Please help Mary Weiss find the justice she seeks

He is a poor son whose sonship does not make him 

desire to serve all men's mothers. 

~ Harry Emerson Fosdick

Mothers are the necessity of invention.

~ Bill Watterson

Mary Weiss with her son, Dan Markingson

I have another petition up in the upper right hand corner, the same picture of Mary Weiss and her son Dan Markingson as above--the text of the petition is below... 

Carl Elliott, a bioethics professor at the University of Minnesota, has done a tremendous amount of work attempting to get regulatory authorites to perfom their ethical and legal duties, to investigate and hold accountable the unethical professionals who failed Dan Markingson.  read his post about the petition here

my comment: The ethical failures and medical negligence of doctors Schultz and Olsen are the proximate cause, i.e. an act or failure to act which  resulted in Dan Markingson's death. These two doctors were  unethical, careless and medically negligent.  Why has there been no homicide investigation for what is clearly criminally negligent manslaughter? Plainly, these psychiatrists were aware of the risks, yet they failed to perform essential duties they owed to Dan.  When a patient dies because an unethical doctor is willfully negligent and fails to provide adequate medical care to a vulnerable adult whom the doctor owes both an ethical and legal duty of care to; it is homicide. In my opinion, Dan Markingson is the victim of iatrogenic homicide. 

via Change.org:

Petition by Mike Howard

In November 2003, psychiatrists at the University of Minnesota used the threat of involuntary commitment to force a mentally ill young man named Dan Markingson into a very profitable, industry-funded study of antipsychotic drugs. Dan was enrolled in the study over the objections of his mother, Mary Weiss. For months Mary tried desperately to get him out of the study, warning the psychiatrists that Dan’s condition was deteriorating and that he was in danger of killing himself. The psychiatrists refused to listen to her. On May 8, 2004, Dan committed suicide, and Mary lost her only child.

I feel privileged and humbled to have called Dan my friend. Because of a very unique situation I had a front row seat watching Dan’s resilience as he attempted to overcome not only his original mental and emotional crisis, but also the trauma that occurred when he was betrayed by those who were charged and licensed to provide care, healing and protection. For the past nine years Mary and I have tried unsuccessfully to have the University of Minnesota and its psychiatrists held accountable for Dan’s death. But Mary’s lawsuit against the university was dismissed on a technicality in 2009, and the university used legal threats to force her to give up her right of appeal.

Even so, Mary has refused to back down. In 2009, the Minnesota state legislature passed “Dan’s Law,” which prohibits researchers from recruiting a patient under an involuntary commitment order into a psychiatric drug study. Media outlets such as Mother Jones, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, City Pages and Scientific American have published accounts of Dan’s story. His story was also featured in the documentary film, Off Label. In 2010, AstraZeneca, the sponsor of the study in which Dan died, settled federal fraud charges for $520 million, and a University of Minnesota psychiatrist was implicated. Last year, the Minnesota Board of Social Work found serious wrongdoing by the study coordinator for the research study in which Dan died.

More recently, evidence of fraud and serious privacy violations in psychiatric studies at the university have emerged. It is possible that other research subjects have died or suffered serious injuries, or that they have been mistreated in other ways. Bioethicists at the University of Minnesota itself have called for an external investigation, yet the university still refuses.

I cannot tell anyone else what way of speaking out is most aligned with his or her own personal principles. However, I believe those of us who are personally affected by these issues must break the silence about the human rights violations inherent in coerced participation in psychiatric research. While University of Minnesota researchers used many unethical methods to force Dan to participate in this research study, the most egregious of them was fear. Dan was afraid that there was no alternative to taking part in the study, and that he would face a complete loss of liberty if he did not participate.

Given the repeated failure of university officials to act in good faith, I believe that the Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, should appoint an external panel of experts to investigate ethical wrongdoing in psychiatric research at the University of Minnesota, including the circumstances surrounding Dan’s death. The panel should be given latitude to investigate the University of Minnesota human subject protection program, the Department of Psychiatry, the Office of the General Counsel, and any other university officials involved in the oversight of human research.

Let me finish by allowing Mary Weiss, Dan’s mother, to speak for herself.

