sentence of 32 years to life in a California prison.

In March 1993, I wrote an op-ed piece about the case for the San Diego Union-Tribune. The column, below, is still relevant today:

A final chapter in the Broderick case

March 17, 1993

The never-ending saga of former La Jolla socialite Elisabeth "Betty" Broderick has again surfaced, but this time it's her children who are having the last word. And it is about time.

Three of the four Broderick children are taking their mother to court (Betty was served papers last week in prison). This is the same woman who murdered their father, garnering national attention and, at times, public sympathy after sneaking into her former husband's Marston Hills home and fatally shooting him and his wife in their bedroom. The nation watched the sickening tale unfold on television with Court TV's cable coverage of the trial, two made-for-TV movies, Oprah Winfrey interviews of two of the Broderick children and, on another occasion, Betty, not to mention newspaper accounts of the case. During Oprah's interview last November with Betty Broderick, the divorcée continued to weave the histrionic tale and sob story of a woman scorned. But this time the public knew better.

After all, with the advent of Court TV [now Tru TV], we were able to view her courtroom outbursts firsthand as the second trial aired in its entirety. Meanwhile, all has been quiet on the prison front where Broderick has been incarcerated since her murder conviction in 1991.

But now it's time for the Broderick children to have their day in court. After watching the film The Prince of Tides, I drew some obvious parallels between the fictional Wingo clan and the tragically real Broderick family.

In this motion picture about Tom Wingo and his twin sister trying to deal as adults with the effects of their highly dysfunctional childhoods, actor Nick Nolte says, "I don't know when my parents began their war against each other. But I do know the only prisoners they took were their children." The Broderick children, too, were sadly taken hostage by their parents' hatred for each other and the loathing their mother nurtured over the years for their father.

Besides the two shooting victims, attorney Dan Broderick and Linda Kolkena Broderick, the Broderick children have been horribly victimized. And like the Wingo children, they were dealt a dirty hand to sort out. At the end of The Prince of Tides, Nolte's character says, "I've learned to love my parents and all their hysterical flaws, and that there is no crime too bad that a family can't forgive."

There is, however, a crime the Broderick children can't ever forget, let alone forgive, and that's the cold-blooded murder of their father at the hands of their mother. Kim, the oldest of the Broderick children, who testified against her mother during the second trial, said it best when she told Oprah, "We've been gypped out of a nice life." Betty Broderick, in her most recent interview with Oprah, welled up with tears at the mere mention of her offspring, but shed no tears for Dan, and spoke of him in the present tense.

She referred to her children -- Kim, Lee, Dan and Rhett -- three of whom are grown, by their childhood nicknames of "Lee-Lee" and "Danny."

It's obvious that Broderick still won't let the memories of her self-described once "perfect life" die. Although Broderick seems to believe she is the sole victim in this tragic scenario, her children must live with the loss of their father and stepmother, and deal, at least on a minimal level, with their mother whose selfishness and blind greed forever took him away from them. But now the tables have turned, and Broderick is at her children's mercy. It seems only fitting that her ultimate punishment is at the hands of her offspring who, as she confessed to Oprah, hadn't once visited her in prison.

The reason, she explained, was that it's "a long, dangerous drive" to the Central Women's Facility in Chowchilla where she is serving a 32-year sentence. Despite the title of the CBS movie, "Her Final Fury: Betty Broderick, The Last Chapter," the last chapter in this sad saga appears to be the Broderick children's civil suit.

They will have the last word. Three of her four children (Kim, Dan and Rhett) are asking for more than $20 million dollars each in damages in a wrongful death suit against her. Broderick's attorney, Jack Earley, has stated that Broderick (who quitclaimed her La Jolla condo to her boyfriend) has no assets.

But with her penchant for publicity, she no doubt has a book or two in the making. Deputy District Attorney Kerry Wells, who successfully prosecuted Broderick, couldn't have said it better when she was quoted in the Nov. 2, 1992, issue of People magazine as saying, "I've had my fill of Elisabeth Broderick.

