commentary by Patrick H. Moore

We humans have had a long and interesting relationship with animals; in fact, some would claim that we evolved from animals – a branch of the primate family to be exact. Without arguing the pros and cons of evolution, it is fair and accurate to state that a great many humans truly love not only our domesticated animal friends (note the “our” suggesting that the domesticated critters actually belong to us, as in “I love my doggie” or “I miss my cat”) but the beasts of the forests and fields as well.

In the case of an 81-year-old former school teacher residing in Sebring, Florida named Mary J. Musselman, her fondness for Florida black bears has landed her in what may prove to be fairly serious hot water. Ms. Musselman, who was already on probation after being arrested late last year for allegedly illegally feeding the bears, was arrested again last week for – you guessed it, feeding the bears. That’s not all, however. In addition to violating her probation by continuing to feed the bears after being specifically warned not to, Ms. Musselman actually threatened to kill the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer who arrested her. Thus, in addition to her probation violation, this beleaguered woman has been charged with resisting an officer with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer.

Ouch! Ms. Musselman may be lucky she was dealing with the Fish and Wildlife people. Had she been confronted solely by regular law enforcement, she might have shot her, or at the very least, tased, when she copped a ‘tude.

Gary Morse, a spokesman for the FWCC, said officers had been dealing with Ms. Musselman (and no doubt getting progressively more frustrated) since November of 2012 when they received a report that she was feeding the bears, which under Florida state law is a misdemeanor.

Although at first glance this bit of legislation may seem a bit arbitrary, there is actually a very good reason it’s on the books:

“It’s pretty well known what the consequences are of feeding bears,” said spokesman Morse, who went on to explain that bears who get used to being fed by humans will lose their instinctual fear of humans and will become more apt to search for food in areas where humans live. According to Morse, once this happens there’s little choice but to trap and euthanize the animal.

“You can’t relocate them because they become problems somewhere else,” said Morse.

Most of the problems between bears and humans in Florida are not caused by well-meaning but perhaps misguided good Samaritans such as Ms. Musselman intentionally feeding the furry beasts, but rather result from residents leaving food out for other animals (non-bears) or leaving garbage cans unsecured, with the unintended result that the bears, nocturnal marauders that they are, root through the garbage cans and devour the food.

Sadly, one of the local bears that Ms. Musselman was feeding has been deemed a danger and has reportedly been euthanized.

According to a FWCC probable cause affidavit, Ms. Musselman was placed on probation on Jan. 24th for two counts of feeding black bears. Prior to that, she had been placed on diversion, which means that if she didn’t violate the law for a certain period of time, her charges would have been expunged. But according to the affidavit, Ms. Musselman violated the diversion agreement which left the authorities with little choice other than to place her on probation.

Specifically, the evidence — as observed by an FWCC officer outside Ms. Musselman’s house – consisted of “numerous bowls and trays with birdseed and corn, four hanging birdfeeders with birdseed in them, and birdseed and whole corn on the ground.”

According to the affidavit, as part of her probation, Ms. Musselman had been ordered not to put out food for animals for a year. At that time, a judge ordered that FWCC officers check weekly on whether the defendant was obeying the terms of her probation.

Ms. Musselman apparently simply refused to obey the orders. When the judge got wind of that, he decided things had gone too far and ordered her arrested. When the officers went to her residence at 5240 Kenilworth Blvd. on Jan. 29th, Ms. Musselman reportedly ordered the officers off her property. Then, when FWCC officers assisted by Highlands County deputies tried to arrest her, she lunged at them and kicked them.

To make matters worse, a deputy told the FWCC officer that Ms. Musselman stated that when she’s released from custody, she will kill any FWCC officer who comes on her property.

*     *     *     *     *

Ms. Musselman is hardly without support in the community. A group of her former students, some from four decades ago, gathered out in front of her home on Thursday night and prayed for her. Her supporters have tried to bail her out but she is being held without bond.

Her former students have suggested that Ms. Musselman cannot fully comprehend the judge’s orders or the seriousness of the charges.

“This is out of her character to act as she did,” said a former student named Tedder who added that Ms. Musselman would not have intentionally broken the law.

Her former students want her back home as soon as possible because her husband is dying of cancer. They are working to find a mental health advocate to go before a judge on her behalf at her next appearance which is slated for March 3rd.

Ms. Musselman and her husband reportedly have no children and no caregiver.

*     *     *     *    *

I would hope that the Floridian authorities go easy on this elderly and, perhaps, somewhat senile individual. Of course if they do – as likely as not – she will go right back to feeding the bears.

by Mike Roche

Until last Wednesday, the Darin and Kim Campbell family lived in a rented 1.6 million dollar Tampa mansion, the former home of retired tennis star James Blake. The house sat behind the gates of the prestigious and very private Avila development, which was populated with multimillion-dollar homes and occupied by celebrity powerbrokers and athletes. The neighborhood centerpiece was an exclusive private golf course. Darin Campbell, 49, was a business executive at VASATEC, a digital records management services company. His wife, Kim, 51, was a stay-at-home mom, who was active in the community and at her teenagers’ school. The Campbell children, Megan, 15, and Colin, 18, attended the prestigious Carollwood Day School. Megan was an honors student and dancer. Colin, who had just attended his senior prom, was a talented student and baseball player.

In the predawn hours, this past Wednesday, neighbors of the Campbell’s frantically summoned the fire department as they watched in horror as the opulent home became engulfed in flames. As firefighters battled the blaze, they discovered a grisly scene. Four unidentified bodies were located inside the house. Investigators quickly determined the fire was the result of an arson and the victims were killed by gunshot prior to the fire destroying the home.

Despite the outward appearance that the Campbell’s were the all-American family, there were cracks in the façade. Investigators have learned that in the days prior to fire, Darrin Campbell made several rather unusual moves. First, he purchased several gas cans at a home improvement store at about 8 a.m. on Sunday, May 4^th. An hour later, he bought over $600 worth of fireworks. The sales clerk at the fireworks store noted no unusual behavior from Darrin. On Tuesday, the day before the fire, he filled the gas cans at two separate service stations. He had already previously purchased a handgun in 2013.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Colonel Donna Lusczynski said, “Darrin Campbell, with the gun that was registered to him, systematically shot his son, his daughter and his wife in the head. He then placed fireworks throughout the residence. Used an accelerant to assist in lighting the fire. Lit the fire and then shot himself.”

*     *     *     *     *

Darrin and Kim Campbell moved from Michigan to Tampa in 2000 with their children. They built a home in an upscale neighborhood not far Tampa Airport. Their mortgage was a formidable  $546,000. In 2003, they acquired a vacant lot in another affluent development north of Tampa for $338,000. Darrin and Kim were thriving economically. They paid off the mortgage on the lot and sold the land for a handsome $160,000 profit in 2006.

During the Christmas Holidays, the Campbell family home was so lavishly decorated that the pleasing display drew crowds from neighboring communities. For four consecutive years, the home won honors as the “Best Decorated Holiday Home.” The family’s electric bill rose $800 during the holidays and they accepted donations to defray expenses. The Campbell’s then donated the $3,733 in donations to Metropolitan Ministries, a homeless support shelter for indigent families.

At the height of the real estate boom, the couple bought another vacant lot for $294,000 in the same development where their previous vacant lot was located. Although they still owned the new lot at the time of their deaths, the market had soured and the property was now worth one-third of the original purchase price. A lien was placed on the lot due to $7,800 in unpaid homeowner’s association fees. They eventually paid off the lien, but their financial struggles continued, and they were continually delinquent on their property taxes. They refinanced their house several times before selling it in 2012 for $750,000. The Campbell’s made a profit on the deal, but their overhead expenses continued to be steep. Their next big move was to move into the former Blake residence in the Avila estates.

Darrin Campbell was on the board of Carrollwood Day School, and served as treasurer. He formerly was a senior vice president at PODS, a shipping and storage container company. In 2007, Darrin took a position as vice-president at IVANS, an insurance company. After it changed ownership, he became the chief operating officer (COO) at VASTEC, where he recently took a leave of absence. The rent on the former Blake home was estimated to be a tidy $5,000 a month for the 5,000 square foot home. The base annual tuition for Carrolwood Day School was approximately $34,000 for the two children. The additional cost of books, uniforms, various fundraisers, and other educational expenses had to be a drain on the Campbell family checkbook. And of course, college tuition loomed on the horizon with Colin scheduled to graduate in a month.

Darrin Campbell’s mother, Mary, told the Daily News she was searching for answers. “I have no idea what happened. I spoke to him last night.” (the night before the conflagration). Family friends and neighbors heaped accolades on the entire family. It was obvious that they were well-respected and loved within the community.

We rarely have the opportunity to gaze behind the veneer of the façade our neighbors, or even our relatives, erect. We see what they allow us to see, and they often successfully conceal what’s really going on, especially if they have serious issues.

After conducting an extensive examination of the arson scene, investigators are still searching computers and papers found in the home. Interviews of family and friends may uncover ripples, or even violent rapids, sullying the appearance of calm waters. Interviews with employers both past and present may also shed light into Darrin Campbell’s employment stability or any possible inappropriate behavior. A financial audit will reveal the magnitude of the family’s financial problems.

The further up the ladder one ascends, the more difficult it becomes to step down when one’s personal wheel of fortune descends. One of the top ten stressors in life is finances. As individuals become overwhelmed with financial stress, the pressure often intrudes into both their domestic life and their employment. The negative emotional vortex sucks many formerly successful individuals into a life of despair from which they see no way to escape. They view alternatives (translated as a substantially reduced standard of living) as a stamp of failure.

Two-thirds of those who engage in targeted violence and mass murder have contemplated or attempted suicide in the past. When immense personal darkness clutches at these people, their thought processes and judgment become clouded. They become convinced that their family will have to endure the grief of their loss and the humiliation of their tarnished legacy. As a result, they view killing their family as an act of altruism.

Darrin Campbell will now be labeled as a family annihilator. These killers are most often men. In 2012, a study of 313 murder/suicides by the Violence Policy Center found that 90% of the killers were male. Most multiple-victim, murder-suicides involving a male murderer and three or more victims are perpetrated by family annihilators.  69% of murder-suicides falling into this category were perpetrated by family annihilators.  Family annihilators are murderers who kill their intimate partners and children, as well as other family members, before killing themselves.  USF Professor, Dr. Donna Cohen, states that in over a third of these cases, the annihilator starts a fire to cover their crime leaving only ashes. She feels that this is an attempt to deny access to their personal lives.

As surviving friends and relatives of the Campbell family struggle with the grief of this tragic loss, they are left to contemplate the lost contributions that Kim, Megan, and Colin would have provided to the world.

Please click here to view Mike Roche’s previous posts:

Alex Hribal Was Desperate and Said He Wanted Someone to Kill Him

Columbia Mall Shooter Darion Aguilar Followed the Model of Notorious Mass Murderers

Peter Lanza Speaks: The Lethal and Unvarnished Truth about His Son Adam

FHP Officer Jimmy Fulford Fields Pipe Bomb Intended for Young Mother with His Bare Hands and Dies Instantly

Fire Department and California Highway Patrol Go 9 Rounds: Win, Lose or Draw?

The Boston Bombers: A Tale of Two Troubled Brothers

Don’t Text at the Movies, The Life You Lose May Be Your Own!

Killers and the Catcher in the Rye

Mike Roche has over three decades of law enforcement experience. He began his career with the Little Rock Police Department, and spent twenty-two years with the U.S. Secret Service. The last fifteen years of his career were focused on conducting behavioral threat assessments of those threatening to engage in targeted violence. He is the author of three novels and two nonfiction works on mass murder and also rapport building. Retired, Mike is currently a security consultant at Protective Threat LLC, and an adjunct instructor at Saint Leo University. He resides in Florida with his family.

Mass Killers: How you Can Identify, Workplace, School, or Public Killers Before They Strikehttp://www.amazon.com/Mass-Killers-Identify-Workplace-School-ebook/dp/B00GHZWC1M/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389112969&sr=1-2&keywords=mass+killers

Face 2 Face: Observation, Interviewing and Rapport Building Skills: an Ex-Secret Service Agent’s Guidehttp://www.amazon.com/Face-2-ebook/dp/B009991BII/ref=sr_1_6?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1354630000&sr=1-6

The Blue Monster  http://www.amazon.com/The-Blue-Monster-ebook/dp/B0054H8TMA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1312641741&sr=1-1

Coins of Death http://www.amazon.com/Coins-Of-Death-ebook/dp/B005RPZ256/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1317860179&sr=1-3

Karma! http://www.amazon.com/Karma-Mike-Roche-ebook/dp/B0054H4OAG/ref=la_B00BHEIF78_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389724285&sr=1-4

by Rick Stack

Despite the wishes of many good-hearted souls, based on our current justice system, I unfortunately don’t see any way to determine whether Julie Schenecker is not guilty by reason of insanity (not criminally responsible) other than letting a jury decide (unless she waives that constitutional right). This case is an excellent example of the tug-of-war between the medical community, with its concern for its patients and their rights, and the law as it judges whether serious mental issues (insanity) might provide a legal defense to a crime committed by the individual in question. What this means with respect to individuals on trial such as Ms. Schenecker, is that even though a person may have been diagnosed as “insane” by medical practitioners (psychologists and psychiatrists), this does not mean that this same individual will necessarily be judged not guilty by reason of insanity in a criminal proceeding. As a result of this curious distinction, our prisons are filled with many people who would be better served by being housed in mental institutions.

The legal standard for insanity (at least on the federal level) tightened up considerably as a result of public outrage in the wake of the John Hinckley trial, in which the jury found Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity for the 1981 shootings of President Reagan and Press Secretary James Brady. Under the old law, the government (in federal cases) was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was NOT insane at the time of the charged offense. The burden of proof as to insanity has since been reversed (in 2/3 of the states and in federal cases) and now requires the defendant to affirmatively prove either by a preponderance of the evidence (in state cases), or by clear and convincing evidence (in federal matters) that he or she was not legally culpable by reason of her insanity at the time of the crime. The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (“IDRA”) created a new federal standard for determining a defendant’s sanity.

“It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, [1] at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, [2] the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was [3] unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.”

(Note: Numbers added to denote elements of this affirmative defense).

The IDRA changed the previous approach by requiring a “severe” mental disease and eliminating the volitional aspect of the defense (i.e., the “irresistible impulse” standard). The IDRA also reshaped the cognitive aspect of the insanity defense by replacing “lacks substantial capacity” with “unable to appreciate” to delineate boundaries between a total lack of understanding and partial comprehension. Thus, the IDRA eliminated the diminished mental capacity  defense, except to the extent that such diminished capacity may have prevented the defendant from forming the requisite mental intent to be guilty of the charged crime.

The bottom line is that SOME adjudicative body must determine whether a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity, and through our judicial system, we have entrusted that duty to a jury (or a judge, if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial). That is one of the reasons why the IDRA has limited the scope of expert psychiatric testimony so that they cannot testify as to the “ultimate issue” of the innocence or guilt of the defendant. This critical ruling is left to the jury:

“No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are for the trier of fact alone (the jury).”

In plain English, this means that that expert witness cannot offer an opinion as to whether the defendant had the intent (mens rea) to commit the crime at the time he or she committed it.

Like all human institutions, the IDRA is flawed. As a result of its strict standard requiring defendants to affirmatively establish an insanity defense, it has almost undoubtedly led to an increase in the number of clinically insane defendants committed to prison rather than being treated for their conditions in a mental hospital. This situation is consonant with our legal system’s current preference for punishment instead of treatment or rehabilitation.

It is curious and somewhat disheartening to note that a large number (perhaps the majority) of “armchair” crime fans and trial followers appeared to be swayed more by the legal standard rather than by the clinical standard. Thus, even though Julie Schenecker was quite obviously insane at the time of the shootings (she had been on psychiatric drugs for a long time and her condition had been steadily worsening for some time), she still may be convicted by the jury for the following reason. The key element of a premeditated crime is mens rea; i.e., formulating the intent to commit the crime. In Ms. Schenecker’s case, the jury could very well decide that she obviously had the intent to kill her children. After all, she went out and purchased a gun for that precise reason. She loaded bullets into the gun and at a precise moment in time, she chose to pull the trigger, thus ending their lives.

Thus, although Ms. Schenecker is obviously clinically insane from a psychiatric standpoint, and despite the fact that her insanity is THE REASON she killed her children, based on the legal standard, as described herein, the jury could very well find her guilty.

The Catch-22 in this is that — to a considerable degree — for a person to be sufficiently “insane” to meet the legal standard, they would have to be so completely “crazy” that they would not be able to carry out the crime in the first place. Thus, for all intents and purposes, IDRA and it’s state counterpart renders the not guilty by reason of insanity defense rather useless.

In the case of Julie Schenecker, I hope that the jury gives serious consideration to “the forest” of madness in which this poor woman was lost and which led her to kill her children. I suspect, however, that when all is said and done, the jury will ignore the obvious and will instead focus on the defendant’s volition which, in turn, could well lead to her conviction.

Please click here to view Rick Stack’s previous posts:

The Evolution of Media-Hype and the Invention of the “Trial of the Century!”

Rick Stack, a native Iowan, is a former Assistant United States Attorney who currently practices civil and criminal tax litigation in the Los Angeles area with Brager Tax Law Group. His interests include fitness, hiking, politics, Chicago sports teams, Big Ten and Pac 12 football, cats, and All Things Crime Blog.

 by Nicholas Frank

Not long ago, while we were visiting him in prison, I asked Nathan directly why he thought his defiance led to crime and how he ended up joining a gang.   For the next hour or so, he told me how one thing led to another until he was, getting “jumped-in.” 

Our actual conversation included more discussion than I can present here.  What follows are the points of our conversation that left the deepest impressions on me.

Me:      Nathan, I have been trying to figure out why you joined a gang.  I can kind of understand the running away, getting high and even acting like some kind of delinquent.  But escalating it to join a gang.  I don’t get that. 

Nathan:           Yea… I really wasn’t even thinking about being in a gang or any of that at first.  When I ran away, I wasn’t thinking, “I   want to be a gangster, or I want do bad things.”  Mostly, I just wanted to get away from all the fighting and the pressure and the rules.  I just wanted to do what I wanted to do without getting into trouble all the time.  It’s more like one thing just led to another.         

Me:      I remember being scared for you when the judge restored your mother’s visitation.  Do you remember when I was talking to you the night before you were supposed to go back there?

Nathan:           Not really…maybe…

Me:      Remember there was a period when you were just with Maddie and me.  Then the judge reinstated visitation.  On the night before you and Darrick and Leanne were supposed to go back there, you were saying you didn’t want to go because you were scared you were going to smoke weed again.

I remember being so worried because we worked so hard to stop you from getting high.  It seemed like you were done with the defiance and were on track again.   

Nathan:           Okay, yea.

Me:                  You were even worried about going back there.   And then when you were supposed to come back home, you refused.  I couldn’t understand how fast you changed your mind.

Were you already planning not to come back when you told me you were scared you would smoke weed? 

Nathan:           No.  I really was scared to go back.Then, when I went back I could do whatever I wanted.   She said school isn’t for everyone.  She told me I didn’t have to do homework, or go to school, or do anything.  I figured she really didn’t even care if I got high.  I figured, cool, my mom says I can do what I want.  So I didn’t want to come back home.

Me:      You know we had a court order that said you had to stay at my house.  Did you think about that?

Nathan:           Yea, but that didn’t really seem to matter. When you made me come back, I was really mad.  I didn’t understand why I couldn’t stay over there.

Me:                  Huh.Then you ran away.  Were you already in with the gang then?   

Nathan:           No.  When I was there, I was mostly hanging out with my friends.  We were hanging out and boxing, stuff like that. 

Me:                  And getting high.

 Nathan:           Yea.  Sometimes. Some gang members were hanging around, too.I was pretty good at fighting…. It seemed to come naturally to me. 

It was like I was living some kind of kid fantasy.  I came and went as I pleased.  I did whatever I felt like doing. 

And there were a bunch of other kids doing the same thing.  We weren’t doing anything really bad, then.  At least not compared to later.  Mostly, we were just hanging out.

I showed up at [mom’s] house when I wanted a break, or to get something to eat or get a change of clothes.  I thought it was totally cool, then. 

Me:                  You know we were looking for you.

Nathan:           Yea, I know.

Me:      We tried to find you at her place, but could never catch you there.  We were driving past all the places we knew your friends lived, we went to the parks, and anywhere we thought you might be.

Nathan:           I know.  I knew you would be looking at her house, so I moved around a lot.  Sometimes I was at her friends’ houses.  And I spent a lot of time crashing at different places where I knew people.

Me:      What about the other adults?  Didn’t they ever say, who the hell is this kid?

Nathan:           Dad, there’s a lot of adults out there who don’t care what kids do.  It was cool with them.  Eventually, I hardly went to [mom’s] place at all.  I was always with my friends.  For a while I even lived in an old abandoned car.  Sometimes she would bring me food and stuff.  Then I stayed in different apartments. 

Me:                  Were you with the gang then? 

Nathan:           Yea.  About that time, I was getting a reputation for being able to fight and some gang members used to hang out with us.  

There was this one guy in particular who seemed especially cool. 

Me:                  Phelps?

Nathan:           Uh huh.  I looked up to him back then.  Now I can hardly believe it.  I mean I know so much more now.  In here, he would be nothing.  But, back then every time I saw him he had money, girls, cars, etc.   

