Hipsters: Douchebag sunglasses required (20 Photos)

For many more hipsters check out the great latfh.com!
IT WASN'T ME - THE DOG DID IT.... COMING SOON - THE DAILY BLAH.... COMING SOON - THE WEEKLY BLURB.... A NOTE TO GOD: HEY G WOTZ UP.....

For many more hipsters check out the great latfh.com!



Editor's Note: Be sure to read the companion to the below article, Cosmic Lessons: When the Ministry Pulls a Madoff, by renowned scholar, Anthony B. Pinn.
Today we shriek as we hear of financial scams, corporate greed, and virtually anything money-related that isn’t entirely on the up-and-up. While religion has generally been a help in these economically difficult times, there is one segment of Christianity that is scamming as many as they can. Those who have ears (and debt) let them hear.
The Prosperity Gospel, also known as a facet of the Word of Faith movement (a louder voice in Pentecostalism), has been writing checks with its lips that’s its theology can’t cash. Last year’s Pew Foundation mega-poll, which surveyed nearly 35,000 people (one of the largest religion polls ever accomplished), revealed a few interesting facts about Christians in the Pentecostal tradition, among them:
• Pentecostals have the lowest incomes of any other Christian denomination.
• Pentecostals have the least education of any other Christian denomination.
The results show that Pentecostals have the most high school dropouts, the fewest college graduates, and the fewest post-graduates. But the most interesting thing is that they earn the least annual income of any other Christian tradition polled. This is shocking, considering that a main feature in popular Pentecostalism is the Prosperity Gospel, where church members are promised that God will make them rich beyond their wildest dreams if they tithe generously and believe that they will receive the money.
The trouble I’ve seen…
Not only do Pentecostals fail to out-earn the regular “non-spirit filled” Christian, they make less. For me, to read such information is heartbreaking, as I am a teacher in a private school that’s part of a Word of Faith church. The church is doing very well for itself, as most Pentecostal churches are, but the people are suffering.
I often speak with coworkers and church members as they slowly slip into despair. I watch helplessly as their hopes dim, and their pennies dwindle. When I attend a service at this church, I hear the pastors declare that God will make everybody rich, if only they will throw what little they do have into the offering plate. Loud confident voices echo off the palatial walls of the sanctuary, while weary, struggling believers bristle with the hope of God’s “promises.” My impoverished friends dance down the plush expensive carpet to the altar and pull out their dollar bills (not their food stamps and government checks, though they have those also) and cheerfully give. The pastor nods approvingly, his hands folded in prayer (a shiny Rolex on his wrist), his eyes misty.
Say what you want about the corruption of the pulpit, or the decadence of the minister—that’s not my issue. My point is that while the world howls at the scam artists who fail to deliver on big promises, Christianity has its very own Ponzi scheme that’s alive and well. At least when Bernie Madoff promised big returns he actually delivered (if only for a moment); the prosperity gospel doesn’t even do that much. When Joel Osteen, Ken Copeland, Paula White, or Benny Hinn take your money, you’ll never see it again (unless you happen to glimpse one of their private jets leaving a runway for Bermuda).
Creating “The Least of These”
When a major tenet of your theology is that people who invest in your church will experience wealth, while the facts show that your congregants are among the poorest and most desperate in the country, you have just been exposed. Further, when the national economy is in shambles, it should be criminal to continue to avoid taxes as a charity, yet earn immense amounts of capital on the promise of a better future. In the business world we call it a scam.
So why are we silent while this happens in every neighborhood in America?
Another concern raised by the Pew poll is the average profile of the victim. As Pentecostals tend to be the least well-educated group of believers they make a prime target for would-be millionaire pastors. In many ways, I am as green with jealousy as these prosperity preachers are with greed, in that the scammed believers have more faith in their little finger than I will probably ever know in my lifetime. They would give the shirt off their backs if they believed God wanted them to, and many of them have. These people have the purest of Christian hearts, trusting the intentions of their Shepherd as they’re led as lambs to the slaughter.
Bankrupt Prosperity
Imagine that there was a brand of theology in which people were taught that God has promised to give followers an additional arm, right from the center of their chest. Let’s say it taught that scripture had everywhere indicated that this was the case, and that by believing this “fuller” version of the gospel, you were opening up the as-of-yet closed off area of blessings that Christians have forgotten about (i.e. growing another appendage to better do God’s work).
Let’s imagine that after about 50 years the movement has spread worldwide, with followers numbering in the millions, and you look to see how many of these folks have in fact grown that “arm of the Lord.” Upon inspection you find that the vast majority of them have lost an arm, leaving them worse off and less able to serve than even those old two-armed folk. The irony would be overwhelming.
Despite the statistics, and the continued empirical evidence of devastated human lives (Pentecostals also have the most divorces), few if any Christians have plainly spoken against the Prosperity Gospel, or raised awareness that measures any merit. While high-level corruption and financial disarray are the soup du jour of recent weeks’ media cycles, this prominent and aberrant theology has been allowed to wreak destruction on a mass of people who are grasping at economic straws.
Prosperity Gospel theology is bankrupt. The debate raged for years about how much sense coveting money made in the context of biblical principles, but now the fruit has been borne and the numbers don’t lie: those who attend Prosperity Gospel churches are in fact worse off for it.










AN IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING THE COPYRIGHT:
This Evil Overlord List grew out of the exchanges on what is now the Star Trek mailing list "shields-up@spies.com", beginning in 1994 (when it was still "startrek@cs.arizona.edu"). We were kicking around cliches that appeared on "Deep Space 9" at the time, and I started to compile a list of classic blunders they were making. The list came to about 20 or so items. In 1995, I decided to try to make it into a Top 100 List. I attached a copyright notice, some friends of mine posted it to a few newsgroups, and the contributions quickly poured in. In 1996 I revised the list entries to their current form, the Web page went up, more contributions were solicited, the list expanded beyond 100 and I had to open up a dungeon. I continued to contribute items; my total is around 40 or so. So while I am the originator, editor, and principal contributor, I certainly did not write the majority of the items on the list -- as may be seen by the sheer number of individuals who are listed as contributors. Around 1997, as the final contributions were coming in, a couple contributors mentioned that this was similar to a list of things not to do if you capture James Bond that had appeared on a sci-fi newsgroup. I'd never heard of or seen this list, so I assumed it was parallel development or perhaps something I had inspired.
