"The Valley of the Shadow of Death" by Kermit Alexander (2015)

 “The Valley of the Shadow of Death” is the story of pro football player Kermit Alexander and his struggle to find justice in the wake of the murder of his mother and nephews in Los Angeles in the late 1980’s. Not just a history of the crime itself, the book delves into the history of gangs in Los Angeles. The history and origins of the Crips and Bloods, along with the story of Tookie Williams, will hold you captive.

But the real meat of this book is in the way the author takes you through each pace of the investigation, explaining what it’s like to be the prime suspect in the case. That came about because it is standard procedure in homicide cases to look at those most closely connected to the victims. In Mr. Alexander’s case it could have been gambling debts that went unpaid; he was, after all, a pro football star. Even in the years before O.J. this was cause enough to suspect him. This has to be one of the hardest aspects of the case; being suspected of something as heinous as matricide.

Although he was cleared of any involvement this standard procedure poisoned his relationship with his family. Some of them actually believed he was responsible for the death of his own mother, something which he has never been able to overcome.

Working the streets “undercover” he provides the clues and names to the police, who seem to be too busy to really look into the killings deeply. His descriptions of this phase of his life are haunting, as he is consumed by his dual mission to find his mother’s killers and clear his own name.

Throughout the book he laments the lack of intact families as one of the chief causes for the many hurdles which still face the average African-American community today. And I agree with him whole heartedly; which is what made the ending of this story so perplexing to me.

After the trials and appeals are done; which took considerable time; Mr. Alexander re-ignites a relationship which began during the trials when he was in the throes of depression and self-loathing. He describes her only as “blonde haired”, never referring to her race at all, leading the reader to believe that she is a white woman.  They then embark on a visit to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake there. The woman becomes enraptured with a young child whose mother cannot afford to keep her family fed; let alone together.

Eventually, Mr. Alexander and his companion “adopt” all of the women’s five children and bring them back to the United States. I had a hard time with this; not the interracial relationship; but the splitting up of this Haitian women’s family in order to make one of their own. They went to the trouble of building a large addition to their home, and then whisked the children away from the biological mother. It seems to me that they could have taken the mother along; after all they did hire a nanny to help with the care of the children. I couldn’t help but think that the mother could’ve taken on that role.

I found it confusing that; in spite of his stated angst at the plight of the African-American family being torn asunder by economics; Mr. Alexander has taken an impoverished Haitian family apart. He imports the children to America, where there are already so many kids without a mother or father, especially in the African-American community. He has created a perfect world for himself, which he deserves; if only as a reward for the hell he has been through. But I can’t help thinking about that mother who had to sell her children to the African-American man with the blonde haired wife.

Still, this is an engrossing book which sheds much light on what it is like to be behind the headlines when you are both the victim and the suspect. I won’t tell you who killed his mother; or why. That’s one of the most engaging parts of this story; the why. And sometimes even “why” doesn’t really cut it….

"The Judge" with Robert Downey, Jr. and Robert Duvall (2014)

In this film Robert Downey Jr.  plays attorney Hank Palmer, who is going through a rough time in his marriage. His wife is screwing around on him and he is on the verge of a divorce, even as he handles the high profile cases he is known for. Hank is a true shark; he can spot the jugular on anyone and knows just how to go for it. He had a lot of practice in learning the art of intellectual defense; his father is Judge Joseph Palmer, and the two have never gotten along well.

His two brothers; Glen, played by Vincent D'Onofrio ; and younger brother Dale; seem to have an easier time accepting their fathers semi abusive manner. Glen has a profession, while Dale is somewhat slow and has a learning disability which prompts him to film everything with an old 8 mm movie camera. He is; at least in his own mind; working on a film.

When Judge Palmer’s wife passes away Hank returns home to the small town in Indiana where he was raised and his father still presides as Judge. Old wounds quickly open up again when Hank returns and Judge Palmer may be drinking again.

The stage is set for a final show down between the Judge and his most combative son when the father is arrested on suspicion of murdering a man who had appeared before the Judge previously. With the Judge depressed over his wife’s death, and struggling with cancer himself, Hank is afraid his father doesn’t really want to fight for his own freedom. He seems to want to be punished for the sins of his past. To complicate that, Hank believes his father to be guilty of both the murder and drinking again.

 

In the fight of his life; and with a court battle that has the Judge on trial for his freedom; if not his life; Hank must use every skill he has ever learned to overcome his own emotions and free his father; while at the same time uncovering the truth behind the murder. In the end Hank finds that he has more in common with his father than he ever thought.

Riveting performances by all make this screenplay by Nick Schenk and  Bill Dubuque; from the story by David Dobkin; shine. Billy Bob Thornton is also credible as the suit and tie Prosecutor Dwight Dickham.

  

"Empire of Sin" by Gary Krist (2014)

This book is an enigma. It begins as an examination of the famous New Orleans Ax Man Murders of the early 20^th Century and just when you are settling in nicely with that gruesome crime, the book becomes a history of jazz and after that morphs into a collective biography of some of the greatest jazz musicians who ever lived.

So, just what is this book? Well, I’ll tell you; honestly this is one of the most invigorating and engaging books on serial killers and jazz musicians which I have ever read. The big difference in the two subjects is that, of course, while the Jazzmen chronicled here may have slayed their audiences night after night with the new sound called “jazz”, the Ax Man murderer was slaying his audiences permanently in private performances all over New Orleans for several years. His crimes are still listed as one of the most puzzling of all serial killers, including the infamous Jack the Ripper.