One day he told me that he had been watching me and was impressed.  That made me feel good, you know? 

Eventually, I started hanging out with Phelps and his friends more than I did with my friends.  It was cool and exciting to me.

Me:      Didn’t you ever think about coming home?  I mean, living in a car and crashing at different places.  Didn’t it get old?

Nathan:           Sometimes it did.  And I sometimes I missed being home with everyone.  But it seemed like whenever I felt like that, something would happen that would make me forget about it, and I would be off again. Phelps and everyone else always had something going on.  I just thought I was on this incredible adventure, like Huckleberry Finn or something. 

Sitting here now, it sounds crazy.  But back then it was just the life I was living.

The only thing I worried about was if you were going to find me or not, and make me come home.

Eventually, Phelps started taking me down to LA with him, to his neighborhood and introduced me to all of his people down there.  He was always telling people that I was all right, and that I was a hell of a fighter.  I went there a lot.

I was at all the places you hear about in Rap songs, or see in movies and read about in stories about gangs.  It was unreal.

It was like I was this different person back then.  Or like I was living this life and observing it at the same time.  There was bad stuff going on all around me, but it wasn’t even real to me.  Eventually, I just didn’t think about it all.  It just became like normal.  No one else seemed to be shocked or surprised by anything that happened.  Even if someone got beaten up, or even shot.  It was just what it was.

It feels weird even talking about it like that.  I mean, I have been through some unbelievable stuff, but thinking about that time, I can’t believe that I didn’t see how screwed up things were. 

Me:                  Like the frog and boiling water.

Nathan:           What’s that? 

Me:      Well, if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump out immediately.  But, if you put a frog in a pot of water at room temperature and slowly heat it up, the frog doesn’t even notice the water getting hotter until it gets so hot it kills him. 

Nathan:           Yea.  I guess that sort of describes it.   

Really, like I said, in the beginning, I wasn’t thinking about joining a gang, and no one brought it up at first.  Not even Phelps.

After a while though, one day he called me and told me he wanted to talk to me.  He told that it was cool hanging out with me and all, but that I had to earn some money if I was going to stay around.  He said there were two ways that I could do it, and that I had to choose.  He pointed at the gun and said, “you can be a stick-up kid,” or “you can sell dope,” and he pointed at the bag.   

I should have just left.  But I didn’t want to look like a pussy, or like I wasn’t cool, or didn’t belong.  So I said “okay.” 

I had already had a bad experience with trying to sell drugs, so I picked the gun. 

“Cool,”  He said. 

Me:                  What was the bad experience trying to sell drugs? 

Nathan:           At that time, I was staying with a couple of guys in the apartments over by the College.  This other guy I knew had some cocaine and he wanted to know if I wanted to try to sell it.  I was thinking about it.

We put the coke in the apartment and then I went out with some friends.  When I got back, I knocked on the door but the two guys who were renting the apartment weren’t there.  I waited around a long time, but they never showed up.  Finally I got inside and the coke was gone.  So was everything else.   

Now I had a problem.  I had to tell this guy that someone stole his coke.  I didn’t know what was going to happen.

Me:      Maybe that would have been a good time to call me.  People get killed over that kind of thing.

Nathan:           I wish I had.  But I was in a different life then. I was a different person.  When I told the guy what happened, he said, “Look mother-fucker, I don’t give a shit what happened.  You better get my coke or get my money.” 

I was screwed. 

Over the next week or so, I saw the guy a couple of times at parties, and each time he asked me if I had his money.  I told him no.  “How am I supposed to get your money?  I don’t have the coke, someone stole it.”

One night, people were partying in a parking lot of this apartment complex near the college.  I knew some of them, so I walked over to where a group was smoking dope between some cars.  

That guy who wanted his money was there, too.  He was giving me the hairy eyeball.  He came with a couple of other guys that I had seen around. 

The other two guys were young kids, like me.  They were carrying those little baseball bats you can buy at Dodger Stadium. 

They were wandering around and I wasn’t really thinking about it.  Finally, they ended up behind me, but I didn’t know it.

Then, all of a sudden, “Wham!” something hit me in the back of the head.  The next thing I knew, I woke up on the ground and those two guys were wailing on me with those bats.  Then something hit me above my right ear and I was out again.  They must have kept beating me for while, because when I woke up I was alone in the courtyard and my whole body was beat to shit.  My head was like twice its normal size and I was hurting everywhere. 

I got to a phone and called Deanna, who lived down the street from [mom], and asked her to come get me.

Me:      Is that the same Deanna who was your lame alibi at the trial?  [Note: Deanna, the alibi and the trial make their appearance a few pages down.] 

Nathan:           Yea, that was her. 

Me:                  What an idiot she was.  How did you know her? 

Nathan:           She was just some old outlaw that we knew.  She came and picked me up and took me to her house.  She and her husband filled their bathtub with ice water and put me in it.  Jesus, Dad, I was so tore up. 

But, I didn’t want to go to the emergency room because I thought someone might call you and you would come and get me.  It was stupid, I know, but I didn’t want to go back. 

Deanna called [mom].  She came over and talked to me while I was in the bathtub.   

Then she left.

I should have called you, then.  But I didn’t even think about calling you.  That was the last thing I wanted to do.

Me:      Jesus Christ, Nathan!  You could have died.  I can’t believe no one made you go to the hospital.

Nathan:           Yea, but it was just one of a million things that I was doing that a regular person wouldn’t do.

Well, I healed up from that beating and I started going out again to parties with the people who were there when I got beaten up.  When I look back on it now, it seems so stupid.  Why would I want to hang out with these people after they sat there and let me take a beating?  But that was just normal with them.  I can’t even explain it.  Like I said, I was a different person then. 

Then, at one of the parties the guy who had me beat up came up to me and said, “You got my money?”  I told him, “No.  I don’t have your money.  You got your money’s worth already.”  And that was the end of it.

Me:      We knew you were living in somewhere in those apartments by the college.  Do you remember all of the fliers we kept posting on the light posts in the neighborhood?

Nathan:           Yea.  Back then, I was really mad about that. 

Me:      We used your school picture, because we were hoping that the people you were hanging with would realize that you didn’t belong.  We were hoping you would just call.

 Obviously, it didn’t work.

Nathan:           Yea.  Back then I was just mad about it.  It thought you were messing with me.  Now I think that is what parents who are worried about their kid and trying to find him would do. 

You know, I am just so ashamed by so many things about that time.

Me:                  So how did you end up in a gang?

Nathan:           I was hanging with Phelps and his friends all the time then.  One day, he took me down to his neighborhood again and told me that I was going to get “jumped in.”  I took that as a sign of great respect.  It made me feel proud of myself.  Like I had passed some kind of test.

Me:                  I think they were playing you all along.  How old was Phelps?

Nathan:           I think he was about 30 years old.

Me:                  Jesus H. Christ.

Nathan:           I know.

Me:                  So what happened?

Nathan:           Well, we went down to his neighborhood in LA.  All these people were there.  They just owned the street.  There were like hundreds of people there and in the park.  It was wild.  Smoking weed, doing other drugs.  Guys with guns.  The music blasting.  Cars, hot women.  I could hardly believe it. 

After a while, one of the guys said to me, “you ready?”

“Hell, yea!”  I said.

Me:                  Were you scared?

Nathan:           Yea I was scared.  I didn’t know how I was going to do, you know?  The whole scene was just like full of energy.

So we went over to the park and we jumped this fence into this field or like an open area.  I was surrounded by a bunch of guys.  Then suddenly it was on!

We just started fighting.  Guys were coming at me from all angles and I was just throwing punches in every direction.

That went on for a while.  I don’t even know how long.  I was just hitting people and getting hit.  Finally, this guy says, “Okay, that’s enough.”

Then it was over. 

Me:                  Jesus, Nathan

Nathan:           I know Dad.  Now it all seems like a dream, or a story I read. 

 You know, that night I saw a guy get killed right in front of me.

 Me:                  You saw someone get killed?  How?

Nathan:           We were all there, then we noticed this car with its lights off coming down the street toward us.  All of a sudden we heard “Pop!  PopPopPop!!” They were shooting at us.

Everyone ran for cover.  The car came screaming into the street and hit this one guy and launched him into the air.  He came down on the street like 100 feet away.  When we checked on him, he was dead.

The car just hauled ass out of there.

Me:                  Didn’t that make you think, “Holy shit, what have I gotten myself into?”

Nathan:           You know, it was like I said.  That kind of stuff was normal.  I mean, I knew it was happening, but at the same time, it didn’t seem like it. Then I was in the gang.

Me:                  Were you already in the gang when the whole Grizzly thing blew up?

Nathan:           Yea.  I was already in.

Me:      I gotta ask you…Were you just playing me about Grizzly?  Did you ever actually think about going there?

Nathan:           Actually, I did.

Me:                  But you were already in the gang. 

Nathan:           Yea, I know.  It’s weird, huh.  But I thought I would go.  I just thought maybe I would like it.  Something about what I was doing must have not felt right.

Me:                  Then why didn’t you go?

Nathan:           To tell you the truth, I just got a new girlfriend and she didn’t want me to go.  So I told [mom], “I changed my mind.  I’m not going.”  And I left.

Me:                  Damn.  You know, I waited up there for you.  I felt like a total fool.

Nathan:           I’m really sorry, Dad.  I wish I could go back and do that whole time over.

by Starks Shrink

You’ve decided you want the fame of being a serial killer but don’t want to commit the awful crimes. No problem, you can still raise your very own serial killer. It takes dedication and commitment but with this handy guide, you can be the proud mother of a notorious serial killer. Since murderabilia seems to be so popular, you may even make a few bucks on the side.

I’ve addressed this guide to the moms because they seem to figure prominently in the serial killer’s psyche, though you will have to be careful not to become his first victim. You will need to raise a male child, which will lead to the highest probability that you will succeed in creating a little monster.

1.  Step one is to select the killer’s father. You will need to do this carefully. Choose an abusive alcoholic that will assist you in abusing the child when he is a toddler and then disappear into obscurity once the child has been sufficiently marred. You may have to endure considerable abuse in the presence of the child for the first couple of years. This will imprint the child with images of a dominant male and a woman who is unable to protect him. He will fear men and loathe women while at the same time craving their attention.  **Note, you do not need to physically bear the child; adopting him from a close relative and keeping it on the down-low is equally effective.

2.  Dress the young boy as a girl and send him out amongst his peers. You could give him a girl’s name too, but then he might just turn into a country singer, and that’s definitely not part of the plan. Be sure to sneer and berate him as he parades around in dresses. This will confuse his gender identity which will lead to sexual confusion later in adolescence and young adulthood.

3. Try to drop the boy on his head frequently as an infant and toddler, or try to inflict head injuries through the frequent beatings you will administer without warning for minor infractions, such as spilling is cereal at breakfast. Do not get medical care for head injuries; they will heal on their own and the trauma can contribute to lesions and neurological disorders.

4.  Be careless about his toilet training; alternate harsh discipline with periods of inattention. This will confuse the boy and foster bed wetting. Allow him to sleep in his wet bed for several days at a time before loudly condemning the child as a failure for not catching on to toilet training. Invite other youths in his neighborhood to the house during these episodes to ensure he will have an extremely limited social circle and few healthy interactions.

5.  Create an atmosphere of promiscuity and disposability in human relationships. You will need to frequently invite unsavory men into your bed and engage in loud, animalistic sexual behavior in front of the child. Preferably, keep the toddler’s bed in your own room while this is occurring. Children often equate the sounds associated with sexuality to violence, which will serve him well later on. You will also cultivate his voyeuristic side, a key component in a serial killer.

6.  Send the child for extended visits to elderly relatives who have very strict, Calvinistic tendencies which will contrast markedly with the chaos in your own home. The boy will come to see religious practices and the accompanying rigidity as punishment. The contrast to his own abnormally chaotic home will make his usual existence seem quite normal to him, thus warping his sense of what is acceptable to society in general.

7.  Drugs and alcohol need to play a large part in the child’s upbringing. However, you need to appear functional to those outside the home so that others will not interfere and remove the child from the home before you’ve completed your mission. Leave alcohol and marijuana within easy reach of the child. He will move on to other substances on his own.

8.  Befriend a seemingly kind male who is a known child molester and invite him frequently to your home to babysit the child. The child will cling to this one kind anchor in his pathetic life and be lulled into participating in unnatural sexual practices. He will likely never report it. The abuse will confuse his sexuality even further, wracking him with guilt and hatred for both the molester and foryou for allowing it to occur, even encouraging it.

9.  Collect or allow the child to collect a variety of stray animals. Be sure to abuse them within the home. Do not feed them and never clean their cages. Act as though their life is worthless. If the boy gets attached to an animal, be sure that it is removed from him by force and cruelly destroyed. However, by this point, it is doubtful that you will have to resort to barbarism yourself as the child will enjoy having a sentient being upon which to vent his anger and lack of self-esteem. He will embark on that long heralded hallmark of sociopathy — animal abuse. Never comment upon the abused animal corpses you may find around the home — let it be his secret as that will engender his mounting sense of power and control.

10.  Cultivate a fascination with fire. Again, this is an area that will likely develop on its own if the previous steps are adhered to correctly. But you can encourage this by leaving lighters, matches and accelerants lying haphazardly around the domicile. Accidentally set kitchen towels alight in the boy’s presence to pique his interest and fascination with pyromania. Pyromania can be considered powerful as well as destructive and the youth will learn to lust for both.

If you’ve adhered to all these suggestions faithfully, you are well on the way to harboring the next great serial killer. Success is not guaranteed, though; serial killers are an elusive and rare breed and children can be remarkably resilient. But consistent chaos, belittling and social isolation will certainly make your chances of succeeding far greater. And as a side note, keep any drawings or art projects the child may create along the way, taking great care not to let him think you cherish them, as that could destroy all of your hard work. Instead, save them for after his arrest or death, since murderabilia has become a growth industry and you should reap some rewards for your efforts, in addition to the self-satisfaction you will attain from seeing your child achieve your dreams.

Please click here to view The Starks Shrink’s Other Posts:

The Julie Schenecker Tragedy: Negligence, Finger-Pointing and the Death of Children

Luka Magnotta: Man, Boy or Beast?

The Disturbing Truth about Mothers Who Murder Their Children

Teleka Patrick Needed a Psychiatrist, Not a Pastor!

Rehabbing the Wounded Juvenile Will Save Their Souls (and Ours)

Skylar Neese and the Mean Girls Who Killed Her

by BJW Nashe

Jordan Belfort made a fortune on Wall Street by ripping off customers with pump-and-dump penny stock scams in the 1990s. He blew vast sums of money on his shamelessly debauched frat-boy lifestyle, which was characterized by booze, drugs, cars, yachts, helicopters, hookers, and dwarf-throwing contests.

Belfort was indicted in 1998 for securities fraud and money laundering that resulted in investor losses of approximately $200 million. After cooperating with the FBI and ratting out many of his former associates, he was convicted in 2003 and served an incredibly light sentence of 22 months in federal prison. In addition to his prison sentence, Belfort was ordered to pay $110.4 million in restitution to the stock buyers he swindled.

Oddly enough, Belfort’s cell-mate for a while was Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong fame, who was in jail for selling bongs on the Internet. Chong convinced Belfort that he should write about his “adventures.” So Belfort went on to churn out enough material for two memoirs — The Wolf of Wall Street and Catching the Wolf of Wall Street — both published by Random House. He sold the movie rights to his story for approximately $1 million dollars. Paramount’s film version of The Wolf of Wall Street, directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, was released in late 2013, and has now garnered several Oscar nominations.

In addition to his book royalties and movie deal, since his release from prison Belfort has parlayed his con artist skills into a lucrative career as a “motivational speaker” and a “specialist in sales techniques.” He claims to be a reformed criminal and drug addict who has seen the light. He now supposedly wakes up every day bright and eager to help other people avoid making the same disastrous mistakes he did as a crook indulging in unbridled greed and excess.

In other words, Belfort is still running a scam. The new scam is not as brazen as running a fraudulent financial “boiler room” where the main game is a pump-and-dump penny stock trading scheme. Now the game is all about the books, the movie deal, the PR campaign (“I am successful in recovery”), and the pricey motivational speaker gigs. All of this still reeks of a con or a hustle. Even in “recovery,” Belfort’s arrogance is still remarkable. “Look at what a pig I was; all I cared about was myself and my money and drugs and hookers. Now buy my book and I’ll tell you all about it. Go see the film so I can get rich all over again from sharing my twisted story.” Jordan Belfort clearly thinks we’re all stupid. He thinks he’s a real smart guy, and we’re all a bunch of suckers. If he can’t sell us bogus stocks anymore, then what the hell, he’ll try and sell us his lame books — which are half-assed, cliche-ridden mash-ups of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and The Bonfire of the Vanities. He’ll gladly use Scorsese’s film as a way to glorify his lifestyle and bolster his own celebrity status. Then he’ll try to convince us to pay outrageous fees to hear him speak. He’ll try to sell us his bogus motivational DVDs, which are just as worthless as the penny stocks he used peddle.

All the money Belfort has been earning from these latest scams has led the U.S. Attorney’s office to mount an investigation. In 2012, Eastern District prosecutors reportedly placed a “restraining order” on a $125,000 payment to Belfort from the movie producers. That money was diverted to the restitution fund, but not the $1 million movie fee. Every cent of that went into the Wolf’s coffers.

Jordan Belfort’s attorney, Robert Begleiter, claimed he would use the $1 million as “leverage” to craft a deal where his client might return the cash if prosecutors from the Eastern District office agree to “substantially reduce” the $110.4 million restitution ordered by Judge John Gleeson as part of Belfort’s 2003 conviction.

Begleiter says Belfort pays about $3,000 a month to the government and has returned between $11 million and $13 million for victim restitution so far. The government wants a higher monthly payment and a big chunk of the $1 million of movie money. Begleiter argues that “prosecutors don’t have a right to everything,” and that “people have a right to make a living under the law.” He asserts that federal law prohibits the government from taking more than 25% of Belfort’s earnings now that his supervisory release ended in 2009. Before that, Belfort was forced to turn over 50% of his monthly salary.

Now we are getting reports that Belfort has fled the country in order to avoid his financial obligations. According to a recent article at Design & Trend:

 “The ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ has earned over $220 million worldwide, a portion of which was deposited into Belfort’s bank account. Belfort has insisted that he will give ‘100%’ of whatever he earns from the movie to the families of his victims, which he said will be ‘more than enough to pay back whoever is still out there.’

“The U.S. government said that this is a complete lie, and that Belfort high-tailed it to Australia soon after making the movie in order to avoid paying taxes.

“‘We want to set the record straight,’ Robert Nardoza, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney, told The Wall Street Journal. ‘Belfort’s making these claims, and they’re not factual. He’s in Australia and using that loophole to avoid paying.’

Belfort may have kicked his addiction to booze and drugs, which is wonderful. However, the world is full of sober assholes — and Belfort appears to be one of them, regardless of the praise bestowed upon him by Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays him in the film. DiCaprio has recently been quoted saying: “Jordan stands as a shining example of the transformative qualities of ambition and hard work. And in that regard he is a true motivator.” Translation: “I will say anything to help promote my new movie, and to justify my portrayal in the leading role.”

Piers Morgan interviewed the Wolf for his show on CNN, and also came away with a favorable impression . Morgan claimed that “Belfort is fascinating: rapid-talking, razor-smart, funny, frank, and very self-aware about his appalling past behavior.” Morgan added, “I liked Belfort. It takes courage to admit this about yourself, and to change for the better.” Translation: “Rich people are so wonderful and I love cozying up to them because it’s great for my TV career.”

In fact it does not take that much courage to admit one’s past failures. Celebrities and politicians go on TV shows all the time to tell us about their sordid exploits and seek repentance for their sins. Rehab facilities and twelve-step meetings are full of people exposing all sorts of shameful secrets. Therapists across the nation are booked solid with people who need to talk about their failings. The “addiction memoir” has now emerged as an entire new genre of bestseller. Hunter S. Thompson once captured the main thrust of this publishing trend in a single satirical line: “I was a male whore, until I found Jesus.” The people who are not simply sharing their stories, but rather are trying to sell them for a profit, tend to sugar-coat their motives by claiming that they mainly want to help others in their own struggles for redemption. But they are also counting on people enjoying vicarious thrills from all of the depravity on display. They know the whoring is often a bigger attraction than the part about Jesus. They know there is a hefty market for scandalous tales of sex and drugs. And for the right price, they are willing to deliver the goods. Courage is not that big of a factor.

Belfort’s story contains plenty of sordid tabloid content. For those of us who have not yet seen “The Wolf of Wall Street” film, or who might need a recap, Time Entertainment has provided a rundown of the sleaziest “highlights.”

• Belfort’s first boss told him the keys to success were masturbation, cocaine, and hookers.

• According to the book, a broker named Mark Hanna (played by Matthew McConaughey in the movie) gave him this advice early on in his career.

• Belfort and his partner owned shares of a risky stock and had their brokers at Stratton Oakmont aggressively sell the stock to inflate the price. They then sold their own shares to turn a huge profit.

• Belfort and Danny Porush (called Donnie Azoff in the film and portrayed by Jonah Hill) utilized this age-old pump-and-dump scheme to get rich quick after graduating from scamming middle-class people into buying worthless penny stocks at a 50 percent commission.