On November 12, 2002, I exchanged some emails with Jack Butler who has a list on his website. Sayeth Mr. Butler: "This list has its origins on the now-nonexistent FidoNet Science Fiction and Fandom (SFFAN) email echo, in a discussion regarding a sketch seen on an episode of Saturday Night Live sometime in 1990. In the sketch, several Bond villains were appearing on a talkshow touting their new book, "What Not To Do If You Capture James Bond". The discussion on SFFAN was specifically regarding what advice might be found in that book. The instigator of the discussion was Alesia Chamness; other contributors included Jason Welles, Brian R. Williams, Merideth Knepper, and Alexi Vandenburg. I was also one of its contributors. When I originally posted this list to the Internet in 1994, I did so without any awareness of Mr. Anspach, the Star Trek mailing list on which his version of the list appeared, or (later) his website."
Apparently both lists were compiled during overlapping periods of time. Comparing the two, some items appear on one list but not the other. Other items appear identical to those on this list; since many are the result of my writing or editing, I believe they were taken from this list and posted to that list without permission. But other items on that list appear identical to contributions I received before I edited them. Those items may have been taken from that list and submitted here under false pretenses, or they may have innocently been submitted to both lists by their originators. It appears that as a result of this "cross-contamination", the two lists have arrived at a point where there are variations on each other and it is probably impossible to untangle them. (I would still like to talk with Alesia Chamness. If you know her, please ask her to email me.)
I believe Jack Butler when he says the list on his website is the current form of the James Bond Villain list, and I thank him for helping to clarify matters. Let me state that I had nothing to do with the FidoNet SFFAN list which is firmly in the public domain, and I lay no claim to it. The copyright statement attached to my list applies only to this list, in the form it appears.
-- Peter Anspach
Being an Evil Overlord seems to be a good career choice. It pays well, there are all sorts of perks and you can set your own hours. However every Evil Overlord I've read about in books or seen in movies invariably gets overthrown and destroyed in the end. I've noticed that no matter whether they are barbarian lords, deranged wizards, mad scientists or alien invaders, they always seem to make the same basic mistakes every single time. With that in mind, allow me to present...
Of course, these are merely the Top 100 Things I'd do. Other suggestions have been sent to me which didn't quite make the Top 100 List. But they are still so good that I couldn't bear to throw them out. Therefore, as an expression of gratitude, I have tossed them into...
and
This web page has been given the following awards:
![[Go to the Cruel Site of the Day site]](http://www.cruel.com/chosen.gif)
![[Go to the Worst of the Web site]](http://www.worstoftheweb.com/about/awardcup.gif)

If you have any other tidbits of advice that you would like to contribute to this list -- you're too late! The list is full. However there is still plenty of room left in The Dungeon: Cellblock B. Feel free to e-mail me with your advice or visit the Evil Overlord Homepage at http://world.std.com/~olorin/peter_overlord.html. (Suggestion may be summarily rejected or edited without your permission. What do you expect from an EVIL Overlord?)
She hangs half-naked and helpless, only held by her suicidal father's grip on her ankle.
Fortunately, this man's attempt to hurl his daughter, two, out of the window of their eighth-floor flat in Chengdu, China, did not end in tragedy.
She was saved by a policeman who had managed to edge gradually closer to her dangling body.
Helpless: This man suspended his two-year-old daughter out of the window after becoming suicidal
Then, as colleagues inside distracted her father, the rescuer made a daring grab and tried to haul her to safety.
Her crazed parent, however, was not willing to let go.
As neighbours watched in horror, the pair fought a frantic tug-of-war over her tiny form.
Perilous: A rescuer edges closer to this girl after climbing out of the window of an adjacent apartment
Tug-of-war: Witnesses watched in horror as the two men battled to get hold of the child's tiny body
Persistent: Despite letting go of the girl, her father was unwilling to give up and had to be restrained with a window
The officer finally won and dragged her into his arms, fending off her tattooed father by attempting to sandwich him in the window.
For several seconds it appeared as if he was going to throw himself eight-storeys down to the ground below.
But officers inside managed to drag him backwards, his legs flailing as he vanished from view.
He was taken into custody and later tested positive for drugs, police said.
Battle: A policeman inside the building can just be seen pulling the man backwards as his colleague hangs on to the child
Flailing: The man is eventually hauled inside and arrested. Police said he tested positive for drugs
Blood In, Blood Out: The Violent Empire of the Aryan Brotherhood

by John Lee Brook
January 16, 1967: Nazi prison-gang associate Robert Holderman was stabbed and then battered to death by Black Guerilla Family gang members at San Quentin.
January 17, 1967: 1,800 black inmates and 1,000 white inmates clashed on the main yard at San Quentin over the death of Robert Holderman. Prison guards broke up the brawl by firing shots into the mass. Five inmates were wounded by the shots. One inmate suffered severe head trauma from the beating he received from opposing gang members. Two other inmates suffered non-fatal heart attacks.
August 27, 1967: Nineteen-year-old Barry Byron Mills was arrested in Ventura, California and held for transfer to Sonoma County, where he had boosted a car. Sonoma had issued an arrest warrant in his name for grand theft auto.
December 12, 1967: Barry Mills requested and was denied probation. Instead he was sentenced to one year in the Sonoma County Jail.
January 29, 1968: Barry Mills and Buddy Coleman escaped from the Sonoma County Honor Farm.
February 17, 1968: Barry Mills was arrested in Windsor, California, and held on a warrant charging escape without force.
March 12, 1968: Barry Mills sentenced to one year and one day in prison for escape without force from the Sonoma County Jail.
March 13, 1969: Barry Mills was released from prison.
January 13, 1970: Soledad State Prison Aryan Brotherhood leader Buzzard Harris, along with fellow Aryan Brotherhood members Smiley Hoyle, Harpo Harper and Chuko Wendekier, and Mexican Mafia members Colorado Joe Ariaz, John Fanene, and Raymond Guerrero battled with Black Guerilla Family gang members on the exercise yard at Soledad prison. Tower guard Opie Miller opened fire with his high-powered rifle, killing Black Guerilla leader W.L. Nolen, Cleveland Edwards and Alvin Miller. Aryan Brotherhood leader Buzzard Harris was wounded in the groin by a rifle bullet.
January 30, 1970: Barry Mills and William Hackworth were arrested after robbing a Stewarts Point convenience store.
February 3, 1970: Barry Mills convicted of first-degree armed robbery after co-defendant William Hackworth testified for the prosecution. Barry Mills sentenced to 5 years to life in prison.