Mr. Krist is an accomplished author, and it was his name which drew me to the book, the complicated title notwithstanding. Just how he wound up juxtaposing the history of what was happening in New Orleans at the time of the murders with the history of jazz is somewhat of a mystery to me, but the justification for doing so becomes apparent as you read the book.

New Orleans was a wide open Southern city; if you could call it a truly Southern city at all. There was no real segregation and racial intermarriage was quite common before the early part of the 20^th Century. Gambling and prostitution were openly practiced, if not celebrated. And the Port of New Orleans brought together sailors from all over the Caribbean, Europe and Africa; not to mention an influx of Asians and South Americans. And in the days of Reconstruction all of these different people lived together in relative harmony.

At the close of the 19^th Century there was an influx of European immigrants; notably Irish, Italian, German and Jewish. Each group had their own customs; and music. The first race riots in the city were not; as one would expect; between blacks and whites. Rather they were between the whites and the Italians. The Italians had become known as a “mafia” like organization. They were involved in kidnappings and extortion. They also strong armed their own neighborhood grocery stores, and in some cases murdered the owners. But when a group of these men kidnapped a young child and killed him, the city exploded in the violence of revenge.

Against the backdrop of those events in 1890 the author traces the history of crime in New Orleans through to the end of the 1920 election and the advent of Prohibition. As I said earlier, had he only concentrated on this aspect of New Orleans at the time this would have been a great book. However, by choosing to combine and compare the history of crime in New Orleans with the creation of jazz, he has created a fantastic and lively portrait of one of America’s most beloved and eclectic cities.

The book sparkles with the names of the musical legends that gave birth to a new art form. The stories of these men; with names like Jelly Roll Morton; Sidney Bechet; Freddie Keppard; Buddy Bolden; Louis Armstrong and George Baquet; are the history of what became the modern day New Orleans of legend, but also of Storyville itself; that quarter where these men first blew the notes which would come to define an era, and a genre.

Here is a link to the Library of Congress recording of Alabama Bound by Jelly Roll Morton. This is the type of music I was listening to while reading this book. Listening to the music of the time while reading the book enriched the whole experience and made for a delightful reading of this wonderful book by Mr. Krist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjRlVk_IhfY  

"Tinseltown" by William J. Mann (2014)

There is something unique about reading a book which has no conclusion. The 1922 murder of Billy Taylor has never been solved. And that’s the pleasure in this type of book; you can read it and draw your own conclusion. Then you can read it again and convict somebody else; and never be wrong either time.

Who killed William Desmond Taylor, the President of the Motion Pictures Directors Association? That’s a question which has been bandied about Hollywood since his death in 1922. What makes the case so hard to crack? Well, it could be that so many people had so many reasons to kill him. He wasn’t a bad man, really. Just a fellow caught up in an extraordinary place at an extraordinary time in the history of entertainment.

Hollywood was fairly new in 1922, and author William J. Mann paints a concise and compact picture of its history; from the first film efforts in New York and New Jersey, to the first film studios, stars and early scandals of Hollywood. Little has changed over the course of almost a century in Tinseltown. The actors and actresses who died from drug overdoses; as well as the ones caught up in sex scandals back then were just the first of a long unbroken line of broken lives that chronicle the history of Hollywood.

There were 3 actresses involved in this scandal, which is also the story of the rivalry between 2 ex business partners; Adolph Zukor and Marcus Loew; who were embattled in a struggle for the control of the film industry, from the making of the film and its distribution, all the way through to the ownership of the theaters where the films would be shown. Had the book been only about these 2 men it would have been enough to hold the interest of the reader.

But, even as these 2 titans raced literally to the top; both would build skyscrapers in New York City, with theaters on the ground floor; they faced a battle of public opinion over the influence of moving pictures on the morals of the nation. Zukor’s building still survives at 1501 Broadway, although the theater is long gone. His daughter would marry Loews son; much to the chagrin of her father. These men were so different, yet possessed the same desire to rule. The big difference was that Loew was compassionate and well loved by all who worked with him; while Zukor was detested and feared by all who worked for him. One was a tyrant; while the other was more akin to the captain of a team.

Both men found themselves facing public outrage over the drug use and violence which seemed to continually be pouring out of Tinseltown in the years after the First World War and the advent of the talkies. These were the troubles that brought about the first movie codes; issued by the Hays Office. William Hays was an odd man, too. He was lured into the position of being Hollywood’s first real censor from his government job, and was even paid by Zukor’s studio. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house! .

At first Hays was compliant and willing to do whatever the studio bosses required of him to keep his $100,000 a year position. But as the scandals became increasingly frequent, and the public outrage grew, Hays was finally forced to take a stand on the side of the “decency leagues” and really perform the job he was paid to do. This aspect of the book sheds light on the history of Motion Picture Codes and how they came to be.

There is also the murder itself, which is the core of the book. Three young actresses; Mabel Normand, Mary Minter and Margaret Gibson; are all connected to the victim in one way or another. But the one most suspected of the murder is the 19 year old actress Mary Miles Minter, who had been in love with the older Desmond Taylor for some time. He kept her at arm’s length, careful not to upset the girl, while also remaining mindful of her mother; a woman who had on occasion threatened to kill him if he did not stay away from her daughter.

