ACLU Files Suit in Federal Court to Overturn "Bush Lied" T-Shirt Laws

So, a while back, some guy in my state, Dan Frazier, decided to put a twist on the "Bush Lied, People Died" message by adding the names of troops killed in Iraq as the background to the caption "Bush Lied, They Died" t-shirt. (I guess he did a bumper sticker first, and no one objected...) Not surprisingly, the families of the men and women named on the shirt found it offensive. They did what reasonable people do and they objected vociferously.

Their response probably SHOULD have been a civil suit.The names of the soldiers are the property of the estate, yadda, yadda...

And then, at least one aggrieved parent, Judy Vincent, did something a little misguided, but, really understandable. She lobbied for legislation to make using the name or likeness of a deceased soldier, without permission and subject to a number of exceptions, a misdemeanor. *sigh*

And then, Oklahoma legislators did something REALLY dumb. And not at all understandable (except when taken in the context of politicians wanting to be re-elected...). They passed the damn law. *SIGH* So did Louisiana, Arizona (just about a year ago...) and Texas.

So, it's now a criminal offense. A misdemeanor, but a CRIMINAL offense nonetheless.

The ACLU filed suit (today, I think...) asserting that these laws are a violation of the First Amendment.

This case should get interesting pretty quickly... There are quite a few issues that will come into play...

Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, who backed the measure, believes that because Frazier is selling his shirts for a profit means it is not constitutionally protected political speech.

Really? Hmm. What if he GAVE the shirts away. Would the speech be MORE political if you removed the tacky profit motive?

Paton goes on to compare this to the use of an entertainer's name and likeness in a commercial enterprise.

I'm thinkin' that his comparison of this use of names--the sheer number of names is what Frazier is using to make his point--to the use of Britney Spears name (his choice of bubblegum pop-singers, not mine) to sell merchandise is a little bit silly.

No one is buying this shirt because Pat Tillman's name, or anyone else's is on there somewhere. They're buying it for the impact made by the names, not the names themselves. Whereas, if someone buys a Britney shirt, it's specifically because it's Britney (unless that hypothetical individual has suddenly found themselves covered in fresh, warm vomit in the middle of nowhere, and the only t-shirt the gas station has for sale is one with Brit's mug plastered on it, and after lengthy consideration they decide Britney is slightly more bearable than puke... But, I digress.)

The monetary issue is what the people defending this bill seem to be trying to get it to turn on... That and the fact that a good number of people find this exploitative, cheap and dirty. But the bill in Arizona makes the profit the determining factor for banning the use of the names. (I'm lazy. I didn't go dig up the laws for every state. You've got Google. Use it.) Then it excepts books, plays, news reports, film, etc.

Wait. Authors write for free? Stupid me. Here I thought folks wrote books and articles and sought out publishers at least in part to pay the bills. I forgot. Authors do it solely for the sake of their noble art. (and they also sup on dew and poop vanilla ice cream...)

Plays are written and produced by people who are desperately hoping that their work doesn't ever make it anywhere near Broadway?

Profit motive aside: The names are public domain, they're not singling individuals out in order to profit from their fame, the names themselves have little or no monetary value, there's no defamation, it's not advertising, it's political speech and the restriction is entirely content based... In my humble opinion, I think these laws are going to go down in flames. At least, I sincerely hope they are. Out of respect for the men and women who died fighting for others' freedom, perhaps we should think twice about crippling free speech in their names...

London Car Bombing Attempt Foiled

Apparently it was just confirmed by London police that the two car-bombs in London were part of a single plot.

Per Fox News, they were to be detonated by cellular phone, and both were similarly constructed. CNN is saying that the bombs were "potentially viable" and constructed with gas canisters and fuel (the first contained approximately 50 gallons of gasoline or similar fuel in canisters, don't know the details on the second yet, but they're saying very similarly constructed) and contained nails. For those who are fortunate enough not to know why nails would be included in a bomb, they're intended as projectiles. Think: pointy bits of metal hurtling through the air and their effect on human flesh and bone...