April 21, 1972: Aryan Brotherhood members Fred Mendrin and Donald Hale murdered Fred Castillo by stabbing him to death at the Chino Institute for Men. Castillo was the leader of the Nuestra Familia gang. The Aryan Brotherhood murdered Castillo as part of a contract with the Mexican Mafia.
December 15, 1972: Aryan Brotherhood members Fred Mendrin and Donald Hale sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Fred Castillo.
1973: The Aryan Brotherhood was officially formed in the federal prison system.
October 18, 1977: Aryan Brotherhood member Little Joe O’Rourke engaged in a vicious gun battle with campus police at El Camino Community College. The gun battle erupted when the police, as part of a routine check, disrespected Little Joe by asking him for his student I.D. Little Joe was wounded and arrested.
November 25, 1977: Aryan Brotherhood members David Owens and New York Crane robbed the Bank of America in Agoura, California. They got away with $9,000.
December 2, 1977: New York Crane named as the prime suspect in the murder of fellow Aryan Brotherhood member Hogjaw Cochran.
December 29, 1977: Barry Mills released from San Quentin State Prison.
January 11, 1978: Aryan Brotherhood member David Owens arrested and charged with robbing the Bank of America in Agoura, California. Owens had $3,844 on him when arrested.
March 13, 1978: David Owens convicted of bank robbery. He was sentenced to federal prison. His co-defendant “New York” Crane was held over in Orange County Jail and charged with the murder of Hogjaw Cochran.
March 31, 1978: Little Joe O’Rourke, who opened fire on the El Camino Community College campus, sentenced to seven years in prison.
June 1978: Barry Mills sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for planning a bank robbery in Fresno, California. The bank was robbed by the Aryan Brotherhood in June 1976. Barry Mills did not participate in the robbery, but provided the blueprint for it.
The Second Woe
May 20, 1979: Barry Mills murdered Aryan Brotherhood associate John Sherman Marzloff in the United States Prison Atlanta, Georgia.
1980: The Aryan Brotherhood set up a commission to run the operations of all Aryan Brotherhood members in the federal prison system. The commission was composed of three men. Barry Mills assumed command of the commission.
June 8, 1980: Aryan Brotherhood associate Robert Hogan was murdered. The order to kill him came from Barry Mills.
September 27, 1982: Aryan Brotherhood Commissioner Thomas “Terrible Tom” Silverstein murdered Cadillac Smith, who was the leader of the D.C. Mob, at the United States Prison, Marion, Illinois.
December 9, 1982: Aryan Brotherhood member Neil Baumgarten (#20586-148) was murdered by members of the D.C. Mob. Baumgarten’s murder was payback for the murder of Cadillac Smith.
January 13, 1983: Aryan Brotherhood member Blinky Griffen convicted of the murder of T-Bone Gibson.
February 13, 1983: Aryan Brotherhood member Richard Barnes was murdered. The order to kill Barnes came from Aryan Brotherhood Councilman McKool Slocum.
September 23, 1983: Aryan Brotherhood associate Gregory Keefer was stabbed to death by another Aryan Brotherhood associate. Keefer owed tax money from drug sales to Mills. When Keefer neglected to pay the tax, Mills ordered the hit.
October 6, 1983: Aryan Brotherhood member Richard “Rhino” Andreasen provided information to the feds about a bank robbery in Santa Ana, California. Rhino gave the feds the name of an Aryan Brother who was one of the bank robbers. For this transgression, Barry Mills ordered Rhino killed. An Aryan Brother stabbed Rhino to death at the United States Penitentiary Leavenworth, Kansas.
October 6, 1983: At the United States Penitentiary Marion, Illinois, Aryan Brotherhood Commissioner Thomas Silverstein, aka “Terrible Tom,” stabbed Officer Eugene Clutts 40 times for “disrespecting him.” Officer Clutts died. At the same prison a few hours later, Officer Bob Hoffman was stabbed 35 times by Aryan Brother Clayton Fountain, who “didn’t want Terrible Tom to have a higher body count than me.” Officer Hoffman died.
January 30, 1984: An Aryan Brotherhood associate stabbed and killed Officer Boyd Spikerman at the Federal Correctional Institution, Oxford, Wisconsin.
February 7, 1984: Aryan Brotherhood member Robert Scully assaults a fellow inmate at San Quentin. Scully was in a bad mood and “the bastard pissed me off.”
March 13, 1984: Aryan Brotherhood member Rick Rose defected. His name was placed “in the hat.”
April 12, 1984: Aryan Brotherhood member Jesse Brun sets fire to a black inmate at Folsom prison. The victim suffered burns over 25 percent of his body.
April 27, 1984: Aryan Brotherhood member Robert Scully was once again in a bad mood. Scully attacked and tried to stab a prison guard.
April 28, 1984: Robert Scully gases two guards at San Quentin. No charges were filed. No disciplinary action was taken.
May 1, 1984: Robert Scully stabbed a guard at San Quentin. Scully was held and searched. The searchers found three hacksaw blades in his rectum and two .22 caliber bullets inside his stomach. Scully had swallowed the bullets. All charges against Scully were dismissed.
May 29, 1985: Robert Scully assaulted another inmate at San Quentin. Scully’s shank was confiscated and he was charged with possession of a deadly weapon. Scully received six additional years for assault.
September 1985: Tyler “the Hulk” Bingham was officially named to the three-man Federal Commission.
October 10, 1987: Aryan Brotherhood member Rodney Ross stabbed and killed 33-year old Gordon Gaskill at Folsom prison.
June 22, 1987: Aryan Brotherhood member Art Ruffo attacked a black inmate. Ruffo had a shank and tried to murder the black gang member. Officer David Pitts thwarted Ruffo’s attempt at murder by shooting Ruffo in the hip. At the same time, Aryan Brotherhood member Cornfed Schneider attacked another black inmate. The attacks were planned and orchestrated as part of a hit on the D.C. Blacks at Folsom prison. The hits were ordered by Blue Norris, an Aryan Brotherhood councilman. This was the beginning of “Hell Week” at Folsom prison.
July 7, 1987: During a strip search, Cornfed Schneider stabbed Officer Carl Kropp in the throat. Councilman Blue Norris ordered the hit on Officer Kropp as payback for the shooting of Aryan Brotherhood member Art Ruffo. Officer David Pitts, who shot Art Ruffo, was wounded by a shotgun blast as he drove to his home in West Sacramento.