That was a pretty big request on her part, considering that her daughter worked with the older man. It was also rumored that she was in love with Taylor herself. The prevailing theory was that she had discovered them flagrante de lecto and killed him. Her gun was discarded by the grandmother, who made a special trip to Louisiana to dispose of it in the Bayou. The gun had been given to Mary’s mother by the Chief of Police in Hollywood, who was rumored to be having an affair with her. But there was a secret which Mr. Taylor held very close; rendering his own affair with either woman unlikely at the very least.

Mabel Normand was a recovering cocaine addict. She was aided and befriended by Taylor, who had even gotten into some shouting matches with the blood sucking dealers who would come to her home to leave drugs for her. His life had been threatened by at least one of them, and so this was another avenue of investigation.

Then there was Margaret Gibson who had a checkered past. She had been arrested in a raid on a drug house where she was working as a kimono clad dancer.  Rumors were that this was also a brothel. She had managed to wriggle out of a conviction, though her reputation was already tarnished by the time of Taylor’s killing. Her connection to him, along with the unsavory con artists and bunko operators with whom she lived, also led the police to believe that he was the victim of blackmailers. He did; after all; have a big secret to hide.

The author makes an analogy of the events depicted here to the book “The Day of the Locusts.” In that book; later made into a very bad film with Donald Sutherland; the author likens the people who come to Hollywood to prey upon the successful ones as locusts. This group of people is composed of those who come to Hollywood to achieve stardom but fail to attain that elusive prize, instead becoming part of the nefarious atmosphere of Tinseltown, replete with "hangers on."

This is a very detailed book which has been extensively annotated and researched. Not only does it explore the various aspects of the crime at hand, it also gives a great insight into the early days of the studios and how they merged and grew. Written in a highly entertaining fashion the book moves along almost like a film noir story. The big difference, of course, is that this story is deliciously real.

"Getting Life" by Michael Morton (2014)

In August of 1986 Michael Morton’s wife, Chris, was murdered in their home. He had turned 32 the day before. Shortly afterwards he was tried and convicted of killing her as his son slept in the next room. It would take 25 years and a few very dedicated volunteers to prove his innocence; culminating in his release from prison in 2011 just one day after his 57^th birthday on October 3rd. It took 25 years for justice to be done.

This is a book which will set you back in the way you may think about the issues of prisoner’s legal rights to continued appeals; long after conviction. When I began to read this book I felt that most people behind bars are there for a reason. And I still feel that way. But I also felt that most prisoner appeals were just attempts to gain freedom based on legal technicalities. Boy was I ever wrong!

Mr. Morton’s journey will take you on a ride through a complicated and often broken legal system. It’s a system where small minded local Prosecutors and District Attorneys; always vying for re-election; can be led down the path of injustice by local law enforcement to convict the wrong person; sometimes by design, other times by incompetence. In Mr. Morton’s case it seems to have been a willingness on the part of the Prosecutor to allow the Sheriff to suppress and deny the facts of the investigation to the Defense; a clear violation of the Brady Rule. But it would take 25 years to unearth the documents and prove the point.

The author writes plainly and achingly about his ordeal. First as a grieving husband and father; next as a wrongly accused man fighting to keep the remnants of his torn family together as he battles a system seemingly intent on destroying him. And lastly he describes his time behind the walls of Huntsville prison in Texas, introducing the reader to the way of life inside. The rituals, the social mores, the unwritten rules of prison life are a fascinating subject. Much like life aboard a Navy ship, prison is a place where privacy is the most valued commodity; and the inmates have their own unique ways of gaining it.

The most important challenge which Mr. Morton faced was the ability to keep some sort of hope alive at the same time he was forced to accept his current situation. How do you live in perpetual expectation that your nightmare will someday end when reality clearly points to the opposite conclusion? Through books and continuing education he was able to navigate a system which no one ever expects to have to deal with.

At the same time as he is working on his appeals and requests for DNA testing; which should be the norm rather than the exception in all cases; he is also faced with the loss of his son. Eric was 3 years old at the time of the crime and had been living with his maternal grandparents ever since his father’s incarceration. His wife’s family was asked; and agreed; to withhold certain facts which could have had a profound impact on the original trial. Evidence was suppressed; witness statements unshared with the Defense; and crucial leads and clues ignored.

When the court awarded custody of the child to the maternal grandparents, they began a steady barrage of telling the boy that his father had killed his mother. By the time the boy turned 15 he chose to forgo the twice yearly supervised visits. He was not discouraged by the grandparents. Even after Mr. Morton is set free it would take another journey to set things right between himself and his son.

The point of this book is that there are thousands of cases like this, where the evidence exists to exonerate the wrongfully convicted, but the money to prove it is scarce. Thankfully there are volunteers and organizations, such as the Innocence Project, to help free some of the most egregious cases. And luckily for Mr. Morton they chose his case to investigate.

A compelling read; I recommend this book to anyone with any doubts about the issue of the wrongfully convicted. There are more of these cases than we care to admit, and more work to be done than resources to accomplish it. You will ache at the injustice within these pages, and then revel in the author’s vindication after so long a fight.

For more about the Innocence Project go to their website at;

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

"The Kate Logan Affair" with Alexis Bledel and Laurent Lucas (2010)

Have you ever stood by helplessly while a situation spun wildly out of control, only to wonder later how it happened? That is exactly the predicament in which a French businessman, played by Laurent Lucas, who portrays a man engaged in computing probabilities, finds himself. His own life expectancy is 82 years old. He takes this as a certainty.