Of course, the assumption (not yet articulated, but certainly evident through the 9/11, "chatter" and similar comments and references) is that this is going to be attributed to someone carrying out their interpretation of jihad. Okay, so the odds are in favor of that... Well. Never mind. Neil Cavuto and his guest Michael-Something just pinned the tail on an Al Quaeda-offshoot.

Interesting how Cavuto and another guest (sorry...I snap out of a bar-study-induced trance when statements catch my attention, I don't always catch guest names...) brought in a poll that said that 40% of British Muslims responded positively to the idea of living under Sharia (Those are my words, the phrasing given by Cavuto's guest was "wanted to live under Sharia" I haven't read the study--they didn't give a citation that I caught, so not sure of where it's from or how the question was phrased. Maybe it's verbatim. Maybe it's not.) And another 40% condemned the 9/11 attacks on America. I'm not sure how the first bit of info--a desire to live under Sharia--necessarily ties in to supporting terrorism. Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

Wonder if this has anything to do with Brown-replacing-Blair? Or whether it's going to be Salman Rushdie's knighthood taking the blame? Or something entirely different (someone's pissed that young Will and his girlfriend have reconciled?)

Suppose we'll see over the next few days...

Nogales Border Tunnel Largest Ever Found

Nogales is pretty close to my neck of the woods, so this caught my attention.

Or, maybe it caught my attention since I've lost count of the number of border tunnels that have been discovered in recent years. And the fact that the headlines always seem to trumpet things like "longest," "largest," or "most sophisticated."

For comparison purposes:

Contending for the "Most Sophisticated Illegal Subterranean U.S. Entrance"...

Contestant Number 1:
"A 5-foot-tall passageway with electric and ventilation systems and security cameras leading from a Mexicali residence to a house just across the border in Calexico." This tunnel also had a "tile floor, wooden walls, light sockets, numerous tubes and a generator. There were paintbrushes, buckets, ladders and at least two makeshift altars adorned with crosses, flowers and portraits of saints." (San Diego Union Tribune, 3/1/2005.)

Contestant Number 2:
"At least 60 feet below U.S. soil, authorities found a tunnel floor lined with cement, lights that ran down one of the hard soil walls and air piped down from the surface, he said. An adult could stand in the 5-foot-high shaft." This tunnel ran from a spot near the Tijuana, MX airport to a San Diego warehouse about 2400 feet away. The tunnel also featured "A 6-by-10-foot cement shaft equipped with a pulley [that] dropped about 75 feet to the tunnel. According to the BBC article which lists this as one of the longest, it also has groundwater pumping. (SF Gate, 1/26/2006)

Contestant #3:
"The tunnel is about 110 meters long running from British Columbia, Canada, into Washington State, according to a press release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A Quonset hut hid the entrance on the Canadian side, and the American entrance was beneath the floor of a house in Lynden, Washington." Features of this tunnel included reinforcement with iron rebar and 2 x 6 wood supports, and it stretched about 360 feet long at a depth of between three and ten feet. (U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs, 7/21/2005)

And, finally, Contestant #4:
These guys ran a drive-through operation... "Beneath the slot was a "sophisticated tunnel" with lights, plastic sheeting and bracing materials to keep it from caving in, Bauman said. "It looks like they would crawl through the tunnel with a bundle of marijuana, go to the very end where they could open this concrete slot, slide the bundle through, and the person in the vehicle would pick it up through a hole in the vehicle," Bauman said." Maybe not as nice as the tile and ventilation that some of the others have featured, but sliding bales of marijuana up through a slot into a waiting truck is fairly clever... (Channel 10, San Diego, CA, 4/24/2003)


For "Longest Underground Illegal Gateway to the U.S."

Contestant #1:
Also contending for "Most Sophisticated..." "The tunnel runs 720m (2,400ft) between two industrial warehouses straddling the border. Officials discovered about two tons of marijuana while exploring the tunnel." (BBC News, 1/27/2006) 2400 feet is nearly 1/2 mile (a mile is 5280 feet, half a mile is, of course, 2640 feet.)