Dan and I were very close. I have experienced more anguish than I thought humanly possible since Dan’s death. He had dreams, like everyone. He had a talent for creative writing, and he had hoped one day to write for The New Yorker magazine. Unfortunately, his unfinished life robbed him of this dream. In fact, his short time on earth took many dreams from him, and also from me. The things he wished for, I wanted him to realize. Please demand an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Dan’s death, and help ensure no other family ever suffers such a loss from unregulated and improperly supervised clinical trials. Please sign the petition below. Help us find justice, not vengeance.

Text of the Letter to

To:
Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota 

Dear Governor Dayton,

I just signed a petition asking you to investigate possible research misconduct in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Minnesota.

I am disturbed by the refusal of university officials to investigate the suicide of Dan Markingson in an industry-sponsored research study in 2004. I am also concerned by the university’s refusal to look into the possibility of misconduct in other psychiatric research studies. As a public institution, the University of Minnesota has a responsibility to answer legitimate questions about its research activities and to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

I urge you to appoint an impartial, external panel of experts in research ethics and regulation to investigate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

What is most disturbing to me about the Doug Ostling case

What is most disturbing about the Doug Ostling case on Bainbridge Island, Washington, is the similarity to the murder of Otto Zehm in Spokane, Washington; and the murder of Kelly Thomas in Fullerton, California.  All three victims had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, none of the victims had come into contact with the Officers who killed them because they had committed a crime; and none of the men had threatened the Police Officers who murdered them.  In all three of three cases, the Police Officers involved and their superior Officers were dishonest about the chain of events which lead to their victim's being killed.  Three beloved sons are mourned by their families; because of criminal conduct of Police Officers. All three men were killed by men who abdicated their responsibility to the communities they serve, and then sought to avoid being held accountable for their criminal conduct by lying.  Three homicide victims, who were vulnerable adults were killed by men who had a sworn duty to protect and to serve them...

I know it doesn't have to be this way---I don't have words to express how grateful I am that my son, who is also a young man with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, has always been treated with respect by the Officers in the Yakima Police Department, and the Yakima County Sheriff's Department. I

via The Seattle Times:
Bainbridge seeks new trial on award in police shooting

A jury awarded $1 million to the family of a mentally ill man who was killed by police in 2010.

The city of Bainbridge Island is challenging a federal jury's decision to award $1 million to the family of a mentally ill man who was fatally shot by Bainbridge police in 2010.

The Kitsap Sun reported that attorneys for the city are asking a federal judge to halt the June 1 decision. The city wants a new trial, saying Bainbridge Police Chief Jon Fehlman, who had fallen ill, did not have a chance to defend himself during the trial.

Doug Ostling was shot and killed in his apartment in 2010. His family sued.

This month, the jury rejected the family's claims that officers illegally entered Ostling's bedroom, used excessive force and failed to help him after he was shot. But jurors found the Police Department failed to properly train its officers in dealing with the mentally ill.  

via The Seattle Times

Originally published February 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM | Page modified February 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Two cops, an ax and many questions on Bainbridge

What happened when two Bainbridge Island officers clashed with a mentally ill 911 caller raises serious concerns about police hiring and the Department's competence.

By Jonathan Martin and Ken Armstrong

Seattle Times staff reporters -- First of two parts

an excerpt:
The minutes pass
The radio call — "Shots fired!" — came in 4 minutes and 50 seconds after the officers had arrived at the house.

Bill and Joyce wanted to run up the stairs, to check on their son. But the police wouldn't let them, saying it would be unsafe. Bill went and grabbed a 40-foot ladder so he could look through a skylight into Doug's room. Police intercepted him, saying he couldn't do that, either.

Within an hour, at least 17 officers arrived: Bainbridge, Kitsap County, Washington State Patrol. Police shepherded Doug's parents to a secluded part of the house, away from the garage. Minutes passed, without word. "I just knew in my soul they had shot him and he was dead," Joyce says. "I could just feel it."

As Doug lay in his room, bleeding, police dealt with him as a barricaded suspect. They waited on a SWAT team. They waited for medical aid. They called Doug's room and got voice mail. Police searched for the key that had been put in the lock. They considered ramming the door. They considered using that 40-foot ladder to do what Ostling's father had wanted to do.

More minutes passed.

Both of the Ostlings' daughters were at the house when the shooting occurred. Police told the family they needed to leave. Kim, in slippers, left without her brace. She marched the long driveway on the edge of her foot, in pain.

