How To Stop a Stalker

by Gina Simmons, Ph.D.

Whip-smart, blonde, from a loving family, Peggy enthusiastically prepared for medical school. For the past three years, she'd dated a man named Patrick. Her family noticed changes in her personality after she entered into a relationship with Patrick. Peggy then broke up with him. Patrick relentlessly called, followed, and sent messages to Peggy. He jumped out of the bushes at her workplace with flowers, a ring, and a marriage proposal. Peggy insisted the relationship was over. Patrick circulated a flier in her neighborhood slandering her. Peggy reported Patrick's behavior to the police.

January is National Stalking Awareness Month, and cases like Peggy's highlight the importance of educating women.

That's because most stalking victims are women. In fact, one in twelve women will face victimization-by-stalking within her lifetime. One in 45 men will experience stalking victimization. Most victims of stalking knew their offender in some way. About 10 percent of victims were stalked for five years or more. About four in ten stalkers threaten not only the victim, but also the victim's family, friends, co-workers and even the family pet. Stalkers threaten workplaces and the community.

Peggy and her family went out of state to attend her brother's wedding. She brought her new boyfriend, Mark, with her. Patrick took the opportunity, in the family's absence, to vandalize Peggy's mother's home in Ohio and burn down Peggy's boyfriend's house in Albuquerque. Peggy, her family, and her boyfriend reported the crimes to the police.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics issued a Special Report on stalking victimization in 2009. Researchers found that typical stalking behaviors include:

• making unwanted telephone calls
• sending unsolicited and unwanted letters or e-mails
• following and/or spying on the victim
• showing up at places the victim attends without a legitimate reason
• waiting at places the victim is expected to attend
• leaving unwanted items, presents, or flowers
• posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth

If you have experienced at least one of these behaviors on more than one occasion, felt fear for your safety or the safety of a family member as a result of that behavior, or experienced additional behaviors that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear, then you are a victim of stalking. Victims stalked by a previous sexual partner are at higher risk for violence. 76 percent of female murder victims were stalked by their intimate partner and 67 percent experienced physical abuse. Of those who were physically abused, 89 percent had also been stalked in the twelve months before their murder.

Peggy, her boyfriend and family felt frustrated at the delays in the trial against Patrick. Despite the threats, vandalism and relentless pursuit of Peggy, Patrick still remained free. With his trial months away, and in fear for her safety, Peggy went into hiding. She set up a new life in another state, hundreds of miles from her stalker. She informed her new employer, friends and neighbors, advising them to call police if they saw her stalker. Peggy kept an unlisted phone number and address, and communicated with her family using every security precaution.

In 1990, California became the first state to enact an anti-stalking statute. Since then, every state has passed some type of anti-stalking or anti-harassment legislation. Judge Wells, former head of the Stalking Unit at the San Diego District Attorney's Office, said that there is no one profile of a stalker. Studies suggest that stalkers come from all walks of life. Stalkers can be intelligent, charming, and sophisticated, while some appear mentally ill, have controlling, dependent or narcissistic personality traits. The most dangerous, like Patrick, often have a love affair with guns and the power they can wield with weapons.

Patrick hired a private investigator to find Peggy. Even with a valid restraining order against him, the investigator gave him Peggy's location. Patrick checked an assault weapon and handgun at the airport, and flew to California. He picked up his bag with the two weapons and drove to Peggy's street. Posing as a detective he showed a delivery person Peggy's photo. The delivery person recognized Peggy and gave Patrick her exact address.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Kerry Wells says about stalking:

"The primary advantage to having a restraining order against the suspect is that it allows him to be immediately arrested when a violation occurs. It is thus vitally important that, when a police agency is attempting to utilize such orders as part of an overall intervention plan, the involved personnel be prepared to respond quickly to each violation. Only then is there a demonstration that the 'system' is determined to sanction the suspect in order to control his behavior." (From a presentation at the Stalking the Stalker Conference, 2001)

Restraining orders often provoke attacks because the perpetrator sees the order as humiliating or a threat to his power. If law enforcement can't respond in time, many victims obtain no protection from the order. A restraining order should not give victims any sense of security. Instead it should be seen as an aid to law enforcement. If the perpetrator is apprehended, a restraining order can allow stiffer penalties to hold him longer. As Wells says, a restraining order should be considered only one piece of a comprehensive protection plan.