Contestant #2:
Unsubstantiated: 3600 feet, 5 feet tall, 3.5 feet wide, running from Tijuana, MX to Otay Mesa, CA. I'm suspicious about this report, as many of the features sound exactly like a certain 2400 foot tunnel, including 4000 pounds of marijuana and discovery on a Wednesday night. Hmm. Here's the link. See for yourselves. (Diggers Realm, 2006)

And now... The Nogales Tunnel.

The "LARGEST EVER FOUND" per Court TV's report this morning...doesn't look like it would even make the finals, at least based on my brief and humble review of news articles on border tunnels...

There's a press conference on this tunnel coming up this morning (it was called "significant" by the nearest metropolitan papers' joint website (The Arizona Star and the Tucson Citizen's AZStarnet) but the local reports are saying that it's only about 300 feet long, and no one out here has claimed "LARGEST EVER FOUND"

I guess we'll see. Maybe they meant the largest ever found in Nogales?

SCOTUS Will Hear Gitmo Detention Cases

SCOTUS Reconsiders Guantanamo Bay Detainee Petitions for Federal Review

In April SCOTUS declined to hear petitions by Guantanamo Bay inmates for federal court review of their indefinite detentions. Today, however, without explanation, they overturned their earlier decision, consolidated the cases (Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196), granted review of the issue and set an hour for the oral arguments.

Wow.

Four justices must vote to hear a case when it is first presented.
Five justices have to agree when a petition is presented again.
In this case, three justices voted to hear the case at its first presentation, with Kennedy and Stevens not finding the case sufficiently ripe as the detainees had not yet sought legal relief through the D.C. Circuit Court. The D.C. Circuit has the power, under the Detainee Treatment Act, to grant a limited review of the military decision to continue to detain "enemy combatants."

What happened since April isn't clear (and I'm too lazy to go do the digging that might result in finding out...) What we know is that something recaptured the attention of at least two justices (presumably Kennedy and Stevens). And, on top of that, under SCOTUS's rules, for a rehearing to be granted requires a change in "intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect" or counsel's showing of "substantial grounds not previously presented."

School Case Opinions Released

PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 et al.

I haven't had the time to read it yet...It looks dense and chewy. But, here's a link to the full text of the opinion, brought to you by the great guys over at Cornell University School of Law.

Roberts wrote the opinion, Kennedy and Thomas wrote concurring opinions and Stevens and Breyer gave dissents.

SCOTUS: Executing the Delusional is Cruel and Unusual....

SCOTUS rules in Panetti v. Quarterman:

Another 5:4 decision with the justices divided along the expected lines.
Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg concurred with Kennedy to say that it is a violation of the 8th Amendment to execute someone who is so delusional that, while they understand that they're being executed and for what, they have a delusional belief as to why. The 5th Circuit Court, said the majority, had used too restrictive a standard of mental competency in upholding a death sentence for a man whose delusions are said to keep him from understanding why he would be executed.

I think the biggest question here is how this case got this far...

Panetti, for those unfamiliar with the story, murdered his in-laws. He shaved his head, donned camouflage and armed himself with a deer rifle and a sawed-off shotgun then shot Joe and Amanda Alvarado at close range in their home. His recently estranged wife, and their daughter were present at the murder, and he held them briefly hostage at the boarding house where he was living.

Prior to this, Panetti had had a long and colorful mental health history. He'd been hospitalized at least a dozen times in the decade leading up to the offense for a true fruit-salad of disorders: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, psychosis, auditory hallucinations, and delusions of persecution and grandiosity. The evidence strongly suggests that he was non-compliant with his medications.

And, when the question of his competence to stand trial was raised and he was examined by Dr. E. Lee Simes, he was clearly, uh, lacking.