“She was not a battered woman.

“She was getting $16,000 a month alimony.

“She had a million-dollar La Jolla house, a car, a boyfriend.

“I see abused women every day with broken bones and smashed faces.

“Give me a break."

Amen.

Photos courtesy of The Associated Press.

Read More

African Americans and Crime After Martin Luther King, Jr.

by Katherine Scardino 

I wish I had time to research all the statistics that would answer this: Has the situation of the average African-American family improved since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., told the nation about his dream? I would venture that the answer is a resounding “no."

Let me speak from my own experience since I started practicing law in 1984 -- some 25 or so years from the launch of the Civil Rights movement. That should have been enough time for black Americans to digest the teachings of Dr. King -- and for white Americans to make an honest attempt at understanding the plight of our citizens who are not “WASPS.”

When I entered the legal field, it was in an area with one of the nation's highest crime rates, representing indigent defendants -- adults and juveniles. I can state without a doubt that there was a much higher percentage of African-American defendants than any other ethnic group. The majority of the cases did not involve the commission of a violent crime. Most of the crimes, at least from my experience, involved theft, burglary and drugs. I believe that is still the case today. 

I am still waiting for someone to ask -- and answer -- the core questions: Why? Why can't we fix this problem? Exactly what causes this problem? I think most of us know and accept that poverty is a root cause of crime in all aspects of life and with all ethnic groups. And we also know that the great majority of African Americans experience poverty at some period during their lifetimes. Poverty is defined by the federal government as a family of four with an annual income of about $16,000 or less. Dire poverty is defined by the government as a family with income one-half that of the poverty level. 

I am not, repeat not, saying that just because a citizen of our country is experiencing poverty means that we can expect that person to turn to crime as a means to exist. I grew up in dire poverty for most of my childhood, and never once did I ever think about committing a crime to feed myself. But, then, I lived in an era where front doors were never locked; neighbors helped each other, and families consisted of a working father (even if that meant a father who went to the fields to farm every day), a mother who stayed at home and took care of the children, and the children were respectful and helpful. All children went to school, regardless of their economic status in the community.

And, in my humble opinion, therein lies the problem that even the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. could not resolve. Education is the key to winning over poverty. Somehow, over the last fifty years, we have forgotten that children belong in school during school hours and on school days. Children do not get to choose whether they go to school or not. Children do not get to say no to school. That is not their choice. But that assumes there are parents around. We have lost the family structure that held it all together -- and our society has suffered. One of the repercussions of this lack of structure, the loss of the family, the ability of parents to set rules and demand obedience from children is what we now call our “high crime rate”.

I read articles written by intelligent people who portend to have answers to solve our societal problems. But I have yet to hear one person in some form of authority to state that education is the key to the solution, and here is what we are going to do about it in our community. Yes, we have schools. Of course we have schools, but look at them. We have teachers who are barely paid above minimum wage (perhaps this is a slight exaggeration), and who are not able to discipline our children. That means the children rule, and not the teachers. So, now we have the parents, or lack thereof, in the home who are not “ruling” -- establishing and teaching their children ethics and morals, and then add to that situation the teachers who have to put up with unruly, disrespectful students in the classroom who are well aware that no one can really discipline them. I have come in contact with various schoolteachers over the last 26 years, and yes, some of that contact has been as teachers as defendants, but invariably, the teachers complain that they cannot discipline. Is there anyone who really, really believes that you can impress an unruly, rude child with a speech? Further, the teachers now even admit to “teaching to the TAKS test”. That means they do not have any other curriculum other than to get these kids passing this test. And, now in Texas, we see headlines in newspapers discussing whether teachers should be fired because their students are not passing this blasted test. Somewhere we have lost our sight of the long term goal with children and education.

Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that education was a key.He knew that one of the reasons he rose to his stature was because he had the education to communicate with other educated people in authority. He did not resort to crime. He was too busy as a young person going to school so he could make a real change.