"We were treated worse than a bad dog by the Police Department," Bill says.

An hour and 17 minutes after the shots were fired, police peered through a skylight into Ostling's room; he was behind the door, his body still.

He had bled out and died.

The shooter goes on Facebook

The next day, Bainbridge Island Police Chief Jon Fehlman held a news conference. He described Ostling's death in a way that was dramatic — and dramatically untrue.

When police arrived, Ostling was in the driveway, "yelling and screaming and acting very aggressive toward the officers," Fehlman told reporters. The officers tried to calm him. But Ostling "came at the officers several times. They tried to deflect him, just push him away."

The officers used a Taser, but that didn't work. Ostling retreated to a garage apartment "and retrieved an ax and came back at the officers with the ax raised above his head." An officer fired, Fehlman said. Ostling then went back inside his apartment and "barricaded the door."

So much of Fehlman's story was wrong. There was no confrontation in the driveway. Ostling didn't retreat to go get a weapon. He didn't raise the ax over his head.

When Fehlman spoke, Benkert had yet to be interviewed about why he fired.

The Police Department's regulations say an officer using deadly force must submit to an investigative interview within 24 hours. But Benkert was advised by a police-guild attorney not to do so. So he didn't.

The Kitsap County Sheriff's Office investigated, and two months later, prosecutors said Benkert would not be charged with a crime. By this point Benkert still had not been interviewed. Kitsap County Prosecutor Russ Hauge, explaining his decision, wrote that when Benkert fired, Ostling was "standing over" Portrey, with an ax "raised over his head."

The following month, in January 2011, Benkert finally sat down for an interview.

An internal review by Fehlman's second-in-command subsequently concluded that all department personnel followed policy and "acted reasonably under the circumstances and within the scope of the law."

Bill and Joyce Ostling hired Jack Connelly, a Tacoma attorney, and filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Bainbridge Island, Benkert and Fehlman, saying the shooting was unjustified. Trial is scheduled for May.

Last month, a lawyer in Connelly's firm took Benkert's deposition.

"Is it possible that he wasn't coming over to attack you or your partner, but that he was coming over to close the door?" the lawyer asked.

"It's possible," Benkert said.

"Did he ever raise the ax above his head?"

"Not that I saw."

And later:

"Is it possible that Douglas Ostling was actually behind the door at the time that you opened fire on him?"

"Not completely."

"How about almost entirely?"

"I don't know."

Connelly took Fehlman's deposition a couple of weeks later and grilled him about the story he'd told the media. Fehlman blamed underlings for feeding him bad information. When he learned of the inaccuracies, he alerted city officials in a private session, Fehlman said.

"Did you ever go to the press and say, 'I gave you a false report?' " Connelly asked.

"No," Fehlman said. The police chief said he did not believe he was ethically obliged to correct his account to the public.

Although Benkert went months without providing any formal statement about the shooting, he did address it on Facebook.

A week after the shooting, an officer with the LAPD sent Benkert this message: "Hey man how you doing? Heard you did some combat qual???!!!"

The next day, Benkert responded: "no sweat here ... bad guy should have listened a little better."

News researcher Miyoko Wolf contributed to this report. Jonathan Martin: 206-464-2605 orjmartin@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @jmartin206. Ken Armstrong: 206-464-3730 or karmstrong@seattletimes.com

read here

Bainbridge Police Guild Requests Removal of Chief Fehlman with No Confidence Vote here

The Drugging of U.S. Troops

Broken Warriors is an ongoing series on mental health issues in the military.

via NextGov:

ARMY WARNS DOCTORS AGAINST USING CERTAIN DRUGS IN PTSD TREATMENT

By Bob Brewin April 25, 2012
Flickr user deanslife 

The Army Surgeon General's office is backing away from its long-standing endorsement of prescribing troops multiple highly addictive psychotropic drugs for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and early this month warned regional medical commanders against using tranquilizers such as Xanax and Valium to treat PTSD.

An April 10 policy memo that the Army Medical Command released regarding the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD said a class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and Valium, could intensify rather than reduce combat stress symptoms and lead to addiction.

The memo, signed by Herbert Coley, civilian chief of staff of the Army Medical Command, also cautioned service clinicians against prescribing second-generation antipsychotic drugs, such as Seroquel and Risperidone, to combat PTSD. The drugs originally were developed to treat severe mental conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The memo questioned the efficacy of this drug class in PTSD treatment and cautioned against their use due to potential long-term health effects, which include heart disorders, muscle spasms and weight gain.