According to Dr. Simes report, he did not know who the President was, had some "looseness and tangentiality in his thought processes"; admitted to both auditory and visual hallucinations, which included seeing Jesus in his jail cell; "related chronic delusions marked by religiosity"; appeared to have “an odd fragmentation of his personality in describing himself as several different people;” and suffered from “obvious mental difficulties.” And, still, Dr. Simes concluded that in the great State of Texas, he was competent to stand trial.

A competency hearing was held, in which Panetti's attorney stated that his client would become delusional and unresponsive to questions when he was under stress, and that he'd never been able to have a meaningful and rational conversation with his client about the legal issues in the case. Another forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Coons, who had also evaluated Panetti, was brought in to testify, and he shared his finding that Panetti suffered from schizophrenia, and related some of Panetti's ramblings. His description of the defendant's mental state was eloquent: [Mr. Panetti’s mind] “saddles up and rides off in all directions.” Coons said definitively that Panetti was not malingering, as his mental health records were consistent dating back to the 1980's.

A jury somehow found the actively hallucinating, delusional Panetti competent to stand trial.

And then, the court found that he was competent to represent himself over the objections of his attorneys. He proceeded to issue over 200 subpoenas to persons including John F. Kennedy, the Pope and Jesus. (Although, as he told the court, he released Kennedy and the Pope, although Jesus was there with him, and hadn't needed to be subpoenaed...)

Panetti's take on the possibility of receiving the death penalty, straight from the trial transcript:
"The death penalty doesn’t scare me, sure but not much. Be killed, power line, when I was a kid. I’ve got my Injun beliefs as a shaman. I sent the buffalo horn to my sister. Adjustment, Jesus wrote. I was born in the North woods in a reservation hospital and my granddad was a justice of the peace and he sobered up the doctor and the doctor was half sobered and they delivered me and my mom had a bad sickness in her milk and they wondered why I wasn’t dead, and a lot of beatings I took from the kids that show me had prejudice, which I don’t have any prejudice, and they said this about me in the newspapers in the beginning, but I don’t love Injuns and Mexicano, and Mexicano know, but I suffered a lot of reverse prejudice from Colored people, which is rare, darn rare, but I was named “He who doesn’t cry” because I didn’t cry when I should have, and I must admit, though, in Gillespie County Jail when I was in my little suicide box where there was an old boy committed suicide, I went through about a week o pretty much scuba diver’s tears; although, I don’t scuba."

Fish. Barrel. Shotgun. Inevitable result.

Panetti continued to be actively mentally ill the entire time he was on death row, maintaining the fixed religious delusions that had haunted him since the 80's.

Attempts to appeal Panetti's conviction on grounds that he was not fit to stand trial or serve as his own defense counsel lasted more than ten years. By 2003, his lawyers had exhausted all appeal options and February 5, 2004 was set as the date of execution.

The current phase of Panetti's legal proceedings began with a 2004 motion asserting that Ford v. Wainwright prohibits Panetti's execution.

In Ford v. Wainright, the majority held that the Eighth Amendment barred execution of the insane. In addition, the opinion stated, "any procedure that precludes the prisoner or his counsel from presenting material relevant to his sanity or bars consideration of that material by the fact finder is necessarily inadequate."

In short, Panetti understood that the state intended to put him to death, and he understood that the reason given by the state was his murder of his in-laws. However, he maintained the belief that his in-laws were killed by "Sarge" and that he was put on death row to "preach the Gospel to saveother inmates," and that “the forces of evil, demons, devils” have been conspiring for years to kill him and put an end to his preaching of the word of G-d.

He was interviewed by a number of mental health professionals attempting to determine whether he was competent to be executed. Two psychiatrists, apparently ignoring his unblemished record of semi-coherent, religion-based answers and refusing to tell Panetti whether or not they believed in Jesus, decided that he was being deliberately uncooperative, and while he didn't understand why he was going to be executed by the state, he was CAPABLE of understanding.