• Forbes magazine exposed Belfort in a profile that described him as “a twisted version of Robin Hood, who robs from the rich and gives to himself and his merry band of brokers.” Though it was a scathing portrait, the promise of quick-and-easy $100,000 commissions brought job applicants to Stratton Oakmont in droves.

• Belfort laundered his money into Swiss banks using his in-laws. His wife’s mother and aunt both helped him smuggle the money into Switzerland.

• Danny Porush (Donnie Azoff) was in fact married to his cousin. They are now divorced.

• Belfort was a habitual abuser of Quaaludes. The scene in the film where he gets behind the wheel of his Lamborghini far too loaded to drive comes straight from his memoir. In the book, however, the car is a Mercedes.

• Belfort claims that he did in fact throw office parties that included “midget-tossing competitions.”

• Belfort’s company billed prostitutes to the corporate card — many times, with lots of prostitutes. Then they wrote off the expenses as a tax deduction.

• Belfort once screwed up and crashed a helicopter in his front yard while intoxicated.

• Belfort once screwed up and sank a yacht in Italy. Everyone involved was rescued by navy frogmen. The yacht was once owned by Coco Chanel.

• Belfort used to call his trophy wife “duchess.” Her name in real life was Nadine, not Naomi.

• Belfort received a reduced prison sentence after ratting on his friends. Turns out Belfort was even more of a jerk than he appears in the movie. In the film, Belfort tries to save his partner from incriminating himself. In reality, Belfort ratted out his partner Porush, among others, to obtain a lighter sentence than he would have received otherwise. (Belfort and Porush are no longer on speaking terms).

• Belfort claims in his book (and in the film) that he only scammed the rich, but this assertion is false. The New York Times has reported that many small business owners are still trying to recover financially from Belfort’s scheme.

Many of us have nothing against tales of shameless excess. I often find them thrilling, funny, sad, and even tragic — sometimes all at the same time. The film “Blow,” for example, directed by Ted Demme and starring Johnny Depp, succeeded as a humane exploration of addiction and greed. In the context of Wall Street, however, a shallow or celebratory treatment of such excess is bound to hit a few raw nerves. Thanks to the work of journalists such as Matt Taibbi, we are well aware of Wall Street’s role in the financial crisis of 2008, which plunged the country into an economic recession from which we are still struggling to recover. The 2008 crisis demonstrated that Jordan Belfort’s lawlessness and greed was not some aberration that occurred deep in the bowels of the financial sector. It was the prevailing methodology of those working at the very top of the largest firms. The housing bubble, accomplished through reckless trading in mortgage-backed securities, was simply a more highly sophisticated version of Belfort’s pump-and-dump shenanigans.

The extreme cynicism involved in taking a Wall Street excess story such as Belfort’s and serving it up to the public as gonzo “entertainment” in this day and age is stunning. To tell this story in an illusory showbiz vacuum with no concern for the larger social implications — in which real people have suffered tremendously as a direct result of bankers’ greed — is callous, short-sighted, and tone-deaf. For many of us, seeing DiCaprio-as-Belfort coked to the gills and cavorting with naked hookers or tossing dwarves around in high rise office suites is likely to conjure images of home foreclosure signs, tent cities, depleted 401k balance statements, and federally funded bank bailouts. This chain of associations is not all that entertaining.

The fact that some critics are getting their rocks off on the cynicism lurking behind Scorsese’s cinematic portrayal of the Wolf is also distasteful. Here is David Thomson, for example, in his laudatory review of the film in The New Republic:

“At three hours, The Wolf is open to charges of self-indulgence. The narrative line drifts and wallows and clutches at voice-over to stay afloat. Still, if you love the film, you will wish it were longer, for there is a riffing ease here, a swell air of deserved chaos, and a brazen awareness that the American system is corrupt not because bad people seek to exploit it, or because there is some evil in the hearts of men, but because American opportunism requires corruption and nerve. The inevitable conclusion is that there is no such thing as corruption. There is just the exhilaration of screwing everyone — and so, for the first time, the gang in a Scorsese film is delivered with more jubilation than dread. GoodFellas knew it was subversive, and took coy pleasure in that. This is unflawed delight, a work of exultant nihilism. At last Scorsese has abandoned the priesthood.”

The exhilaration of screwing everyone? Well, no. Most of us are not interested in “screwing everyone.” We only relish the thought of screwing over a very select few — Jordan Belfort, Martin Scorsese, and Leonardo DiCaprio, for instance, as well as the corrupt financial wizards in charge of Goldman Sachs and J.P Morgan Chase, and media enablers such as Piers Morgan and David Thomson.

I figure the American people have every right to be cynical and nihilistic — particularly when it comes to the corruption of wealthy Wall Street financiers, the empty spectacles created by rich Hollywood producers and directors, and the debased, fraudulent rhetoric that serves as cultural commentary in so much of our mainstream media. Most of these individuals are so accustomed to their privileged social status that they expect to be celebrated for their irresponsible behavior. They expect little or no consequences for any of their actions, because they are rich, they are typically white, and they are legends in their own minds. Their sense of entitlement is bewildering and shameful. Jordan Belfort served two years in prison, and now he expects to weasel his way out of his financial obligations because Scorsese made a movie about him. Scorsese and DiCaprio look forward to raking in cash and awards for their glitzy Wall Street porn flick about an amoral con man. Meanwhile we have thousands of less fortunate people suffering through lengthy prison terms simply for dealing marijuana or racking up three strikes worth of petty crime convictions.

It will be fascinating to see the merits of “The Wolf of Wall Street” debated by supporters and detractors alike as we near the Academy Awards ceremony — which is itself an ostentatious display of arrogance and corruption. By way of contributing to this debate, I am cynical and nihilistic enough to chime in using the same “exultant” style of language featured so prominently in the film itself. Rather than reveling in the “exhilaration of screwing everyone,” however, I’m content to sharpen the focus, and simply say: “Fuck you, Wolf of Wall Street.” Jordan Belfort, you are no more than a swine. And “fuck you” to Scorsese and DiCaprio, too. You might claim to be making some vague moral statement in your film, but you are mainly banking on a glorification of Wall Street greed and excess. Some of us can see right through this BS, and we aren’t buying what you are selling. It’s a joke.

by Mike Roche

Exhibit I: The Killing of John Lennon

In the darkness of a cold December night, the assassin waited for his prey to return home. He watched in silence as the limousine dropped off the celebrity couple in front of their exclusive apartment building. As the couple approached, the killer drew his weapon, and at the opportune moment, he fired five shots. Four of his shots struck his victim who slumped to the ground and succumbed to his mortal wounds. The killer paced about nervously — then extracted a book from his back pocket and read seemingly dissociated from the murder he had just committed.

The murder of John Lennon in front of the Dakota Apartments by obscure killer Mark David Chapman shocked the world. During the years preceding Lennon’s death, Chapman had become obsessed with the book The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. Chapman found refuge and affirmation in protagonist Holden Caulfield’s unceasing attacks on the hypocrisy of the world. Chapman was an under-performer and had already racked up a number of failed suicide attempts. He was a wanderer throughout his early years and settled for a time in Hawaii, where he worked as a security guard.

He initially focused on several possible targets including Johnny Carson, Jackie Onassis Kennedy, Elizabeth Taylor and George C. Scott, but ultimately focused on John Lennon. It was to some degree a practical decision in that Chapman believed that Lennon would be the easiest of the celebrities to locate and gain access to. Plus, Chapman was enraged by what he saw as Lennon’s hypocrisy, advocating for the poor, while enjoying the privileged lifestyle of the wealthy and famous. Chapman never forgot that early in his career, Lennon had been heavily criticized for making the claim that he and his fellow Beatles were more popular than Jesus. This was more ammunition and Chapman felt Lennon’s life was in conflict with the humble teachings of the Saviour.

Chapman was perhaps conflicted over his own hypocrisy. He had stood in front of the Dakota with the album Double Fantasy in hand and Lennon had been gracious enough to autograph the album and shake hands with his future killer.  Who asks for an autograph and shakes hands with their intended target? In a sense, Chapman conducted his own autograph session when he signed the inside cover of his well-thumbed copy of The Catcher in the Rye, “This is my statement.”

Chapman told his parole board in 2010 that his initial target list was selected because, “They are famous; that was it,” and he thought that by killing them he would achieve “instant notoriety, fame.” “It wasn’t about them, necessarily,” Chapman said. “It was just about me; it was all about me at that time.” This reiterates the mindset of many mass murderers, whose primary motivation is achieving personal fame. Chapman stated, “I’m sure the big part of me is Holden Caulfield, who is the main person in the book. The small part of me must be the Devil.”

The Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951. It describes the adventures of Holden Caulfield, a 16-year-old anti-hero who has been expelled from yet another elite preparatory school. Caulfield railed endlessly against the “phonies” of the world. The reclusive author, J.D. Salinger, provided a rare interview to Shirlie Blaney of Windsor High School in Cornish, NH, in which he told Blaney that the novel had an autobiographical aspect. Salinger stated, “My boyhood was very much the same as that of the boy in the book. It was a great relief telling people about it.” The catharsis that Salinger experienced from writing the novel resonated and continues to resonate with many of the disaffected and abandoned in society.

Exhibit II: The Killing of Actress Rebecca Schaeffer

Actress Rebecca Schaeffer made a name for herself appearing in the television series, My Sister Sam, which premiered in 1986. In 1989, she was stalked and killed by Robert Bardo, an obsessed fan. Bardo, like many others, was infatuated with her beauty and eagerly mailed her a fan letter. He received back a glossy 8”x10” stock studio photo, which he perceived to be an affirmation of his love. A simple gesture like this photo caused him to completely misinterpret the reality of the situation and set him off on flights of fancy. Bardo traveled to Hollywood on at least three occasions and visited the studio, where he was rebuffed by security.

Temporarily deterred by his inability to get close to Schaeffer, he began to focus his attention on other female celebrities including Tiffany and Madonna. Prior to that, he had focused his attention on Samantha Smith, who had garnered worldwide celebrity status based on her letter writing campaign with Russian Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. Smith was killed in a plane crash in 1985 and Rebecca Schaeffer filled the void when My Sister Sam came on the air in 1986.

Robert Bardo was one of seven children who was raised in what is best described as a dysfunctional environment. He struggled with mental illness and was seen by a psychiatrist, but discontinued treatment. His neighbors viewed him as emotionally unstable; he would often become enraged, and he was described by one neighbor as a “psycho.” It is reported that Bardo threatened to get his .357 magnum and shoot another neighbor.

From all accounts, Bardo worshipped Schaeffer’s innocence. In one letter, he told Schaeffer that he identified with her character’s yearning to be famous. His path to fame, however, veered off onto the road to infamy.

Bardo became upset and disillusioned when Rebecca Schaeffer seemingly changed right before his eyes. She began to take on more risqué roles after My Sister Sam was cancelled, which Bardo could not abide. He asked his brother to purchase a .357 revolver for him and his brother foolishly complied. In one letter to the actress, he included lyrics from a John Lennon song and a self-authored song. He wrote to his sister, “I have an obsession with the unattainable and I have to eliminate (something) that I cannot attain.” He was not specific about his intentions.

Finally, Bardo went to Schaeffer’s apartment and rang her doorbell. Her intercom was not working and she answered her door in her bathrobe. She was polite but told Bardo to leave. He complied, went down the street, and called his sister, confiding to her that he was about to complete his mission.

He returned to her apartment and again rang the doorbell. Schaeffer answered, now out of patience, and told him to leave. Upset by this rejection, Bardo pulled out his gun and shot Schaeffer in the abdomen, fatally wounding her.

Bardo claimed that his inspiration to shoot Schaeffer came from the song Exit, by the rock group U-2. Bardo believed that some of the lyrics were references to Schaeffer and himself. Reviewing the lyrics of the song provides some insight into his mindset. “He wanted to believe in the hands of love.” The song describes the mixed emotions of love ranging from black to white with the singer, at least metaphorically, “fingering the steel” of a pistol in his pocket.

What other influences may have held sway with Bardo? When he was fleeing the scene of the shooting, he tossed away a copy of The Catcher in the Rye. He had previously written letters to Mark David Chapman after the assassination of John Lennon. After leaving the crime scene, Bardo was subsequently arrested the following day while running through traffic in Tucson, Arizona.

Exhibit III: John Hinkley, J.D. Salinger and Taxi Driver

A new PBS documentary on J.D. Salinger will discuss The Catcher in the Rye and will presumably analyze the fact that many killers have identified with the loneliness and isolation experienced by the book’s protagonist, Holden Caulfield.  Although The Catcher in the Rye should not be seen as a contributing factor to their lethal violence, troubled readers undoubtedly identify with Holden’s loneliness and frustration and view his dilemma as support and affirmation for the similar emotions that they are experiencing.

John Hinckley, who attempted to kill President Reagan, and wounded four others, was also enamored with The Catcher in the Rye. Hinckley was also motivated by and obsessed with the movie Taxi Driver in which the main character, Travis Bickle, was played by Robert DeNiro. The character of Travis Bickle was loosely based on Arthur Bremer, the shooter of Alabama Governor and presidential candidate, George Wallace. In the movie, Bickel becomes enamored with an aide to a political candidate and when she rebuffs him, he targets the political candidate for assassination. Hinckley reportedly had seen Taxi Driver in excess of fifteen times and he became obsessed with the character of the 15-year-old prostitute portrayed by Jodie Foster. The movie poster for Taxi Driver read, “On every street in every city, there’s a nobody who dreams of being a somebody.” Besides being voted one of the best movie taglines of all time, it also epitomizes the deranged thoughts and spirit of many a mass killer.

From jail, Mark Chapman sent a letter to J.D. Salinger apologizing for being inspired by the book. The cloistered author never responded. Catcher is not in itself particularly violent but it does provide comfort to those who have lost their way and are looking for some confirmation of their discontent and disillusionment. They have been sucked into the negative emotional vortex of an all-engulfing hopelessness.

While browsing at your favorite bookstore, the next time you spy someone reading The Catcher in the Rye, you might start looking for the nearest exit. If you look on my bookshelf, you will certainly find a copy. What does that say about me?

Please click here to view Mike Roche’s other posts:

Family Annihilator Darin Campbell Murders His Family and Torches Lavish Tampa Mansion

Alex Hribal Was Desperate and Said He Wanted Someone to Kill Him

Columbia Mall Shooter Darion Aguilar Followed the Model of Notorious Mass Murderers

Peter Lanza Speaks: The Lethal and Unvarnished Truth about His Son Adam

FHP Officer Jimmy Fulford Fields Pipe Bomb Intended for Young Mother with His Bare Hands and Dies Instantly

Fire Department and California Highway Patrol Go 9 Rounds: Win, Lose or Draw?

The Boston Bombers: A Tale of Two Troubled Brothers

Don’t Text at the Movies, The Life You Lose May Be Your Own!

Mike Roche has over three decades of law enforcement experience. He began his career with the Little Rock Police Department, and spent twenty-two years with the U.S. Secret Service. The last fifteen years of his career were focused on conducting behavioral threat assessments of those threatening to engage in targeted violence. He is the author of three novels and two nonfiction works on mass murder and also rapport building. Retired, Mike is currently a security consultant at Protective Threat LLC, and an adjunct instructor at Saint Leo University. He resides in Florida with his family.

Mass Killers: How you Can Identify, Workplace, School, or Public Killers Before They Strikehttp://www.amazon.com/Mass-Killers-Identify-Workplace-School-ebook/dp/B00GHZWC1M/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389112969&sr=1-2&keywords=mass+killers

Face 2 Face: Observation, Interviewing and Rapport Building Skills: an Ex-Secret Service Agent’s Guide http://www.amazon.com/Face-2-ebook/dp/B009991BII/ref=sr_1_6?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1354630000&sr=1-6

The Blue Monster  http://www.amazon.com/The-Blue-Monster-ebook/dp/B0054H8TMA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1312641741&sr=1-1

Coins of Death http://www.amazon.com/Coins-Of-Death-ebook/dp/B005RPZ256/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1317860179&sr=1-3

Karma! http://www.amazon.com/Karma-Mike-Roche-ebook/dp/B0054H4OAG/ref=la_B00BHEIF78_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389724285&sr=1-4

by Lise LaSalle

In 2013, Werner Herzog made a documentary about the Routier case called On Death Row. It is far from over and the prosecutor’s misconduct should be condemned until there is redress.

Darlie Lynn Peck was born on January 4, 1970 in Altoona, Pennsylvania. When she was seven, following her parents’ divorce, she moved to Lubbock, Texas with her mother and siblings. Years later, she settled in the suburb of Rowlett with her husband Darin Routier and their three boys.

On June 6, 1996, she was accused of stabbing to death two of her three sons — 5-year-old Damon and 6-year-old Devon — in the family room of their home while her husband and their infant son Drake were sleeping upstairs.

She was prosecuted for the murder of Damon, the younger of the two boys and convicted of murdering him. She was sentenced to death on February 4, 1997 and is currently on death row in Texas awaiting execution by lethal injection.

At the time, the prosecution’s theory was that she had murdered her sons because of financial difficulties. Her husband owned a small tech company that he operated out of their home and he was used to earning a high income. From all accounts, they were living large. They had a huge two-story home, an SUV, a Jaguar and a boat. The prosecutors painted a picture of a pampered and materialistic woman who was in a state of panic because her luxurious lifestyle was evaporating.

The case was high profile and the image portrayed by the prosecution was picked up by the media and it spread among the public like wildfire.

The prosecutors in her trial were Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis, Toby Shook and Sherri Wallace. She was tried only for the murder of Damon because under Texas law, if convicted, she would be eligible for the death penalty due to his age.

 “That she will be sentenced to die, and at some day in the future, she will be executed. That is our goal in this case”, Greg Davis said early in the game. It was his mantra and the search for the truth was not first and foremost in his mind. His goal was to pin her to the death row wall and fast.

Darlie’s defense attorney was Doug Parks and at the time, he decided to file a motion to request a change of venue thinking she could not receive a fair trial in Dallas County. Judge Mark Tolle granted the request and the trial was moved to Kerrville. It turned out to be a big mistake, given that Kerrville was located in one of Texas’s most conservative counties. Parks had played right in the prosecution’s hands.

He also filed a motion to have her bond, which was half a million dollars on each murder charge, drastically reduced but Judge Tolle denied it. The prosecutor wanted to make sure she would remain in custody so he created the perception that she could be a flight risk or even a threat to society.

When Doug Mulder succeeded Parks as her counsel, he quickly filed a motion to have the case returned to Dallas County. Judge Tolle denied the motion, much to the delight of the prosecution. The State’s case was good and ready with the help of the biased media which had spent the previous six months portraying Darlie as a materialistic, evil murderess. Sensationalism sells and the truth often does not.

If there is one truth we should all believe, it is that ‘things are rarely as they seem’ and that we must always question the news and investigate before we let the media or the justice system shove their convenient version of the truth down our collective throats.

Not unlike other defendants vilified by the State and the media, Darlie, to fit their blueprint of the crime, became their materialistic Scarlett O’Hara from Gone with the Wind. She was living in her own Tara and had manipulated her poor husband into giving her the good life. And she was not going to go hungry again so she killed her kids instead.  Give me a break Greg Davis!

I spent two years working on a regular basis in Dallas and I discovered that the Texas ladies had their own brand of chic. They tend to wear a lot of jewelry, makeup and their clothes can be flashy or high in ‘originality’. I was surprised to see quite a few wig stores in the city. Around here, wigs are a rare staple unless you are undergoing chemotherapy. But in Texas, the ladies like to mix it up.

After all, Dallas is the city where Mary Kay lived and established her business. She owned a big building in town and was responsible for boosting the local economy. This lady wore wigs, gold bumblebees, makeup galore, high heels and would have never been caught wearing pants. In fact, all her female employees were forbidden to wear pants at the office. The rule might have changed after she died in 2001, but that is how this business woman wanted it. God first, family second, career third, but in style.

Even if she preached the empowerment of women, all her sales managers were men. And in interviews, she spoke in a gentle, childish voice even though she was managing an empire. She rewarded the ladies who achieved the status of sales directors by letting them use a pink company Cadillac they drove proudly around town. Empowerment combined with conformity was the dichotomy of the Dallas ladies at the time.

Mary Kay gave a very useful tip to women: You go to bed with your makeup on and get up before your husband so he will not see you ‘au naturel’. We can see clearly that Darlie was no exception. Beauty and grooming were part of her make-up.

While attending conferences in Dallas, I sometimes felt like a Quaker at the masquerade ball. Some of the ladies would try to share with me their makeup routine, which was comprised of three layers of foundation with powder on top, and their tips for ‘volumizing’ hair. I had to decline respectfully. I prefer cotton candy at the fair and preferably not on my head. In spite of their effort to try to primp me up, like poor Cinderella’s godmothers at the ball, I stuck to my own brand of retro chic.

But they were lovely, strong, independent ladies who enjoyed looking their best and put much effort into it. It made them feel successful and like the ‘whole package.’ Darlie also spoke with a soft, feminized voice and liked to wear jewelry while living in a big house.  Who could blame her? They were living the American dream that was sold to them. She and her husband started as a young couple and built the company from the ground up. She was a bright girl who managed the business and took care of three children she undeniably adored. So spare me the fact that she was materialistic and superficial because she was only towing the party line on that one. You can’t judge a book by its cover if you do not read it.

It was not enough for prosecutor Greg Davis to call her materialistic and superficial; he declared on TV that she was a psychopath. A totally unsubstantiated claim not supported by the state forensic psychiatrist who never took the stand in her trial.