Alexis Bledel, who plays Kate Logan , a rookie police officer in a small American town, mistakes Lucas as a fugitive and pulls her pistol on him as he sits in his car outside a convenience store where both have gone for coffee. When she realizes her mistake she is apologetic, but as the day goes on she begins to worry that should the man complain, she just may lose her job.

And thus initiates a chain of events in which she returns to apologize again, which begins an encounter with the Frenchman, each step taking him further and further from the world he took for granted. At the same time Officer Logan becomes more and more entrapped in a situation of her own making, which must now be undone. But who will pay the cost to save her career?

Tersely filmed and directed, this film explores the seemingly harmless lines we sometimes cross, and the consequences which those actions ultimately have on those around us; and ourselves. Ecellent script and performances make this film one not to be missed.

"Leaves of Grass" with Edward Norton and Tim Blake Nelson (2010)

Tim Blake Nelson wrote, directed and stars in this hilarious comic/drama in which he plays Bolger, a friend to Brady Kincaid, played by Edward Norton; who also plays his own twin brother Bill Kincaid. Brady is a local marijuana grower in Oklahoma, while his brother Bill has left home and become a well-known Ivy League Professor of Philosophy, who is clearly headed for bigger things.

When a local drug lord, played by Richard Dreyuss, tries to make Brady start dealing hard drugs, Brady rebels and hatches a scheme with his best friend Bolger to take the drug lord down. Unknown to brother Bill is that he is to be a major player in this scheme. Brady has his brother notified that he has passed away, and when Bill returns for the funeral he discovers that he is being used.

Bill meets a woman named Janet, played by Keri Russell, and he falls for her. Meantime, the boys mother Daisy Kincaid, played by Susan Sarandon, has place herself in an old age home, where Brady delivers fresh pot to her. The town Sheriff is looking to bust Brady but can’t get a handle on anything incriminating to work with.

Brady leaves town for a day or so to conduct some “business” with the local drug lord. He has cut his hair and shaved so that he looks exactly like his brother Bill, who is now the target of the local sheriff, as well as some rival drug dealers who want Brady’s growing operation.

Somehow it all comes together in a most unexpected way, when Philosophy takes a back seat to brotherly love and this comedy becomes a full blown drama with a surprise ending. This film is a triumph for Tim Blake Nelson for writing and direction. Edward Norton shines in his dual role playing his own brother in this highly entertaining and thoughtful film.  An outstanding soundtrack; covering everything from Little Feat to Townes van Zandt and Steve Earle; makes this a sure fired winner.

These are the artists and songs featured in the film;

“Stand Up” by Doug Bossi

“Illegal Smile” by John Prine

“My Wildest Dreams Go Wilder Every Day” by The Flatlanders

“Faithful and True” by Richard Myhill

“Fat Man in the Bathtub” by Little Feat

“Rex's Blues” by Townes van Zandt

“Sailin' Shoes” by Little Feat

“Sweet Revenge” by John Prine

“Shall be Released” by The Band

“Lonely are the Free” by Steve Earle

“Boys from Oklahoma” by Cross Canadian Ragweed

"George Gently" with Martin Shaw (2008)

The George Gently series is actually based on the Alan Hunter novels involving Inspector George Gently of London’s Metropolitan Police Force. He is based at Scotland Yard, but due to his penchant for getting to the heart of things, without particular regards to the regulations, he finds himself transferred to the North East District of London. Here he faces new and uglier cases than before and also finds himself teamed up with a new and younger partner, who may be just a tad over eager to prove his worth.

 In this compilation labeled Season One, there are three discs. The first one is the pilot “Gently Go Man”, which first aired on Apr. 8, 2007. It met with great acclaim and set the ball rolling for the rest of the series in 2008. The first two of episodes of that season are also included here.

In “Gently Go Man” we are introduced to the main characters just as Inspector Gently’s wife is killed by a hit and run driver which may not have been an accident at all. Rather than retire, Gently finds himself caught up in a similar case, which leads him back to the same people whom he believes killed his wife. A clash of jurisdictions further complicate matters as Gently considers retirement. But not before he solves this case.

The following summer saw the release of the first real episode with “The Burning Man” airing on July 13, 2008. In this episode Inspector Gently finds himself with a partner in the form of Detective Baachus, an impulsive young man who is prone to leap to conclusions; but are they all wrong? Inspector Gently is faced with solving the case of a badly burned body found near the old RAF base at Huxton. A second murder puts him and Baachus on the scent of the IRA in this cat and mouse episode featuring a faked death and a kidnapping.

In the third episode; each airs about 90 minutes; “Bomber’s Moon”, which aired on July 20, 2008, Gently and Baachus look into the murder of yet another man, this time Gunter Scheikel; someone must have had a laugh naming this character; a former POW, who is found in the local harbor, apparently the victim of an accidental drowning. But with a broken back, why was he in the water in the first place? And if he wasn’t there by choice, someone had to put him there. Inspector Gently, along with Baachus, are determined to find the person/persons responsible for this one.

Good writing and tight direction make these shows highly entertaining. Like the “Foyle’s War” series, they evoke a palpable sense of England and also what it was like in the early 1960’s, when the effects of the war were still felt in Britain. Great cinematography and acting round out these shows, making them a sure fire hit each time. I can’t wait to pick up the 2^nd season.

"Drew Peterson: Untouchable" with Rob Lowe and Catherine Dent (2012)

Rob Lowe has never shined as well as he does in this true life story of jealousy, anger, control and murder. Told from the perspective of the news and numerous talk shows on which Mr. Peterson appeared while proclaiming his innocence, this movie moves along at a quick pace. It’s not about the ending; as we all know what that ending will be; it’s more about how this man’s arrogance, and attitude, bought about justice for the two wives he murdered.