Patrick attacked Peggy outside her home, duct-taped her hands and beat her head bloody with his gun. She broke away from him, ran into a neighbor's home, and called 911. Patrick broke down two doors to get to her. With the police outside the door, he shot Peggy in the back of the head and then killed himself.

How do you stop a stalker? Some victims report that the behavior stopped after the stalker was warned by police (15.6 percent). Others stopped after the victim agreed to talk with them (13.3 percent). About 12.2 percent of stalkers stopped after a friend or relative intervened. Only about a tenth of victims reported that a protective, restraining or stay away order stopped the stalking behavior. Threat Assessment expert, Gavin de Becker, cautions against giving pat answers to victims of stalking. Each case should be viewed individually, considering the behaviors of the perpetrator and victim within their unique context. If you're a victim of stalking, contact the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals for a referral.

Peggy Klinke's sister, Debbie Riddle, called the Stalking Resource Center, after her sister's tragic murder, with a passionate need to make things better for other stalking victims. She participated in a national program on Lifetime Television, hosted by Erin Brockovich, and a Lifetime video to train law enforcement about stalking. Last month, President Obama issued the first presidential proclamation declaring January, National Stalking Awareness Month.

We can all help by promoting National Stalking Awareness Month on our web and social media sites. Educate yourself and let others know about the Stalking Resource Center.

Peggy's last words, moments before she was shot, were:

"Please tell my mother that I love her. Please tell my niece that she will now have a guardian angel watching over her ... and tell my sister to name her baby after me."

For Peggy, her family, and all victims of stalking, let's never forget.

Read More

Another Gun Control Debate

by Stacy Dittrich

It seems like every time we have a national tragedy involving guns, gun control advocates get their knickers in a bunch. After the Arizona murders, a heated debate over gun control has, again, ensued. Do we need stricter gun laws, or should people have the right to defend themselves? First, it truly amazes me the misinformation out there on the murderer, Jared Loughner’s, weapon of choice—a Glock 19 9mm; a semi-automatic handgun. The number of news organizations that referred to this as an automatic weapon was astonishing. Even celebrity gossip site TMZ proved they should stick to Lindsay or Britney meltdown coverage when they posted a ridiculous survey asking if people think automatic weapons should be banned. Pay attention, Harvey!

Automatic weapons are already illegal, except for those who obtain a Class 3 Federal Permit. Good luck with that.

It may surprise many people that over the past decade as gun restriction laws have eased, gun murders have lowered. Why is that? It’s my opinion that the people who arm themselves make the criminals hesitate more before acting. “Hmm, should I rob that dude or not? He could have a gun.” Here’s another argument. People think that if guns are banned totally, then the number of violent crimes will go down. Not so. With a few exceptions, i.e. Jared Loughner, the law-abiding citizens who carry guns are not the ones out there committing the crimes. It’s the criminals who can’t legally purchase guns anyway, so what difference does it make? The criminals obtain their weapons by a secondary method or theft. All a ban will do is expand the black market gun trade for the criminals. At least give people a chance to defend themselves. I saw an interesting comment on a site that perfectly summed up a gun ban. It read, “In Mexico guns are illegal. How’s that workin’ out for them?” Those poor people down there who aren’t allowed to carry guns to defend themselves don’t stand a chance.

Another aspect is the “Guns kill people” versus “No, people kill people" argument. I’m siding with the latter. Last year in the United States, 9,369 people were murdered in gun-related violence. Those of you screaming, “See! That’s why we should ban guns!” hang on a minute. Last year in the U.S., nearly 18,000 people died in DUI-related car accidents. Do cars kill people, too? Should we ban them? There were also approximately 801 people murdered by someone’s hands/feet. And, yes, they honestly have a statistic for that. I think we should ban those too so we can all roll around as torsos. I would love to hear your comments on what could possibly be the difference.

In 2009, the FBI reported that 215 people were killed in what they title “justifiable homicide." The FBI defines this as an average citizen who kills a felon in self defense during the commission of a crime. I look at this differently, as in 215 criminals out of our hair (good riddance) and 215 lives saved—the shooters’ lives.