Other than the lack of education, young teens today have to deal with the lure of drugs.One of my young black defendants told me that he committed a crime because he wanted to buy a gold chain just like his buddies had. I asked him how his buddies were able to buy their gold chain. My young client told me that they sold dope on the street corner after school. So, that’s what he did, too. This is the same story, over and over. The cycle of poverty, crime and drugs must end. 

So, as we honor one of our most revered Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., let us all not forget that he is the best role model for all children. Dr. King went to school.He did not commit crimes.He did not use drugs. He gained the respect of America. Thank you, Dr. King. We will try and make you proud. But, we truly need help. We wish you were still here.

Read More

Cherish Lewis Should Go Free

by Robin Sax

On July 24 2009, Judge Frederick Crow of Scioto County, Ohio, ordered 22-year-old Cherish Lewis, mother of five-year-old Jaelyn Rice, to turn over her child to the girl's father. But Cherish refused. Why? Because Cherish had information from Children’s Services that her daughter had been physically and sexually abused. Children's Services named the father, Stephen Rice, as the alleged perpetrator. For six months, Judge Crow has held Ms. Lewis in contempt of court for not producing the child. To add insult to injury, this judge has ordered Cherish Lewis to remain in custody until she surrenders the girl.

Little Jaelyn is in hiding (not wanting to return to her abusive father). And Cherish, the protective mother? She remains in jail today for trying to keep her daughter safe and away from the abusive father.

Are you confused? So am I. The facts of this case are beyond outrageous:

Evidence of physical and sexual abuse of Jaelyn has been presented to the court in Ohio. Pictures taken by law enforcement immediately following visitation with the father, Rice, depict dozens of bruises, indicating abuse of Jaelyn at different times. Why has this evidence been ignored by the court!? A Children’s Services case worker testified that the father initially said he didn’t know how the little girl sustained the injuries. He later said that the bruises came from an accident the little girl had had while fishing on a pier.

On two occasions, Children’s Services has substantiated the physical and sexual abuse—naming the father as the alleged perpetrator. There is also extensive testimony from Ohio medical experts, Scioto County Children’s Services, a guardian ad litem, and law enforcement validating the abuse allegations.

The little girl disclosed sexual assaults in Oceanside, California, and also in Tampa, Florida, while visiting with her father. Why isn't the court looking into the allegations? Both agencies failed to investigate the allegations of abuse and Oceanside Police stated that the father is a “likeable guy” and has chosen to ignore medical reports and Scioto County Children’s Services substantiation of sexual abuse so no actual charges have been filed against the father. Both departments keep pointing their fingers at the other, not wanting to take the lead in an investigation. Therefore, the father, Stephen Rice, remains free while the mother, Cherish Lewis, is in jail.

Judge Crow has ignored evidence of abuse in two separate hearings and each time ordered Jaelyn back to the father, the alleged offender. Judge Crow then granted custody to the father in February 2008. WHAT!?

At one point during a court hearing, the judge turned it around and suggested that Lewis had a condition called Münchhausen Syndrome by Proxy—a type of child abuse in which an attention-seeking parent fabricates or causes symptoms of various medical conditions in the child. This claim was later negated by testimony of a professional clinical counselor who spent time with Lewis.

On April 10, 2009, Ohio's 4th District Court of Appeals overturned the order granting the father custody—which just sent the case back to Crow.

Judge Crow ignored pleas from the mother, Cherish Lewis, to reconsider the evidence of physical and sexual abuse and to hear new evidence of sexual abuse substantiated by Children’s Services, of which Judge Crow had not heard. Crow issued an order that Lewis was to return the child to the father that day. Judge Crow then held Ms. Lewis in contempt of court for not producing Jaelyn. He ordered that Cherish stay in jail until she relinquishes her child. Again, Cherish remains in jail today. Meanwhile, Jessica Lewis (caption photo), Cherish's 19-year-old little sister and Jaelyn's aunt, faces charges of interfering with Rice's custody.