Throughout more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military services have relied heavily on prescription drugs to help troops deal with their mental health problems during and after deployment. In a June 2010 report, the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center said 213,972, or 20 percent of the 1.1 million active-duty troops surveyed, were taking some form of psychotropic drug -- antidepressants, antipsychotics, sedative hypnotics or other controlled substances.

The Army, in a July 2010 report on suicide prevention, said one-third of all active-duty military suicides involved prescription drugs.

Madison Ruppert Interviews Dr. Yolande Lucire on End the Lie Radio

End the Lie Radio with Madison Ruppert - Episode 11

via Dove Press:

Antidepressant-induced akathisia-related homicides associated with diminishing mutations in metabolizing genes of the CYP450 family

Authors: Lucire Y, Crotty C

Published Date August 2011 Volume 2011:4 Pages 65 - 81

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PGPM.S17445

Yolande Lucire, Christopher Crotty
Edgecliff Centre, Edgecliff, NSW, Australia

Purpose: To examine the relation between variant alleles in 3 CYP450 genes (CYP2D6, CYP2C9 and CYP2C19), interacting drugs and akathisia in subjects referred to a forensic psychiatry practice in Sydney, Australia.
Patients and methods: This paper concerns 10/129 subjects who had been referred to the first author’s practice for expert opinion or treatment. More than 120 subjects were diagnosed with akathisia/serotonin toxicity after taking psychiatric medication that had been prescribed for psychosocial distress. They were tested for variant alleles in CYP450 genes, which play a major role in Phase I metabolism of all antidepressant and many other medications. Eight had committed homicide and many more became extremely violent while on antidepressants. Ten representative case histories involving serious violence are presented in detail.
Results: Variant CYP450 allele frequencies were higher in akathisia subjects compared with random primary care patients tested at the same facility. Ten subjects described in detail had variant alleles for one or more of their tested CYP450 genes. All but two were also on interacting drugs, herbals or illicit substances, impairing metabolism further. All those described were able to stop taking antidepressants and return to their previously normal personalities.
Conclusion: The personal, medical, and legal problems arising from overuse of antidepressant medications and resulting toxicity raise the question: how can such toxicity events be understood and prevented? The authors suggest that the key lies in understanding the interplay between the subject’s CYP450 genotype, substrate drugs and doses, co-prescribed inhibitors and inducers and the age of the subject. The results presented here concerning a sample of persons given antidepressants for psychosocial distress demonstrate the extent to which the psychopharmacology industry has expanded its influence beyond its ability to cure. The roles of both regulatory agencies and drug safety “pharmacovigilantes” in ensuring quality and transparency of industry information is highlighted.

Keywords: adverse drug reaction, drug therapy, safety pharmacogenetics, CYP1A2, CYP3A4 CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, drug metabolism, public health, suicide, violence, human rights

Download entire article PDF from Dove Press

Pepsi Advertisement found at Bonkers Institute 

The Truth About Psychiatric Drugs

via AHRP:

The Truth About Psychiatric Drugs

Thursday, 11 August 2011 Three new studies--one,, a pharmaco-genetic study, is groundbreaking--confirm that widely prescribed  psychotropic drugs that pose serious risks of harm, offer  no therapeutic benefit. For two decades, medical professionals, the public, and  public health policy officials who determine the allocation  of public funds for healthcare, have been misled about the  safety and benefits of psychiatric drugs--in particular, the  newer, expensive drugs, the so-called SSRI  antidepressants, and the new neuroleptics, marketed as  'atypical antipsychotics'. Pharmaceutical industry marketing hype, deceptively  packaged as "scientific study findings," gained the  appearance of legitimacy when they were accepted by the  FDA for licensure, and accepted for publication in medical  journals. Those reported "findings" were fraudulent,  concocted and aggressively disseminated by  manufacturers of these drugs. The deception has seriously undermined the integrity of  the scientific literature, and misled physicians who  unwittingly prescribed hazardous drugs causing patients  irreparable harm.  Thanks to years of litigation during which company  documents have been uncovered, the truth has been  revealed. We now know that SSRI antidepressants and  the 'atypical' antipsychotics have failed decisively to  demonstrate therapeutic benefits in clinical trials and in  clinical practice Instead, these drugs have triggered  debilitating, chronic illness and even life-threatening risks:  antidepressants increase the suicide risk and trigger  serotonin syndrome, which is potentially fatal.  Antipsychotics undermine normal metabolic,  cardiovascular, hormonal function, resulting in cardiac  arrest, obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. 1. A groundbreaking pharmaco-genetic study by  Australian psychopharmacology experts--Dr. Yolande  Lucire, a forensic psychiatrist, and Christopher Crotty, a  pharmacogeneticist--report in the peer reviewed journal,  Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine ,  (abstract below) an alarming finding. They report a  significant association among  genetic variants,  metabolism of psychiatric drugs, and severe, homicidal  akathisia.  The authors examined the relationship between genetic  variants in the CYP450 family, the interaction of  antidepressant-induced akathisia, and violence, including  homicide in 129 forensic patients who had referred to Dr.  Lucire by lawyers.  Of 138 persons tested for CYP450 genes, 129 had  experienced adverse events, "mainly akathisia, due to  psychiatric drugs, and nine were first degree relatives of  those treated who also had a history of adversity on other  drugs."   Of the 129 persons who experienced drug-induced  adverse effects, 8 had committed homicide, 3 had  committed suicide,  and one had sleepwalked to her  death.  The authors report that: " In all of the cases presented here, the subjects  were prescribed  antidepressants that failed to  mitigate distress emerging from their          predicaments, which encompassed psychosocial               stressors such as bereavement, marital and       relationship difficulties, and work-related stress. Every subject’s emotional reaction worsened while their prescribing physicians continued the “trial and error” approach, increasing from standard to higher dose and/or switching to other antidepressants, with disastrous consequences. In some cases the violence ensued from changes occasioned by withdrawal and polypharmacy. In all of these cases, the subjects were put into a state of  drug induced toxicity manifesting as akathisia, which  resolved only upon discontinuation of the antidepressant  drugs."  " This paper has detailed and substantiated in specific terms how the metabolism of each of the antidepressant drugs used by the subjects would have been seriously impaired both before and at the time they committed or attempted homicide. They were experiencing severe reported side effects, adverse drug reactions due to impaired metabolism complicated by drug–drug interactions against a background of variant CYP450 alleles." The authors further state: "The results presented here concerning a sample of persons given antidepressants for psychosocial distress demonstrate the extent to which the psychopharmacology industry has expanded its influence beyond its ability to cure. The roles of both regulatory agencies and drug safety “pharmacovigilantes” in ensuring quality and transparency of industry information is highlighted." Two other recently published studies, one in the  Medical Journal (BMJ), the other in the Journal of the  American Medical Association, also challenge the  validity of psychiatry's prescribing practices whose  rationale is mostly commercially propagated. 2. The authors of the BMJ report, "Antidepressant Use  and Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Older People:  Population Based Cohort Study," analyzed data for  60,746 persons in the UK who were over 65 and  diagnosed with depression between 1996 and 2007. The  authors followed the subjects until December, 2008. The authors of this  study found that those prescribed  SSRI antidepressants are at increased risk of death  and heart attack, stroke, falls and seizures than those  who were prescribed the older, cheaper, tricyclic  antidepressants.   During those 10 years, patients not taking any  antidepressants had a 7% risk of dying from any  cause. But the risk rose to 8.1% for those taking the  older antidepressants and increased to 10.6% for  patients prescribed SSRIs.   " All classes of antidepressant drug were  associated with significantly increased risks of all cause mortality, attempted suicide/self harm, falls, fractures, and upper gastrointestinal  bleeding compared with when these drugs were not being  used. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the  group of other antidepressant drugs were associated with  increased risks of stroke/transient ischaemic attack and  epilepsy/seizures; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors  were also associated with increased risks of myocardial  infarction and hyponatraemia."  3. According to government data, 10% to 20% of soldiers  who see heavy combat develop lasting symptoms of Post  Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and about a fifth of  those who are treated are prescribed an antipsychotic  drug. The JAMA report, by prominent psychiatrists on the  faculty of Yale University, examines the treatment  outcome for veterans suffering from PTSD, whose  treatment with SSRI antidepressants failed, who were  then prescribed antipsychotics. See,  Adjunctive Risperidone Treatment for Antidepressant-Resistant  Symptoms of Chronic Military Service–Related PTSD A Randomized Trial."  The finding: after six months of treatment, the veterans  who were prescribed Risperdal were doing no better than  a similar group of 124 veterans, who were given a  placebo. About 5% in both groups recovered, and 10% to  20% reported at least some improvement, based on  standardized measures.  “We didn’t find any suggestion that the drug  treatment was having an overall benefit on their  lives,” said Dr. John H. Krystal, the director of the clinical  neurosciences division of the Department of Veterans  Affairs’ National Center for PTSD and the lead author of  the study.  The New York Times reports: "The surprising finding,  from the largest study of its kind in veterans,  challenges current treatment standards so directly  that it could alter practice soon, some experts said." In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Charles Hoge, a senior  scientist at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,  who was not involved in the study, stated: “I think it’s a  very important study given how frequently the drugs have  been prescribed. It definitely calls into question the use of  antipsychotics in general for PTSD.”  Although the study focused on one antipsychotic,  Johnson & Johnson's Risperdal, experts agree that the  results most likely extend to the entire class, including the  drugs, Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify. These three reports are the latest in a string of scientific  reports, untainted by industry influence, that examined the  evidence and found that current psychiatric drug  prescribing practices are of little, if any, therapeutic value.  But since the drugs pose serious risks of harm by  triggering drug-induced (iatrogenic) illness--which  significantly increases healthcare costs--why does the  U.S. government waste billions of taxpayer dollars to  subsidize their cost?. Posted by Vera Hassner Sharav  to read the three  studies...