Another forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Mary Anderson, believed that Panetti’s refusal to cooperate with the evaluation was the result of deliberate, conscious choice rather than the product of mental illness. She refused to conclude that Mr. Panetti suffered from schizophrenia, because she did not think that his mental illness was relevant to the competency determination.
(How convenient! A psychiatrist who'll also make legal determinations about the relevance of evidence so the judge doesn't have to...)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that to satisfy the 8th Amendment all that was necessary was for the defendant to be aware of the reason that the state was giving for his execution. How they tortured their logic around Ford v. Wainright to arrive at this conclusion is beyond me... Powell, in his concurrence wrote ""If the defendant perceives the connection between his crime and his punishment, the retributive goal of the criminal law is satisfied ... I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it."

Perhaps we need to institute a reading-comprehension test as a prerequisite to sitting on the federal appellate bench... This is what the 5th Circuit wrote: ""Justice Powell did not state that a prisoner must 'rationally understand' the reason for his execution, only that he must be 'aware' of it."

Um... Did they miss the parts that read: "perceives the connection between his crime and his punishment"and "why they are to suffer it?" Hmmm. Maybe I'm hallucinating. Seeing things...

Bong Hits 4 Jesus!

SCOTUS Says No to Bong Hits 4 Jesus... Content-Based Restriction on School Speech Upheld

What were they thinking?

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Yeah. The powerful message that if you're a student, and anywhere near your school when your classmates happen to be around, the First Amendment doesn't apply to YOU.

From Scalia and Thomas I expect this kind of garbage--Scalia is a moralizer, parading around in the costume of a strict constructionist. Thomas almost invariably follows Scalia since Rehnquist died. From Roberts and Alito it doesn't especially surprise me. But KENNEDY? BREYER? From them I expect at LEAST a stab at legal reasoning, something more than creating a special exception to the First Amendment if the topic happens to be our society's favorite bugaboo--drugs.

I think Stevens said it beautifully: "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, [and] ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."

Guess they'd better cancel Speech and Debate, since anyone taking the pro-legalization stance can be punished if school administrators happen to disagree...

McDonalds Coffee Case

Although this case hasn't been in the news lately, I did just run into a couple of misinformed rants (and, along with those, a couple of downright stupid and mean-spirited ones) on this blog.

So, here goes. My rant, more or less as posted in response on the other blog...

The woman burned by the McDonald's coffee, Stella Liebeck, has really received a bad rap... Would you expect 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee? I wouldn't. Be honest. Neither would you.

My understanding from reading the case in Torts class (and, to be honest, again at the 'Lectric Law Library when I decided that a rant was in order...) is that she received 3rd degree, full-thickness burns over her groin. Not first--pain, redness and swelling. Not second--pain, redness, blistering. But THIRD: This type of burn destroys the outer layer of skin (epidermis) and the entire layer beneath (or dermis). Typically this type of burn will not heal on its own. Tissue is destroyed, blood supply to that tissue is destroyed and the damage is very severe. If you're not sure I'm being accurate, or that this type of burn can be caused by a liquid, here's a simple explanation from the University of Michigan.

Expert testimony was that this type of burn was likely to occur in 2-7 seconds when the liquid was 180 degrees--the coolest that the coffee in this case was when it was served. The victim was 79 years old. She was hospitalized for 8 days, had to undergo debridement (the removal of dead tissue--excruciatingly painful...) and skin grafts. These were very serious burns.

Also, for the record, she wasn't the driver of the car, she was the passenger. Her son was driving, and he had *stopped* the car to allow his mother to put cream or sugar in her coffee. The coffee spilled over her lap.

McDonalds made the choice to keep their coffee at 185, because it kept costs down. They could sell lower quality coffee, and hotter coffee resulted in fewer refills. In light of the danger of keeping their coffee between 180 and 190 degrees, they had considered redesigning their cups to make them less likely to tip, putting warnings on the cups and keeping their coffee at a lower temperature. All of these were deemed more expensive than simply settling workers comp and injury claims.