October 10, 1987: Aryan Brotherhood member Robert Scully, who was usually in a bad mood, had been moved to Tehachapi Prison. While there Scully was charged with possession of a deadly weapon. The charge was later dropped.
November 25, 1987: Judith Box was arrested by authorities. Box was the girlfriend of Wildman Fortman, who was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood. Box was charged with providing the Aryan Brotherhood with the home addresses of prison guards.
March 15, 1988: Aryan Brotherhood member Robert Rowland defected, providing authorities with information about a plot to murder prison guards. Rowland’s name went “into the hat.”
August 28, 1988: Judith Box was convicted of identity theft and conspiring to commit assault. Box obtained the requested information (home addresses of prison guards) from her job at the Franchise Tax Board.
February 15, 1989: Judith Box sentenced to three years in prison.
June 5, 1989: Aryan Brotherhood member Marvin Stanton was assaulted and shot with a 37mm block-gun while fighting with a member of Nuestra Familia. The battle occurred on one of the exercise yards at Corcoran State Prison.
June 14, 1989: During his trial, Aryan Brotherhood member Cornfed Schneider testified that he stabbed Officer Kropp in the throat because he thought the guards were coming to attack him.
July 24, 1989: The jurors, who were terrified, failed to find Cornfed Schneider guilty of attempted murder. Cornfed Schneider sentenced to an additional five years in prison for possession of a deadly weapon. Cornfed Schneider stabbed his attorney Phillip Couzens four times. The two men were talking in the hallway of the Sacramento County Courthouse.
April 18, 1990: Aryan Brotherhood member Todd Ashker convicted of second-degree murder in the death of a Folsom inmate. A hit had been ordered on the inmate by the commission. Ashker sentenced to 21 years to life in prison.
December 13, 1990: Aryan Brotherhood member Robert Scully, he of the bad attitude, was transferred to the new maximum security prison at Pelican Bay. Scully was transferred because of “his history of violence.”
December 16, 1992: Aryan Brotherhood member Victor Carrafa, who had just been paroled, was arrested in Stockton, California. He had a six-inch Buck Knife and a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol on his person.
March 14, 1993: Aryan Brotherhood member Termite Kennedy shot and killed Glenn Chambers of Oregon. Chambers had been supplying the Aryan Brotherhood with chemicals for the manufacture of crystal meth.
May 11, 1993: While being escorted to the dentist, Aryan Brotherhood member Victor Carrafa escaped from the custody of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. The escape had been planned. Aryan Brotherhood member Gerard Gallant helped Victor Carrafa escape. Gallant shot deputy Steve Fonbuena in the face and stomach.
February 26, 1994: Robert Scully released from Pelican Bay prison. Scully’s parole stipulated drug and alcohol testing. It also prohibited him from associating with members of the Aryan Brotherhood or any other known felons.
March 24, 1994: Robert Scully was arrested in Newport Beach. He was carrying a .25 caliber pistol and displayed false indentification. Scully was sent back to Pelican Bay prison for one year.
June 1, 1994: Aryan Brotherhood member Joseph Barrett assaulted a prison officer who confiscated a television from his cell.
March 23, 1995: Robert Scully released from Pelican Bay prison. Brenda Moore, who was the girlfriend of Cornfed Schneider, picked him up in front of the prison.
March 26, 1995: Robert Scully and Brenda Moore murdered Frank Trejo, who was a deputy with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department. The murder took place in the parking lot of a bar in Sebastopol, California.
The Third Woe
1996: Barry Mills proposed that the Aryan Brotherhood absorb the prison gang known as the Dirty White Boys.
February 7, 1996: Aryan Brotherhood member Art Ruffo was strangled by his cellmate Brian Healy, who was an Aryan Brotherhood member. The murder took place at Pelican Bay prison and was ordered by the commission.
April 9, 1996: Aryan Brotherhood member Joseph Barrett, who was incarcerated at Calipatria Prison, received a message from the commission. The message instructed Barrett to “squeeze and hug his cellmate.” Barrett’s cellmate was Aryan Brotherhood member Thomas Richmond. Barrett obeyed the instructions and killed Richmond.
November 1, 1997: As a favor to the Mexican Mafia, the commission ordered Pelican Bay inmate Felipe Cruz hit. Cruz was strangled by Aryan Brotherhood member James Ellrod.
February 22, 1998: Aryan Brotherhood member Brian Healey told the feds he was willing to testify against the Aryan Brotherhood.
February 23, 1998: In an ordered hit, Pelican Bay inmate Timothy Waldron was strangled by Aryan Brotherhood member Steve Olivares.
March 10, 1998: Aryan Brotherhood member William Stanton was stabbed to death by two inmates. The murder took place on Pelican Bay Prison’s A yard.
February 2, 2000: Aryan Brotherhood member Joseph Barrett was strip searched at Tehachapi State Prison. A shank and six razor blades were found in his recturm.
January 30, 2001: Aryan Brotherhood members Cornfed Schneider and Dale Bretches, both incarcerated at Pelican Bay, were discovered to be running a dog-fighting ring on the outside. Two of their pit bulls killed Dianne Whipple of San Francisco.
September 5, 2001: The Northern California office of the U.S. District Attorney announced it was indicting six members of the Aryan Brotherhood and one associate.
October 16, 2002: A federal indictment unsealed in Los Angeles charged 40 members and associates of the Aryan Brotherhood with several RICO violations, including murder. The indictment included Rafael Gonzalez-Munoz, who was a high-ranking member of the Mexican Mafia, and Joseph Principe, who was a federal prison guard.
April 7, 2003: Aryan Brotherhood member Blue Norris was found stabbed to death at Calipatria State Prison. He had defected from the Aryan Brotherhood and provided information to prison officials. His murder was ordered by the commission.
September 4, 2003: Aryan Brotherhood member Cornfed Schneider pled guilty to conspiracy, racketeering and smuggling. He was sentenced to life in prison. This was his third life sentence.
April 4, 2004: Brenda Jo Riley, who was the wife of an Aryan Brotherhood member, sentenced to serve 21 months in prison for acting as a message courier for the Aryan Brotherhood.
November 29, 2004: Aryan Brotherhood member Wade Shiflett was shot and killed by a prison guard on B yard at Sacramento State Prison. Shiflett was attempting to murder another member of the Aryan Brotherhood. The commission had ordered the hit because the brother had defected and was going to testify against them.
July 22, 2005: U.S. District Judge David Carter set a date for the federal trial against the Aryan Brotherhood. Judge Carter ruled defense attorneys could call Thomas “Terrible Tom” Silverstein as a defense witness. But Terrible Tom would remain shackled in court.