the truth is, justice denied is a living nightmare

 

Timonere.com

via Psychology Today Blogs Spycatcher
Detecting Lies v. detecting truth - serious implications an excerpt:

"Singularly appalling fact:
And while these facts are startling, nothing was as shocking to me as this single fact which I discovered while researching these 261 cases: In 100% percent of these cases, the prosecutor and the judge, but more importantly, the investigating officers who initiated these cases through the legal system, believed that these individuals were lying when they denied their complicity. One hundred percent is a number that you almost never hear in anything, even germ killers are only 99% effective), and yet here, 100% of the officers involved were convinced through statements and through reading the defendant’s body language that they were the true culprit. 100% of the officers involved swore and averred that these individuals were culpable, beyond all doubt, lying in their protestations and declarations of innocence. This is the part that should make every law enforcement officer who is ethical and every citizen to take pause. 100% of the officers in these cases failed to detect the truth." read it here.

Joe Navarro's article really struck me, because although it is about wrongful convictions, and the failure of police officers to recognize their personal limitations in discerning whether a suspect is being truthful or not, I think that it has valuable lessons about the importance of seeking the truth, regardless of where it may lead. It is important to be aware of our personal biases and innate limitations, so that we do not become willfully blind to the truth found. Seeking the truth in a given situation, can not be done by osmosis, or solely based on personal impressions. Simply knowing without being able to demonstrate why, is not sufficient. In Law Enforcement, it is impossible to do the job with honor or integrity if the pursuit of the truth is limited; collecting evidence in a criminal investigation requires following the Rules of Evidence. Diligently pursuing the truth in an investigation, requires being open-minded enough to realize that one's impressions and gut feelings, simply are evidence of being human. Investigating a crime ethically, requires collecting and documenting evidence while complying with the Rules of Evidence. I am certain there are Police Officers with excellent insight, whose instincts in a given situation are correct, however, there is no way to document impressions and gut feelings; in order to use them as evidence. This article illustrates how important it is to rely on more than impressions when investigating and prosecuting crimes. No one has perfect insight into themselves or anyone else; and even people with good instincts and excellent self-awareness can be wrong.

Whether a police officer lies in a criminal investigation in an attempt to avoid the consequences of his/her own criminal conduct, or lies for another officer who is seeking to avoid being prosecuted for a crime, that officer has committed a crime.

I've written about two homicides in which several officers were involved. In both cases, the homicides of Kelly Thomas in Fullerton, California and Otto Zehm in Spokane, Washington all of the police officers lied about the events which they had witnessed and/or participated in. There is no such thing as an innocent bystander in a Police uniform who witnesses a crime. Homicide committed by anyone is a crime; there is no doubt (in my mind) that both of these homicides may have been prevented had the Police Officers who 'witnessed' the assaults performed their respective Duty to Protect and Serve with due diligence. Loyalty, truthfulness and a zealous pursuit of justice are necessary characteristics for a Police Officer. These are not ideals; they are required.