‘’She has been evaluated, and no one has said that,” Dallas attorney Stephen Cooper said, negating Davis’ psychopath label. He and others have been fighting to save her life since her conviction in 1997. But the State of Texas is stubborn and would rather send a woman to her death than admit it might have erred. Making that kind of claim publicly should have brought a lawsuit but instead, it increased Davis’s popularity.

Legal ethics expert Ellen Yaroshefsky declared that referring to Routier as a psychopath with no factual basis to confirm it is “outrageous”. “Particularly, a public servant who is a minister of justice should not be characterizing defendants in this manner. It is unethical to do so,’’ she said. So give me a break Greg Davis!

Darlie vehemently denied killing her two boys and her story was that an intruder came in while she was sleeping on the couch and her two boys were sleeping on the floor. They had fallen asleep while watching TV on a hot night. He stabbed her and the boys and according to Darlie, ran out through the back. Her screams woke up her husband who rushed downstairs while she was calling 911 to get help for the boys.

When the detectives arrived on the scene, they came to another conclusion after 20 minutes. They determined there had been no intruder. Their investigation was aimed at proving her guilt. She was arrested 12 days later.

The trial lasted nearly a month and the proceedings started with the first witness for the State, Dr. Joanie Mclaine, who explained two defense wounds on Damon’s body, in order to prove he had struggled with his attacker. The Coroner described the difference between the children’s wounds and Darlie’s ‘hesitation’ wounds, to suggest she had stabbed herself; even if the cut to her neck came 2 millimeters from her carotid artery and could have meant certain death in a matter of minutes. As an adult, it is reasonable to think that she could have fought harder and avoided some of the intensity of the attack.

They also accused her of punching her own arms because the bruising was not as apparent when she was admitted to the hospital. Bruises do not appear right away and how would she have done this while medicated and always surrounded by people? She also had a huge bone deep cut on her arm. According to the prosecution, it was all her own doing.

Officer Waddel, the first policeman on the scene, testified to the carnage and the jury was shown photos of the crime scene. A paramedic testified that he tended to little Damon who was struggling for air with slashed lungs. The next paramedic who tended to Darlie in the ambulance, testified that she did not ask once about the condition of her children.

At a pre-trial hearing four months before the jury trial, Dr. Janis Parchman-Townsend testified to the wounds Darlie had sustained. Davis after inquiring about these injuries, asked, “At the time that you saw Mrs. Routier, did you know whether or not she had breast implants?’’ The bemused doctor replied, “I didn’t know’’.  Davis’ goal was to present Darlie in a negative light and he succeeded. He did the same when her husband took the stand. He tried to bring up the topic of cosmetic surgery once again to make her appear shallow and vain. Not unlike his Arizona counterpart, Juan Death Martinez, he tried to turn breast implants into accessories to murder. Give me a break Greg Davis!

The next part of the trial was spent tearing apart the accused. They discussed the evidence and told the jury that the only fingerprints uncovered at the scene were Darlie’s and her two children’s. They failed to turn up any evidence of an intruder. It was determined that the crime scene was staged. The blood found on her nightshirt was attributed to her stabbing and slicing gestures. The last witness was FBI special agent, Al Brantley. He gave all his reasons why he was sure there was no intruder and said that the children were killed by someone they knew.

The prosecution’s case included bloodstain pattern analysis by Tom Bevel. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that this approach to crime scene analysis is “more subjective than scientific.”

Bevel’s testimony contradicted the physical evidence; he testified that because bloodstains on the right shoulder area of Darlie’s nightshirt contained a mixture of her blood and each of her two children’s (one stain contained her blood mixed with Devon’s and the other contained her blood mixed with Damon’s) it showed that she had to have been bleeding when the boys were stabbed.

This contradicts the state’s case because of a sock that was found about 75 feet down an alley behind the Routier’s residence. The sock was partly saturated with Devon and Damon’s blood. This means that by the time the sock was deposited in the alley, the children had already been attacked. However, the state never explained how Darlie could have gotten the sock into the alley without leaving a trail of blood leading to or around where it was found.

As evidenced by the crime scene photographs, she bled a great deal from her injuries. This is a major conundrum because blood from each boy was on the sock and Darlie would have had to have been bleeding when she deposited it. And that famous sock had been in an open basket in the utility room where the intruder supposedly entered. So he could have easily grabbed it and dumped it on his way out.

Lloyd Harrel, who was employed with a private investigation firm, and had worked as a private investigator and for the FBI, testified for the defense that the prosecution’s transcript of Darlie’s 911 call was inaccurate. He also talked about the secret wiretapping of the boy’s grave site by the police. In his professional opinion, it was an unlawful act because there was no warrant. Harrel testified that when he met Bevel, the bloodstain analyst made statements “materially different’’ than the ones he made under oath on the stand. The officer responsible for the wiretap would later plead the fifth — another ground for a new trial. How can the jury trust an officer taking the fifth?

The tape made at the grave site turned out to be the lightning rod of the trial. The prosecution was preoccupied with Darlie’s behavior and wanted to catch her doing something wrong. So they illegally wiretapped the events of June 14, which was Devon’s birthday. He would have turned seven years old on that day so the Routier family and their friends brought balloons and trinkets to decorate the grave. Darlie’s sister had bought cans of Silly String which Darlie sprayed with gusto while smiling and chewing gum. The local media were there and filmed the gathering.

It was played at trial and the jury, during deliberations, watched the 21 second segment of Darlie chewing gum, laughing and spraying Silly String, 8 or 9 times. If they would have bothered to watch the rest of it, they would have seen a family praying and crying together. But they were fixated on this clip.

Prosecutors would claim that such frivolity was not befitting of a mother in mourning. Darlie was taking medication for anxiety and depression, prompting Davis to pose the question, “Are you trying to blame your behavior, shooting Silly String, laughing and giggling on any medication?” Darlie quite rightly replied, “No, I am not blaming my behavior, I don’t think there is anything to blame”.

The prosecutor said publicly that when he saw the Silly String video on the news, he knew she had committed the crime. He said ‘’it disgusted me, it troubled me, it’s inconceivable.’’ Give me a break Greg Davis!

What I see as a big problem in the prosecution’s case is the kitchen knife used in the attack; when they tested it for DNA, they only found Darlie and Damon’s blood on it. Devon’s blood was not on it. They tried Darlie for the murder of Damon only, knowing full well that their case would have been in jeopardy with only one bloody knife in the house. It might have meant the intruder left with the other one.

Many other elements of the case are troubling and contradictory. The prosecution contended that Darlie cut her own throat while standing over the sink. But the blood on her pillow and its cover supports that her throat was cut while she was sleeping on the couch. Pictures were entered as evidence at trial. They also found towels in the living room and hallway confirming that she had wet them in the sink, contrary to the state’s theory. Neighbors even saw a strange car parked near the house which supported the intruder’s theory.

The chain of custody for her nightshirt was problematic. It was cut and removed by a paramedic and the bloodstains not preserved. Instead, it was placed in bags and taken to the fire station. We don’t even know if it was mixed with Damon’s clothing or not. There was blood at the bottom of the bag meaning it could have seeped from one area to the other. It should have been inadmissible because of the possibility of cross-contamination.

They did not contemplate that maybe her husband had hired someone to kill his family. Not probable but surely more plausible than his wife cutting her own throat and being covered with deep bruises from her wrists to her underarms. If she was so vain, would she have disfigured herself this way? They say she suffered from postpartum depression after her third child and that they had financial troubles and frequent fights. Since when does that constitute evidence?

Darin Routier had tried to get someone to rob his house for the Insurance money and even to have his car stolen. Would it be so farfetched to investigate if he wanted his family gone also to collect the money? Or did they ever consider that Darlie could have had a psychotic episode instead of being a cold blood killer? And if you can’t explain how or why an intruder came in, does that mean it did not happen?

A perusal of their business accounts flies in the face of the prosecution’s theory that they were in dire financial straits. As far as not paying the mortgage, June was the only month in arrears because of the trauma of the tragedy. And it remained unpaid afterwards as Darin did not want to go back to that house. It went into foreclosure.

The prosecution said there were no fingerprints from the intruder but a bloody one was found on the glass table. They said it was from one of the boys, but conveniently, they were not fingerprinted. The Routiers had to have them exhumed to get their fingerprints. And surprise, it did not belong to them or to any member of the family.

And the biggest blunder of the case is the original trial transcript. They found 33,000 mistakes and they were serious ones. The court reporter eventually lost her license. She had even lied to a Judge about the existence of audiotapes of the trial. She pretended there was only static on them because she did not want to upset the judge and force another trial due to her mistakes. This should have automatically resulted in a new trial.

After she was found guilty and given the death penalty, one juror came forward to say he made a mistake. He declared that he felt pressured by other jurors and could not have voted guilty if he had seen photos of her injuries not shown at trial.

The testimony of some of the nurses who attended to Darlie was also suspect. They gathered in the prosecutor’s office for the usual pre-trial meeting and then testified that she was cold and unfeeling. But the nurse’s notes kept at the station told a different story; it was written that she was very distraught, upset and crying all the time.

So with no expert testimony about Darlie being unlikely to pose a future danger, the jury gave her death instead of a life sentence.

Almost 17 years have passed since Darlie was sentenced to die and there have been no sign of the psychopathy claimed by the then-Dallas Country Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis. And she still claims her innocence.

Every morning on death row, Darlie starts the day with Scripture reading and prayers with other inmates. She tries to help them as much as she can with writing or any other task she can be useful at. She makes the best of a bad situation. Her family, supporters and defense team soldier on and remain hopeful she will be eventually set free. Her former husband has always believed in her innocence. He hung on for the longest time but finally filed for divorce in 2011 to move on from the ‘limbo’ they were in since her arrest.

Davis was right about one thing; this Southern belle does have a lot in common with Scarlett O’Hara. Resourceful and strong and not unlike the movie character, she has raised herself above adversity. Who could forget the classic old clip of Carol Burnett’s sketch as Scarlett going down the stairs of Tara wearing a curtain dress with the rod on her shoulders and declaring, “I saw it in a window and I just couldn’t resist.’’

Not unlike Scarlett making herself a dress out of curtains during hard times, Darlie has managed, even on death row, to keep her dignity and to take pictures of herself that could pass for glamour shots, while wearing her white prison jumpsuit. She is allowed to buy basic beauty products at the commissary and every morning, she makes sure to keep her spirits up by doing her hair and makeup. Some would call it vain, I call it survival. She is a survivor and she will not be ‘Gone with the Wind.’ Let’s hope she eventually gets a chance to hug her son Drake who was diagnosed with leukemia. There was plenty of reasonable doubt in this case and she deserved a fair trial.

And frankly my dear Greg Davis, many of us do give a damn!

Greg Davis was indicted in Collin County by a grand jury in 2010 on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, a state jail felony punishable by up to two years in jail. State District Judge David Brabham granted the motion to squash. Apparently, the indictment wording was too vague. Davis declined to comment. Davis was not retained by District Attorney Greg Willis who took over. He was promoted to First Assistant District Attorney of McLennan County in 2013.

According to Geoffrey Hazard, considered a leading national expert on ethics in the legal profession, “The public should have been shocked at Davis’s courtroom behavior. Hazard said that if Davis had tried such tactics in California where judges have exceptionally high professional standards, he would not have gotten into the second sentence with that.’’

“You’ve got a zoo there,’’ he said, referring to the Routier trial.

Nevertheless, Davis’ tactics went largely unchallenged by the judge – perhaps because at times he may not even have been aware of them. It was detailed in more than 400 pages of copious, handwritten trial notes that Tolle appeared to fall sleep at least 16 times while Routier was on trial.  

commentary by Patrick H. Moore

Note: David Lee Simpson’s trial is apparently either under way or about to begin.

It is well-known that a great many of the women who closely followed the Jodi Arias trial despise the very ground (or currently concrete) that she walks upon. I imagine it is some combination of the fact that she brutally slaughtered the fresh-faced Travis Alexander — with his boy next door good looks and his apparently pleasing motivational-speaker ways — combined with the fact that Jodi is perceived by many as a prevaricating, promiscuous, manipulative, anal-sex loving, prima donna.

It turns out, however, that there are some men wandering about this land who actually prefer Jodi to Travis, and in some cases even had (or still have) powerful crushes on the allegedly good-looking young murderess. Fortunately, I do not fall into that category. With my monk-like ways, I am largely indifferent to Jodi’s personal appearance (not) and simply find poor Travis to be very dead. That much is clear. My feelings toward him are no different than my feelings toward any unfortunate soul who has the bad luck to be offed as a result of a love affair gone wrong.

But this brief post is not about me and my feelings for Jodi and poor Travis (or lack thereof). This post is about an arguably dangerous man named David Lee Simpson, a 48-year old resident of Bath, New York, who is charged with three felony counts of computer tampering and two felony counts of stalking, based on online threats he made against HLN’s Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell and an unnamed Phoenix  newswoman. David Lohr at Huffington Post has the story:

According to Maricopa County prosecutor Edward Leiter, Simpson — who had apparently become infatuated with Jodi — became so incensed and hostile toward Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell because of the negative things they were saying about Arias that he tweeted in June that he wanted to tie them to a “tree naked and leave them to suffer all night” and then “slit their throats.” Although this may or may not have been quite enough on its own to land Simpson in the slammer, he made it much worse by allegedly telling a co-worker at an auto repair shop in Bath that he wanted to gut one of the TV commentators “like a deer.”

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has reiterated that Simpson made the threats because he was “infatuated with Jodi Arias” and was upset with all the nasty things that the two broadcasters were saying about her while covering her  murder trial.

The coffin nail for Simpson was that during a (not so) routine traffic stop on July 17th, the police searched his vehicle and allegedly found guns, handcuffs, zip-ties, binoculars, a knife and a police radio. The detectives also found a news article about the Newtown shooting.

“This suspect was on his way south with enough weapons in his car to do serious harm to someone,” Arpaio said at a press conference following Simpson’s arrest.

Bath appeared in court on Oct. 16 at a pre-trial conference hearing before Maricopa County Superior Court judge Margaret Mahoney. At the hearing, Simpson’s lawyer, Casey Martin, told the judge he has been in talks with the prosecutor about a possible plea deal for his client.

In response, Judge Mahoney ordered both parties to appear at a settlement conference to discuss the matter.

Simpson, who was extradited to Arizona in July, had previously entered a not guilty plea to the charges.

As is well-known, Arias — the unwitting motivation behind Simpson’s alleged actions — was convicted in May of killing her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander. The jury determined she stabbed Alexander nearly 30 times, slit his throat and then shot him in the head at his Arizona home. The Arias jury, however, failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether she should receive life in prison or the death penalty. A second sentencing phase jury is scheduled to commence deliberations this coming September. If this jury fails to reach a verdict, the death penalty is off the table and the judge will sentence Ms. Arias.

*     *     *     *     *

At Simpson’s settlement conference, a resolution was not reached which is why it is now preceding to trial.

I don’t have a strong sense of what would be a fair resolution in this matter. The threats alone probably need to be taken seriously, but then, when you toss in Simpson’s “stalking arsenal” complete with the Newtown news article, the profile of a potential psycho-killer begins to emerge. Would 5 years in prison be enough? 1o years? If he was to receive a 5-year term to be served in the Arizona State penitentiary, it would cost the Arizona taxpayers somewhere in the vicinity of $150,000. Maybe instead of going to all this trouble, Simpson could be convinced to “gut himself like a deer”. It’s entirely possible that he knows exactly how to execute that rather complex maneuver.

commentary by Patrick H. Moore

As our curious nation hurtles along the “road to nowhere” (formerly known as Manifest Destiny), the battle over rabid gun proliferation seems to be “breaking badly” in favor of the gun expansionists. There have been a few exceptions to this unfortunate trend, however, as is exemplified by the recent first-degree-murder conviction of Byron Smith in Minnesota for “lying in wait” and shooting and killing two unarmed teenagers who stupidly broke into his home, apparently hoping to find narcotic pain pills or possibly items that they could fence to buys drugs.

There are, of course, two sides to every story, and the recent Georgia home invasion where 88-year-old Russell Dermond was inexplicably decapitated, apparently by an unidentified home invader(s), does suggest that Americans do have some cause to be worried about their safety, from which it follows that being “armed and dangerous” could be viewed as a necessity.

Personally, I believe that the U.S. will remain the most heavily-armed nation on earth until hell freezes over, which could be a very long time considering that the polar ice caps are rapidly melting.

As a recent case out of Mystic, Connecticut demonstrates, however, there is an element within the firearm proliferation generation that is sick, twisted and dangerous and has no place in a civilized society.

David Moye of the Huffington Post writes:

A playground in Mystic, Connecticut, dedicated to a girl shot during the Newtown massacre, is allegedly being vandalized by “truthers” who claim the shooting never took place. (Boldface added for emphasis.)

A vinyl sign weighing 50 pounds was stolen last Tuesday from the Grace McDonnell Playground.

The sign featured a peace symbol that was based on the 7-year-old girl’s drawing. She is one of the 20 children shot by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut on Dec. 14, 2012.

In what can only be seen as an incredibly insulting slap in the face, Grace’s mother, Lynn McDonnell, found out about the theft when a man claiming to have stolen the sign called her.

In what was reportedly a brief conversation, according to CBS2, the sign-stealer allegedly told McDonnell that he took the sign because he believes the school shooting was a hoax.

This deeply offensive individual also taunted Lynn McDonnell, telling her that her daughter Grace never existed. This comment, of course, suggests that the sicko is insinuating that Lynn was part of the alleged conspiracy.

Now as anyone with even one-third of a brain is painfully aware, Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School after killing his mother at their nearby home, in what is probably the most high-profile mass school shooting since the Columbine massacre.

According to RawStory.com, this small group of “truthers” claim the Sandy Hook massacre  never occurred or was part of a ‘false flag’ operation designed to open the door to the confiscation of all guns by the government.

“Truthers” offer numerous theories about what they say really happened, but of course these half-baked fantasies are so ridiculous that it’s remarkable that anyone, no matter how rabidly pro-gun, would believe them. Thus, the fact that these so-called “truthers” apparently believe this poppycock suggests that they are either weak-mind, crazy or downright Hitlerian in their insistence on trotting out the Big Lie.

The Grace McDonnell Playground is one of 26 being built in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey by the Where Angels Play Foundation to honor the victims of the massacre. It was only opened on April 27^th which means the stolen sign was only present in the park for a few weeks.

According to Foundation executive director, MaryKate Lavin, a replacement sign has already been ordered.

“We are going to keep moving forward,” she told NBC Connecticut. “This is not going to stop us, but it is heartbreaking.”

Sadly, this particular sign theft is not an isolated event, coming just days after vandals painted graffiti at a playground in Hartford dedicated to Newtown victim Anna Grace Marquez-Greene.

The police, of course, are still investigating both incidents.

*     *     *     *     *

Now although like all people of arguably good will, I despise “hate crimes”, up till now I’ve never jumped on the “hate crime” bandwagon; that is, I have not gone around denouncing the perpetrators of hate crimes, perhaps assuming that the private hell of their enfevered psyches must be considerable punishment, not to mention the legal retribution they will typically receive in the event they are apprehended by law enforcement.

This defacement and/or theft of the Sandy Hook memorials and accompanying harassment of at least one of the victim’s mother’s is more than even I can bear. If I were Max Myers I would be absolutely livid. I am cut from somewhat cooler cloth (in the sense of less hot-headed), however, and therefore all I can say is that I hope these despicable excuses for human beings are arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

by Lise LaSalle

“The vagueness of federal law makes it relatively easy for a federal prosecutor to successfully prosecute any business, person or public official, especially those in financial embarrassment.’’

The six IT professionals dubbed the IRP6 are currently sitting in prison in Florence, Colorado for mail/wire-fraud waiting on their appeals and other legal motions. Their crime? A debt they incurred and the government accusing them of promoting a non-existent software, even though their product was profiled on the Policemag.com technology website.

This litigation involving a debt collection was filed by staffing agencies hired by IRP Solutions. It was turned into a criminal fraud by an overzealous FBI agent named John Smith and an ambitious Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) named Matthew Kirsch.

Who are the IRP6?

They are Gary Walker, CEO; David Banks, COO: Clinton Stewart, VP; David Zirpolo, VP; Kendrick Barnes, CIO; and Demetrius Harper, CEO/DKH. Three of them are Veterans (2-Air Force/1-Navy) and none of them has any previous criminal charges. They are all Christian men, five black and one white, who have attended the same church for 20 years. Their families are awaiting their appeal results and fighting for their release.

The company

IRP Solutions Corporate Office

IRP Solutions Corporation was a small black-owned company founded in February 2003 in Denver, Colorado by six outstanding IP executives. Its mission was to develop new law enforcement sharing software to aid local, state and federal agencies.  They built their small IP Company from the ground up and focused on a product called CILC (Case Investigate Life Cycle). The program was designed to be used from the very beginning of an investigation all the way to the prosecution. The men saw a pressing need for this type of product based on the Government’s claim that 9/11 occurred because state and Federal agencies lacked adequate information sharing platforms.

Hiring of staffing companies

For IRP to do business right after the dot-com meltdown meant that they had to obtain start-up funds in a very difficult climate. They went through the regular banking channels and approached venture capital people, but were turned down repeatedly. They then opted for staffing companies to provide them with the personnel they needed to keep the company running until it became profitable, which in their mind, was a certainty. The day they inaugurated their brand new office building, many people from law enforcement attended. They were already receiving many accolades and kudos for their products.