On the heels of the Arizona shootings (when I say heels, I mean that the shooting victims were barely through the hospital doors), New York Rep. Peter King introduced the most asinine piece of legislation I have ever seen. He wanted to make it illegal for anyone to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress. Unless Congress members walk around with a billboard on their heads that says, “I’m a Congress member!” I don’t know how you could differentiate a lawmaker from an average citizen. Not to mention, 1,000 feet stretches pretty far. I don’t know many Congress members’ names in my area, but the ones I do know, I don’t have a clue what they look like. Let’s say a citizen legally carrying a firearm walks into a gas station, not knowing that a Congress member is around the corner giving a speech at the local elementary school. He can be arrested? Furthermore, does Mr. King truly think a deranged maniac, hell-bent on murder, is going to worry about violating a gun law?

The issue of gun control clearly isn’t going away anytime soon. We’ve had this argument for decades and will continue to do so. In the meantime, I think I’ve given you a few extras to think about. The solution to gun violence is for law enforcement to start cracking down on those carrying firearms illegally. This wouldn’t have helped in Jared Loughner’s case since his handgun was purchased legally, but, no matter what laws there are, there will always be a nut, like Loughner, flying under the radar. Stiffer penalties for those possessing firearms illegally must be a priority.

Just last week, New Jersey police officer Christopher Matlosz, 27, was literally executed in his police cruiser by loser thug Jahmell Crockam, 19. The local prosecutors had been preparing a warrant for a previous weapons violation against Crockam, but they clearly didn’t move fast enough. Obviously, Crockam didn’t have a gun permit.

Read More

Medicinal Marijuana Laws on Trial

by Diane Dimond

In November 2007, Steele Smith and his wife Theresa were arrested by federal DEA agents in Orange County, California, for cultivating and selling marijuana. But the Smith’s aren’t your run-of-the-mill drug dealers, and the federal government has left them in legal limbo ever since.

The backstory:  In the summer of 2001, Steele was a successful self-employed marketing man who was felled by a gut-wrenching mystery illness.  He couldn’t eat and quickly dropped 40 pounds from his already thin 6-foot, 7-inch frame.  His doctors were stymied about what caused the debilitating condition.  After four excruciating months, a rare-disease specialist diagnosed a condition called Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, which pockmarks a victim’s upper gastrointestinal tract with multiple, painful ulcers.  Morphine was prescribed for Steele’s constant pain and he lived in that legally induced drug dependent state for the next three years eventually becoming an opiate addict.

In the summer of 2004, his devoted wife guided him on a journey toward detox. “It was either going to kill him or me,” Theresa told me. “I was black and blue from his outbursts. He couldn’t help it, of course, but something had to be done!”

It was an agonizing time, but Steele finally found the strength to wean himself off morphine. But Z-E is a lifelong affliction, and he was still hobbled by the lack of nourishment and the incapacitating pain. The Smith’s desperate search for alternatives brought them to information about the benefits of medicinal marijuana, made legal in California in 1996. The Smith’s sought and got a medical recommendation for Steele to try marijuana. (Under federal law, an actual prescription isn’t allowed for a so-called schedule 1 drug like heroin and, yes, marijuana)  They were directed to dispensaries in Los Angeles, an hour's drive away.

“All we found were drug-dealer types. They were all long haired, tattooed … basically drug dealers who got a store front--intimidating, like your typical head-shop,” Theresa explained.

But, miraculously, the medicinal marijuana worked. For the first time in years Steele was able to eat and manage his pain. His marketing ideas flowed again, and the couple decided to fill the void in Orange County and open their own medicinal marijuana dispensaries to bring relief to others. Their lawyer says they did everything right under California law.

“Mr. Smith set up a legitimate 501 non-profit corporation and he paid all applicable taxes,” a legal brief written by Smith’s attorney Eric Shevin asserts. “He issued patient ID cards, followed pharmacy labeling requirements. He even provided free medical equipment to his customers, like wheelchairs, walkers, porta-potties and wheelchair racks for cars. Mr. Smith allowed the Fullerton Police to document his grow operation thoroughly … and the lead officer even complimented him on the cleanliness and legitimacy of the operation.” By 2006, more than 1,000 patients were registered in the Smith’s database.

So, why were the Smiths arrested and threatened with 10 years in prison?  Because, back then, the U.S. Justice Department decided that the federal law against cultivating marijuana should trump the California law.   The Smith’s were caught up in a classic battle of a state’s right to pass its own laws.  Theresa spent two months behind bars.  The ailing Steele was held in a maximum-security jail for 10 months. Upon release, he was 20 pounds lighter and again hooked on narcotics given to him for pain.  The Smiths lost everything, including their home, cars, their savings, and they had to borrow money from Theresa’s widowed mother, who died a short time later.  They’ve lived under a terrible cloud of legal uncertainty for three years, all the while still grappling with Steele’s disease.

