News today out of the Texas Valley is the latest shootout at the border. This time, it's near McAllen and one Texas rancher told reporters he saw men in helicopters shooting other men down on the ground. Let's hope all that happened on the Mexico side of the Rio Grande.
For local news coverage, read this story in The Monitor.
Also in the news: the border agents at McAllen's Hidalgo-Reynosa International Bridge popped the trunk of a car going from Texas into Mexico because the driver was acting really nervous when they stopped him (that's routine, there on the bridge). Looking down into the trunk, the agents saw a young man in handcuffs with duct tape over his mouth.
The driver has been arrested for kidnapping and the kid (nope, that guy in the trunk wasn't an adult) has been checked out by doctors.
Third story. Last week, down in Mathis (which is pretty close to Corpus Christi and not really a border town at all) on a Farm to Market Road (FM 666 -- spooky, right?) a shiny Lincoln SUV was cruising along when it was spotted by U.S. Border Patrol and signaled to pull over. Choosing instead to speed off, the Lincoln didn't stop -- and the 20 year old Mexican national who was driving didn't stop for a Border Patrol agent who stood in the road trying to flag him down.
The kid, only 20 years old, was seen as a threat to that agent and the agent shot him - the guy in the road shooting the guy behind the wheel, killing him.
Lots of agencies are investigating this incident -- the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. -- and it's not clear what if anything was in the SUV that day.
11/02/2011
Child Abuse Caught on YouTube Video of Texas Judge Beating Daughter: Child Abuse Doesn't Just Exist In the Poor Sections of Town
From my years working as an attorney/guardian ad litem down at the Bexar County CPS Children's Court, I learned that lots of folk are caring and concerned, but they just don't want to think about kids getting abused or neglected so they ... well ... don't.
Which is why Hillary Adams not only videotaping her father, Aransas County Judge at Law William Adams, beating her with a belt, but having the courage to put that video on YouTube is not only courageous but important.
Because no matter how disturbing that video may be -- and yes, it is graphic and disturbing and horrible -- it's important for people to be aware that child abuse is a very real problem in this country.
And it's not just happening in the poor sections of town. It's happening everywhere. Like here, in the home of a prominent local family in Rockport, Texas.
I'm not embedding the video here on my blog, because it is so ugly. While I thought not doing might in some way be a disservice to Hillary Adams, there is the concern of protecting minors from this stuff.
Mind you, this teenager was born with cerebral palsy and she's in trouble for downloading stuff off the web in violation of copyright laws. Yep, illegal music downloads ... something that may be against the law, true, but something that teenagers are prey to doing all the time.
Right now, this story is breaking. Corpus Christi TV is reporting that a criminal investigation has begun; that the Aransas County Courthouse is getting death threats against Judge Adams, and that Judge Adams has confirmed to the media that he is the man in the video.
This is a very bad thing, what is on this video. However, if Hillary Adams' experiences can serve to enlighten people to the realities of child abuse exisiting in all socioeconomic levels, then good can come of this.
Which is why Hillary Adams not only videotaping her father, Aransas County Judge at Law William Adams, beating her with a belt, but having the courage to put that video on YouTube is not only courageous but important.
Because no matter how disturbing that video may be -- and yes, it is graphic and disturbing and horrible -- it's important for people to be aware that child abuse is a very real problem in this country.
And it's not just happening in the poor sections of town. It's happening everywhere. Like here, in the home of a prominent local family in Rockport, Texas.
I'm not embedding the video here on my blog, because it is so ugly. While I thought not doing might in some way be a disservice to Hillary Adams, there is the concern of protecting minors from this stuff.
Mind you, this teenager was born with cerebral palsy and she's in trouble for downloading stuff off the web in violation of copyright laws. Yep, illegal music downloads ... something that may be against the law, true, but something that teenagers are prey to doing all the time.
Right now, this story is breaking. Corpus Christi TV is reporting that a criminal investigation has begun; that the Aransas County Courthouse is getting death threats against Judge Adams, and that Judge Adams has confirmed to the media that he is the man in the video.