The Indictment
Specific crimes cited in the indictment against Barry Mills, Tyler Bingham and Thomas Silverstein:
The murders of:
John Marzloff in prison in Atlanta, Georgia.
Robert Hogan in Illinois.
Richard Barnes in California.
Gregory Keefer in Illinois.
Richard Andreasen in California.
Thomas Lamb in Illinois.
Arva Lee Ray in California.
William McKinney in California.
Charels Leger in Kansas.
Arthur Ruffo in California.
Aaron Nash in Calfornia.
Frank Joyner in Pennsylvania.
Abdul Salaam in Pennsylvania.
Terry Walker in Illinois.
Chapter 1: The Baron and The Hulk
December 2002
They came for them while it was still dark. Shortly after 4:00 in the morning, a convoy of vehicles turned off the main highway. U.S. Marshal Clarence J. Sugar sat in the passenger seat of the lead vehicle. A tall man, Marshal Sugar was also heavily muscled. He carried himself with a swagger, and an air of menace hung from him like a cloak. Today he was strapped to the max: pepper spray, a Taser, and a Glock 9mm all rode on his Sam Browne belt. In his lap rested a MAC-10 machine gun. Next to his right leg, an M-16 assault rifle rested against the door of the SUV. Black body armor encased his upper torso making him appear even thicker than he was.
Spread out among the other vehicles, Marshal Sugar had a total of 19 Deputy Marshals accompanying him. All of them wore black fatigues, black body armor, and carried fully automatic weapons. All of them were hard men who knew how to handle themselves in combat situations.
It was cool and damp outside. A faint ribbon of blue arose from the western horizon to meet the darkness. Marshal Sugar looked out the window of his vehicle and shook his head. Even California had a Siberia, he decided, and this was it. ‘It’ was a remote forested area near a town called Crescent City, in Del Norte County, Calif. Up ahead he noticed a white glow that was definitely man made. As the convoy came around a final bend in the road, a huge, lighted compound became visible. Around the perimeter of the compound, which spread out over 275 acres, he could see miles of curlicued razor wire. Outside the wire stood electrified fences that would fry anyone who touched them.
The convoy arrived at the main entrance and the massive gate slowly opened. As the convoy roared inside, guards armed with high-powered rifles looked down from their watchtowers. Without hesitation, the convoy headed straight for a complex of white concrete buildings, which formed a series of X’s when viewed from above. Screeching to a halt, the doors of the vehicles flew open and 20 U.S. Marshals jumped out. They moved in formation to the main door of the complex. The door was already open.
Inside the building, the marshals walked down a long gray corridor. An array of surveillance cameras looked disinterestedly down at them, recording every movement. The small army of marshals passed through a series of barred doors, which thunked closed behind them. After one more turn, they reached their destination: the Security Housing Unit of Pelican Bay State Prison. Called the SHU for short, it was also known as “the Hole” by those who worked and lived in it.
The SHU was a prison built inside a prison.
Pelican Bay State Prison was Calfornia’s supermax prison. The place where California caged its most ferocious human animals. Some people called them criminals. Others called them prisoners. Still others called them inmates. They were beasts of the jungle, men who were so savage and so dangerous that they had to be separated from the other violent men.
Marshal Sugar and his deputy marshals were here to pick up and transport two of these violent men.
Arriving at the first cell, Marshal Sugar slammed the butt of his Mac-10 against the steel door. Inside the cell, a man jumped up from his bunk where he had been asleep. Standing in his white boxer shorts, he glared at the cell door, as if trying to burn a hole through it with his vision.
“Assume the position,” said Marshal Sugar. “You’re being moved.”
“Fuck you,” snarled the inmate. His name was Barry Byron Mills, but no one called him that. Everyone called him either The Baron or McB. The Baron nickname referred to his power and authority over other inmates. Those who called him McB did so because he was like McDonald’s, worldwide and everywhere.
“Assume the position,” repeated Marshal Sugar. This command meant The Baron should place his back against the inside of his cell door and put his hands through a slot in the door, so that his hands could be cuffed behind his back.
“No,” said The Baron. Then he smiled and added, “Make me.”
Marshal Sugar stepped aside and nodded at the Corrections Officer who stood beside him. The CO put his key in the doorlock and turned it. Heavy pneumatic bolts snapped back and the CO pulled the door open.
The Baron looked at Marshal Sugar. “Who the fuck are you and what do you want with me?” asked The Baron.
Marshal Sugar looked at The Baron, noting the man’s massive muscles, tattoos and gleaming bald-head. “U.S. Marshals,” said Sugar. “And like I just told you, you’re being moved. And we’re moving you right now.” He paused. “We can do it the easy way or we can do it the hard way.” Marshal Sugar smiled. “Or we can do it the semi-easy-hard way. The choice is yours.”
Narrowing his blue eyes, The Baron said, “What’s the semi-easy-hard way? I’m not familiar with that one.”
“The easy way is that you act like a civilized human being and we’ll treat you like one. The hard way is that my deputies rush you and take you by force. Sometimes – in the chaos that occurs in this particular method – you get a little roughed up,” explained Marshal Sugar. He gave The Baron a fat smile. “The semi-easy-hard way is that I simply shoot you with this thing” – he held up his Taser – “and after you do the funky chicken for about 30 seconds, we search your body cavities and bundle you up.”
Marshal Sugar shrugged. “I don’t really care how we do it, because in the end the result is the same.” With a dramatic flourish, he raised his forearm up to his eyes and looked at his wristwatch. “You have 10 seconds to decide.”
The Baron clenched his fists, as if checking his energy levels. After a few seconds, he winked and turned around, clasping his hands at the small of his back. Deputy Marshals quickly surrounded him. One cuffed his hands, while others probed his ears and nose with flashlights. They were looking for anything that might be used as a weapon or as a key to unlock handcuffs.
“Open your mouth, please,” said one of the marshals.
The Baron opened his mouth wide and the marshal shined his flashlight in it. “Touch the roof of your mouth with your tongue, please,” said the marshal, peering into The Baron’s mouth.
“Okay. Thank you.” The marshal stepped back and The Baron snapped his mouth shut, thrusting his head forward a little bit like he was a shark biting into flesh.
A deputy marshal pulled a yellow jumpsuit from a bag he had been carrying. Stenciled across the back of the jumpsuit in bold, black letters was the word PRISONER.
