Whipped Cream Difficulties

I went around and around about posting this, because I was worried about spoiling the broth boring my readers. But I think this is worth noting.

Over the weekend, David Hanners, the Dallas Morning News reporter who did the early coverage of the Cook case, posted a long comment in response to Michael Hall’s post, “What the ‘Tyler Morning Telegraph’ Failed to Tell You about Kerry Max Cook”.  The Texas Monthly blog promoted that comment to a full post (in the process cleaning up the formatting so it is more readable): that post is here.

Summarizing, Hanners also has issues with the daily paper’s coverage of the case, and doesn’t believe Cook is guilty.

I am probably one of the few people who has gone into Mr. Cook’s case with objective eyes. When I began looking into it, I wasn’t out to prove him guilty or innocent; frankly, I didn’t care. My reason for looking into his case was to try and answer a very simple question involving the administration of justice: Why did it take the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nearly eight years to rule in his initial appeal?

Hanners also mentions a couple of things about the police investigation that I didn’t know, and are frankly shocking. The police apparently did not interview the victim’s co-workers until they complained, then “the detectives went out to the school and basically waited for people to come to them—in full view of Mr. Mayfield. [the other suspect in the case -DB]”

Then there’s the missing stocking. Police initially found just one sock at the crime scene. The prosecution claimed that the killer mutilated Linda Edwards body, and took body parts away from the crime scene in one of her stockings. Apparently, there were no body parts taken…

When the jurors in the first retrial had the trial exhibits back in the jury room, they opened the sealed evidence bag containing Ms. Edwards’ jeans, pulled them out and held them up. The “missing” stocking dropped out. The cops couldn’t even find a stocking in a pant leg.

And, now that there’s DNA pointing to someone else…

I clearly remember David Dobbs, the prosecutor handling the retrials, telling me prior to the testing that they were excited about the prospects of a test because the semen sample “could only have been left by the killer.” Those were his exact words to me, and I remember him saying it as if it were yesterday. So then the sample is sent away for testing, the deal with Mr. Cook is offered and accepted—and then the results come back showing the semen belonged to someone other than Mr. Cook. Suddenly, the prosecution’s story changes. Now they say, “Well, of course it was somebody else. But Mr. Cook is still the killer.”

Over at the Texas Monthly web site, Michael Hall has an interesting blog post about the case of Kerry Max Cook.

To be honest, I’d heard the name, I’d seen some of the press coverage, but I never quite had a handle on what happened with this case. Hall’s post is a pretty good introduction.

In brief, Cook was charged with the 1977 murder of Linda Edwards. He was convicted at his first trial in 1978: ten years later, the Dallas Morning News exposed various issues from the first trial (a lying jailhouse snitch, a detective who claimed he could tell how old fingerprints were). Cook was granted a retrial in 1991.

The second trial ended in a hung jury. During that trial, even more evidence of prosecutorial misconduct came out in court. Cook was tried a third time in 1994, and was found guilty (again) and sentenced to death (again).

That third conviction was reversed in 1996 by the Court of Criminal Appeals, which specifically called out the misconduct on the part of the prosecution and police.

Cook, for various reasons, ended up entering a no-contest plea “in which Cook would maintain his innocence while only acknowledging the evidence the state would offer to try and convict him” before the fourth trial. DNA testing (the results of which became available only after Cook’s plea) seems to point to another man as the actual culprit. Cook is attempting to get additional DNA testing done, and to get a declaration of actual innocence from the Texas courts.

The entire case is much more complex than I’ve outlined here; I commend Hall’s post to your attention.

(Hattip: GFB.)

Garden city of Washington state.

Brad Thoma was a sergeant with the Spokane Police Department up until 2009. That year, he was charged with driving while intoxicated and hit and run: apparently, he hit a pickup with his personal vehicle and fled the scene.

Thoma received “deferred adjudication” in the case, which basically meant that if he kept his nose clean for a certain amount of time, the charges would go away. As part of the agreement, he had to have an ignition interlock installed on any vehicles he drove, according to state law at the time. This would be awfully inconvenient to put on a police car, so Thoma was offered a non-driving desk job. He turned down that offer, so the Spokane PD fired his butt.