Being a Police Officer is an honorable vocation. The reality is, the profession can only be as honorable as the individuals who comprise a Police force. Respect for individual officers, and for the Police in general, is unfortunately no longer a given; if it ever was. When police officers do not follow police procedure, it is up to other police officers to honor the profession, and hold one another accountable. The 'blue wall' is inspired by loyalty and brotherhood. It is not appropriate to be loyal to an individual when doing so dishonors the law itself, or the people whom the Police Protect and Serve. It is this type of misplaced loyalty to a fellow officer which neglects a Police Officer's primary duty, that is most responsible for a loss of positive regard for the Police. This misplaced loyalty has caused some to disrespect the Police. Loyalty and brotherhood are important; truth and justice are too. To perform the duties of being a cop with integrity, requires all of them.

via The Daily Mail Online:

"Speaking about his son's death, Thomas's dad, Ron Thomas, a former sheriff's deputy, said: 'His death was gang-involved, the way I see it. A gang of rogue officers who brutally beat my son to death.'

He said he now feels ashamed for having ever been a law enforcement officer.

He has been in the area his son was attacked handing out flyers and asking people for help.

He said: 'The only thing we have left of our son is the blood in the gutter, that's all we have left.'

Read more: here.

Initially, there was no investigation launched by law enforcement into the homicide of Kelly Thomas; and I have no doubt there would not have been, if not for the fact that Kelly was blessed with a family who loved him; including a father who had worked as a Deputy Sheriff. The crime was ignored by the mainstream press, and the story was broke by The Friends for Fullerton's Future Blog. via FFFF:


"Those fine folks at Reason made a nice little documentary on FFFF and our role in exposing corruption and brutality within the Fullerton Police Department while the conventional media went along with the cover-up."

via NAMI

Kelly Thomas Tragedy in Fullerton, California Statement by National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)

"No one really knows at this time—other than the police officers themselves—what went on during the horrible beating and use of tasers on Kelly Thomas. They may not have fully realized that he was living with a serious mental illness. Too often, however, language and stereotypes in our culture serve to dehumanize people."

This statement is so totally misguided; it is sad. Whether the officers involved knew Kelly Thomas had a psychiatric diagnosis or not, it was patently obvious when this letter was posted on August 5, a month after the violent assault which killed Kelly, that Kelly Thomas was dead due to the brutal beating administered by members of the Fullerton Police Department. It is Police brutality that killed Kelly Thomas; not the fact that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Kelly Thomas is not dead because he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and was not on psychiatric drugs. Kelly Thomas is dead due the actions of Police Officers who had a duty to protect and to serve; Police officers who chose to give him a brutal beating instead. What I noticed about this statement is nowhere does it advocate  that the perpetrators of Kelly Thomas' murder should be prosecuted. It suggests that Kelly Thomas' homicide is another opportunity to further an agenda for increasing forced treatment.

I agree that the tragic murder of Kelly Thomas is an opportunity; it is an opportunity first and foremost, to seek justice for Kelly Thomas. Secondarily, it is an opportunity to lobby for a Federal Law which will hold make officers who fail act in a victim's defense, equally responsible for the crime. Those who enforce the law need to comply with the spirit, the intent, and the letter of the law; particularly when their failure to do so may cost a person's life. In both of these cases, neither of the victims had committed the crime they were being questioned about; all of the officers present failed to perform the Duty to Protect and Serve, and all of the Police Officers initially lied about what had occurred.

We must put a stop to the abuse and brutality which is becoming more and more common in our society. It is time we stop allowing the people with a psychiatric diagnosis to be victimized, without holding the perpetrators who victimize them responsible. We must put a stop to rogue Police Officers who are a disgrace to the badge, by holding them accountable. The men and women in blue deserve our respect; but to have it, they must act with honor and integrity; Police Officers are not  above the law.