According to court testimony, when a minor, Stephen Rice was alleged to have sexually abused a four-year-old child. He is now twenty-five years old. Rice served in the Marines for two years, but was discharged. He says it was for failing a drug test. Since getting out of the Marines three years ago, Rice has moved twelve times.

There are several other cases on record where Judge Crow has granted an abusive or unfit father custody of the children. What is wrong with this judge!?

Judge Crow clearly has an unfounded bias in this case. During court proceedings, he said Cherish is “overly protective of her child.” I would be "overly protective" too if a judge were ordering me to give over my child to an abuser (even, and especially, if he was the father). The judge accused Cherish of having Münchhausen Syndrome by Proxy (defined above) and/or Parental Alienation Syndrome, which is defined as false or unfounded accusations of abuse against a parent—usually the father. But many of the therapists who treated both Jaelyn and Cherish testified in the various hearings that Cherish did not act in a manner consistent with Münchhausen Syndrome by Proxy or Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Why is the judge villainizing the mother in this case and granting custody to an abuser? Lewis has tremendous evidence against Rice to substantiate that he is a sexual predator and also, clearly, has violent tendencies.

You might think that this is a one-in-a million case, where a judge grants an abusive parent custody. But you would be wrong. In a recent article by Kathleen Russell, "Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong," Russell argues that many states too often award custody to the abusive parent. She says, according to one conservative estimate, that family courts order more than 58,000 children per year in the U.S. into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce or separation. This is an unacceptable statistic!

Many groups, including Action Ohio, Bikers Against Child Abuse, NOW Ohio, PAVE Survivor Justice, The Justice League of Ohio, Kourts for Kids, and many individuals are rallying for Cherish Lewis. They have come together to demand Cherish be released and justice delivered for her and Jaelyn. The groups got together on the Ohio courthouse steps to protest her incarceration following the ruling in July 2009. Unfortunately, Cherish remains in jail today and was not reunited with her daughter for Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Year's, and missed her little boy’s first birthday. This is a true tragedy.

If you are outraged, voice your protest by visiting http://www.cherishourchildren.net/

If you would like to send a letter of support to Cherish herself, here is the address:

Ms. Cherish Lewis

c/o Scioto County Jail

1025 16 Street

Portsmouth, Ohio 45662

You can find more information about this case at the Web site above, which is dedicated to Cherish Lewis and her daughter—as well as all other abused children who remain helpless, endangered, and denied access to justice.

Read More

Murder in Miami

by Donna Pendergast

Paula Sladewski, 26, walked out of a Miami nightclub and into a nightmare on the morning of January 3rd, 2010. Family and friends would never again see her alive. Her body was found later that night, burning in a North Miami dumpster about 10 miles from the club. Burnt beyond recognition, dental records were required to reveal her identity. The identity of her murderer remains a mystery.

A Michigan native, Sladewski was an aspiring model who appeared in a 2003 Ultimate Playboy Search video. She more recently worked as an exotic dancer to pay the bills. Sladewski and her live-in boyfriend, Kevin Klym, 34, split their time between Michigan and Rancho Cucamonga, California. They were visiting Miami to celebrate the New Year's weekend beginning with a New Year's Eve Lady Gaga concert. They spent the rest of the weekend relaxing and visiting Miami's clubs and bars.

They spent the early morning hours of January 3rd at Club Space, a cavernous Miami hot spot featuring a laser show and different genres of music on every floor. The club is known for late-night dancing. It is said that the club doesn't really come alive until 3:00 a.m., with the terrace opening at 4:00 a.m. and the party extending until late in the morning. There is a running joke amongst those in the know about professionals in the "beautiful people" crowd who have gone from the club in the morning straight to work. The club can attract unsavory types as well.

Around 7:00 a.m., Klym was ejected from the club after arguing with Sladewski. Klym has told police the argument erupted when he told Sladewski they needed to leave because she'd had too much to drink. She wanted to stay at the club and party. After the argument began, a bouncer escorted Klym from the premises leaving Sladewski behind, alone and allegedly intoxicated.