This is a very bad thing, what is on this video. However, if Hillary Adams' experiences can serve to enlighten people to the realities of child abuse exisiting in all socioeconomic levels, then good can come of this.
11/01/2011
Herman Cain, Politico, and the Sexual Harassment Claims Story Continuum
Right now, I assume you've heard about the Politico story about two women who settled sexual harassment claims involving Herman Cain, and got some kind of payment in exchange for not pursuing the matter further and for keeping their mouths shut about the whole thing in the future.
It's causing a lot of controversy.
Here's the thing: first of all, I'm betting we are all going to know the gory details sooner or later, confidentiality agreement or not.
Second, after the facts are known, I am not at all sure that this will mark the end of Herman Cain. Some think it will (or that it should).
Maybe it will if the facts are analogous to the case of Judge Samuel Kent. I don't know that it will if the facts are analogous to those of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Thomas survived those televised hearings with Anita Hill’s testimony about the Diet Coke, among other things. Sure, some sordid details.
Didn't matter.
However, it was a different story for federal district judge Samuel Kent once all the facts came to light in his case. There was testimony of years of aggressive sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Kent provided by two of his female employees to the House Judiciary Committee as part of his impeachment hearings (there was a criminal proceeding in Texas, too).
Former Judge Kent sits in home confinement right now, after serving all but three months of his 33 month sentence in a federal jail cell -- far far away from where Justice Thomas sits today up in Washington.
Bottom line: IMHO, if the Cain story is closer to Kent than to Thomas, and that story is revealed to the public, then I agree, he’s a goner. However, right now, with just the Politico story … I don’t think Herman Cain’s campaign is doomed. At all.
It's causing a lot of controversy.
Here's the thing: first of all, I'm betting we are all going to know the gory details sooner or later, confidentiality agreement or not.
Second, after the facts are known, I am not at all sure that this will mark the end of Herman Cain. Some think it will (or that it should).
Maybe it will if the facts are analogous to the case of Judge Samuel Kent. I don't know that it will if the facts are analogous to those of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Thomas survived those televised hearings with Anita Hill’s testimony about the Diet Coke, among other things. Sure, some sordid details.
Didn't matter.
However, it was a different story for federal district judge Samuel Kent once all the facts came to light in his case. There was testimony of years of aggressive sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Kent provided by two of his female employees to the House Judiciary Committee as part of his impeachment hearings (there was a criminal proceeding in Texas, too).
Former Judge Kent sits in home confinement right now, after serving all but three months of his 33 month sentence in a federal jail cell -- far far away from where Justice Thomas sits today up in Washington.
Bottom line: IMHO, if the Cain story is closer to Kent than to Thomas, and that story is revealed to the public, then I agree, he’s a goner. However, right now, with just the Politico story … I don’t think Herman Cain’s campaign is doomed. At all.
10/31/2011
DNA in the Amanda Knox Case: Experts Refute DNA Evidence Successfully
Wired has a great article today detailing the problems found in the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution in the Amanda Knox murder trial, written by John Timmer for Ars Technica and entitled, "Courtroom Science Drama: The Saga of Amanda Knox’s DNA."
One of their experts is Dr. Lawrence Koblinsky of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. You may have seen him on TV.
Point being that the DNA evidence used in the Knox trial not only served as a major tool for the prosecution to have Amanda Knox found guilty of murder, it was also a key factor used by her defense team on appeal to achieve her release. Arguments post-conviction included not only that Italian law enforcement may have compromised the DNA evidence during their investigation, but also that DNA evidence found on the murder weapon (a knife) was miniscule and irrevocably tainted in the attempt to amplify that tiny amount into something bigger and therefore, easier to analyze.
My prediction: the Amanda Knox case will serve to publicize the weaknesses in DNA evidence and more criminal defense attorneys - both at trial and on appeal - not only will spend more time and effort challenging DNA evidence, the likelihood is increasing that their efforts will be worthwhile.
One of their experts is Dr. Lawrence Koblinsky of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. You may have seen him on TV.