We can only assume that the staffing companies decided to do business with IRP because it could become very lucrative for them in the long term if IRP signed contracts with agencies like NYPD (New York Police Department) or the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or any other important law enforcement group. The high demand for this type of software clearly motivated their decision.

The six IRP executives went to work, proud to commit to a task that could help their country. They really had a passion for helping law enforcement and were constantly tweaking the software according to the demands and specifications given to them by the agencies they were in contact with. In fact, they made numerous trips to the DHS and provided them with numerous quotes for IRP software modules, including a $70 million quote for their 2005 budget. They visited the Department of Justice, the Commissioner of Immigration Customs Enforcement and made presentations to the federal government. They even invited retired FBI and Immigration and Customs agents to share their insights on how to improve the software.

Their negotiations with NYPD and DHS seemed very promising and the IRP executives were convinced that they would close deals with one or more major agencies. On the other hand, they had scant working capital money. Their software still needed major tweaking which necessitated hiring more personnel. Otherwise, they would have to give up their dream, terminate their employees and contemplate bankruptcy. Their list of creditors was long. They persevered, however, seeing the light at the end of the tunnel in the form of a law enforcement contracts.

The FBI Raid

Out of the blue, on February 9th, 2005, the FBI raided the offices of IRP Solutions. Twenty FBI agents showed up armed with a mail and wire fraud warrants based on an affidavit that IRP Solutions only had “purported’’ software.  Meaning that they had no software at all. Was it a coincidence that the raid occurred only days after the FBI had appeared at Congressional hearings in an attempt to justify how they had wasted $400 million of taxpayer’s money on the development of law enforcement software packages that did not work? It made them appear incompetent and financially irresponsible. And their budget was depleted.

This subpoena was for financial records only but strangely enough, the agents left the records on the floor and spent the day trying to retrieve IRP Solutions’ intellectual property. Why would the FBI question the existence of the software when Police Technology Magazine reported favorably on CILC and its functionality? Something smelled fishy here and it did not come from IRP’s kitchen.

Let’s not forget that these men were competing with global companies such as IBM, Deloitte and Lockheed Martin for government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars and possibly much more eventually.

The IRP debacle started when a former AUSA was approached by a friend who happened to be the principal of a staffing company which was doing business with IRP. Pressured to help and fearing career consequences, the former AUSA wrote a letter to Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirsch explaining the theory of the case and how it should be investigated. So the case was born in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and was handed off to the FBI after the U.S. Attorney’s Office had developed a theory and a prosecutorial strategy.

It is important to note, however, that some staffing companies were first approached by the government and were asked by FBI agents, “Do you know that you are the victim of fraud?”

Harvey Silverglate

The famous assertion of renowned journalist, writer and civil liberties’ attorney Harvey Silverglate, certainly applies here: “the vagueness of federal law makes it relatively easy for a federal prosecutor to successfully prosecute any business, person or public official, especially those in financial embarrassment.’’

The first grand jury to hear this case refused to indict (a rare occurrence) which suggests that the government’s initial theory of the case and its prosecutorial strategy were seriously lacking. It means that, most likely, AUSA Kirsch and the defendants both genuinely believed their very different interpretations of the situation. The indictment was not ultimately handed down until June, 2009.

FBI agent Smith had requested a search warrant for IRP stating it was a front (shell) company, and AUSA Kirsch prosecuted the case in spite of strong evidence and expert witnesses that could substantiate the legitimacy of IRP Solutions.

The Trial

The trial and conviction occurred in 2011 in Denver, Colorado. U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello presided over the case and blatantly denied any benefit of the doubt or reasonable doubt arguments that were raised by IRP.

Because IRP had kept responding to requests from the government to modify the CILC software, they consequently fell behind on paying their invoices to the staffing companies who ultimately did not get paid. After the invoices became delinquent, the allegations of wrongdoing arose and IRP was indicted for debts and for allegedly not having a ‘real’ product to market. It was suggested at trial that IRP had fooled the staffing companies into believing that they had a firm contract in the offing.

The side the jury never heard is that the staffing companies ran a Dun and Bradstreet credit check related to IRP’s payment history. Since, in the beginning, IRP had no payment history to speak of, none of the staffing companies could justify a reason to provide it with staffing services, which means that the services that were offered were based on the belief that, although IRP was a credit risk, the staffing firms would eventually win big if IRP succeeded at getting one or more contracts. They were rolling the dice and they knew it.

U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello

The reason the jury didn’t hear these facts is because Judge Arguello ruled inadmissible the testimony of the only witnesses that could have explained how staffing companies evaluate potential clients and make business decisions. Andrew Albarelle, a veteran of the staffing industry with a wide-ranging knowledge of the IT field, was prepared to testify that IRP’s outreach to staffing companies was reasonable and legal but his testimony was also disallowed.

Trial records also show that the men defended themselves pro se. “Our court appointed attorneys were not doing their job to put together a viable defense,” says Gary Walker, CEO of IRP Solutions. “They wanted us to do a plea deal,” Walker explained.

The vagueness of federal fraud law is legendary and because the narratives that could have been provided by Mr. Albarelle, Mr. Silverglate, former IRP employees, church members and even some FBI agents, were disallowed, the jury only heard the prosecution’s side of the case.

The IRP6 had a patriotic love for their country and big dreams for their security software CILC but in the end, they were “rewarded” with 7 to 11 year sentences at the Florence Correctional minimal security prison camp in Colorado.

The missing transcripts

During the trial, the IRP6′s 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights were violated and now, shockingly, 200+ pages needed for their Appeal are missing from the court transcripts.

On October 11, 2011 Judge Arguello forced one of the IRP6 executives to take the witness stand against his will, violating his 5th Amendment rights. The portion of the court transcripts that would prove that Judge Arguello violated defendant Kendrick Barnes’ 5th amendment rights was removed and an edited version was provided to the IRP6. Several motions have been filed by their attorney requesting the unedited court transcripts that are needed to file their appeal. To date, the defendants’ attorney is being told that court transcripts are missing or have been destroyed.

Mark Geragos — Attorney at Law

“The Court Reporters Act, 28 U.S.C.A 753(b) makes it mandatory by Congress, that a court reporter shall record all proceedings verbatim in criminal cases held in open court which includes sidebars”, says Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon (attorney for five of the six defendants). According to Solomon the statute reads, “…all original notes are required to be preserved and available in the clerk’s office. The reporter or other individual designated to produce the record shall attach his official certificate to the original shorthand notes or other original records so taken and promptly file them with the clerk who shall preserve them in the public records of the court for not less than ten years.”

Famous attorney Mark Geragos has joined the legal team of the group, A Just Cause, in its lawsuit against the Federal Court Reporter demanding the release of the transcripts critical to IRP6’s appeal.

The aftermath

The case is currently under appeal based on Fifth Amendment Prohibition of Testimony, Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense, and Speedy Trial Act Violations.

This is the type of story that rarely appeals to the ‘mainstream’ media. It is hard to garner interest and sympathy for this type of non-glamorous conviction. But several websites have been created in defense of the IRP6 and there is growing support for their cause. Petitions are circulating. Many journalists have attempted to interview them but have been turned down by the correctional system. They are trying to keep the noose very tight around these men’s neck.

There is an element of sordidness about this case, probably because it is related to National Security and not only about owing money to staffing companies. This case should have been handled as a civic matter from day one. Nothing about these six executives indicated dishonesty and their product was real. It seems that their normal business practices were misrepresented by the prosecutors to foster the perception that they were scam artists.

A Federal imprisonment for the purported violations of civil law is uncalled for and questionable at best. It makes you wonder why the FBI agents raided the offices of IRP. In fact, one of the agents told the executives during the raid that he did not understand why they needed or were taking all that information. After imaging their computers, the agents seized intellectual property, software documentation, software developers’ notes and everything to do with their product.

This ‘pressing’ matter in the eyes of the FBI, took two years to be processed. The IRP wanted to be heard but all their pleas were ignored. The story fell on deaf ears. Who wanted to acquire (steal) their software? Why take a case of debt collection to this level? Why not release the missing transcripts? Over criminalization is a dangerous trend in America and this is another startling example of a David and Goliath case. But let’s not forget who historically won that fight.

For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to http://www.freetheirp6.org .

IRP Solutions round table part I and II:

http://youtu.be/PZRtW3To7RE & http://youtu.be/gRWML6a_WiY

commentary by Patrick H. Moore

Julie Schenecker’s first-degree-murder trial for shooting and killing her two children – 16-year-old Calyx and 13-year-old Beau — is winding down and little is left other than the closing statements and, of course, the jury’s deliberations.

Here on All Things Crime Blog we’ve attempted to achieve some semblance of balance in analyzing this case by posting a compassionate (and passionate) post by our resident humanitarian psychiatrist, Starks Shrink, in which Starks (with that name wouldn’t you expect him to be a rather proper English butler?) makes a strong case that the fact Ms. Schenecker’s suffers from major mental illness, Bipolar Disorder I with psychotic features, should clearly result in a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.

I mean, my god, all you have to do is look at Ms. Schenecker and much of the time it’s obvious that she is an extremely sick woman.

In response to Starks, our resident legal expert Rick Stack (the man with an encyclopedic grasp of nearly everything), clearly and succinctly defined the difference between ‘medical insanity’ and ‘legal insanity’ and gave us insight into how the 1984 IDRA  (Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984) legislation made it much harder to win acquittal by reason of insanity. The IDRA legislation was passed after the nation (or at least the nation’s law-makers) reacted (or over-reacted) with consternation after John Hinckley Jr. was acquitted by reason of insanity after shooting, though not killing, President Reagan and one of his cabinet members, shortly after Reagan’s election to the nation’s highest office.

As an aside, I much prefer the Canadian phrase, not criminally responsible, to the harsh American handle, guilty by reason of insanity. But ours is a harsh land and we love rough-edged terms such as “punishment” and “retribution.”

I walked away from Rick Stack’s helpful analysis with a sinking heart, thinking that Ms. Schenecker’s jury was liable to decide that based on the evidence, she did possess the requisite mens rea (intent) to kill her children; that is, she knew right from wrong and knew exactly what her intentions were, when she purchased the gun she used to shoot her two kids. Thus, it seemed likely that she would be convicted.

Today, however, on the last day of witness testimony, Julie’s husband, U.S. army colonel Parker Schnecker, took the stand and essentially told Julie’s life story – the good, the bad, and the in between. It so doing, he may have humanized her sufficiently to persuade one or more jurors to vote for acquittal by reason of insanity. I very much doubt the whole jury will vote to acquit, but one or two holdouts would lead to a mistrial and we would be back at square one.

Utilizing a martial metaphor, Parker Schenecker stated that Julie’s mental illness was a constant “drum beat” in their 20-year marriage. He said that Julie had talked about suicide and suffered from depression.

“She had mentioned suicide but not that she was planning on acting on it,” he said referring to her behavior during the last agonizing months, and then explained that his hope was that her energy level was too low for her to actually go through with it.

In describing how he met Julie in the military in 1990, Parker painted the picture of a vibrant young woman with excellent qualities. He was a young army officer at the time. Oddly enough, she was a military interrogator. She coached his volleyball team and was attracted to her athleticism and her “ability to stand up and take notice of things, take responsibility of things.”

Translated, Parker saw her as an ethical person with the courage of her convictions.

They married in Arizona a few years later, and she left the military after 10 years. Theirs appears to have been a typical military existence, as Parker rose through the ranks both before and after Julie gave birth to Calyx and Beau. They lived in Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia and Germany.

Parker was certainly aware that Julie “had some lower energy” and suffered from depression at the beginning of their marriage, but the Colonel said she was a good mother to the children when they were born.

It’s hard for someone who has never lived with a person with major mental illness to understand how difficult it is and how great their suffering is. Those of us who are merely neurotic like yours truly, or even mentally healthy like Rick Stack, should thank whatever kind fortune has smiled down upon us.

As the years trickled by, and Julie’s troubles showed no signs of rescinding, she visited doctors around the world and even entered into a nine-month clinical trial for her depression at the National Institute of Mental Health. This period is somewhat mysterious and Parker testified that  although, he received updates about how she was faring during her treatment regimen, Julie would not allow him access to her mental health records or her doctors.

In my experience, it is not uncommon for an individual under the care of a psychiatrist to somewhat jealousy guard their private  interactions with their therapist.

*     *     *     *     *

The family moved to Tampa in 2007. By now the kids were getting older. According to Parker, a rift developed between Julie and her mother.

Julie Schenecker was in a car crash in November of 2010, several months before the killings. Parker was convinced she had been drinking and told her she needed to be in rehab.

It’s scary to contemplate being on a battery of psychiatric drugs and drinking heavily. My heart goes out to anyone in that situation.

Julie agreed to go into rehab. When she arrived home after Thanksgiving, she stayed in bed for weeks and Parker’s mother came to help care for the kids.

Parker explained that at this point, he communicated with his wife mostly through email due to his being stationed at U.S. Central Command  in Tampa. He told her that the kids were afraid to be in the car with her following the accident, and that he agreed she shouldn’t drive them places.

“‘I MUST protect them, they are telling me they feel unsafe,’” he wrote.

Nonetheless, in mid-December, when Parker’s mother went home, Julie began driving the kids to school and resumed cooking dinner. As for Parker, whatever his rationalizations may be, the fact he wasn’t around much suggests he simply could not cope with Julie in her state of profound unrest.

*     *     *     *     *

The defense also called psychiatrist Dr. Wade Myers who reviewed Schenecker’s medical records and interviewed her following her arrest.

Dr. Myers stated Julie “was a great mother, a loving mother, when she was well”. He believes, however, that she was insane at the time of the shooting.

“At the time she killed her children, Ms. Schenecker had a delusional belief this was in the best interest of their children,” said Myers.

If she is convicted, Julie would receive a life sentence. If acquitted by reason of insanity, she would be hospitalized until she is no longer a danger to herself or others.

*     *     *     *     *

Will Parker Schenecker’s seemingly candid and apparently balanced testimony result in a mistrial? If I were a gambler, I would pick up my chips and walk away from the table.

Update: On Thursday, the jury convicted Julie Schenecker of two counts of first-degree-murder. The was sentenced to two life sentences without the possibility of parole to be run concurrently. 

Click here to view All Things Crime Blog’s earlier Julie Schenecker posts:

Julie Scheneker Trial Highlights the Difference Between ‘Medical Insanity’ and ‘Legal Insanity’

The Julie Schenecker Tragedy: Negligence, Finger-Pointing and the Death of Children

by Darcia Helle

“I didn’t do it, but I know who did.”

Imagine you are a 20-year-old, uneducated man-child who has spent his entire life in a small, crime-infested community. Your family defines dysfunctional, but you don’t think about that because you don’t know what a functional family looks like. Add to this the fact that you’re a minority in a city where prejudice runs rampant. One day you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, and suddenly you find yourself arrested and charged with the brutal murder of a young woman. You tell everyone who will listen that you did not kill her. In fact, despite your fear, you provide police with the name of the real killer.

You have confidence in the justice system. They will see that you are not the killer. They will find the real killer and set you free. You believe this up until the moment the state puts you to death for a crime you did not commit.

The Wrong Carlos: An Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution is the true story of our imagined young man. Carlos DeLuna was arrested in February, 1983 and executed on December 7, 1989. This case was pushed through the Texas courts with alarming speed. The average US death penalty case takes about 13 years to go through the appeals process. Carlos had six years from arrest to death.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that this case is old and things like this don’t happen anymore. We have far more sophisticated science. We have DNA tests. Sadly, you’d be mistaken in your trust of our modern judicial system. Carlos DeLuna’s case could just as easily happen today. We need to acknowledge all the wrong in our justice system before we can hope to get things right.

Let’s go back to the beginning. In 1960, Carlos’s mother, Margarita Conejo, moved to the La Armada housing project in Corpus Christi, Texas, with her six children after having divorced their father Francisco Conejo. There she met Joe DeLuna, and together she and Joe had three children in the three following years. Carlos DeLuna was the middle of these three children, born on March 15, 1962.

Joe DeLuna couldn’t be bothered to hang around and take care of his children. Margarita found herself with nine children, no money, and no patience. The job of raising Carlos was left to his older half-siblings.

By all accounts, Carlos was emotionally stunted, learning disabled bordering on mildly retarded, and “childlike”. In March of 1974, school psychologists diagnosed him with a “language-learning disorder”. Two years later, another school evaluation found him to have “fine-motor difficulty,” “specific learning deficits,” and “possible neurological difficulties.” Neither school officials nor his mother found the time or the right programs to help Carlos get even the most basic education. In the spring of 1977, at the age of 15, Carlos dropped out of school after having struggled through to just the eighth grade.

Carlos was no angel, nor did he claim to be. He was arrested multiple times for theft, intoxication, and sniffing paint. He was very much a boy left to fend for himself in a harsh and unforgiving environment. But Carlos was never violent. Despite multiple arrests, at no time was Carlos ever in possession of any sort of weapon. Anyone who knew Carlos said the same thing: he did not carry or even own a knife.

Carlos Hernandez, on the other hand, was not childlike or even remotely innocent.  Born on July 14, 1954, Hernandez spent his life in the same neighborhood as Carlos DeLuna. They were never friends, but they did know one another. Everyone knew Hernandez, and everyone feared him.

In 1960, when Hernandez was just six years old, his father was arrested for rape and his mother placed him in foster care. He returned to his mother a year later, though life never got easier. His father did not return home and his mother would not be winning any parenting awards.

In 1972, Hernandez was arrested on three counts of armed robbery of a gas station/convenience store. While in county jail, he was raped by at least one older inmate. This pushed the already unbalanced man who was prone to violence right over the edge. From then on, Hernandez always carried a knife. He cultivated a tough guy image, brandishing his knife and bullying people into doing what he wanted.

Over the following years, Hernandez was arrested multiple times for assault and even suspicion of murder. Hernandez always had a specific type of fixed-blade knife on him. He was also known to be extremely abusive to the women in his life. Despite his reputation, Hernandez managed to evade any hard prison time. When necessary he expertly manipulated the justice system, though often he slipped through the cracks without much effort at all.

With this history in mind, we move forward to February 4, 1983. Wanda Lopez, a young, single mother living in the same neglected neighborhood, was murdered while working the night shift at Sigmor Shamrock gas station. But telling you she was murdered is putting a shiny gloss on a dirty, vulgar act. Wanda was gutted with a knife. She was sliced up, dragged about, beaten, and left for dead. This act was brutal and personal. This was not a robbery gone bad, though the homicide detectives did their best to spin it that way.

At the exact time of Wanda’s murder, she was on the phone with 911 – for the second time – asking for help. Moments earlier, she’d made her first 911 call. She’d told the dispatcher that a man with a knife was outside the store and she was afraid, but the dispatcher had refused to help unless and until the man actually did something. When the man walked into the store, she called again. This time she was connected to a different dispatcher, and he made her repeat her story. He questioned her as if she was the suspect, demanding to know all the specifics. By the time he agreed to send help to Wanda, she was already being attacked. This is captured on the 911 recording, which you can listen to here: http://www3.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/ltc/media.html?type=audio&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.law.columbia.edu%2Fjliebman%2Fmedia%2F35-911-call-by-wanda-lopez.mp3

You might have guessed that the man in the store was Carlos Hernandez. At the time he was deciding to murder Wanda Lopez, Carlos DeLuna was standing across the street. He saw what was happening and ran. He was terrified of Hernandez and also terrified of the police. He was a child running for cover.

Hernandez left Wanda for dead, pushed out the door directly past a witness stepping inside, and raced off in the opposite direction from which Carlos DeLuna had run. The witness who came face-to-face with Hernandez saw which way he ran. But other people passing by the area saw Carlos DeLuna running the opposite way, and they assumed he was the killer. These conflicting eye-witness accounts were inconvenient to detectives arriving on the scene. Within minutes, police had compressed the differing descriptions into one person. Carlos DeLuna became that person when he was quickly found hiding beneath a truck nearby.

Police then bullied the reluctant witnesses into participating in a “show-up” identification. Carlos was driven back to the crime scene and witnesses were assured they had their man, and that he’d been found hiding under a truck. One-by-one, the witnesses were walked to the squad car, where Carlos sat in the back. A cop shined a flashlight directly in Carlos’s eyes so, according to the detectives, he wouldn’t be able to see the witnesses. Out in that dark parking lot, these terrified witnesses with disjointed stories who’d been told Carlos was the killer, were prompted to identify him. When a couple of them were reluctant, they were, for lack of a better word, coerced.

The one man who’d nearly walked into the killer hesitated but eventually agreed that Carlos DeLuna was the person he saw running out of the store. Years later, the authors of The Wrong Carlos questioned him:

Baker didn’t mince words. He had trouble recalling Hispanic names; they were all “Julio” to him, he said. And he had trouble telling Hispanics apart and judging their age. “It’s tough,” he said, “to identify cross cultures.”

This is not simply an issue of prejudice. All of us, regardless of how liberal our thinking, have more difficulty identifying and remembering specific features of people outside our own race. Add to that inherent shortcoming the fact that these witnesses were under tremendous stress, both from being involved in a murder scene and from the police pressure to help them make an arrest, and it’s not surprising that they instead got it horribly wrong.

The Innocence Project has this to say about eyewitness identifications:

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

And this leads us straight to the issue of DNA. Had Carlos DeLuna been arrested in 2014 instead of 1983, would DNA evidence have saved him? The answer is maybe.