Today’s Justice Department looks at the state’s rights issue differently, and the Smith’s trial will surely be a landmark case closely watched by the 15 states that currently allow cultivation and sale of medicinal marijuana. It will be a milestone verdict because federal Judge Cormac J. Carney has made the unprecedented decision to allow a federal jury--for the first time ever--to hear affirmative testimony about California’s medicinal marijuana law.  This won’t just be about someone having been caught growing pot. The Smiths will be allowed to give groundbreaking testimony about why their interpretation of the state’s law led them to believe they were acting legally.

In 2008, candidate President Barack Obama told an interviewer, “I think the basic concept (of) using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs, prescribed by doctors (is) entirely appropriate.” Fourteen months ago, his Justice Department instructed all federal prosecutors not to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they followed state laws.

So, now, the feds are left squarely between a rock and a hard place with their three-year-old case against the Smiths.

Perhaps, because Judge Carney has a track record of ruling against prosecutors who he sees as overstepping their authority, the feds decided late last week to ask for yet another delay in the December 21 trial, postponing it until late March 2011.

“It’s the eleventh or twelfth delay,” Theresa Smith said in a weary voice. She sees the fight as a state’s rights issue, but also, she says, “as a patient’s issue. If it was meth or heroin or some opiate, I wouldn’t say that. But this is a plant that God put here for a reason. It helps people--so many people.”

Read More

Dying Bird and Fish Mystery in Arkansas: Solved

by Andrea Campbell

It reads like some kind of horror film, reports of 3,000 (to 5,000) birds mysteriously falling out of the air and dropping dead in Beebe, Arkansas, before midnight on New Year’s Eve. The birds were said to be littering a 1.5-square-mile area, landing on homes, cars and lawns. And then 100,000 dead drum fish are found floating and washing up on the Arkansas River banks near Ozark. It’s some kind of staging for a movie right?

No Film Trickery

Unfortunately, this is not in preparation for a movie, and the residents near the river are being advised by authorities not to eat the dead fish. Uh, yeah, okay—who was even thinking that?

Here we are, welcoming in the new year when thousands of red-wing blackbirds take a dive from the sky in Beebe, and then more than 100 miles away the fish are belly up along a 20-mile stretch. But the Arkansas Game & Fish authorities claimed the deaths weren’t related.

Bebee Residents Sing Bye-Bye Blackbird

Over the holiday weekend, crews arrived suited up in their protective

gear wearing gas masks and gloves, picking up the carcasses. Apparently, blackbird roosts in Beebe are a nuisance because of ankle-to-knee-deep bird droppings in some areas, so the residents aren’t keen on their habits. Ten years ago, wildlife officials lobbed blanks from both shotguns and  a cannon to disturb a roost of thousands, but the black-winged birds decided to come home again.

Scary Elsewhere Too

Arkansas is not the only state getting the same weird vibe. Two million dead fish were found in Maryland along the Chesapeake Bay. They were identified as adult spot and juvenile croakers. Environmental officials there claim the bay area temperatures were colder than usual and, although this fish kill was large, it’s not the biggest; 15 million succumbed to “cold water stress” in 1976.

Louisiana birds took some headlines, too, when 500 of their birds decorated a quarter-mile stretch of highway in Pointe Coupee Parish, close to Baton Rouge. The dead there were identified as starlings and more red-winged blackbirds. It’s not looking good for the ed-winged blackbird, I guess. Biologists there are sending the carcasses off to laboratories in Wisconsin and Georgia for testing. In 1999, an estimated 3,000 birds hit the ground in northern Louisiana in a place called Morehouse Parish. It was discovered that those birds died from an E. coli infection located in the air sacs in their skulls.

Not Scary?

No one really sounds alarmed, and scientists say that large numbers of bird deaths are not uncommon. I know that makes us all feel better, right? A website set up by the U.S. Geological Service has a map that shows mass deaths of birds and other wildlife from June through December. Five of the sites list deaths of at least 1,000 birds and many others count as high as 500.