And, for comparison, for those of you who are contemplating your morning Starbucks, their coffee, like nearly every cup of coffee you're likely to purchase, is served at approximately 140 degrees.

McDonalds corporation was aware of approximately 700 other similar injuries (yes, including other 3rd degree burns...) and decided it was cheaper not to change their practices.

Now, exactly where does Ms. Liebeck start to look like an idiot? Apparently I've missed that part...

Ms. Liebeck EXTREMELY reasonably offered to settle for the cost of her medical bills--roughly $20,000-- to avoid litigation. McDonalds offered her $800. Wow. Anyone been to the hospital lately? That wouldn't even cover the ambulance ride. At least not the last time that I was transported by ambulance ($1200, mostly covered by my medical insurance). The ER bill was close to twice that. And my issues were far LESS complicated than third-degree burns over the genitalia.

Oh yeah, she also asked for mediation as an alternative to litigation. McDonald's refused.
Even the trial judge commented on the extreme callousness of McDonald's corporation.

While she originally received a verdict from the jury of the value of two days worth of McDonalds coffee sales--not total revenue--COFFEE sales, the verdict was reduced to under $600,000.

Now, lay the hell off of Stella Liebeck and go after the GENUINELY frivolous suits!

Like the @-hole who attempted to sue over his allegedly missing pants to the tune of $56 million... But, I'll save that for another time.

Man Shoots Rock-Throwing Third Grader

Arkansas Man Irritated by Rock Throwing Kids Shoots, Kills Boy, 9
SCOTUS Expected to Rule Tomorrow on Constitutionality of Executions of the Mentally Ill

Jonathan Watts, 50, shot and killed Demotric Moore, 9, Monday, after the boy threw rocks at his house. Questions have already been raised regarding whether Watts' is mentally ill.

Fortunately for Mr. Watts, if he is mentally ill, SCOTUS will be probably be issuing a decision tomorrow as to whether it's a violation of the 8th Amendment to execute the mentally ill.
Then, of course, if it's unconstitutional to execute them, there'll have to be a definition of "mentally ill." Let's not forget that homosexuality was a mental illness until 1973...

Not that there's any guarantee that Mr. Watts would be a candidate for the death penalty in the first place, as this killing doesn't seem to have any of the features of a "good" death penalty case. There was no apparent premeditation, no particularly heinous aspects of the crime... The only factor (and I'm no expert in the death penalty) would be the age of the victim. But, there's also not a lot of consistency in how the death penalty is applied, and what makes an offense death-penalty eligible.

Since the change in the composition of the court, I'm not holding my breath that they're going to find that execution of the mentally ill violates the 8th Amendment.

It seems like Alito and Roberts have formed a pretty solid voting block, and Scalia and Thomas probably aren't going to stray very far from them. Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will probably stick together on the side of execution of the mentally ill being cruel and unusual. Kennedy's our last remaining swing vote now that Sandra Day O'Connor's gone.

I think we're going to be in trouble if anything should happen to Justice Stevens during the current administration...

Bobby Cutts Really NOT a Bad Guy...

Even though he was married, and fathered three children with two different women outside that marriage. (And his wife is just NOW getting around to getting legally free of him?)

In spite of the fact that his 9 year-old daughter said he threatened her, hurt her physically, and made sexually inappropriate comments to her.

Even though he appears to have murdered the 26 year-old mother of his 2 year-old son, just before she was due to deliver a baby girl she'd already named "Chloe."

Even though he appears to have murdered little Chloe.

His stepmom thinks he's not bad...Just a little bit misunderstood.

"It's very hard to accept," said Barbara Cutts, 46, a nurse's aide. "A lot of people are looking at him like a bad person, but he's not, he really isn't."

Right.

Patrick Knight--No Joke

Patrick Knight Dies by Lethal Injection Without Delivering Promised Joke

"Death has set me free. That's the biggest joke. I deserve this."

Knight then thanked God for his friends and voiced a plea for several fellow inmates he said were innocent.