Klym told police that he returned to the hotel and went to sleep. When he awoke, Sladewski had still not returned. He began a frantic search to find her. He filed a missing persons report on Sunday night, just about the time her body was discovered burning in the dumpster.

For the last week and a half, Klym has been under police scrutiny and labeled a person of interest. The police and media have focused on the couple's tumultuous relationship, which included a history of violence. A former boyfriend has come forward, claiming that Sladewski recently texted him, saying Klym was going to kill her. Klym, meanwhile, was due in a Michigan courtroom on January 5th on an aggravated assault charge stemming from a December 3rd, 2009, incident. The allegation: Klym punched Sladewski in the face, breaking her nose and fracturing her cheek. The Michigan court issued a warrant for Klym's arrest when he failed to appear; he was still in Miami, involved in and cooperating with the investigation into Sladewski's murder.

The police report filed in the December aggravated assault case mentions another domestic violence incident between the couple from just five days earlier. Even Sladewski's sister, who has publicly said she doesn't believe Klym is involved in the murder, admits the couple's relationship would often become violent when they were drinking.

But it might not be that simple. Surveillance footage from the club shows a woman who appears to be Sladewski leaving the club about 20 minutes after the bouncer ejected Klym. The video shows Sladewski accompanied by an unidentified black man; the couple is holding hands. Police have also verified parts of Klym's alibi. Klyms's story that he took a cab back to the hotel checked out, although nothing verifies the time he arrived. Perhaps most compelling, the couple did not rent a car while in Miami, seemingly making it impossible for Klym to transport a body any significant distance.

The mystery surrounding Paula Sladewski's brutal and sadistic murder has made the national news. Miami police have issued a warning stating that a brutal and sadistic murderer is on the loose. The only question is whether it is the devil who is known or another devil who took advantage of a vulnerable target. Only time will tell.

Statements in this post are my own and not intended to reflect the views opinion or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Read More

What makes a true crime book bad?

 by Laura James
 
As much as I love to read true crime books, I have to admit that this genre produces some real schlock alongside some brilliant books.

At left is my nominee for worst true crime cover art in the 500-year history of this genre. May this record stand for all time. The first time I saw it, I wished I could send the family of this victim of sexual murder some flowers to make up for this awful image and hurtful title. And put the author under surveillance.

Of course, some books are just poorly written. But poor writing plagues every genre. Alas, some problems are specific to true crime.

Besides a terrible cover, what is it, exactly, that can make a true crime book bad? Here is my list of pet peeves. I'm eager to hear other opinions, too.

1. Fictionalizing. Some authors cheat. They manufacture details. They invent conversations. This drives me nuts. These days, publishers often insist that this technique be disclosed in an author's note at the beginning of a book. When I come across these notes, it colors my reading. I wonder, is this the part that's made up? That's why I think fictionalizing should disqualify an author from receiving a true crime award. It's easy to write a brilliant book when you get to make up the details. Not always so easy when you stick to the rules.

2. Wrong details. It's not so much the level of detail that can be a problem (though some reviewers nitpick authors on this account). When a book goes into tremendous detail about matters not of direct relevance to a case, or to the reader's understanding of a crime, it slows readers and prompts them to skim -- or put down the book. An example: one book I (tried to) read recently contained huge paragraphs detailing the professional background of every police officer involved in an investigation. And there were a lot of them. Tedious. Very tedious.

3. Crossed sub-genres. One popular sub-genre is the police procedural -- books which usually concern cases that required dogged or inventive police work. In such books, the method used to catch a killer is the story. In other cases, however, the police work is straightforward. There is no reason to dwell overlong on the investigation or even on the trial -- but some authors do.

In many spousal murder stories, for example, the guilt of a spouse is evident, the legal work uncomplicated. Readers of these stories want details on the marriage -- not the investigation. We want to know how the happy couple ended up at each other's throats. Too many authors don't get it.