Authority Comments

Some comments from Arkansas officials are that the birds may have been hit by lightning or were stressed out by fireworks displays. Now the fish story is more problematic, as they say that fish kills this size are rare. Many of the fish have been sent to the University of Arkansas for examination and testing. The associate director of the University’s Aquaculture and Fisheries Center was quoted as saying, "It's your classic boom and bust. A group of fish will go into a population boom, and then they're competing for food, so they may not be in really good condition. Then during a cold snap the environment changes with the temperature, and their immune systems are compromised and can't always fight infection." He temporarily ruled out a pollutant because only the drum fish were affected. Keith Stephens of the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission told CNN he agreed and that “… if it was from a pollutant, it would have affected all of the fish, not just drum fish."

Interesting Factoids

There have been some interesting comments batted around over this event, and one comes from Karen Rowe, an ornithologist with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. She said birds often become confused and just drop to earth. It seems that blackbirds have poor eyesight, and if they get startled, they fly into the ground.

Fireworks, Poison, Bad Weather, What?

After all the supposition, it appears now that the birds succumbed to a thunderstorm aftermath. After being ripped from their nighttime roosts, they got waterlogged and died from exposure. A tornado blew through the state and killed three people in Cincinnati, Arkansas, so experts think it may have been related. It seems birds get knocked around from lightning, hail and storm updrafts often enough.

The most recent testing results, released Wednesday by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, show that red-winged blackbirds died from blunt force trauma on New Year's Eve. The report supports preliminary findings from the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission released Monday.

As far as the fish, well, disease is the cause. An unnamed state official said that it’s not unusual. Since there is no further data on that, I am suggesting that no one around there order fish for dinner.

Bird photo courtesy of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEPHEN B. THORNTON.

Read More

The Psychotic Assassin: Jared Lee Loughner

by Gina Simmons, Ph.D.

A delusional young loner becomes obsessed with a blonde woman. Disgusted with politicians and the government, he writes rambling rants difficult to understand. He hides the truth about his life from his family. He isolates from friends, buys a gun, attempts to assassinate a politician.

While this sounds like the story of accused Arizona mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner, it's actually a synopsis of the iconic 1976 film Taxi Driver, starring Robert de Niro and Jodie Foster. Robert de Niro plays Travis Bickle, a psychotic cab driver in New York City. His attempt to assassinate a politician is thwarted. Through a series of random events, he changes his hostile focus from the politician to the pimp of a child prostitute, played by Foster. He commits mass murder.

The film made news again in 1981 when John Hinkley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Hinkley's psychotic obsession with Jodie Foster's performance in the film reportedly inspired his attack on the President. Schizophrenic individuals, like the rest of us, are influenced by environment, media, family and random events. They don't just interpret those events rationally. For example, years ago, the supermarket chain Alpha Beta had a television slogan, "Tell a friend," to persuade people to shop there. A colleague of mine shared a story about a paranoid schizophrenic who, when told he would be going on a field trip from the hospital to a supermarket, said, "I won't go to Alpha Beta. They want you to 'tell a friend.' I don't want anyone to know where I shop."

According to news reports, Jared Lee Loughner engaged in bizarre, hostile behavior last year at Pima Community College. He later withdrew from the college after campus officials told him he needed a mental health evaluation and clearance before they would allow him to return. He then legally purchased a Glock 9 millimeter semi-automatic weapon and, months later, shot 20 people.

From the evidence reported in the news to date, and from Jared Loughner's disjointed YouTube videos, it appears he suffered from a psychotic disorder. Psychosis consists of a break with reality. The individual's thoughts don't connect with a logical thread. Sometimes they speak in a word salad, as if their thoughts were put into a bowl and randomly tossed. Loughner likely suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is an incurable mental illness, with genetic links, associated with significant destruction of brain tissue over time. Symptoms of the disease include hallucinations (sensing things that are not real) and delusions (false beliefs). The disease usually begins in late adolescence and early adulthood.

It appears Lougner's troubles began in his junior year of high school. That's when he broke up with his girlfriend, dropped out of high school, and slowly began to deteriorate. He allegedly abused drugs and alcohol, developed an interest in guns, and suffered from paranoid delusions. These delusions included the belief in mind control and in secret government conspiracies. Some schizophrenics, plagued by delusions of grandeur, believe they possess special powers or special importance.

Schizophrenics can unnerve us. In addition to the fear of death, most humans instinctively fear madness. The insane person doesn't respond to normal social cues, verbal persuasion or even common-sense safety. We feel helpless and confused about how to deal with their bizarre behavior. However, most mentally ill people never commit acts of aggression. The rate of violent acts for the mentally ill closely matches that of the general population. 