Karl Thompson was found guilty of the crimes he was charged with--the charges did not include homicide; although Otto Zehm's death was ruled a homicide. The entire event was caught on video---All due respect to Thompson's 40-year career as a Police Officer, he chased a frightened innocent man down and proceeded to beat him with his baton repeatedly in the head; then he hog-tied and sat on him, causing cardiac arrest. All of this being undisputed, makes what took place Friday, November 4, 2011, in Court at a post-conviction hearing, truly despicable.

via the Spokesman Review:

"Some four dozen Spokane police officers and other supporters stood while someone yelled, “Present arms.” The crowd then saluted Thompson; he smiled at the gesture and walked out, flanked by U.S. marshals, who had not placed him in handcuffs."

“They were showing their honor and support of Karl. The disconnect is that the community is thinking that this officer has been convicted by his peers. Why aren’t (Thompson’s fellow officers) accepting it? I do think that this community needs a reset button here,” Kirkpatrick said. “We as a Police Department need to be unified and show that we share the values of this community. And the community needs to believe the Police Department is reflecting their values.”

"Vincent Reagor, 82, a retired federal and state prosecutor from California, was prompted by coverage of the case to call The Spokesman-Review. He said the attitude of Spokane police officers keeps him from venturing into the city from his home in Nine Mile Falls."

“They’ve pumped their arms when other cases went their way,” Reagor said. “I think they are a joke, but not a funny joke. I think they are a dangerous joke. Their attitude seems to be that they believe they are above the law.”

Kirkpatrick said she understood reactions like Reagor’s from the community. “Was it insensitive to the Zehm family? Sure,” Kirkpatrick said of the salute. “Was it actionable? No.” read here.

The Chief of Police is correct. The officers were exercising their first amendment rights and were "insensitive to the Zehm family" in showing their "honor and support of Karl." However, showing their "honor and support of Karl" in the manner, at the time and place these officers chose, showed a disrespect for the Law itself; disrespect for the homicide victim that some of them had failed to Protect and to Serve; and disrespect for his family who were present in Court. Those Police Officers did this to "honor and support" a cop who had in fact gotten away with murder; is sickening, and truly despicable...

Chief Kirkpatrick: It is not the community that needs a reset button, it is the Spokane Police Department. The community needs to know, not only, "believe the Police Department is reflecting their values." It is obvious with conduct like this in which so many of them participated, you have some serious housekeeping to do.

the author has the following Conflict of Interest to disclose:

I am totally biased about this issue. I have a son who has a psychiatric diagnosis. I know for a fact that no crime he has been the victim of, has ever been investigated and prosecuted by Law Enforcement. In my son's case, it is not the failure of Police Officers; but the failure of mental health and social services professionals that Washington State Law decrees are the only ones who can cause the State Police to launch investigations into crimes against vulnerable adults, like my son. I have filed complaints on my son's behalf with every County and State and Federal authority which has a legal duty to act on such complaints. Every one of them has failed to act. I have filed complaints with my State and Federal legislators who, unlike their predecessors, have not even bothered call me. I have filed a detailed report with the local Police Department; spoken to the Sheriff's Office, the State Patrol and the FBI. The FBI agent advised me to file my complaint with the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights Criminal Division, and I have. It is my hopeful prayer, that the complaint will be investigated.

My son is 23 years is 6'3" tall and weighs 280 pounds and has been repeatedly victimized and traumatized. This includes being illegally "treated" with drugs not approved for use in children, in Federally-funded drugs trials without my consent. He is not able to defend himself, or file complaints on his own behalf, due to the profound brain damage caused by the drugs.

Like I said, I have no desire to be a Police Officer. I stated in an interview this past August, I don't have a badge, but I do conduct investigations, gather evidence and file reports. I have to. I will report crimes in which my son is victimized. To do otherwise, would be morally reprehensible. I would be failing my duty as his mother.

I can not make anybody do a damn thing; but I will not fail to do everything that is within my power for my son. I will speak up, especially when it is for people who are not protected or defended due to a psychiatric diagnosis. I will share what I know about 'how things are done;' unfortunately, it is more often a case of sharing how things are not done.

Sometimes I think that at any moment, I will wake up and I will be actually living in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave where the United States Constitution is the Law of the Land, where the protections of amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, protect me and mine. I will wake up to find that the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a promise that has been kept.

I have to admit, there are times I wonder if this is all a freaking nightmare. The reality is, I've been wide awake, and much of the last eighteen years have been a nightmare.

 I seek Justice. 

I miss who I once was. I wonder if Justice exists; if it ever did...