"And the other joke is that I am not Patrick Bryan Knight and y'all can't stop this execution now," he added. "Go ahead. I'm finished."

Nine minutes later, Knight was pronounced dead. He was the 18th inmate executed this year in Texas's death chambers.

Prison spokeswoman Michelle Lyons immediately responded to dispell any idea that there could be any doubt as to Knight's identity. "We fingerprint them when they come over," she said.

Knight had received considerable press in the days leading up to his execution by stating that his last words would be to tell a joke, to relieve the stress and pressure felt by his fellow death-row residents. He received approximately 20 e-mails a day with joke suggestions.

I'm not sure how much a joke told while the teller was strapped to the gurney would have lightened things up on the Row anyway...

Amber LeAnn Hess Suspects In Custody

Two 16-Year-Old Boys Being Held in Juvenile Detention for the Murder of Amber LeAnn Hess

Todd Hoke and Nicholas Castillo were set to appear in Pinal County Juvenile Court this afternoon. The proceedings will be closed to the public, but my guess is that the charges are going to be dismissed against them in Juvenile Court either at this hearing or at the next, and they will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. This will be their detention hearing, I would guess, so the prosecutor may decide to wait until the next hearing to transfer them.
In the press conference today, Candy Hess, Amber's mother, said that Todd Hoke had been like a brother to Amber, contradicting earlier reports that the two had been romantically involved. Amber and Hoke had had a falling out, and Amber had started avoiding his phone calls, after an incident where he called her a name, and then become angry when Amber told her mother of the incident. Candy Hess said that she hadn't known Nicholas Castillo.
The Pinal County Sheriff's department said that the two appeared voluntarily with their parents at the Pinal County Sheriff's office, and their parents waived the boys right to have counsel present. They were also among the first group of Amber's friends and acquaintances interviewed.
Initial reports also had said that the two boys were gang-involved, and there had been speculation that the murder was gang related. At the press conference, the Sheriff's Deputy Chief said while he believed that the boys had friends who were gang-involved, the two were not. Not that anyone who had any understanding of juvenile gangs would have thought for a millisecond that this was gang related. The deputy chief also stated that he could not give information as to any previous charges that the boys might have had, as they were juveniles.
I'm wondering what kind of excuses are going to be posited for these two... Will it be the video games that Amber and Todd played? Gangs? MySpace? (The MySpace page that Amber had maintained was captioned "party like a ROCKSTAR, play like an ALL STAR, live like a MOIVE STAR, and fuck like a PRON STAR...")
Amber's parents very bravely responded to questions at the press conference this morning, and praised law enforcement very highly. I'm afraid that this is just the beginning of the nightmare for them, though. There are probably going to be some pretty hurtful things about their daughter dragged out into public view...

Benoit Murder / Suicide

'Roid Rage?
Chris Benoit had the presence of mind to tie up his wife, Nancy Benoit, before strangling her. And, that significant time elapsed between killing his wife and smothering his son. The difference in methods also militates against this being a rage killing.
Maybe steroids contributed to the mindset necessary for the murders and the subsequent suicide, but this sounds premeditated...Not like the kind of thing carried out in a blind rage.
I hope that steroid use, as ill-advised as I think it is, isn't going to be given undue press. There are a lot of folks out there using these substances. I hope that the idea that this tragedy was the result of steriod use isn't given undue credibility. Sure, just like alcohol, some forms of steroids can contribute to violent or aggressive behavior, but again, like alcohol, the aggression has to be there already.
As to the needle-marks on the body of Benoit's 7-year-old son, and the reports that his parents were giving him HGH because he was small, I fail to see the significance. There are some sources saying that the boy had a form of dwarfism, and HGH is conceivably a reasonable therapeutic response. There are many perfectly reasonable doctors out there who responsibly prescribe HGH to children with growth disorders. And, HGH therapy is typically injectable... I've never heard of HGH in anything OTHER than an injectable format.
Just my humble opinion, but I think that this carries about as much weight as the Twinky defense.