Researchers found common characteristics in those mentally ill people at high risk for violence:

• Usually males under the age of 43
• Substance abusers
• Bipolar or depressed combined with substance abuse
• Income below $20,000 per year
• History of family violence, criminal activity, or juvenile detention
• Victimized, divorced, separated or unemployed in the past year

We can see this list of characteristics and wonder why someone could not stop this attack. To prevent other similar attacks by the mentally ill, we need to support:

• Good access to affordable mental health treatment, medications and hospitals. (See the Mental Health Parity Act)
• Accurate databases and strong laws preventing psychotic individuals from owning guns
• Public education about mental illness and treatment programs
• Law enforcement specially trained to manage mentally ill offenders (Special Response Teams)

Families with a mentally ill loved one often live for decades with a chronic anxiety: "Will he commit suicide?" "How long can she stay in the hospital?" "What programs can help him stay on his medication?" "Will the insurance approve this new medication?" The list of worries and dilemmas goes on and on. In addition to this tsunami of worries, mental illness carries with it a stigma of shame and blame. Some families try to hide the illness, growing more isolated even when they desperately need the help of the community. Many bloggers and pundits blame Lougner's family, deepening their devastating pain.

With education, community and mental health support, many psychotic individuals can lead more productive lives. Some can hold jobs and become self-supporting. Others will need care and support for the rest of their lives. Mental illness is not an individual problem. Mental illness poses a problem for families, communities, nations and international relations. Public figures bear a greater responsibility for the power and influence they wield. In the interest of good judgment, I suggest posing the editorial question, "How would a paranoid schizophrenic gun nut view this ad or speech?" Or ask, WWTBD? (What would Travis Bickle do?)

Read More

Tu be or not Tu be

by Anne Bremner

In the ever-evolving investigation into the death of Michael Jackson, there has been yet another bizarre twist: Dr. Conrad Murray has lodged his defense as suicide by Jackson. But there was another bizarre twist before of great note; the one-minute YouTube video released by Dr. Murray in August 2009, a sort of infomercial for the old PR tactic of answering the question you wish was asked. In this instance, a PR ploy that may well have backfired.

While YouTube is unquestionably an effective vehicle for producing and disseminating an unassailable statement, the public is not that easily duped. Evading cameras, microphones and probing questions--understandable. When that silence is broken by an obviously orchestrated statement such as Murray's, however, it is redolent of propaganda. Truth isn't delicate, fragile or easily shrouded. It can withstand being scrutinized, poked at, and examined from every angle. We, the public, have a healthy skepticism towards anything too slickly packaged. This is déjà vu all over again.

YouTube allows us to create our own entertainment, create instant celebrities--the piano playing cat, skateboarding bulldog, Snowball the disco cockatiel. It is a forum for raw footage of everything from natural disasters and amazing accidents, to horrifying incidents--the honor killing of a young woman by her own family, protests that turn into riots, or the abuse of power. It is predictable that such a powerful medium would mutate into an easily accessible marketing tool. 

Murray's tape, however, is a prima facia case of exploiting the medium, some would say, not well. The slickly produced video is out of place among the delightfully homespun wobbly, grainy, videos we find so endearing. The obvious splice in Murray's short video brings to mind (for those of us old enough to remember) the Nixonian 18-minute gap in the Watergate tapes. It raises our curiosity, prompting us to ask, "What was left out?"

Couldn't this man make it through a 60-second statement without requiring editing?

Disseminating information on YouTube is the cyber equivalent of a driving a top-speed funny car dragster--a short burst of excitement that requires the ability to maneuver a vehicle at lightening speed, and more importantly, bring it to a stop. As any lawyer who has represented a high-profile client will tell you, we spend far more time and effort keeping clients out of the public eye, flying under the radar. High publicity, sensational cases require meticulous handling, from the basics of keeping a client safe and safeguarding their privacy, to preserving their legal rights, staunching the flow of misinformation, and conducting independent investigation while responding to media, law enforcement and government inquiries.

While many lawyers utilize the advice and services of public relations professionals, there is a danger in confusing clever PR for skilled lawyering. In many cases, the lawyers and PR agents involved in a case early on will be replaced or dismissed as a case gathers steam and proceeds through the judicial system. One of the difficulties of taking on a client in those circumstances is undoing the damage that well-intentioned but detrimental PR may have already done--clients who have said too much, said the wrong thing, given the wrong impression. PR professionals can often have divergent purposes from defense lawyers. PR may concentrate on salvaging a career, public image, and even arranging paid appearances or book deals without an eye to how that may play out to a jury later.