“Put these on, please,” said the deputy marshal, holding the jumpsuit out to The Baron. “But before you do, please squat down three times. Then we’ll remove the cuffs so you can dress.”
The Baron hissed a little between his teeth, shaking his head. If he had a shank – which was a crude, handmade knife – hidden up inside his rectum, squatting three times would cause the shank to move and probably pierce his intestines. He didn’t have one. So he squatted three times.
When he finished the last squat, a marshal uncuffed his hands. While he pulled on the yellow jumpsuit, three deputy marshals pointed their Tasers at him. All three were big, beefy men, who gazed wishfully at him. Then they cuffed his hands behind his back, and shackled his feet. The final touch was a waist chain, like a steel belt, which they threaded through his handcuffs and locked snugly around him.
“What about shoes?” demanded The Baron.
“You’ll get socks and slippers once you’re in the van,” Marshal Sugar told him.
The Baron glared at him.
“They’ll get cold, but they won’t freeze,” the marshal informed him. “Park him over there,” pointed Marshal Sugar, indicating a bench with large metal rings welded to it.
Deputy marshals escorted The Baron to the bench, where they ran heavy chains through his ankle shackles and waist chain. These they ran through the rings on the bench, pulling them tight, forcing The Baron to sit hunched over.
“Okay,” said Marshal Sugar, “let’s get the other one.” Five deputy marshals remained with The Baron, while the others moved down the hallway to another cell.
This cell was the home of Tyler Bingham, who was also known as “The Hulk” and “Super Honkey.” Both nicknames referred to his physique, he was almost as wide as he was tall, and he could bench press over 500 pounds.
The Hulk was waiting for them. He had heard voices, voices he didn’t recognize, coming from the vicinity of The Baron’s cell. Dressed in his yellow jumpsuit, which indicated his Hole-status, he stood against the back wall of his 7-foot by 10-foot cell.
Marshal Sugar nodded for the CO to open the cell door. Rolling his eyeballs, the CO did as instructed. As the CO pulled the cell door open, The Hulk launched himself at the marshals. Growling deep in his chest, he shot out the door as if out of a cannon. Grabbing one of the deputy marshals around the waist, The Hulk pulled the man to the ground. As the two men crashed to the floor, The Hulk tried to grab the marshal’s pistol from its holster. He had his fingers on the butt of the 9mm Glock when five marshals grabbed him: one on each limb, and one trying to batter his head off with a flashlight.
Although partially stunned by the rapid blows to his head, The Hulk roared and fought like a demon possessed maniac. But only for about five seconds. Then the probes from two Tasers caught him, sending an arcing current of hot lightning through his massive body. Screaming, The Hulk wriggled, arched and bounced like he was having an epileptic fit, a grand mal seizure.
Grim faced, the deputies watched The Hulk do the funky chicken. They took no pleasure in the spectacle. They were only doing what the circumstances demanded. The Hulk had made his choice. After 30 seconds, Marshal Sugar raised his hand and the Tasers were switched off.
Marshals quickly stripped The Hulk naked. Flashlights appeared, and his body cavities were examined. Coating the index finger of his latex-covered hand with KY Jelly, one of the marshals did a quick rectal exam of The Hulk.
Marshal Sugar noted The Hulk’s luxuriant gray walrus moustache, his shaved head, and the tattoos on his arms. On one arm was a tattoo of the Star of David, on the other arm a black swastika. Marshal Sugar wondered about that for a moment. Was it sarcasm, mockery, or some odd hodgepodge of white supremacist thinking?
Shrugging, Marshal Sugar said, “Get him dressed and shackled.” He started to walk away, then had a second thought. “Put a restraint on his elbows. This guy is strong and his attitude sucks.”
The deputy marshals smiled at the words “attitude sucks.” That was an understatement.
When The Hulk finally regained consciousness, he found himself hog-tied: leg shackles, waist chain, his hands cuffed behind his back and, like a ribbon on a Christmas present, his elbows pulled close together behind his back by a plastic tie.
“Get him up,” said Marshal Sugar.
Four marshals lifted The Hulk to his feet, where they steadied him for a few seconds. Getting Tasered was hard on the body’s nervous system, and short-circuited the brain.
The Taser was invented in 1969 by a NASA researcher whose name was Jack Cover. He named the device after Tom Swift, the comic book hero: Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle. Kind of like a ray-gun in a sci-fi movie, the Taser was a great way to drop anyone, even a man with body armor, in a non-lethal manner.
“Okay,” said Marshal Sugar, “let’s go.”
The parade of marshals moved back to The Baron’s cell, two of the marshals almost dragging The Hulk along.
The Baron was quickly released from his bench and, like a black phalanx with two yellow figures in the middle, the procession walked back the way they had come.
Outside, the two yellow figures were placed in separate vans, where they were chained to ring bolts, which sprouted from the floor like alien fingers. The Hulk’s elbow restraints were removed and his hands were double-cuffed in front. The Baron received the same treatment. Marshal Sugar was not a malicious man. He didn’t pull the wings off flies, and he didn’t torture criminals. He said anyone who did that was lost already.
The engines of the vehicles roared to life, headlights were turned on, and the cavalcade drove out through the main gate.
Pulling a cell phone from his pocket, Marshal Sugar speed-dialed a number. “We’re on our way,” he said into his phone. “ETA 10 minutes.” Then he closed the phone and put it back in his pocket.
Five miles away, at the Crescent City airport, which was nothing more than a landing strip with a few small offices and a couple of old hangars, the pilots of an unmarked Boeing 727 began their final take-off check.
The Boeing 727 was a JPATS aircraft. JPATS stood for Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System. One of eight full-sized aircraft operated by JPATS, this plane was engaged in a high-priority transport flight for the Department of Justice. Its location was known only by a select few individuals, so that anyone who had an interest in sabotaging the flight could not do so. And since its convict-passengers would all be taken by surprise, none of them could plan their own escape or make arrangements for outside help in escaping.
Most of JPATS employees, including the U.S. Marshals, called it Con Air, even before the Nicholas Cage movie made the name famous.
Nine minutes later, the convoy arrived at the landing strip. The Baron and The Hulk were escorted onto the plane and seated. The Baron was seated six rows directly behind The Hulk, so that he could not communicate by means of hand signals. Both criminals received triple locked waist chains.