After the death of his 3^rd wife under mysterious circumstances, Sgt. Drew Peterson, of the Bolingbrook     Police Dept., marries Kathleen, a woman half his age. She is blissfully unaware of his marital history and taken aback by the generous gifts he lavishes upon her. Against the advice of her sisters and friends, she marries anyway.

Before long, his controlling ways come to the surface. He has her checking in by cell phone every few hours and questions her whereabouts at all times. After all, she had broken up his former marriage, so why should he trust her? Such is the mindset of Sgt. Peterson.

The movie is cut in the style of Michael Moore, and Oliver Stone; with real footage of the interviews Mr. Peterson undertook with such media personalities as Larry King. This technique only underscores just how perfect the casting and make up in the film are. Rob Lowe has captured every nuance of Mr. Peterson, just as he did in “Chaplin”, making this one of his finest performances ever, and surrounded by a very competent cast of supporting actors, this movie rings true.

Mr. Peterson was a member of the Bolingbrook Police Department in Illinois from 1977 until he became a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, in 2007. He was suspected and later tried for the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He was convicted and sentenced for her murder in November of 2012. Stacy Peterson’s body has never been was found.

Spade Cooley

While watching a “Honeymooners” re-run the other night, Norton mentioned a record by Spade Cooley. I knew the name but have to admit that I wasn’t all that familiar with his work. So, off to you tube I went. Man, was I surprised at the wealth of entertainment, as well as the actual story of Spade and what happened to this man who was at one time giving both Ed Sullivan and all the rest, quite a run for the money in the TV ratings.

Western Swing music has always held a fascination for me. The blending of big band instruments with traditional country music can produce some smooth music, ideal for dancing. Spade Cooley’s band was composed of Spade Cooley, real name Joaquin Murphey Donnell Clyde Cooley, on steel guitar; Tex Williams (no relation to Ted), on vocals; and the rest of the members on everything else.

Cooley was born in Oklahoma in 1910 and began studying classical violin and cello at age 4. By the time he was 8 years old he was performing in public. He eventually made it to Hollywood and served as a stand-in for Roy Rogers in many of his films. He also played with the legendary Riders of the Purple Sage in the late 1940’s, before forming his own band in 1941. Carolina Cotton joined the band as a fiddle player and yodeler a few years after.

His TV career began in 1948 with a show on KTLA which ran for 11 years, and even affected the ratings of other shows airing opposite his, including Ed Sullivan’s. The Spade Cooley Show ended in 1959, shortly after he was charged with the death of his wife, Ella Mae. They had been arguing since 1952, when she claimed to have an affair with Roy Rogers. That was never proven to be true.

By 1958 she apparently wanted a divorce so badly that she told him she was a member in a “sex club” as a way to get him to dissolve their marriage. Infuriated, he struck her in the chest with such force that he ruptured her aorta, causing her death. In 1961 he was sentenced to life for the crime. No proof of her claim of alleged infidelity has ever surfaced.

His trial was unusual in that he was so remorseful that he refused to even testify on his own behalf, accepting his life sentence without an appeal. In August of 1969 he was scheduled for release on parole in February of 1970. That same month he performed a concert for the Alameda County Sheriffs Association. 

In front of 3,000 lawmen he gave one of the finest performances of his career. After leaving the stage he collapsed and died, never living to be paroled. His body was returned to the prison, where it was cremated. Today he is interred at Chapel of the Chimes Cemetery in Hayward, California.

Jim Garrison's Closing Summation -

Jim Garrison is still the only person to have ever brought to trial the conspirators in the murder of John F. Kennedy in 1963. His reputation has been tarnished for the ages by ridicule and disbelief. If you have ever seen Oliver Stone’s film “JFK” then you have heard the following closing argument made by Mr. Garrison in court on February 28, 1969. Although copies were handed out to the press at the end of the proceedings, the summation has never really garnered much attention in the mind of the public. Much of this is due to the reaction against the film by Mr. Stone. Yet, when you actually read the text of Mr. Garrison’s closing remarks, one cannot help being affected by the veracity of his words. It is an important and eloquent speech which contains much truth. Here is that argument, just as it was delivered in court in 1969.

May it please the court. Gentlemen of the jury. I know you're very tired. You've been very patient. This final day has been a long one, so I'll speak only a few minutes. In his argument, Mr. Dymond posed one final issue which raises the question of what we do when the need for justice is confronted by power. So, let me talk to you about the question of whether or not there was government fraud in this case--a question Mr. Dymond seems to want us to answer. A government is a great deal like a human being. It's not necessarily all good, and it's not necessarily all bad. We live in a good country. I love it and you do too. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we have a government which is not perfect.

There have been indications since November the 22nd of 1963--and that was not the last indication--that there is excessive power in some parts of our government. It is plain that the people have not received all of the truth about some of the things which have happened, about some of the assassinations which have occurred--and more particularly about the assassination of John Kennedy.

Going back to when we were children, I think most of us--probably all of us here in the courtroom--once thought that justice came into being of its own accord, that virtue was its own reward, that good would triumph over evil--in short, that justice occurred automatically. Later, when we found that this wasn't quite so, most of us still felt hopefully that at least justice occurred frequently of its own accord.