First, to understand how absurd the arrest was from the start, I need you to picture the scene. As I mentioned, Wanda Lopez’s murder was brutal. There was quite literally blood everywhere. There were puddles of it in the store. The killer had dragged her through it. His bloody footprints tracked along the floor and out into the parking lot. When Carlos DeLuna was pulled out from beneath that truck, he did not have one speck of blood on him. None. Police explained this by saying he’d washed it off in a puddle. Corpus Christi had 1/8-inch of rain early the morning of Wanda’s murder. More than twelve hours later, it’s difficult to believe Carlos would find a deep enough puddle to fully wash away every trace of blood, all while desperately running away.

Furthermore, Carlos DeLuna had never been known to carry a knife and had never been violent. His first words to the cops who found him were: “I didn’t do it, but I know who did.” Those cops told him to shut up. Even much later, when Carlos finally broke through his fear of Hernandez and gave his name to police, not one person looked into the possibility that Carlos DeLuna was telling the truth. This, despite the fact that Hernandez was known to carry the exact same knife and had a history of violent behavior.

So much was wrong with this case from the very beginning. Some other highlights: Evidence was not collected. The lead homicide detective had never worked a homicide on her own. She spent one hour inside the store, then allowed the owner to scrub everything clean. She did not collect blood samples from inside, did not swab all the areas, did not look closely at the footprints in the blood or the handprints by the cash register. She completely ignored the fact that there was money scattered all over the floor and the owner told her that, at most, $20 was missing. Also, despite this being a vicious murder, no one questioned the fact that, aside from living in the same area, Carlos DeLuna had absolutely no connection to Wanda Lopez. He had a regular job, and none of the money in his pocket held even a tiny speck of blood. Given the magnitude of this botched case, it’s difficult to know how or if DNA could have helped. Really, all that was needed was for someone to listen to Carlos.

The topic of DNA is interesting in itself. The prosecution collects the evidence and decides which tests, if any, to run. If they feel their case is strong enough without DNA, they won’t bother. DNA tests are expensive and it’s better for their budget if they can avoid the cost. On the flip side, and showing my cynicism, maybe they also won’t initiate testing if they feel the results might muddle their chances of a win. The state is under no obligation to perform any forensic tests. Furthermore, and this is vital, the state is also under no obligation to approve the costs of these tests if the court appointed defense attorney requests them. Carlos DeLuna was poor, and poor men can’t afford private attorneys. They must make do with whichever lawyer the court appoints for them. And that lawyer must do his/her job under the constraints of a miniscule budget. This disparity is one major reason you will likely never see a wealthy person on death row.

According to this book’s authors:

The worst problem with executions is that the truth about them can so easily die with the executed prisoner. Sadly, the certainty that DNA and other forensic testing now makes possible has not changed this situation. This is because once executions occur, the same officials whose deadly mistakes might be exposed by DNA testing are given control over the crucial physical evidence in the case and consistently bar forensic testing of – or, as in Carlos DeLuna’s case, simply lose – the evidence. The public has no recourse to freedom of information laws or the courts to obtain forensic testing. The steadfast refusal of legislators, judges, and prosecutors to allow forensic testing that could provide unassailable proof of the accuracy, or not, of executions makes it difficult to credit those officials’ repeated assurances that the men and women whose executions they have sanctioned were undoubtedly guilty.

The details of this case are far too dense and convoluted for me to do justice to here. Carlos DeLuna was pushed through a system that did its best to ignore his innocence, while Carlos Hernandez fell through every crack and blissfully went on to rape and murder again. Carlos DeLuna went to the death chamber professing his innocence, pleading for just one person to do his/her job correctly and find Carlos Hernandez. Even in the moment of his state-sanctioned murder, Carlos DeLuna was not offered a shred of dignity. The first of three injections, meant to render Carlos unconscious, failed, and Carlos was conscious when the second, paralyzing drug entered his system and began suffocating him to death.

http://www.thewrongcarlos.net

commentary by Patrick H. Moore

According to Wikipedia, “a serial killer is, traditionally, a person who has murdered three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a “cooling off period”) between the murders. Some sources, such as the FBI, disregard the “three or more” criterion and define the term as “a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone” or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of two murders.”

By this criteria, Aaron Hernandez,who was formerly heralded as a supremely-talented tight end who caught footballs delivered with aplomb by future HOF quarterback, Tom Brady, of the New England Patriots, and who was indicted yesterday in Suffolk County, Mass, for the double nightclub murder of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado in 2012, may go down in history as one of our more unlikely serial killers. At the very least, he may be one of our richest serial killers, although his funds have no doubt been depleted by lawyers’ fees, and could well be depleted further by the wrongful death suits that are sure to follow on the heels of his criminal cases.

At present, Hernandez (or A. Hernandez as I like to call him) is well-known to both Massachusetts and Connecticut grand juries.

David Stewart and Zeninjor Enwemeka of Boston.com write:

Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez has been indicted by a grand jury on two charges of first-degree murder in the killings of two people in Boston’s South End in 2012.

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley announced the charges against Hernandez in a press conference on Thursday morning.

Conley also discussed the investigation into the slayings of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado, who were shot to death on July 16, 2012 while stopped at a traffic light.

“For us this case was never about Aaron Hernandez,” Conley said. “This case was about two victims who were stalked, ambushed, and senselessly murdered on the streets of the city they called home.”

Another difference between A. Hernandez and a more typical serial killer is the former tight end appears equally comfortable committing his alleged murders in a deliberate planned fashion (the  murder of semi-pro footballer Odin Lloyd would appear to fall into this category) or in a more spur-of-the-moment  manner (to wit: the killings of Abreu and Furtado).

In fact, D.A. Conley described the circumstances that led to the shootings of Abreu and Furtado as a “chance encounter” between Hernandez and the victims at Cure Lounge, a club in the South Boston Theatre District.

At the press conference, Conley reported that Abreu and Furtado arrived at the club around 12:30 a.m., which was “by coincidence” about the same time that Hernandez and a friend made the scene.

“Our investigation has not uncovered any evidence that these two groups were known to each other, but their chance encounter inside the club triggered a series of events that ended in the murders,” Conley said.

Although Conley apparently chose not to dwell on what happened inside the club when the two groups rubbed elbows, multiple other sources have reported that the victims managed to get on Hernandez’ nerves, which apparently doesn’t take much. The difference between A. Hernandez and most other folks is that when you get on his nerves, rather than barking at you, or brooding, or even smashing you in the face, the former footballer simply decides to put you out of your misery permanently.

This unhealthy quirk of his would seem to be atypical of serial killers. For example, the infamous Dahmer would reportedly only murder you if you indicated you didn’t want to stick around to be sexually and physically abused by him; Wuornos reportedly would murder you if she thought you were going to sexually abuse her; and as for Bundy, God knows why he would murder you, but you can be sure it was based on some deep, dark and thoroughly intractable psychological problem.

If anything, Hernandez’ modus operandi seems to be vaguely reminiscent of that scourge of God, Anton Chigurh, the stone killer in Cormack McCarthy’s noirish thriller, No Country for Old Men. Chigurh, who fancied himself a deep one, would rationalize his murders by means of some half-baked “philosophy of fate” in which he would decide the fates had decided your time had come; ergo, his job was to kill you. And in Chiguhr’s clouded mind, if you pissed him off, it was a sign that the fates had decided your time was at hand, so he killed you firmly and expeditiously.

Hernandez’ approach, assuming he is guilty, was not dissimilar; only he would act out his rage without bothering to invoke the philosophical claptrap. You piss him off and you get it in the neck firmly and expeditiously.

*     *     *     *     *

According to D.A. Conley, after Abreu and Furtado left the club around 2:00 a.m., an SUV driven by Hernandez pulled up next to their car and Hernandez fired multiple times from the driver’s side into the passenger’s side of the other vehicle. This allegedly occurred at the corner of Shawmut Avenue and Herald Street.

Abreu, the driver, suffered multiple gunshot wounds, including a fatal wound to the chest, Conley said. Safiro, the front seat passenger, also suffered multiple gunshot wounds with a fatal wound to the head.

Investigators later recovered the car and weapon that Hernandez used, Conley said.

Although initial reports tied Abreu and Furtado to a Cape Verdean gang based in Dorchester, Conley said “nothing could be further from the truth,” stating the two men were not part of a gang and were not tied to any violent crimes. Conley said that characterization was “unfair to their memory and their families.”

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans added that Abreu and Furtado were “two young, innocent victims” whose lives were taken far too early.

Hernandez was also indicted on several other charges including three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and one count of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. Conley explained that these charges reflect the shots fired at the three surviving victims, who were in the car with Abreu and Furtado.

“Two backseat passengers escaped physical injury and fled on foot,” Conley said. “A third remained in vehicle with his friends, suffering a gunshot wound to his arm.”

As if this were not enough, Hernandez is also being charged with unlawfully possessing a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver.

“The grand jury remains open so it is possible that other charges could be had,” Conley said… “We are quite confident in our evidence, that’s why we asked the grand jury to vote on it this morning, that Aaron Hernandez is the principal [in the shooting].”

Hernandez’cousin Tanya Singleton was also indicted and faces a criminal contempt of court charge for refusing to testify in September 2013 before a grand jury investigating the murders. She was arraigned today in a Fall River court and will face trial in August.

The additional charges against A.Hernandez, who, of course, is already accused in the June 2013 murder of Odin L. Lloyd, makes life even harder for Hernandez’s defense team. It is traditionally no easy task to convict celebrity athletes of capital crimes, but I have a feeling that this time, it could be different. On the other hand, Hernandez has some hella strong lawyers who will not go down without a fight.

In fact, Travis Anderson and John R. Ellement of the Boston Globe report that today Hernandez attorneys James W. Sultan and Michael Fee asked for dismissal of the first-degree murder indictment that Hernandez faces in the 2013 fatal shooting of Odin L. Lloyd.

The lawyers argued that despite a massive amount of information provided to the grand jury by Bristol District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter’s office, there is no evidence to support the allegation that Hernandez orchestrated the murder of Lloyd in an industrial park near Hernandez’s home on June 17, 2013.

“Basically, all that the Commonwealth showed the grand jury is that Hernandez was in a car with Lloyd and several other individuals shortly before Lloyd was shot to death,’’ the defense attorneys wrote.

“Specifically, there was no forensic evidence presented linking Hernandez to the shooting, no eyewitness testimony, no inculpatory statements by Hernandez, and no evidence that Hernandez had any motive to kill Lloyd,’’ the lawyers wrote.

Sutter’s office, the defense lawyers said, “utterly failed to establish probable cause that Hernandez either murdered Lloyd himself or participated in a joint venture with others to do so.’’

*     *     *     *     *

So while it’s probably too early to place any bets on the outcome of either of Hernandez’s murder cases, without a doubt, he has retained the big boys and the big boys are working hard to earn their huge retainers.

Oddly enough, Hernandez played the entire 2012-2013 season with the New England Patriots, after the two murders in the South End of Boston had already occurred.

Click here for earlier posts on the Aaron Hernandez case:

Dateline Aaron Hernandez: Hernandez Caught on Video with Double Boston Murder Victims

Dateline Aaron Hernandez: The Loss of His Father and Mother Destroyed him

Dateline Aaron Hernandez: Heavy PCP Use Helped Destroy Former Star Tight End

Aaron Hernandez Might Just Beat Odin Lloyd Murder Rap

Aaron Hernandez’ Fiancee Believed to Have Dumped Odin Lloyd Murder Weapon: The Plot Thickens

Aaron Hernandez Bombshell: Filmed with Murder Weapon by His Own Surveillance Cameras

Aaron Hernandez Serial Killer Case Strengthens as Grand Jury Hears Evidence of 2012 Double Murder

Eat Your Heart Out Aaron Hernandez: D.A. Will Cut Deal to Deliver You Up on a Platter

Aaron Hernandez Arrested for Murder: Bill Belichick Drops Him Like a Hot Potato

Eat Your Heart Out, Bill Belichick: Patriots Tight End Aaron Hernandez Wanted in Murder Probe

by Starks Shrink

Last week, in Atlanta, a FedEx employee went postal. A disturbed young man of 19, Geddy Lee Kramer, took a shotgun to his place of employment and went on a rampage, injuring six of his coworkers before fatally shooting himself in a loading bay at the facility.  He left a long and rambling suicide note that illustrated a teen struggling with personality and identity issues. Kramer claims to have tried to get help from his therapist and wanted to assure police and the public, through his notes, that he alone was responsible for the ‘massacre’, not video games, music or other external influences. He labels himself a sociopath who just wants to kill people but unlike most sociopaths, his note indicated his despair with life and a yearning for the peace he felt death would bring. Not the feelings one expects of a sociopath.

Workplace rampages are nothing new; in fact, the colloquialism “going postal” was born of a series of rampages perpetrated by US postal workers against their coworkers in the late 80s and 90s. Going postal, however, is obviously not something that is unique to postal workers; they just had the misfortune of receiving the label due to some clever reporter, though I would imagine that Patrick Sherrill, the man whose rampage inspired the term, would likely be delighted by his notorious legacy.

Patrick Sherrill epitomizes what the term “going postal” is all about. His killing spree took 14 lives, and injured 6 others, before he turned his weapon on himself. There’s no evidence he had mental issues prior to the rampage; rather he simply felt slighted and abused, and was intensely angry about it, so he decided to take his frustrations out on the human race.  Obviously, there must be more to the man’s motivations, but when we think of “going postal”, his profile is what we have in mind – an intense buildup of anger that sends someone hurtling over the edge.

When people experience constant repeated frustration and perceived degradation in front of peers, combined with some mental disturbance, they often take it out on those nearest to them. I’m not saying that these people are legally or even clinically insane; they just appear to have a lack of coping skills so they internalize perceived slights which fuels their rage. They may initially have a specific target in mind but once the carnage begins, any convenient target will do.

Take for instance, Omar Thornton, who in 2010, killed eight and injured two coworkers at a beer distributor’s warehouse in Connecticut where he worked. Thornton opened fire as he was being escorted from the building after having been fired for stealing beer.  Even though his theft was caught on video, Thornton, an African American, believed himself to be the long-suffering victim of workplace racism. Getting fired was the final straw. He ended the police standoff by taking his own life, as most rampage murderers do, leaving the task of understanding his motivation to forensics and guesswork.

There are those who fall into the “going postal” category, however, who prior to their rampage, have demonstrated histories of instability, though whether they were in the throes of psychosis at the time of their massacre is unknown. Take, for instance, Mark Barton, who shot and killed nine people at two Stock Day Trading companies in Atlanta Georgia in 1999. After the murders occurred, police discovered the bodies of his wife and two children in his home. They had been murdered with a hammer. They also found notes written by Barton indicating that he had killed his wife two days prior to his rampage and his children one day later. It was speculated that Barton had gone berserk because of some significant losses he had incurred as a stock trader; however, his suicide note, found in his apartment, suggests a different motive. He had a history of paranoia and delusions and had been fired from his job due to his instability. He indicated that his current wife was the cause of his demise (he had been a suspect in the beating death of his first wife). Whatever his precise motivation, he fit the characteristics of most rampage killers; he had poor or broken personal relationships and a perceived axe to grind.

Another former postal employee, Jennifer San Marco, went postal in 2006. She is rare amongst mass murderers, simply because she’s a woman. San Marco had a history of mental instability and, in fact, had been placed on  psychological leave from the post office, where she worked as a clerk after departing the police force. Records show that she was committed to a mental hospital in California for a short time approximately five years before her rampage shooting. She had been witnessed around town talking to “an imaginary friend” and was frequently seen on her knees praying at inappropriate times and locations. She exhibited behavior so odd and at times frightening that police were called on several occasions, though she was never actually questioned. She also apparently had a racist streak (which is not uncommon in a person experiencing psychosis) and was angry when she was denied a business license for a newspaper she dubbed “The Racist Press”. The day prior to the murders, San Marco, who believed that the Goleta postal facility was at the heart of a conspiracy against her, drove from her home in New Mexico to her former home in Santa Barbara County, CA, where she unleashed her fury. She was clearly unstable and likely psychotic, but her actions illustrate that anxieties and delusions are often directed at those closest to the perpetrator. Like most mass killers, she didn’t have other close personal relationships so her former coworkers became the object of her obsessions and delusions.

Most school shootings, where the shooter is a student at the school, fall into a similar category. The killer is taking out those in his circle, those he knows, and those he feels slighted by, whether the insults are real or imagined.

The word Columbine evokes thoughts and memories for most of us that have nothing to do with a pretty flower. Rather, we think of the infamous massacre at the high school in Colorado. The image is so powerful that the suburb of Denver actually considered changing its name after Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris changed the town’s image forever. The same will be true of Sandy Hook, at least for a while. Words, however, are just that — words.  In time, “going postal” will mean nothing to the younger generation, much the way the Tower at the University of Texas and Port Arthur in Tasmania have faded away into obscurity. Yet, sadly, the intermittent mass murders that haunt the families of the innocent victims and pique the interest of crime fans are unlikely to cease any time soon.

Please click here to view The Starks Shrink’s Other Posts:

How to Raise a Serial Killer in 10 Easy Steps

The Julie Schenecker Tragedy: Negligence, Finger-Pointing and the Death of Children

Luka Magnotta: Man, Boy or Beast?

The Disturbing Truth about Mothers Who Murder Their Children

Teleka Patrick Needed a Psychiatrist, Not a Pastor!

Rehabbing the Wounded Juvenile Will Save Their Souls (and Ours)

Skylar Neese and the Mean Girls Who Killed Her

by BJW Nashe (Re-posted by Popular Demand)

Warren Ellis’s new novel Gun Machine swims in an ocean of guns. Probably more guns than actually exist in New York City. I don’t know for sure; I lost count while reading. The book is too much fun to worry about such trivia.

But don’t worry, Ellis’s tale isn’t some dumb exercise in gun fetishism. In fact, the novel gains serious social traction by cleverly framing and parodying the kind of gun fetishism that seems so popular among so many Americans. Gun Machine, which serves up a heady mix of high-octane thrills, idiosyncratic characters, and rough-and-ready riffs on contemporary culture, should establish Mr. Ellis as a leading figure in the new wave of crime fiction.

Warren Ellis has already enjoyed considerable success as a creator of graphic novels, with series such as Stormwatch, The Authority, Transmetropolitan, and Global Frequency. His first work of prose fiction, Crooked Little Vein, appeared in 2007. The novel was widely praised for its surreal, irreverent approach to the hardboiled noir genre. If Dashiell Hammett was somehow still alive, and had spent the past decade hooked up to the internet and ingesting the hallucinogen ayahuasca, he’d probably write a book like Crooked Little Vein. It’s hard not to enjoy a private eye novel where the investigation consists of a madcap search for a secret Constitution of the United States, which was supposedly lost by Richard Nixon in a whorehouse.

Now we have Gun Machine, just released by Mulholland Books, and garnering positive reviews from the New York Times and Publishers Weekly. This second novel is arguably even better than the first one. The same weird humor and dark sensibility is on full display, but the plot line is sturdier, allowing Ellis to stretch out with his characters and dwell at greater length on various cutting-edge memes and obsessions. The fact that the novel is set in New York City is a welcome provocation. Giuliani is credited with cleaning up the city, turning Times Square into Disneyland. Bloomberg has outlawed super-sized soft drinks. But in Gun Machine Ellis is more than willing to restore some of the Big Apple’s legendary grit and sleaze. And gun control is not a significant factor in his near-future, dystopian portrait of a city in the throes of heavy “privatization.”

Gun Machine has a wicked plot well worth digging into. Indeed, author Ellis may have given us one of the greatest set-ups in the history of the crime novel. His protagonist, NYPD detective John Tallow, accompanies his partner to a tenement apartment building on Pearl Street in lower Manhattan. They are responding to a 911 call regarding a naked man with a shotgun on the premises. In the ensuing shootout, Tallow’s partner gets his head blown off. A subsequent search of the building leads to a shocking discovery: One of the apartments (unrelated to naked shotgun man) is full of guns. There are guns everywhere, lining the walls, all over the floor – hundreds and hundreds of guns. No, it’s not Ted Nugent’s New York getaway. Even creepier, this appears to be a bizarre pagan gun shrine, smack dab in the middle of the city. Further investigation reveals that each of the guns stored in the apartment has been used to commit a murder in New York City during the past 20 years. For instance, one of the guns once belonged to Son of Sam. Detective Tallow’s happy task is to determine who is responsible for all these guns, and any unsolved murders they are associated with. This homicide case from hell ultimately leads Tallow onto the trail of a mysterious character simply referred to as “the hunter.”

Readers will decide for themselves how effectively Ellis is able to take advantage of this deranged premise. I won’t give away any spoilers. Let’s just say that Ellis pushes the story deep into the history and mythology of New York. The pacing is frenetic enough to satisfy even those of us with intractable ADD. The visceral language, unrelenting violence and black humor should be weird enough to satisfy even the most jaded among us. And best of all, Gun Machine presents us with an offbeat critique of our collective American gun fixation.

http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Machine-Warren-Ellis/dp/0316187402

commentary by Patrick H. Moore

Ultimate Disney mom Tammy Moorer shouldn’t be in the Georgetown County Jail. She should be home in Socastee operating her part-time travel agency, planning cruises and excursions, home-schooling her three children and keeping husband Sidney on a very short leash. In fact, according to senior prosecutor Donna Elder, at some point during this sordid affair, Tammy Moorer had Slammin’ Sidney on such tight lockdown that she actually handcuffed him to their bed at night while she slept so he could not sneak out (this sounds apocryphal), while password protecting his phone so only she could use it, and accompanying him to work and on personal outings. According to Elder, Sidney Moorer agreed to the restrictions to save his marriage.