While the triple locking was taking place, Marshal Sugar told the two prisoners how it was going to be. “As long as you behave, you’ll only be restrained by handcuffs, waist chains and shackles. If you decide to act like buttholes, then we will treat you like buttholes. You’ll wear reinforced mittens” – he held up a pair of what appeared to be cyborg-like, mechanical mittens, which most of the marshals called “Dr. No hands” after the bad guy in the first James Bond movie – “and if you spit, bite or use abusive language, we will strap your head in this.” He held up what looked like a baseball catcher’s mask, one that had been specially modified to isolate and disable the wearer’s mouth.
“And if we have to,” continued the marshal, “I will shove a gag in your mouth and then duct tape your mouth closed.” He squinted at the two criminals. “So. The choice is yours.” He looked around at his deputy marshals. “We’re big believers in free will around here. You do as you choose. In response to your choice, we do as we choose.”
The deputy marshals nodded in agreement. They were highly-trained professionals, most of whom had served in the military before joining the U.S. Marshals Service. The most important part of their marshals training was psychological. They were taught how to remain detached, cool and professional under the most provocative conditions. They didn’t lose their tempers and react violently, nor did they allow their personal prejudices to influence their treatment of prisoners. In other words, no petty abuses took place, as was often the case at correctional institutes.
Marshal Sugar said, “Okay. Let’s get this show on the road. We got places to go, people to see, things to do.”
The deputy marshals who worked with Sugar had heard that line a thousand times. It always made them smile. It meant they had more prisoners to pick up. In this particular case, it meant 18 more prisoners to collect. All of them extremely violent. One of the men they would pick up was called “the most dangerous man in prison.”
It should be an exciting day.
It was called Operation Arrow. No one knew who came up with the name, but the name caught on quickly. Now everyone involved referred to it by that name – Operation Arrow.
Phase One was underway and involved the surprise collection and transportation of 20 brutal criminals, who were being held in maximum security prisons all over the United States. After collection, the plane would fly back to Los Angeles International Airport, where the prisoners would be escorted to various holding facilities in the area, where they would be held until it was their turn for trial.
All together, 40 prisoners were to be tried, 23 of whom faced the possibility of the death penalty, if convicted. They were on trial for 32 murders and over 100 attempted murders, including stabbings, strangulations, poisonings, contract hits, and conspiracy to commit murder, most of which occurred inside prisons in the United States. But some of the murders had been committed outside prisons, in the real world.
Along with murder, other charges facing the 40 criminals looked to extortion, robbery, and narcotics trafficking.
The indictment had been filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Jessner. At 110 pages, the indictment was long, the result of many years’ worth of investigation.
Gregory Jessner was 42 years old and slender. He wore his brown hair short and appeared mild-mannered and soft-spoken. However, never judge a book by its cover. For a magnetic energy pulsed inside the man, an energy which powered the heart of a lion and the tenacity of a bulldog. Plus, Jessner was smart as God.
Jessner had filed his lengthy indictment against these 40 savage criminals for one simple reason: the death penalty appeared to be the only answer. Isolating these criminals in solitary confinement was ineffective, because they always found ways to communicate with each other. They bribed guards, used hand signals to talk to one another, or wrote in coded messages. In one instance, acting as their own defense attorneys, they had subpoenaed each other to appear at court hearings where they could speak with each other. Such men, men who were already destined to spend the rest of their lives in small, concrete boxes, merely laughed when the authorities added more time their sentences. Who cared? It was like beating a dead horse or talking to a wall.
So Jessner had decided the time had come to use his last resort – execute these super-criminals. “Capital punishment is the one arrow left in our quiver,” said Jessner. “I think even a lot of people who are against the death penalty in general would recognize that in this particular instance, where people are committing murder repeatedly from behind bars, there is little other option.”
Prosecutor Jessner was used to handling murder cases. It was part of his job. Yet he was struck by dismay when he considered the total indifference with which these men killed again and again. The slaughter of other human beings meant so little to them that they called it “taking care of business.” Which meant they thought of murder the same way anyone else thought of buying a pack of gum at the local 7-11 or a coffee-of-the-day at Starbuck’s. Murder was nothing more than a normal, everyday activity of life.
So Prosecutor Jessner decided to pursue these men using RICO. RICO would be the arrow he drew from his quiver. RICO stood for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was a federal law for going after criminal organizations. RICO came into being in 1970. G. Robert Blakely was the author of the RICO Act. He named it after the character in the movie Little Caesar, whose name was Rico. Edward G. Robinson played Rico in the movie. And Robinson was one of Blakely’s favorite movie stars.
Under the RICO Act anyone guilty of two or more of 35 stipulated crimes could be tried as a racketeer. The penalties imposed by the RICO act were severe. Thus between the death penalty on the one hand, and the RICO Act on the other hand, Prosecutor Jessner hoped to write “the end” on the murderous activities of these 40 super-criminals.
“I suspect they kill more than the Mafia,” said Prosecutor Jessner. “They kill more than any single drug trafficker. There are a lot of gang-related deaths on the streets, but they are usually more disorganized and random.” Pausing, he thought about what he had just said. “I think they may be the most murderous criminal organization in the United States.”
When Prosecutor Jessner used the word “they” he meant the Aryan Brotherhood. The most violently ruthless gang in the world, the Aryan Brotherhood came to bloody birth in San Quentin Prison in 1964. The prison population of San Quentin – called the “Q” – began choosing sides based on skin color. Blacks only socialized with other blacks. Hispanics refused to speak with anyone who wasn’t Hispanic. To protect themselves against the blacks and Hispanics, a few outlaw bikers – who were white – doing time in the “Q” formed their own clique. Back then the cliques weren’t called gangs. Instead they were called “tips.”
The black tip was called the Black Guerilla Family, and had ties to the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam. Mexican Mafia or La Eme was the name the Hispanics chose. The white boys called their tip the Diamond Tooth Gang, which referred to their teeth. To add an aura of fear and terror to their persons, the white guys glued bits of broken glass to their teeth. When they smiled, the sunlight glittered off the glass in their teeth. It looked as if they had diamonds in their teeth.[1]
For some reason, after a while they changed the name from the Diamond Tooth Gang to the Blue Bird Gang. No one seems to know exactly why. Whatever the origin of the name, the Blue Bird Gang began to attract other white members at the “Q.” Soon this gang of “white warriors”, as they called themselves, dropped the Blue Bird name and designated themselves the Aryan Brotherhood – a direct reference to their skin color.