Today, I think that almost all of us would have to agree that there is really no machinery--not on this Earth at least--which causes justice to occur automatically. Men have to make it occur. Individual human beings have to make it occur. Otherwise, it doesn't come into existence. This is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it's always hard, because justice presents a threat to power. In order to make justice come into being, you often have to fight power.

Mr. Dymond raised the question: Why don't we say it's all a fraud and charge the government with fraud, if this is the case? Let me be explicit, then, and make myself very clear on this point.

The government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud. It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country. It probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We're forced either to leave this country or to accept the authoritarianism that has developed--the authoritarianism which tells us that in the year 2029 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.

Government does not consist only of secret police and domestic espionage operations and generals and admirals--government consists of people. It also consists of juries. And cases of murder--whether of the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land--should be looked at openly in a court of law, where juries can pass on them and not be hidden, not be buried like the body of the victim beneath concrete for countless years.

You men in these recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in the world has heard. You've seen the Zapruder film. You've seen what happened to your President. I suggest to you that you know right now that, in that area at least, a fraud has been perpetrated.

That does not mean that our government is entirely bad; and I want to emphasize that. It does mean, however, that in recent years, through the development of excessive power because of the Cold War, forces have developed in our government over which there is no control and these forces have an authoritarian approach to justice--meaning, they will let you know what justice is.

Well, my reply to them is that we already know what justice is. It is the decision of the people passing on the evidence. It is the jury system. In this issue which is posed by the government's conduct in concealing the evidence in this case--in the issue of humanity as opposed to power--I have chosen humanity, and I will do it again without any hesitation. I hope every one of you will do the same. I do this because I love my country and because I want to communicate to the government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live seventy-five years longer, we might be given more evidence.

In this particular case, massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom. The power to make authoritive pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry and the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, repeatedly was demonstrated in this case.

The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The American people have yet to see and hear from the real witnesses to the assassination. Why? Because, today in America too much emphasis is given to secrecy, with regard to the assassination of our President, and not enough emphasis is given to the question of justice and to the question of humanity.

These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or else leave the country. I don't accept either of these two alternatives. I don't intend to leave the country and I don't intend to accept power without truth.

I intend to fight for the truth. I suggest that not only is this not un-American, but it is the most American thing we can do--because if the truth does not endure, then our country will not endure.

In our country the worst of all crimes occurs when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons--if they should dare to fight for freedom-- and then it can announce that they were killed in an industrial accident, or shot by the "enemy" or God knows what.

In this case, finally, it has been possible to bring the truth about the assassination into a court of law--not before a commission composed of important and powerful and politically astute men, but before a jury of citizens.

Now, I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a sense what you're passing on is equivalent to a murder case. The difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the defendant. It's very difficult to identify with someone you can't see, and sometimes it's hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant and his problems.

In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane is conscious of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes. But he is not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight. I suggest to you that, if you do your duty, you also are not free to forget the victim who is buried out of sight.

You know, Tennyson once said that, "authority forgets a dying king." This was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy. The strange and deceptive conduct of the government after his murder began while his body was warm, and has continued for five years. You have seen in this courtroom indications of the interest of part of the government power structure in keeping the truth down, in keeping the grave closed.

We presented a number of eyewitnesses as well as an expert witness as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the President came from the front. A plane landed from Washington and out stepped Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent evidence of a shot from the front. I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's testimony in detail for you to show that it simply did not correspond with the facts. He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a general told him not to complete the autopsy.

In this conflict between power and justice--to put it that way--just where do you think Dr. Finck stands? A general, who was not a pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete it. This is not the way I want my country to be. When our President is killed he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizen gets every day in the State of Louisiana. And the people deserve the facts about it. We can't have government power suddenly interjecting itself and preventing the truth form coming to the people.

Yet in this case, before the sun rose the next morning, power had moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed. And now, five years later in this courtroom the power of the government in concealing the truth is continuing in the same way.

We presented eyewitnesses who told you of the shots coming from the grassy knoll. A plane landed from Washington, and out came ballistics expert Frazier for the defense. Mr. Frazier's explanation of the sound of the shots coming from the front, which was heard by eyewitness after eyewitness, was that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing. Not only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he broke the sound barrier as well.

I suggest to you, that if any of you have shot on a firing range--and most of you probably have in the service--you were shooting rifles in which the bullet traveled faster than the speed of sound. I ask you to recall if you ever heard a sonic boom. If you remember when you were on the firing line, and they would say, "Ready on the left; ready on the right; ready on the firing line; commence firing," you heard the shots coming from the firing line--to the left of you and to the right of you. If you had heard, as a result of Frazier's fictional sonic boom, firing coming at you from the pits, you would have had a reaction which you would still remember.

Mr. Frazier's sonic boom simply doesn't exist. It's part of the fraud-- a part of the continuing government fraud.

The best way to make this country the kind of country it's supposed to be is to communicate to the government that no matter how powerful it may be, we do not accept these frauds. We do not accept these false announcements. We do not accept the concealment of evidence with regard to the murder of President Kennedy. Who is the most believable: a Richard Randolph Carr, seated here in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he was told to shut his mouth--or Mr. Frazier with his sonic booms? Do we really have to reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig and the testimony of all those honest witnesses--reject all this and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or else leave the country?

I suggest to you that there are other alternatives. One of them has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana--and that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding where attorneys can cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against him, where the rules of evidence are applied and where a jury of citizens can pass on it--and where there is no government secrecy. Above all, where you do not have evidence concealed for seventy-five years in the name of "national security."