Now we’re in 2012. Thoma, of course, complained after he was fired, and the “Washington State Human Rights Commission” negotiated a settlement in which Thoma would be rehired as a detective and get $275,000 in back pay.

The Spokane City Council, in their infinite wisdom, rejected the settlement.

And Thoma is suing, claiming he was discriminated against due to his disability, namely alcoholism.

If you want to read the FARK discussion, I’d recommend hitting yourself repeatedly with a ball peen hammer until the urge goes away. If it doesn’t go away, the thread is here.

And, yes, I usually don’t cover stuff that is on FARK, but:

1. Mike the Musicologist sent it to me as blog fodder, and

b. It reminded me of another former Spokane police officer that I hadn’t checked on recently. So how’s Karl F. Thompson Jr. doing these days? (You remember former officer Thompson, don’t you? He beat Otto Zehm to death.)

Well…

• Former officer Thompson still hasn’t been sentenced. A date hasn’t been set yet.
• Former officer Thompson says that he’s “taken responsibility” for his actions, and is requesting a reduced sentence. Sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of between 27 and 33 months, but Thompson is requesting that his sentence be reduced to below that level. Originally, the prosecution was asking for a sentence of between six to eight years.
• Former officer Thompson is still seeking a new trial; this time, his attorneys are claiming that the expert testimony of a witness was “mischaracterized” by the prosecutors.
• “A special panel – including a former U.S. attorney, a retired state Supreme Court chief justice and others – is set to investigate the Spokane Police Department’s use-of-force training and practices next month in a review that will extend beyond the Zehm case.”

Here is a particularly noteworthy quote:

Although the state’s top police trainer concluded that the fatal 2006 confrontation with unarmed janitor Otto Zehm was indefensible, the department’s own instructors and the city’s legal advisers have insisted that Spokane police officers were justified and handled the encounter appropriately.

• The Zehm family has agreed to mediation with the city in their lawsuit.
• The city is considering the use of body cameras. I’m not sure how much good that would have done in this case; there was video evidence of what happened (that’s what hung Thompson). And one of the major issues (as I see it) is the city’s instance that everything that happened was proper and consistent with the Spokane PD’s operating procedures.
• Here’s a great example of karma coming back around:
  

  A Spokane police officer who says he feared for his life after being threatened by a felon was asked in court Wednesday about supportive comments he posted on a Facebook page in support of another convicted felon – former Officer Karl Thompson.

There are two things that amuse me about the NYPD’s secret “Newark, New Jersey Demographics Report”:

1. The number of “Identified Locations” that are fried chicken places. “Newark Fried Chicken”. “Kansas Fried Chicken”. “Utah Fried Chicken”. Utah Fried Chicken? “Detroit Fried Chicken and Pizza”: hey, mad props for diversification. “Chicken Holiday”? Not much of a holiday for the chicken after you cut it up and fry it, is it?
2. The NYPD managed to find the Dunkin Doughnuts (page 52). The jokes, they just write themselves.

Sorry, folks. I had to go to the eye doctor this morning, so I’m getting off to a slow start.

In the latest Scott Henson news (previously) APD has released the video. You can find it at the Statesman‘s site, where it autoplays. (Idiots.)

I haven’t watched it yet, primarily because I got the full monty from my eye doctor, including the drops in my eyes. My pupils are now the size of Rhode Island; thank ghu for those silly sunglasses like things. In addition, work has me in a full-on “Hulk smash!” mode. More later. Maybe.

I was busy much of the day yesterday (and chained to my desk doing schoolwork much of the day today) so this is the first chance I’ve had to blog the Statesman‘s followup to the Scott Henson story.

Basically, Chief Acevdeo showed a Statesman reporter video of the incident – video that hasn’t been released to the public – that he claims contradicts Henson’s story. As far as I can tell, the contradictions amount to:

• APD didn’t draw Tasers.
• APD disputes that Henson was “handcuffed roughly”.

I’m glad I waited, since Henson now has a response to Acevedo and the Statesman up at his own blog. In his response, Henson acknowledges the non-drawn Taser error, but disputes the handcuff issue.