4. "Shocking photos!" When is this tagline going to die? Another pet peeve: photo captions that give it all away. Like many readers, I flip to the middle to check out the pictures as I'm reading. A caption of  "Defendant on Death Row" spoils the read.

5. Disrespect. Though this is fortunately rare, some books contain gratuitous profanity and obnoxious, flippant asides. I recently (tried to) read a book in which the author dropped the f-bomb every few pages -- in the narrative, not in quotes. Yuck.

So what's the worst true crime book you've ever read? Why was it awful? What makes a book bad? And will this genre ever pull these weeds?

Read More

Murder By Numbers

By Susan Murphy-Milano

Over the summer of 1976, friends and acquaintances from the neighborhood gathered one last time before returning for our final year of high school. Several of us sat around a bonfire talking about our plans for the future. I was working as a cashier at a drug store in the neighborhood trying to save money for college and my first apartment. Greg Godzik, who was 17 at the time, spoke of what he was going to do with great conviction. “I’m going to go into the Navy and then apply to aviation school. I want to work on airplanes.” Then Greg boasted that he'd landed a job at a construction outfit called PDM Contractors because he didn't mind doing the odd jobs that his boss required such as heavy lifting and cleaning work. The money was good, and he needed parts for his rusted-out 1966 Pontiac.


Greg had grown up and matured into a responsible young adult. I would see him in the hallway at school every so often , or he would stop in by the drug store where I worked as a cashier from time to time with his employer, John Wayne Gacy, for cans of soda and chips. Greg looked fantastic.

After the Thanksgiving holiday a group including Greg made plans to ring in the New Year in the basement of a friend’s house.


Fourteen days before Christmas there was a small blurb in the neighborhood newspaper that Greg had disappeared and police found his car abandoned in a nearby Chicago suburb. Something was terribly wrong. Greg lived and breathed for that car. He treated like it was his baby. There was no way in hell he would have just left it. News of Greg’s disappearance was all anyone could talk about at school. Detectives interviewed kids, asking if they knew where he could have gone. I learned a month earlier Greg had taken the exam for the Navy and planned to go immediately after graduation.


Months passed without a word. From time to time a story would be written offering a reward and asking the public’s help with any information that could direct authorities to the missing young man.


 On December 11, 1978, a 15-year-old Des Plaines high school sophomore, Robert Piest, disappeared shortly after leaving work at a pharmacy where Gacy had recently completed a remodeling job. Police put Gacy under surveillance, and when it was learned that two teenage employees of Gacy, Gregory Godzik and John Butkovich, also had recently disappeared, the police obtained a search warrant for Gacy's home. A roll of film belonging to Piest was seized in the ensuing search. A second search warrant was executed and three lime-covered bodies were found in the crawl space. Gacy pointed Chicago police detectives to the precise locations of certain bodies in the crawl space and stated that he had lured the victims to his home, either expressly for sex or through the promise of employment, and then strangled or asphyxiated them.

On December 30, 1978, a dozen of us from the neighborhood gathered across the street from the home of serial killer John Wayne Gacy. One by one we each began to cry, silently. I wanted to ask if anyone knew what number they marked Greg’s body, but I was paralyzed by the horror of the makeshift grave markers. The police marked each body recovered by number (photo left).  A total of 29 bodies were unearthed on the property. Four more were discovered in a nearby river.


Greg Godzik's murder will be forever associated with the worst serial killer in history. But for those of us who knew Greg, the image we will always remember is of him driving his 1966 rusted-out Pontiac around the neighborhood or racing on a Saturday night against someone from another part of town on an old dirt road.


John Wayne Gacy was convicted of 33 murders of mostly teenage boys. He was sentenced to death for only 12 of the murders (12 proved to have been committed after Illinois had passed post-Furman death penalty), and he was sentenced to natural life in prison for the others.
 

Gacy was executed May 10, 1994 by lethal injection.

Read More