If Sidney agreed to even half of these demands, I am sorely disillusioned – it’s not slammin’ for a man to be rigidly controlled by an insanely jealous woman like Tammy. And furthermore, by kowtowing to Tammy to whatever degree Sidney did, he encouraged her in her supremely unhealthy obsession by acting as if her lock-and-key tactics were justified.

Jealousy is not a pleasurable emotion; most of us have experienced it, and we’re well aware of how wretched it makes us feel. In extreme cases, it can lead to murder which arguably is what happened here.

But it didn’t start out this way. In the beginning, in 1997, when blonde, blue-eyed 21-year-old Sidney Moorer came to Myrtle Beach from Summerville and got a job at highly touted Broadway at the Beach’s Hard Rock Café, he had no idea that his co-worker, 25-year-old music lover Tammy Caison, an Horry County native whose family had been in the area for generations, would one day experience a jealousy so profound that allegedly nothing short of murder would satisfy it and that he would be required to participate in her bloodlust.

From her standpoint, the outgoing and self-confident Tammy undoubtedly had no inkling that this young man whom she found so attractive would one day drive her into paroxysms of jealous rage.

Sidney and Tammy married at Ocean View Baptist Church in 1998, and the following year their first son was born. Tammy had two more children, a daughter born in 2001 and another son born in 2005.

Sidney started Palmetto Maintenance LLC, which served local area restaurants. He was competent and his company enjoyed a good reputation. He and Tammy raised their children in a Socastee home owned by her father.

Things were so good that Sidney apparently even got along with William Caison, his father-in-law.

Somewhere in the course of their marriage, the notion that they were “swingers” arose, which seems mordantly comical considering Tammy’s enraged response to Sidney’s foray into “swinging”. (In Tammy’s defense, a “swinger” is certainly not supposed to get hung up on whoever he or she is swinging with, and you get the impression that Tammy feared that Heather was stealing her husband way from her.)

Tammy might still be impersonating a swinger had Sidney’s path not crossed with that of a young waitress, Heather Elvis, during one of his visits to her Broadway at the Beach workplace, the Tilted Kilt.

In an odd twist, at the court hearing on Monday, prosecutor Elder, citing witness statements and records, made a point of demonstrating that 20-year-old Heather Elvis and 38-year-old Sidney Moorer, 38, really cared for each other. But once Tammy Moorer, 42, learned of their trysts, the older woman invaded Elvis’ life, barraging her with threatening messages.

According to Elder, Nov. 5 was the last time Heather Elvis saw Sidney Moorer until the fateful night of Dec. 18.

In a truly creepy interlude, the Moorer family left South Carolina on Nov. 19 and drove cross country to the original Disneyland in Anaheim, California. They returned home three weeks later, six days before Sidney Moorer kicked the scheme into high gear by phoning Heather and telling her that he and Tammy were breaking up and that now they could be together.

*     *     *     *     *

Kirk Truslow, Sidney Moorer’s attorney, is not buying it.  “This thing has snowballed into an outrageous witch hunt where there is no evidence. This case is extremely circumstantial at best. Lots of incredible speculation and rumors with this case. . . . There’s nothing you can point to in his life that shows a propensity to violence.”

In order to verify that the vehicle seen first approaching and then leaving the Peachtree Boat Landing belonged to the Moorers, the video surveillance of the vehicle was sent to the FBI in Quantico, Va., and to the S.C. Highway Patrol’s Multi-Disciplinary Accident Investigation Team with a request to identify the vehicle. According to the reports generated by the agencies, the truck was a dark 2013 or 2014 Ford F-150, with a silver toolbox in the bed, a moon roof, silver rims and high-end bulbs in the headlights.

The MAIT Team investigators ran the records and discovered that there were 82 such trucks registered to owners living in Horry County. They then went and visually inspected 81 of the trucks before getting a search warrant and searching the 82^nd truck which just happened to be owned by the Moorers.

The defense attorneys dispute the notion that the video of the truck connects Sidney and Tammy to the case. And they’re right to a certain degree; just because a Ford-150 matching the agency description was seen approaching and leaving the boat landing DOES NOT does not in and of itself prove that it was the Moorer’s vehicle.

The problem, of course, arises when the phone records come into the picture. Here’s Heather frenziedly phoning Sidney over and over again AFTER he tells her he’s breaking up with Tammy and that they can be together. Here’s Heather driving to the boat landing in the middle of the night. Such a curious journey can hardly be coincidental, not when combined with the series of phone calls.

What I don’t understand is why the police believe Heather was killed on the spot at the boat landing, unless they have evidence that they’re not divulging. Several rescue diving crews, as well as a Coastal Carolina University team with a scanner, did an “ultrasound like scan of the riverbed to Winyah Bay” but have not found Heather’s body.

It makes more sense to me that Sidney or Sidney and Tammy either lured or forced Heather into the F-150 at the landing and then headed back in the direction their house. Wouldn’t Tammy want to prolong Heather’s agony, at least to some degree? Merely shooting her in cold blood at the boat  landing would have been decidedly anti-climactic

A week or two ago, one of Sidney’s relatives said it’s up to him to “come clean” because Tammy’s certainly not going to. Somehow, though, Sidney does not strike me as a man with sufficient courage to BETRAY TAMMY by confessing to the whole bloody affair. At least not yet. But I’ve been wrong before. Perhaps Sidney’s just biding his time.

Because of the “lying in wait” nature of the alleged crime, if convicted both Sidney and Tammy could face the death penalty. Either one of them, however, could probably avoid that grim finale by making like the proverbial canary and telling the prosecutors who did what and why. Of course, we don’t know if either of them is going to take that drastic but eminently practical step.

Please click here to read our previous posts on the Moorer-Elvis saga:

How Tammy and Sidney Moorer May Have Lured Heather Elvis to Her Death

Heather Elvis’s Father and Sister Receive Death Threats

Swingers Sidney and Tammy Moorer Charged with Murder in Death of Heather Elvis!

Myrtle Beach Couple Arrested in Heather Elvis Missing Persons Case

by Darcia Helle

Allow me to tell you a story about a woman born into the most dismal of circumstances. Her mother is a young teen when she marries a violent man. He is soon arrested and convicted of the rape and attempted murder of a 7-year-old girl. By some reports, her father is schizophrenic. Her mother decides parenting is too difficult and soon abandons her.

Life gets no better for this woman. She’s never given a chance to succeed. Under these circumstances, it’s human nature to feel sympathy for this woman right?

Now what if I tell you this woman became a serial killer? Does that change how you feel about her?

This woman’s name is Aileen Carol Wuornos, and she is considered our most famous female serial killer. She was born in Rochester, Michigan on February 29, 1956. She confessed to, and was put to death for, the murders of six men.

Aileen’s history is murky, surrounded by half-truths and suppositions. The truth is bad enough and needs no distortion. Her parents – Diane Wuornos and Leo Dale Pittman – were married in1954. Sources differ on Diane’s age at the time; she was either 14 or 15-years-old. All sources agree that Pittman was a violent man. He had beaten his grandmother repeatedly, and his favorite pastime as an adolescent was to tie the tails of two cats together, sling them over a clothesline, and watch them fight.

Diane gave birth to Aileen’s older brother Keith in 1955. She promptly became pregnant again but, two months before Aileen was born, Leo Dale Pittman vanished from their  lives forever. Here again accounts differ. Most state that Pittman had been arrested and went to prison, though at least one source has him enlisted in the military in order to avoid petty criminal charges. Either way, Diane left him and Aileen never met her father. At some point, Pittman was arrested for and convicted of the rape and attempted murder of a 7-year-old girl. He died in prison in 1969. Most sources say he hung himself, although there are also rumors that he was strangled by another inmate.

While still a young teenager, Diane found herself the single parent of two babies, and the ex-wife of a child rapist. Those early years appear to have been disastrous for all involved. Unable to cope with her responsibilities, Diane handed Aileen and Keith over to her parents, Lauri and Britta Wuornos. Aileen was four-years-old.

Lauri and Britta raised their two grandchildren alongside their other children. Oddly, Keith and Aileen believed Lauri and Britta were their parents. No clear explanation seems to exist as to how or why these two children were able to simply forget the woman they’d call Mommy so completely.

Britta Wuornos was an alcoholic. Some accounts describe her as “strict”, while others call her abusive. Lauri Wuornos had little patience and would often whip Aileen with his belt. The environment was far from ideal for two young and troubled children. In 1962, when Aileen was six, she and her brother Keith used lighter fluid to set fires. Aileen was badly burned on one occasion and left with permanent scarring.

Some sources say Aileen was selling sexual favors at school by the age of nine, though this information is sketchy and probably not reliable.

Aileen Wuornos claimed that both Lauri and Keith sexually abused her from an early age. There is, of course, no firm evidence for this. Neither her grandfather nor her brother ever made any such admissions, and Aileen did not have the kind of family or social support she needed to turn to for help.

At around the age of 12, Aileen discovered that Mom and Dad were actually her grandparents. This information caused even further turmoil in the children’s lives. They acted out, but no rational adult stepped in to help.

When she was just 14-years-old, Aileen became pregnant. She claimed Keith was the father, though, again, there is no proof of this. She was sent away to a home for unwed mothers and, in 1971, gave birth to a boy who was put up for adoption.

In July of 1971, shortly after Aileen gave birth, Britta Wuornos died of apparent liver failure due to alcohol abuse. Lauri wanted nothing to do with raising his grandchildren alone, and insisted Keith and Aileen be made wards of the state. The two were removed from the home, and soon afterward Aileen ran away. With no education, no family or friends to help her, and no reasonable means of supporting herself, Aileen turned to petty crime and prostitution.

In May of 1974, at the age of 18, Aileen was arrested for disorderly conduct, drunk driving, and firing a weapon from a vehicle. And this was only the beginning.

Within the next couple of years, Aileen’s brother Keith died of throat cancer and her grandfather committed suicide. Aileen was 20-years-old and completely alone, so she stuck out her thumb and took to life on the road.

While out hitchhiking, Aileen was picked up by a 69-year-old, wealthy yacht club president named Lewis Fell. He was love-struck and almost immediately proposed, which might have been the only bit of luck Aileen ever experienced. They were married in Georgia, with the wedding announcement even making it into the society pages. But Aileen was unable to settle into married life. She got into bar fights and was soon arrested for assault. Approximately one month after the wedding, Lewis Fell realized his mistake and had their marriage annulled. In his divorce petition, Fell claimed Aileen had beaten him with his cane.

Aileen continued along her path of destruction for the next decade. She drank too much, did drugs, sold her body, committed robbery, and vandalized property. In 1981, she was so distraught over the breakup with her boyfriend that she planned to commit suicide. She bought a gun and got drunk in preparation, but then changed her mind and instead robbed a grocery store while wearing her bikini. She was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison. After serving 18 months, she was released from prison and went to live with one of her male prison pen pals. This relationship didn’t work, and Aileen was once again on her own.

Aileen was lonely and angry at the world when, in 1986, she met 24-year-old Tyria Moore at a biker bar in Florida. Their attraction was instant and mutual. Aileen went home with Tyria that evening, and the two spent the entire weekend in Tyria’s bedroom. From then on, the two were inseparable. Tyria, known as Ty, provided the unconditional love Aileen had been missing all her life. For a time, Aileen seemed to find an anchor in the raging sea of her life.

But her fairytale was not all bliss. The couple led a nomadic lifestyle, sleeping in cheap motels or in the woods. Aileen continued selling her body for money to survive. While Ty later claimed begged Aileen to stop prostituting herself, there is no evidence that she made an effort to help support them in any way, legal or otherwise. In fact, at the start of their relationship, Ty quit her job in order to spend more time with Aileen. While Aileen was out hooking to buy them food, Ty was typically at the bars drinking away what little money they had.

After a few years of this, Aileen was struggling to support them. Money was tight and problems arose. Aileen feared that Ty would abandon her, as everyone else in her life had. She felt desperate and would do anything to hold on to the one person that she’d ever truly loved. This volatile mix of emotions led Aileen straight to the crisis she’d been working toward all her life.

On November 30, 1989, in Tampa, Florida, Aileen was picked up by Richard Mallory. And this is where it all goes horribly wrong. Until shortly before her execution, Aileen maintained that Mallory tried to rape her, and that she shot him in self-defense. Mallory was known to frequently pick up prostitutes along the interstate. He also had a criminal record, having been convicted of rape in the past, but this information was not introduced when Aileen was eventually brought to trial. Regardless of any initial intent, on that day in November, Aileen shot Mallory three, or possibly four times, stole his money and his car, and drove straight back to Ty.

Aileen told Ty about the murder right away, though Ty later claimed she hadn’t believed her. Still, Tyria didn’t appear worried about where the money and car had come from. The two women packed up Mallory’s Cadillac that night and left the motel in a hurry. Once they’d relocated, they wiped their prints from the car and ditched it near Daytona.

After Mallory’s murder, life for Aileen and Tyria returned to their version of normal. Even so, their lack of money was always a point of stress for Aileen. When Tyria’s sister came to stay with them, Aileen was convinced Ty would leave with her sister and go back to Ohio. Jealousy, fear, insecurity, and anger pushed Aileen over the edge. During that three-week period, she robbed, shot, and killed three more men.

On July 4th, 1990, Aileen and Tyria, during a particularly heated argument, crashed the car they were driving in Orange Springs, Florida. They fled the scene on foot, but a witness described both women to the police. The vehicle they’d wrecked belonged to Peter Siems, a missing 65-year-old retired merchant seaman. The interior of the car showed signs of a struggle. Police obtained a number of palm and fingerprints from the car, and the women’s descriptions were circulated throughout Florida.

Eventually, police connected the murders, realizing they had a female serial killer on the loose. By mid-December, 1990, a number of leads led them to Tyria Moore. They also had three other names – Lee Blahovec, Lori Grody and Cammie Marsh Greene – all of which matched the description of the second woman. When Aileen used her Cammie Marsh Greene ID to pawn a camera that had belonged to Richard Mallory, she was required by law to provide fingerprint identification. She later pawned a set of tools matching the description of those missing from David Spears’ truck. Those fingerprints from the pawn shops matched fingerprints taken from the crashed car belonging to Peter Siems. The information was passed on to the National Crime Information Center, where they were able to connect Aileen Wuornos’s name to the three aliases. By January 5, 1991, the police finally had names for their suspected serial killing females and were ready to move in.

By this time, Aileen had lost her struggle to hold on to Tyria. Devastated over the breakup, Aileen was once again on her own.

On January 8, 1991, two undercover cops spotted Aileen at the Port Orange Pub. They bought her a few beers and later offered her a ride, which she declined. She left the pub around 10 p.m., and they followed her to a biker bar called The Last Resort. There the undercover cops sat with her and bought her a few more beers. The cops left at midnight, but kept Aileen under surveillance. She spent her last night as a free woman sleeping on an old car seat at The Last Resort.

The following afternoon, the decision was made to arrest Aileen rather than to risk losing her. The two undercover cops offered to let Aileen use their motel room to clean up. She accepted the offer, but when she walked out of the bar with them she was arrested on what police told her was an outstanding warrant for Lori Grody, one of her aliases. They did not let on that they knew her true identity. No mention was made of the murders, and the media was not told that Aileen was their suspected serial killer. The police were being extra cautious because they had no murder weapon and had yet to find Tyria Moore.

The following day, on January 10, 1991, Tyria was found. She’d been living with her sister in Pittston, Pennsylvania. Tyria was read her rights but not arrested or charged with a crime. In short order, Tyria gave Aileen up as the killer. Despite later interviews where she claimed not to have believed Aileen’s first murder confession, Tyria told the cops she’d known about the murders from the very beginning. “I told her I didn’t want to hear about it,” she told the police. “And then any time she would come home after that and say certain things, telling me about where she got something, I’d say I don’t want to hear it.”

The next day, Tyria Moore went back to Florida along with the police, not as a criminal, but as a witness to help them ensure Aileen Wuornos’s conviction.

Tyria was put in a motel in Daytona and told to contact Aileen at the prison. Her cover story was that her mother had given her money to come back down to Florida in order to pick up the rest of her belongings. Phone conversations were taped, and Tyria was instructed to tell Aileen the police had been questioning her family about her and the Florida murders.

The first call was made on January 14. Aileen had yet to be charged or even questioned about the murders, and remained under the impression that she’d only been arrested for a weapons violation under the alias of Lori Grody. When Tyria voiced her concerns, as scripted by the police, Aileen reassured her, saying, “I’m only here for that concealed weapons charge in ’86 and a traffic ticket, and I tell you what, man, I read the newspaper, and I wasn’t one of those little suspects.” Aware that prison phones were monitored, Aileen did her best to speak in code. She went on to say, “I think somebody at work – where you worked at – said something that it looked like us. And it isn’t us, see? It’s a case of mistaken identity.”

The calls continued for three days and Tyria played Aileen well. Knowing Aileen would do anything to keep her safe, and to keep her love, Tyria used that advantage as she cried and even suggested she should just kill herself. In listening to the conversations, it seems apparent that Aileen knew something wasn’t right. She even asked Tyria if someone was with her during the conversations. Tyria naturally denied any such thing and played up her fear skillfully. She begged Aileen to tell the cops the truth. On the morning of January 16, 1991, Aileen did just that and confessed to killing six men.

Throughout Aileen’s confession to police, she reiterated two points. First, she adamantly declared Tyria Moore innocent, taking full blame and responsibility for the six murders. The men she admitted to killing were: Richard Mallory, David Spears, Charles Carskaddan, Troy Buress, Dick Humphreys, and Walter Gino Antonio. She denied killing Peter Siems, whose murder police believe she’d committed but whose body was never found. The second point Aileen continually made was that none of it was her fault, not the murders and not the circumstances of her life leading up to them. She insisted all the men she’d killed were aggressive and had either assaulted, threatened, or raped her.

Her public defender, Michael O’Neill, continually advised Aileen to stop talking. She ignored him. Exasperated, he finally said to her, “Do you realize these guys are cops?” Her reply was, “I know. And they want to hang me. And that’s cool, because maybe, man, I deserve it. I just want to get this over with.”

Once the media picked up the story, Aileen Wuornos found instant infamy. Book and movie deals were offered to detectives, relatives, Tyria Moore, and Aileen herself. For a while, Aileen was the media darling and everyone wanted a piece of her. For the first time in her life, people were interested in what she had to say. She relished the limelight, and no doubt enjoyed perfecting and embellishing her story as she went along.

Within two weeks of her arrest, Wuornos and her attorney had sold movie rights to her story. Investigators did the same. Aileen Wuornos’s tragic life story resulted in several books, two movies, and even one opera, called Wuornos by Carla Lucero.

Aileen’s newfound fame brought her an unlikely champion for her cause. Arlene Pralle, a 44-year-old Born Again Christian, ran a horse breeding and boarding facility in Ocala, Florida. After seeing Aileen’s photo and story in the newspaper, Arlene wrote Aileen a letter that began, “My name is Arlene Pralle. I’m born-again. You’re going to think I’m crazy, but Jesus told me to write you.”

Arlene provided her phone number and, on January 30, Aileen called her collect. The two formed an instant bond. Arlene became Aileen’s confidant and defender. On Arlene’s advice, Aileen asked for and received new lawyers. The first public defense team, according to Arlene, was attempting to profit from Aileen’s story. She wanted Aileen to have lawyers who’d work hard to protect her, not to make money off her.

Arlene began speaking to media and tabloids. She appeared on talk shows and arranged interviews for Aileen. When asked about their relationship, Arlene said, “We’re like Jonathan and David in the Bible. It’s as though part of me is trapped in jail with her.” To another reporter, Arlene said, “If the world could know the real Aileen Wuornos, there’s not a jury that would convict her.”

On November 22, 1991, Arlene Pralle and her husband Robert legally adopted Aileen Wuornos because, according to Arlene, God told her to.

Through her defense team, Aileen agreed to plead guilty to the murders of six men in exchange for six consecutive life sentences. But the prosecution was determined to get the death penalty and wouldn’t make the deal. They decided to try her for the murder of Richard Mallory first, since that was their strongest case.

Aileen Wuornos’s trial began on January 14, 1992, with Judge Uriel Blount presiding. The combination of evidence and witnesses for the prosecution was damning. Dr. Arthur Botting, the medical examiner who’d autopsied Mallory, testified that Mallory had taken 10-20 minutes to die an excruciating death. Probably most difficult for Aileen was Tyria Moore’s testimony. Tyria told jurors that Aileen had not seemed upset, nervous, or drunk when she’d returned home and confessed to killing Mallory that day. Not once during her testimony did Tyria meet Aileen’s eyes.

Aileen was damned further by a Florida law called ‘Williams Rule’, which allows prosecution to introduce evidence from pending cases providing they demonstrate a criminal pattern. This enabled the prosecution to tell jurors about the other murders Aileen was suspected of committing, vividly painting her as a vicious serial killer.