Henson also makes another good point by way of an apology:

I was wrong to assume the deputy constable called in the cavalry. With 20/20 hindsight, having reviewed all the materials the chief showed me (which is more than the press has seen so far), she’s the one who did it right, investigating a serious allegation without needlessly scaring a child or applying more restrictive force than was necessary to contain the situation. She also told APD moments before they detained me that she’d spoken to the child, gave them her name, and said I was her Grandpa. My apologies for my original, false interpretation, both to the deputy and Constable Danny Brown’s shop.

To me, that’s sort of the key issue: why did nine APD officers stop, detain, and handcuff someone the deputy constable had already spoken to and cleared?

1. The Scott Henson incident (previously) gets coverage from the Statesman.
   

   “You have to investigate to determine if the grandfather is supposed to have the child,” Hipolito said. “To me, he’s making it into more of a racial thing.”

   That’s interesting. To me, he was making it more of a “why did it take 9 APD officers to sort this out, especially given my previous interaction with a deputy constable?” thing. But that’s just me.

2. APD also fired two more officers, and suspended two supervisors.

   Michelle Gish was fired for punching a woman (who was restrained on a gurney) for spitting on her. Jose Robledo was suspended for giving “false and inaccurate statements during the investigation” of the same incident. Sgt. Mark Breckenridge was suspended for 20 days for failing to “adequately investigate the use of force” in the same incident, and Cpl. Steve Jones was suspended for 10 days “because he witnessed the incident but did not submit his report about it until told to do so by a superior, and he approved reports related to the incident that were inaccurate or incomplete”.

   Gish and Robledo can appeal. I have seen reports elsewhere indicating that Breckenridge can’t, because suspensions over 15 days require the agreement of both the officer and the city. I’m not sure about Jones and his ability to appeal.

1. Sunday’s Knoxville News Sentinel ran a long piece on former judge Richard Baumgartner. Baumgartner presided over the high profile cases of Channon Christian/Christopher Newsom and Raynella Dossett Leath. He was also a bad guy: Baumgartner shook down his staff for OxyContin and other painkillers, became involved with a former defendant in his court (and had her procure drugs for him), and apparently engaged in even more misconduct (hidden in sealed TBI files). And Baumgartner’s erratic behavior went on from at least 2007 to 2011. Four years of an addict presiding over criminal trials. (Hattip: Insta.)
2. Also by way of Insta:
   

   A three-month Sun Sentinel investigation found almost 800 cops from a dozen agencies driving 90 to 130 mph on our highways.
   Many weren’t even on duty — they were commuting to and from work in their take-home patrol cars.

3. And from Balko, for a change-up: the story of Scott Henson, who was stopped and detained by nine Austin Police Department officers while walking his five year old granddaughter home. Henson is white: his granddaugher is black, and they were stopped by the APD immediately after a previous encounter with a deputy constable.
   So far, this is outrageous. Of course we only have one side of the story, but does Henson have any reason to lie about this? I hope he pursues this. I hope he forces a full investigation by an external third party, not APD. And if all of this is true, I hope people loose their badges and jobs over this. Including Chief Acevedo.

The final charge (criminal mischief) against former APD officer Leonardo Quintana was dropped Thursday.

As you may recall, Mr. Quintana was acquitted by juries on three other charges; he was also fired by the APD and reinstated by arbitrators several times before his most recent termination (which seems to have stuck).

Do you remember Leonardo Quintana? The APD officer who was fired multiple times by APD, and reinstated multiple times by an arbitrator, before APD finally managed to make a charge stick? Last time we touched base with former officer Quintana, he’d just been acquitted on domestic assault charges.

Yesterday, he was acquitted on two more charges: another domestic assault charge in an unrelated incident, and criminal trespass.

According to the Statesman, there’s still one more criminal mischief charge pending against Quintana. We’ll try to keep you updated on the disposition of that charge.

Our first thought was “Dead rats? Not dead gophers?”

Our second thought was, “Is the gopher even indigenous to Massachusetts?”

(Hattip. Dead gophers explained here.)