All we have in this case are the facts--facts which show that the defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President and that the President was subsequently killed in an ambush.

The reply of the defense has been the same as the early reply of the government in the Warren Commission. It has been authority, authority, authority. The President's seal outside of each volume of the Warren Commission Report--made necessary because there is nothing inside these volumes, only men of high position and prestige sitting on a Board, and announcing the results to you, but not telling you what the evidence is, because the evidence has to be hidden for seventy-five years.

You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks, eyewitness after eyewitness after eyewitness and, above all, you saw one eyewitness which was indifferent to power--the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera is totally indifferent to power and it tells what happened as it saw it happen--and that is one of the reasons 200 million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film. They should have seen it many times. They should know exactly what happened. They all should know what you know now. Why hasn't all of this come into being if there hasn't been government fraud? Of course there has been fraud by the government.

But I'm telling you now that I think we can do something about it. I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight authoritarianism--the government's insistence on secrecy, government force used in counterattacks against an honest inquiry--and when we do that, we're not being un-American, we're being American. It isn't easy. You're sticking your neck out in a rather permanent way, but it has to be done because truth does not come into being automatically. Individual men, like the members of my staff here, have to work and fight to make it happen--and individual men like you have to make justice come into being because otherwise is doesn't happen.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there are forces in America today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about John Kennedy's assassination. As long as our government continues to be like this, as long as such forces can get away with such actions, then this is no longer the country in which we were born.

The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment in the history of our country. Yet, circumstances have placed you in the position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence but you are actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture for the first time.

Now, you are here sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw. Yet you, as men, represent more than jurors in an ordinary case because of the victim in this case. You represent, in a sense, the hope of humanity against government power. You represent humanity, which yet may triumph over excessive government power-- if you will cause it to be so, in the course of doing your duty in this case.

I suggest that you ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

What can you do for your country? You can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a government of the people. And if you do that, as long as you live, nothing will ever be more important.

"Into the Abyss" with Charles Richardson and Jason Burkett (2011)

This is a film I was prepared to dislike. I only happened upon it when I saw it laying in the living room. Sue had taken it out of the library after I had passed it up. I am not against the death penalty, and this film by Werner Herzog seemed to; at least by the synopsis on the film’s case; be pandering to a more liberal audience in this regard. It was only by chance that I happened to have a few hours free the other evening to watch this film.  And though my mind concerning the death penalty has remained unchanged by the film, in the hands of a master director such as Werner Herzog, the film did make me think about the need for the ultimate penalty, as well as what drives people to commit horrendous crimes in the first place.

 

The main focus of the film is on the death of 3 people, Jeremy Richardson and his mother, and a friend, in Conroe, Texas and told through the eyes of both the defendant himself, as well as the victim’s family. The opening scene, or Prologue, is conducted as an interview with the Minister who is in charge of the death house and is the last individual, aside from the guards, with whom the inmate will have contact. He is very moving when he speaks of how he always asks permission to accompany the condemned man until his final moment on the gurney, and actually lays a hand on the foot of the prisoner so that he does not feel abandoned at the moment of death. I found this to be very impressive. But when he goes on to describing his almost having run over a squirrel in a golf cart one day, and then compares that circumstance to people who have gone astray, he kind of loses me. I can’t seem to make that massive leap from accidently killing a squirrel to actually carrying out a murder. But then I have to stop and think; isn’t that what the state does when it applies the death penalty? Aren’t they, themselves, planning a murder?

I had to dispel that assertion by noting the difference between killing and murdering. Killing is something which is borne of necessity; in order to eat, or protect your own life would be the two immediate analogies which spring to mind. Murder, on the other hand, is most often done for greed, or lust, both emotions which can be controlled. So, then doesn’t that make this a mental health issue rather than a criminal one? Should people with obvious mental problems be put to death? Is the ability to kill someone really a mental defect at all, or just a matter of the utmost selfishness? And if that is true, does the state sponsored killing hold any more merit than the crime of murder itself?

 

The film tackles all of these questions by looking at the case of Michael Perry and Jason Burkett, 2 young men who connived their way into a gated community and then continued to murder 3 people as they robbed the home of the Richardson family. Drawing on interviews with law enforcement officers who were involved in the case, as well as family members from both sides; the accused as well as the victim’s; allows the viewer to analyze the facts as they apply to the questions posed above.

 

There is much more to this film than I have tackled here. This is a hot button topic which touches on the social disorders which make the death penalty an option, as well as exploring the sometimes arbitrary nature of its application.

Although this film may not shake, or even rattle your belief for, or against the death penalty, it is worth watching, if only because it makes you think. And, in the midst of an election year filled with knee jerk reactionaries; and a few real jerks to boot; thinking is in high demand.

"The Honored Dead" by Joseph Braude

We all have secrets. Nothing is as open and honest as it may seem at first. And nothing could illustrate this more than life in the Middle East. Thousands of years of differing cultures and religions have resulted in a myriad of traditions, and strife, in the area. Such is the story of Ibrahim Dey, a seemingly unemployed Muslim man who is murdered in Casablanca, Morocco. Joseph Braude, the author, is an embedded journalist with the Moroccan police, who are working to solve the case; he is also Jewish.

Ibrahim Dey was a "majdub", that is, he was a man of poor luck for himself, but lucky for others. He was honest, and his opinions were well respected. He styled himself as a broker of real estate, and in Casabalanca that can mean anything from obtaining a toaster, to arranging a marriage. Sometimes it can even involve real estate. But, more often than not, this is simply a title for a man without a real vocation. Ibrahim Dey was typical of this type of man. Or was he?