Against her lawyer’s advice, Aileen insisted on testifying on her own behalf. The story she told the jury about the night she killed Richard Mallory barely resembled the initial story she’d told on her videotaped confession to police. She now claimed Mallory had raped, sodomized, and tortured her. When the inconsistencies of her story were pointed out on cross-examination, she became agitated and visibly angry. She invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination a total of 25 times.

On January 27, 1992, the jury took less than two hours to return with a verdict: guilty of first-degree murder. As the jury filed out of the courtroom, Aileen shouted, “I’m innocent! I was raped! I hope you get raped, scumbags of America!”

The penalty phase of Aileen’s trial began the following day. Expert defense witnesses testified that Aileen was mentally ill, that she suffered from borderline personality disorder, and that her tumultuous childhood had stunted her emotional growth. Jurors, though, were having none of it and unanimously recommended death. On January 31, 1992, Judge Uriel Blount sentenced Aileen Wuornos to death by electrocution.

That would turn out to be Aileen’s one and only trial. On March 31, she pleaded guilty to the murders of Troy Buress, Dick Humphreys, and David Spears. In her statement to the court, she said, “I wanted to confess to you that Richard Mallory did violently rape me, as I’ve told you. But these others did not. [They] only began to start to.” On May 15, Judge Thomas Sawaya gave Aileen three more death sentences.

In June of 1992, Aileen pleaded guilty to the murder of Charles Carskaddon, for which she received her fifth death sentence.

Finally, in February 1993, she pleaded guilty to the murder of Walter Gino Antonio and was sentenced to death for the sixth and final time.

No charges were brought for the murder of Peter Siems, whose body was never found and whom Aileen still maintained she had not killed.

When evidence was brought to light that Richard Mallory, Aileen’s first victim, had served 10 years in prison for rape, Aileen’s attorneys felt jurors would have viewed that case differently had they been told. For a time, there was speculation of a new trial. But that was not to be. Aileen’s conviction was upheld.

Once sentenced to death, Aileen never wavered in her request that her execution be carried out as soon as possible. For that to happen, she needed to convince the Supreme Court that she was sane and understood what she was asking. In her letter to the Florida Supreme Court, she wrote, “I’m one who seriously hates human life and would kill again.” About this time, Aileen also confessed to murdering Peter Siems, stating she’d killed all seven men for the money. She stressed that she was not a thrill killer as most serial killers were, and had only murdered the men in order to eliminate witnesses. She was a thief, not a killer. Despite confessing to this last murder, she never told anyone and didn’t appear to know the location of Siems’s body. During this same interview, she retracted her claim of killing Mallory in self-defense. She handed everything over in a tidy package so that her execution would not be delayed.

The Court reviewed her letter and all the information, and subsequently allowed Aileen to fire her attorneys and stop her appeals. She was also allowed to choose lethal injection over the electric chair as the manner in which she’d die.

Because the case remained in the media spotlight, Governor Jeb Bush issued a stay of execution and ordered a psychological exam. The execution of mentally ill inmates is against international law. After three psychiatrists deemed Aileen Wuornos sane and able to understand her situation, Bush lifted the stay.

The day before her execution, Aileen gave her final media interview to British producer Nick Broomfield, who had put together a documentary on Aileen in 1993. The interview so rattled Broomfield that, outside the prison afterward, he stated, “My conclusion from the interview is, today we are executing someone who is mad. Here is someone who has totally lost her mind.”

Aileen Wuornos refused her last meal. She was ready to die, resigned to her fate, and maybe even looked forward to the release death would bring.

At 9:47 a.m. on October 9, 2002, Aileen Wuornos was put to death at Florida State Prison. Her last words were, “I’d like to say I’m sailing with the Rock and I’ll be back like Independence Day with Jesus, June 6, like the movie, big mothership and all. I’ll be back.”

In the end, Tyria Moore, the woman Aileen would and did do anything for, both betrayed and abandoned her. Arlene Pralle, her adoptive mother, also abandoned her, and didn’t even know Aileen’s execution date. The only person who remained by Aileen’s side until the end was a childhood friend. The two were committed pen pals throughout Aileen’s prison stay, and they spent some of Aileen’s last hours together

Tyria Moore was never charged with any crime. While it is likely Aileen did commit all the murders on her own, Tyria herself admits to knowing about them from the start. Had she immediately notified the police after Richard Mallory’s murder, Aileen would not have been free to keep killing. Had Tyria gotten a job and taken some financial pressure from Aileen, perhaps things would have turned out differently. Instead, Tyria played a passive-aggressive role, happy to live off the money Aileen brought home after robbing and killing her victims.

Tyria Moore was just the last in a steady line of people who failed Aileen, helping to turn her into the killer she became.

Please click to below to view Darcia’s Helle’s many excellent posts:

The Electric Chair Nightmare: An Infamous and Agonizing History

Autopsies: Truth, Fiction and Maura Isles and Her 5-Inch-Heels

Don’t Crucify Me, Dude! Just Shoot Me Instead! Spartacus and Death by Crucifixion

To Burn or Not to Burn? Auto-Da-Fé Is Not Good for Women or Children!

The Disgraceful Entrapment of Jesse Snodgrass: Keep the Narcs Out of Our Schools

Why Should I Believe You? The History of the Polygraph

“Don’t Behead Me, Dude!”: The Story of Beheading and the Invention of the Guillotine

Aileen Wuornos, America’s First High-Profile Female Serial Killer, Never Had a Chance

The Terror of ISO: A Descent into Madness

Al Capone Could Not Bribe the Rock: Alcatraz, Fortress of Doom

Cyberspace, Darknet, Murder-for-Hire and the Invisible Black Machine

Darcia Helle lives in a fictional world with a husband who is sometimes real. Their house is ruled by spoiled dogs and cats and the occasional dust bunny.

Suspense, random blood splatter and mismatched socks consume Darcia’s days. She writes because the characters trespassing through her mind leave her no alternative. Only then are the voices free to haunt someone else’s mind.

Join Darcia in her fictional world: www.QuietFuryBooks.com

The characters await you.

by Patrick H. Moore

It’s well known that sex accompanied by strangulation, known as erotic asphyxiation,  is an increasingly popular pastime among the young, the kinky, the just plain adventurous, and sometimes the not too smart. A few older guys and gals also apparently don’t turn up their noses at the giddy pleasure. The Reverend Gary Aldridge, of Montgomery’s Thorington Road Baptist Church, died on June 24, 2007 from “accidental mechanical asphyxia”; he was “found hogtied, wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask.” This is even weirder than the sad passing of film star David Carradine, whose death has been described in the following manner:

David Carradine died on June 4, 2009 from accidental asphyxiation, according to the medical examiner who performed a private autopsy on the actor. His body was found hanging by a rope in a closet in his room in Thailand, and there was evidence of a recent orgasm; two autopsies were conducted and concluded that his death was not suicide, and the Thai forensic pathologist who examined the body stated that his death may have been due to autoerotic asphyxiation. Two of Carradine’s ex-wives, Gail Jensen and Marina Anderson, stated publicly that his sexual interests included the practice of self-bondage.

This is all well and good but it doesn’t answer the question of what do you do when you accidentally strangle your partner to death during the sex act and are left with his or her still hot but very dead body. Not being a practitioner of erotic asphyxiation, I cannot answer this highly pertinent question from personal experience. In September, however, an Italian lover by the name of Andrea Pizzicolo found himself confronted with this prickly situation when his lovely 18-year-old Romanian lover, Lavinia Simona Ailoaiei, accidentally expired during an erotic game the two of them were playing.

David Lohr of the Huffington Post writes:

A man who allegedly killed a Romanian teenager, had sex with her corpse and then dumped her body, was arrested in Italy. During a weekend press conference, prosecutor Vincenzo Russo, said murder suspect Andrea Pizzicolo was arrested at his home in Arese. The 41-year-old accountant shares the residence with his 5-year-old daughter and an unidentified woman.

According to the investigators, Pizzicolo killed his 18-year-old lover sometime between Friday night and Saturday morning. He also didn’t cover his tracks very well. The young woman’s naked body was discovered Sunday in a corn field in Lombardy.  Pizzicolo hadn’t bothered to remove the self-locking plastic ties that were bound tightly around her neck. He left her unclothed corpse with a towel draped over her head, a mistake because the the towel led police to a nearby hotel, where Pizzicolo had allegedly rented a room Friday night.

When the  authorities searched Pizzicolo’s home, they allegedly found plastic ties similar to those that were found on the victim. Pizzicolo was escorted down to the police station. After four hours of determined interrogation, the Italian allegedly confessed. According to Prosecutor Vincenzo Russo, Pizzicolo stated:

“I’ve lost my mind, I went on tilt.”

Pizzicolo apparently then confessed that he had met the teen, who had just turned 18, on the Internet. Their rendezvous on Friday at a motel north of Milan was only their second date. Pizzicolo told the investigators that they engaged in an erotic sex game, in which Pizzicolo put the plastic ties around her neck. According to Pizzicolo, she struggled to breathe during their game and, despite his best efforts, he was unable to remove the ties and she expired.

According to Russo and the Head of the Flying Squad of Lodi, Alessandro Battista, the investigators have learned that Pizzicolo transported Ailoaiei’s body to another hotel, where he allegedly had sex with her dead body before he dumped it. The teen’s cellphone and other belongings were found in the trash bin of a restaurant near the second hotel.

Strangely, Ailoaiei is not the first victim to have been dumped in the outskirts of Lodi. According to La Repubblica, in 2011, a Moroccan woman was found dead in the area with her head and hands removed from her body. Roughly 10 years earlier a 25-year-old woman was found naked and strangled. Neither case has been solved.

The authorities have not indicated there is any connection between those two cases and the Pizzicolo case.

Pizzicolo has been charged with murder and committing obscene acts on a corpse.

The victim’s ex-boyfriend decried the alleged acts and remembered Ailoaiei as a “compassionate loving” girlfriend.

“I did not expect her to get hurt … I really miss her and love her,” AdmYn AdrYano, told The Huffington Post on Monday. (It almost sounds like he was in the motel room with them.)

*     *     *     *     *

Although Pizzicolo is charged with murder and committing obscene acts on a corpse, it seems to me that unless it can be proved that he intended to kill the 18-year-old victim, a more proper charge would be some form of aggravated manslaughter. As to the “committing obscene acts with a corpse” charge, I don’t believe it just be given much weight at sentencing.

As for the poor deceased victim, it’s hard for me to comprehend why she would practice erotic asphyxiation with an older gentleman whom she barely knew. Good god, it was only their second date.

by Patrick H. Moore

In early January of 1993, Karla Homolka, after enduring a particularly brutal beating at the hands of fellow serial killer Paul Bernardo – at the urging of her family – made the life-altering decision to escape from the shadow of Bernardo’s strangely domineering personality once and for all. In this post, we will trace Karla’s “two steps forward, one step back” progress and forays into sexual decadence, not to mention drug and alcohol abuse, during this period, even as she clearly discerns that the Crown desperately needs her to testify against Bernardo to build a case against him. There is little doubt in my mind that shortly after leaving Bernardo, Karla realized that she was in the perfect position to help engineer the “sweetheart” Plea Deal that resulted in a mere 12-year prison sentence, and has enraged both Canadian and American followers of this compelling case. In effect, Karla did everything in her power to “stack the deck” in her favor. She did this by playing the “victim,” minimizing her own guilt, dropping clues as to the existence of the damning videotape, ingratiating herself with law enforcement, and generally playing the “little lost girl” while simultaneously making herself indispensable to the Crown. Dark, evil and twisted though she was, Karla was nobody’s fool.

On January 10, 1993, Karla moved in with her Uncle Calvin and Aunt Patti Seger in Brampton in Ontario Province. Within a day or two of being given shelter by her concerned relatives, Karla – no doubt already planning how best to put her best foot forward — began keeping a detailed account of the abuse she had suffered in her diary. She also began making phone calls to some of Paul’s friends in an effort to keep tabs on his state of mind and behavior.

On January 19th, Karla returned home briefly to St. Catharines for an appointment with legal aid, a visit to her doctor and to have her hair done. We need hardly state that whatever her other concerns, personal vanity was never far from Karla’s mind.

Karla wrote in her diary on January 21st:

“So confused about what to do with my life…don’t know where I should live or what career I should choose; fear that I will go back to him. I wouldn’t in a million years. I’d rather go to jail…I miss being in the hospital. I should have stayed longer. Dr. Plaskos gave me more ativan; Oh yeah, I just remembered, Paul kicked me in the lower back and there was blood in my urine.” 

Four days later, Karla again returned to St. Catharines to celebrate her father’s irthday and to consult with her new divorce lawyer, Virginia Workman.

On February 3rd, Detective Ron Whitfield of Metro Toronto’s Sex Assault Squad, after finding out that the Forensic Lab had positively identified Paul Bernardo as being the Scarborough Rapist, telephoned the Homolka residence and asked to speak to Karla. Karla was there but she did not take the call; instead, she directed her sister Lori and her mother Dorothy to speak with the detective. Detective Whitfield told Dorothy that it was urgent that he speak with her because Paul had been identified as a suspect in a major case.

This, of course, was the break that Karla had been waiting for. One can easily envision her licking her lips in anticipation. Also, in keeping with the behavior patterns of addicts of every ilk, Karla used this good news as an excuse to get to get laid. One can assume, that by this juncture, she had probably been celibate for at least four weeks, which for someone as hot-blooded (and cold-hearted) as Karla, must have felt like an eternity. In any event, after setting up an appointment to meet with the police the following week, on February 5^th, Karla, her Aunt Patti, and a friend went to a Brampton bar called the Sugar Shack.

It would be interesting to know if it took Karla mere minutes, or an hour or two, but at the Sugar Shack, she met a man named Jim Hutton, with whom she spent the entire night dancing. Oddly, Jim bore a striking resemblance to Paul Bernardo. At the end of what must have been a very agreeable evening, Karla told Jim that she wanted to see him again and they agreed to meet there the following night.

When it came to sex, Karla was not one to “just say no” and – true to her word – she returned to the Sugar Shack to meet Jim. Jim was hours late but he eventually showed up and Karla was there to greet him. After the Shack closed, they wended their way to an after-hours club and from there, to the house of one of Jim’s friends. Jim’s buddy sacrificed his bed to the new couple. I can’t help wishing I had been a fly on the wall to view the fireworks. After it was over, Jim called a cab for Karla and sent her on her way.

On February 9th, Metro Police detectives Ron Whitfield, Mary-Lee Metcalfe and Bruce Smollet traveled to Brampton and met with Karla in an exhaustive five-hour debriefing session. The detectives had been given strict instructions to ask about the Mickey Mouse watch that appeared in the photograph taken of Karla at St. Catharines General Hospital after the brutal beating at Paul Bernardo’s hands that led to her leaving him. The detectives also insisted on taking a fingerprint sample. When Karla asked why they needed the sample, they would not answer.

In addition to answering law enforcement’s question, Karla provided a detailed account of the physical abuse she suffered at the hands of Paul. Again, one wishes to have been invisible but present in the room at the debriefing. It is important to keep in mind that Karla survived this most important meeting with no legal counsel present which would seem to speak volumes as to her poise and ability to present herself advantageously.

Nonetheless, after the exhausting session, Karla was visibly shaken and confessed to her aunt and uncle that Paul was the Scarborough Rapist and the School-Girl murderer. Then, as if she’d been biding her time, she immediately phoned the home of George Walker, a prominant Niagara Falls attorney whom she’d gotten to know while working at the animal clinic. Karla requested an appointment ASAP.

The next day, secure in the fact she had booked her appointment with Walker, Karla accepted Jim Hutton’s invitation to share a pizza. During their tete-a-tete, Karla mentioned that she was married and had recently left her husband. She also explained that he was responsible for her bruises. Jim appeared singularly disinterested in Karla’s past travails. What he was interested in was more sex, including possibly some anal, and they concluded the night by coupling after which Jim dropped her off where she was staying. Strangely, not only did Jim look like Paul; he drove the same late-model Nissan.

Police Work:

As the end of the 5-hour debriefing on February 9th, the police had offered to provide Karla with transportation should she need it. They kept their word on February 11^th and drove Karla to Niagara Falls on this day to meet with George Walker. Karla apparently didn’t want her parents to know she was meeting with a criminal defense attorney. According to the record, on the way to Walker’s office, the three of them made small talk, a peculiar notion considering all that was at stake.

During her meeting with George Walker, Karla told him about the rapes and murders, including the death of her sister, Tammy-Lyn. She also described the video-tapes and how she had been unsuccessful in her attempt to locate them on the night she left Bayview Drive. Karla informed Walker that she was willing to testify against Bernardo — if Walker could get her blanket immunity. This outrageous desire on Karla’s part is indicative of her incredibly narcissistic personality. Walker told her that blanket immunity was probably a long shot, although the Battered Wife defense was a possibility. The problem was most battered women do not assist their partners in rapes and murders.

Later that same night, the Niagara Regional Police appeared at Walker’s door, tipping him off to the fact that they had been in contact with the Metro Toronto police. Detective Robert Gillies alluded to the fact that the Crown might be willing to work out a deal. Based on this, Walker agreed to meet with Crown attorney Ray Houlihan.

When Det. Gillies returned to Niagara Regional headquarters, Inspector Bevan, the head of the Green Ribbon Task Force, was waiting for him. Karla’s fingerprints matched prints found on the piece of map that had been discovered at the site of Kristen French’s abduction. Bevan obviously discerned that Karla had not come close to revealing the full scope of her involvement with Bernardo. The problem was there was no concrete evidence linking Paul to the abduction and murders of either Kristen French or Lynn Mahaffey.

From that point on, Karla was surveilled and a phone tap was discussed. The police also began tailing Bernardo. Inspector Bevan was tasked with working out the particulars of what would become the first plea deal proposed for Karla.

On February 13th, Karla returned to George Walker’s office. In the course of their conversation, he outlined the gravity of her involvement. In essence, he informed Karla that there was no possibility of her avoiding incarceration. Walker also told her that if she hoped to secure any kind of decent deal, it was imperative that she dump Jim Hutton and move back in with her parents.

Two days later, Jim and Karla got together at his apartment for their final encounter. Unsurprisingly, Karla was not her usual bubbly self. It is entirely possibly that up until the point at which George Walker had leveled with her, she had actually believed that she would miraculously escape prison time. She opened up just enough to tell Jim that some bad things had happened, things she was not yet able to speak of. Nonetheless, Jim allowed her to spend the night; they had marathon sex as if Karla realized this might be her last chance for a while to satisfy her constant craving.

 Paul Bernardo’s Arrest and Its Aftermath

Paul Bernardo was arrested just before dinner time at his home on Bayview Drive on February 17th. Naturally, the news was all over the airwaves. The police informed the media that they were still searching for a second suspect when in reality Karla was that suspect.

During the days following Bernardo’s arrest, media coverage was exhaustive, including the enduring footage of Bernardo being led away from his home in hand-cuffs. The newspapers had a field day, plastering the story and everything related to it all over the front page and the local section as well. In these reports, the police are quoted as saying they are speaking to a woman who may have been involved in the deaths and that they are investigating another person of interest, who turned out to be Van Smirnis, Paul Bernardo’s best friend.

Karla meets with George Walker on February 19th and he informed her that this was just the beginning. At this point, the enormity of the situation finally got to Karla. Among other things, she was upset because the media knew all about her requests for immunity. Her parents were in total shock and Jim Hutton refused to talk to her.

Three days later, George Walker met with the Homolkas to discuss gathering bail money to the tune of around $100,000. The plan was that Karla would be arrested and would be let out on bail pending trial. With the help of family and friends, the Homolkas began scraping the money together.

Walker and Crown representative Murray Segal then hammered out the fine details of Karla’s plea deal. It was agreed that she would plead to two counts of manslaughter, each of which would carry a sentence of 10 years each, to be served concurrently. She was required to appear at Niagara Regional Headquarters on Saturday, February 27th to confess. Under the agreement, she would only serve 40 months behind bars. And from this point on, she would be required to make herself available to police at all times for questioning.

Even Karla had her breaking point. She spent the next day drinking heavily and was reportedly “three sheets to the wind” by dinner time. She was also on an assortment of anti-depressants which just made matters worse. Karla met with Walker at 7:00 p.m. to sign the formal plea-bargain. Walker realized Karla was not herself and was behaving strangely. He even thought she might be suicidal and decided to postpone the following day’s arraignment based on her state of mind.

Although Murray Segal ultimately added two years to Karla’s plea agreement, bringing it to the infamous 12 year figure, in reality, that meant that she would still only have to serve 52 months. (In actuality, because she was deemed a risk to re-offend, Karla was required to serve the lion’s share of the 12-year sentence.)

Karla’s state of mind remained precarious over the next week, and on March 4^th, based on Walker’s advice, she was admitted to Northwestern General Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. She would remain there for the next seven weeks.

Note: Many of the factual details of the above post are based on Stephen Williams’ excellent book on the Karla Homolka case, “Invisible Darkness”. The interpretations of these facts are the work of Patrick H. Moore.

Click on the following links to read previous Karla posts:

Watching Karla Homolka: Reality Bites and Karla Becomes Unhinged

Karla Homolka Psychological Evaluation, Part One: Abuse Victim or Just Plain Evil?

Watching Karla Homolka: It’s a Family Affair

Was Karla Homolka a Normal Child? The Answer Is a Resounding No

Is Karla Homolka the Most Hated Woman in North America?

The Karla Homolka Files: A U.S. Perspective on Karla Homolka’s Plea Bargain

Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo: Canada’s Most Notorious Serial Killer Case