Point being that the DNA evidence used in the Knox trial not only served as a major tool for the prosecution to have Amanda Knox found guilty of murder, it was also a key factor used by her defense team on appeal to achieve her release. Arguments post-conviction included not only that Italian law enforcement may have compromised the DNA evidence during their investigation, but also that DNA evidence found on the murder weapon (a knife) was miniscule and irrevocably tainted in the attempt to amplify that tiny amount into something bigger and therefore, easier to analyze.
My prediction: the Amanda Knox case will serve to publicize the weaknesses in DNA evidence and more criminal defense attorneys - both at trial and on appeal - not only will spend more time and effort challenging DNA evidence, the likelihood is increasing that their efforts will be worthwhile.
10/14/2011
DNA Evidence Can Be Faked - So Why Do We Continue to Consider DNA Infallible?
DNA is easier to fake than fingerprints at a crime scene, according to scientific experts, and this is something that's been public knowledge for several years now. Read the 2009 article in the New York Times, for example; written by Andrew Pollack, entitled "DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show," it's got lots of details. Or go peruse the research paper written by Dr. Daniel Frumkin in Genetics, a source mentioned by Pollack in his coverage.
Why Don't We Know That DNA Evidence Is Not 100% Trustworthy?
No one talks about this much, and I wonder how many people really know that we cannot trust DNA just because they do it on TV. Heck, in one Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode, even the TV cops found out that the DNA in their case had been faked. (If you're interested in watching, that was episode 9 of season 11, entitled "Perverted." Watch it here.)
Faking someone's DNA is easy to do, and it doesn't take all that much skill or education. Apparently, all an evildoer would need is the saliva sample of one person - which they could get off a tossed coffee cup or drinking straw or fork or spoon (well, you get the idea), or from a hair sample, again something that could be pulled from the trash. Then, through a process called "whole genome amplification," the evildoer can create fake DNA samples of that person which evildoers, being what they are - evil doing - could use to cause all sorts of mayhem.
But that's not the whole story. It's even easier that this for the sinister scientist who wants to fake someone's DNA. If they don't have that tossed coffee cup or hair from a comb, no problem. DNA can also be faked if they can get access to the person's DNA profile, stored somewhere in a computer database. They can cook up some fake DNA using the info on the database as their recipe.
So, why aren't we being told about this? We all need to know that DNA isn't infallible, that we shouldn't automatically trust DNA evidence.
Why? Well, I'm just as concerned about overzealous prosecutors as I am about outlaws taking advantage of this opportunity. Seems to me that it is only by greater public awareness that this can happen (and that questionable DNA evidence can be tested to see if it has been faked) that an evildoer trying to plant DNA evidence for sinister purposes can be thwarted.
Why Don't We Know That DNA Evidence Is Not 100% Trustworthy?
No one talks about this much, and I wonder how many people really know that we cannot trust DNA just because they do it on TV. Heck, in one Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode, even the TV cops found out that the DNA in their case had been faked. (If you're interested in watching, that was episode 9 of season 11, entitled "Perverted." Watch it here.)
Faking someone's DNA is easy to do, and it doesn't take all that much skill or education. Apparently, all an evildoer would need is the saliva sample of one person - which they could get off a tossed coffee cup or drinking straw or fork or spoon (well, you get the idea), or from a hair sample, again something that could be pulled from the trash. Then, through a process called "whole genome amplification," the evildoer can create fake DNA samples of that person which evildoers, being what they are - evil doing - could use to cause all sorts of mayhem.
But that's not the whole story. It's even easier that this for the sinister scientist who wants to fake someone's DNA. If they don't have that tossed coffee cup or hair from a comb, no problem. DNA can also be faked if they can get access to the person's DNA profile, stored somewhere in a computer database. They can cook up some fake DNA using the info on the database as their recipe.
So, why aren't we being told about this? We all need to know that DNA isn't infallible, that we shouldn't automatically trust DNA evidence.
Why? Well, I'm just as concerned about overzealous prosecutors as I am about outlaws taking advantage of this opportunity. Seems to me that it is only by greater public awareness that this can happen (and that questionable DNA evidence can be tested to see if it has been faked) that an evildoer trying to plant DNA evidence for sinister purposes can be thwarted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)