As we often say, silence requires no PR. In this case, it may turn out that the evidence will exonerate Dr. Murray if it proves impossible to isolate, from a medically convoluted sequence of events, a single act that irrefutably lead to Jackson's death. Witnesses can and do lie, but evidence never does. In the certainty that evidence will exonerate, no words are necessary. The problem with self-serving statements is that they are often made by individuals whose credibility is already in dispute. I laughed at my 20-something neighbor's reaction to Murray's video. "The dude has passed the point where we're just gonna take his word for it. Dur," my neighbor said.

As the medium evolves, so will its implementation. I love it as a forum for all sorts of wacky, fascinating, shocking, inspiring and entertaining moments. As a lawyer, I would approach its use with great caution. Tu-be? Dancing Cats, singing dogs, surfing squirrels. The rest, at least for now, is not tu-be.

Now, Dr. Murray is presenting his defense in person. From the sublime to the ridiculous, the resulting disbelief may remain the same.

Read More

Holding the Prison System Accountable

by Kathryn Casey

I recently went to my P.O. Box, something I do rather infrequently, I confess. Waiting for me was a letter from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) informing me that Laura Hall has been denied parole. On one level, I felt relief. I wrote about Laura in A Descent Into Hell. She helped Colton Pitonyak dismember the body of a young woman named Jennifer Cave and then took him on a joyride to Mexico to escape apprehension, telling a friend, "That's just how I roll."

Why was I relieved? Because of Laura's own words. She's been incarcerated since 2007, and she still refuses to accept responsibility for her actions. She played an obvious role in this horrific murder. There's evidence she was in that apartment with Pitonyak during the time Jennifer's body was mutilated and she bragged to others that she participated. She told one woman, "How many people can tell their grandchildren that they helped cut up a body?" Her tone indicated she thought it was something to be proud of. She's never voiced any remorse for Jennifer's death, calling her a "bitch" and a "whore." It's as if she fails to even acknowledge that a human being died in that apartment, one that was loved by her family and friends.

Then there are Laura's own words, played for the jurors at her recent re-sentencing, when she threatened so many people with violence, from the victim's mother to the judge and jury. She threatened her own mother, saying something akin to, "I should just kill you." On the tapes, she even said she planned to commit suicide behind bars and take others with her.

Why did I also feel a great sense of sadness reading that this vindictive and violent young woman will be locked up for at least another year? Two reasons, the first is that Laura is a young woman with a lot of potential. Even with her world crumbling around her, she earned a degree from the University of Texas. At one time, she wanted to go to law school. Gradually, over the past years, she's become an unstable and frightening human being.

The second reason: The notation on the TDCJ letter says that Laura will again be eligible for parole in December of this year.

The truth is that Laura Hall is going to get out some day. Her sentence was ten years. TDCJ can only keep her for so long, and then she'll be released, set free. And the frightening thing is little if anything anyone can describe as rehabilitation has been going on with Laura during her stay in prison. Instead, from reports I've received from behind bars, the experience is making this very troubled young woman ever more unstable.

When we talk of any prison, no matter where in the world, there's the age old argument over whether the goal is to rehabilitate or to punish. I've always believed that in a perfect system it's a balance of the two. Yes, it's important to punish inmates, to make them understand that their actions have consequences. Prison shouldn't be a health spa without fees. And it's not. I've been in prisons and jails in different parts of the nation, and I assure you that none of them are country clubs. They're places filled with pain and desperation

Beyond punishment lies rehabilitation. In truth, this is as or more important. If we don't find ways to turn around inmates like Laura Hall, ones who will one day be freed, we're risking the safety of future victims. Sure, it costs money. But beyond the suffering of future victims, talking just dollars and cents, it's going to cost way more to have to retry and rehouse inmates we've failed to turn around before they walk out prison gates. How do we know the prison system isn't rehabilitating? Look at the recidivism rate. In a Bureau of Justice study done in 15 states, 67 percent of released prisoners were rearrested within three years. During that same time period, 51 percent returned to prison.

The bottom line is that our prisons are clearly not preparing inmates to function in the outside world.

Read More