By days, he spent his time in the local coffee house, where he was available for consultation. By night, he was the part time "relief" watchman at a warehouse owned by a Jewish man. Ibrahim would often take a portion of the night shift for his friend Attar, who would sneak home from the warehouse to see his family. On one of those nights Ibrahim is murdered in the warehouse, supposedly by a man who was being chased by a gang of youths. That man turned out to be a soldier in the Moroccan army. When confronted by the watchman, Ibrahim, the two struggle and Ibrahim is killed. Or, so goes the "official" conclusion.

Ibrahim's best friend, Bari, has his doubts about both the official investigation, and it's conclusion. When he is introduced to the author he airs those doubts, setting him off on a private investigation of his own, leading to the back streets, and history, of the underside of Morroco.

Police Inspector Lt. Jabri, along with Officer Sharif, attempt to guide the author through what happened the night when Ibrahim was murdered. But they seem to be covering something up. Taking off on his own, the author befriends Ibrahim's friends and family in an effort to uncover the mystery of why this seemingly innocent, and well liked man, was killed. His search leads him back to Ibrahim's home city of Jadida, and his sister, Aisha, who lives under the thumb of Ibrahim's sister-in-law, Latifa.

Latifa entered the family by marrying Ibrahim's brother, and immediately began to divide it, eventually taking over the management of the family grocery store, supposedly at the request of her husband. This is a very unusual thing in Morocco, which, as an Islamic country, is very much a male dominated society. Latifa even sells the family business in an effort to save the family home. Did she have just cause to do this? What was the real relationship between her husband and Ibrahim?

Eventually Ibrahim leaves Jididah for Casablanca, and a life in the slums. What happened to drive him there? And why does his family allow Latifa to retain control of the family assests?

When the author finds that Ibrahim had been listening to radical sermons in the days before his death, the story becomes even more complicated, leading the author to believe that the authorities are somehow involved in silencing Ibrahim. But the biggest question of all is why? What could this man have done, or known, that would require his being killed?

With a surgeons skill the author introduces, and explains, the history between the Jews and Islamics in Morocco, attempting to shed light on the often misunderstood relationship of these two groups in that country. When the veneer is pulled back, that relationship is seen to be other than what it appears.

When the author finally meets the warehouse owner, who is also a Jew, he is surprised to learn that Ibrahim was practicing some sort of "magic" in the warehouse at night, allowing people in for a fee to perform "spells." The soldier who murdered him was a "client." Why he murdered Ibrahim Dey is open to speculation, and, as with many things in the Middle East, it may never be known. And even if the mystery is solved, the full truth behind it may often be obscured.

This book takes you beyond the Casablanca you have come to know from films. The romance is torn away, and the underbelly of reality takes it's place in a spellbinding tale of twists and turns, which are as mysterious as the city in which they occur.

" A Pickpockets Tale" by Timothy J. Gilfoyle

For lovers of old New York, the years 1850- 1910 represent a special era in the city's history. There was the great influx of Irish, German and Jewish immigrants. There were the Draft Riots of 1863, the Great Blizzard in the 1880's, the list goes on and on. There has always been a fascination with the past in New York, particularly if you lived there and walked the streets. You can sometimes feel a sense of that history as you look at the old brickwork, or the alleyways, which were once dangerous and unhealthy places. The ghost of Jacob Riis hangs heavily over these scenes. His documentary photos of New York in the late 19th Century speak to us from every image.

But here is a different tale, and an unusual one. Timothy J. Gilfoyle has authored an authentic and detailed account of life in New York during these years. He has done so in a very unusual way - through the diary of one of Old New York's nost notorious criminals, George Washington Appo.

Born on July 4th, 1856 to a Chinese father and an Irish mother, he was 3 years old when he was orphaned. His father was in jail for murder and his mother was dead. Originally placed with a foster family of longshoreman in Donovan's Lane, he quickly became acclimated to a life of crime in the notorious Five Points area.

Apparently he taught himself to read while peddling newspapers at age 12. This was an era where you had to fight for your corner, or lose it. He branched off to picking pockets and by age 14 was arrested and placed aboard a prison ship for juveniles.

This is a no holds barred look at life in New York during some of it's most formative years as an emerging metropolis. Appo kept a diary which is surprisingly well written and informative of the times in which it takes place. His descriptions of the Mott Street opium dens is fascinating. If I ever get back to New York for a visit I am going to number 4 Mott Street just to look at the building and remember some of the things I've read in this book.

At times, Appo made several hundred dollars a night picking pockets. He also gambled and smoked opium. He was shot several times and spent many years in prison. Eventually he wound up in Matteawan Hospital for the Criminally Insane, where he met his father after more than 20 years! And yes, his father was also an inmate.

More than just a book about crime, this is a valuable resource on the social makeup of the times. African, European and Asian immigrants lived side by side in some of the most deplorable conditions. This made for strange alliances. Inter-marraige between these disparate groups was not uncommon.

Using Mr. Appos self penned journal, Mr. Gilfoyle paints a sharp portrait of the history of The Tombs, Blackwell's Island (now Roosevelt Island) and the beginnings of Rikers Island as a jail facility. Along the way the reader is introduced to a variety of criminals that make Damon Runyon's characters look like choir boys.

This book is strongly recommended for lovers of Old New York, as well as the characters that inhabited the city in it's nefarious heydays of the late 19th Century.