The Aryan Brotherhood recruited only the biggest, the baddest and the toughest white inmates. It was an exclusive order of white warriors. Their motto was “blood in, blood out.” This meant that each potential member had to “make his bones” before he became a full-fledged member. “Making one’s bones” meant spilling blood in hand-to-hand combat. Either the blood of another prisoner from a rival gang, or the blood of one of the guards. It didn’t matter which, but blood had to be spilled.
Once accepted, the member was branded with a tattoo. The idea of the “branding” was taken from the Louis L’Amour western novel of the same name – The Brand. It was a very popular novel among white inmates.
Usually the brand or tattoo was that of a green shamrock or 666, which was the mark of the beast in the last book of the Bible, or the letters AB. Whichever brand it was it meant that person was owned by the Aryan Brotherhood. This was why the Aryan Brotherhood was sometimes called “the brand” or “the rock,” because all its members were literally branded. The term “the rock” referred to the shamrock brand[2] that many members wore on their white skin.
Each new member of the Aryan Brotherhood had to take the pledge:
“An Aryan brother is without a care,
He walks where the weak and heartless won’t dare,
And if by chance he should stumble and lose control,
His brothers will be there, to help reach his goal,
For a worthy brother, no need is too great,
He need not but ask, fulfillment’s in his fate.
For an Aryan brother, death holds no fear,
Vengeance will be his, through his brothers still here.”
Although the author couldn’t confirm it, this pledge appeared to be similar to religious vows taken by Japan’s kamikaze pilots in World War II, and the Thugs of India, who murdered and robbed in the name of Kali, a god of destruction.
In the beginning, each member of the Aryan Brotherhood had a vote in all things, in every decision. So if some snitch was to be murdered, or a defector was to be killed as an example to what happened to such traitors, everyone voted and the majority ruled. But the democracy didn’t last long, because the Aryan Brotherhood was growing like a cancer. Within a few years, it had members in all of California’s prisons and many of the federal prisons in the United States. Older members realized that it was time for a change.
A three-man commission was set up. The commission functioned as a blasphemous Father, Son and Holy Spirit of violence, murder and death. Commissioners made the big, strategic decisions for the Brotherhood. Under them were councils, which had five to seven members. The councils ran the day-to-day operations of the gang. They could even order hits and contract murders, if necessary. Each prison system had its own council. For example, all the prisons in the state of California were governed by one five-man council. Texas had a council; Arizona had a council and so on.
Barry Mills, aka The Baron and Tyler Bingham sat on the Commission of the Aryan Brotherhood. The third commissioner was Thomas Silverstein, who was sometimes called “Terrible Tom.” More about him later.
These three men were the shot callers, the Terrible Triumvirate of the Aryan Brotherhood. They decided who would live and who would die. Who would run drugs, who would rob banks, who would extort money, who would do their evil bidding. Their power was absolute. Anyone who stood in the way was killed. The long arm of the Aryan Brotherhood reached anywhere and everywhere.
[1] A number of gangsta’ rappers later adopted this ‘jailhouse’ dental fashion. The rappers put real diamonds in their teeth. And the current trend of wearing baggy pants real-low on the buttocks – called ‘sagging’ – also began in prison and carried over into popular culture.
[2] This shamrock brand was taken from the Arabian ‘shamrakh’, which symbolized the Persian Triad. Triads, unlike ‘trinities’ which are three-in-one, have three distinct members. In this case, Heaven-Man-Earth, that is the divine, the human and the natural, with man the mediator between the celestial and the terrestrial. The human mediators are ‘white-warriors.’ The shamrock is the mark of the white warrior and symbolizes the sunwheel or the black sun. According to Michael Thompson, an AB member who defected, the shamrock brand refers to the AB’s anitpathy toward the Christian concept of the Trinity as presented by St. Patrick in Ireland.
From Poisoning to Poison Pen: The Josacine Affair
by Anthony Davis (June 1, 2009)

____________________
Saturday, June 11, 1994 was to have been a foretaste of the summer vacation for the children of Gruchet-le-Valasse, a small town (pop. 2,700) in Normandy. Their school was organizing its traditional end-of-term fete and 9-year-old Emilie Tanay was spending the weekend at the house of one of her classmates, Jérome Tocqueville.
Emilie was an only child. Her parents, Denis and Corinne Tanay, had been invited to a christening but, not wishing to deprive their daughter of the pleasure of dressing up for the fete, they gladly accepted the Tocquevilles’ offer to look after her. It was to be the first time she had ever spent the night away from her parents.
Emilie had been suffering from a cold for a couple of days and her mother sent her to the Tocquevilles with a bottle of Josacine ready prepared , but she was not going to let a mere cold spoil her fun. Dressed like the other merry-makers, both young and old, in medieval costume, she spent a happy afternoon with her schoolmates.
On returning to her friend’s home that evening she felt unwell and Jérome’s mother, Sylvie Tocqueville, gave her a spoonful of the prescription medicine. Emilie pulled a face on taking the dose and rinsed out her mouth with water to get rid of the unusually horrid taste.
Within minutes Emilie collapsed. The Tocquevilles immediately summoned medical help. Although she was rushed to hospital, she died at 10:30 p.m. the same evening. The doctors were unable to determine the cause of death.
The autopsy revealed that Emilie had died from a lethal dose of sodium cyanide. What had previously been thought a tragic accident now turned into a murder hunt. Within days, the whole of France would know her name.
Suspicion was directed at the bottle of Josacine. A male nurse, Denis Lecointre (a friend of the Tanays) who had arrived soon after the emergency call, had noticed immediately that the medicine had a cloudy aspect and smelled of bitter almonds.
As soon as it became apparent that the medicine was implicated it was withdrawn from sale and precautionary messages were broadcast on television and radio news bulletins. A warning communiqué from the Bellon pharmaceutical company was broadcast June 15 during the 8 o’clock news on TV channel France 2. A little girl had died from poisoning after having taken a dose of one of its products, the antibiotic Josacine. The implication was that by accident or the action of some nut a batch of Josacine had been contaminated. (Josacine is a children’s medicament for the treatment of specific bacterial infections. It is presented in the form of a yellow powder which, when added to water and shaken until dissolved, produces the liquid by which it can be most readily administered. It is only available on prescription.)
Josacine was the most popular children’s antibiotic medicine in France and a great many families were affected. All over France anxious parents were washing bottles of Josacine down their sinks.
Rumors and Suspicions
Rumors quickly spread: it was said that a second girl had died after taking Josacine and that a blackmailer was trying to extort money from the manufacturers by claiming he had poisoned a batch (though both rumors later proved false). In order to ward off general panic swift action had to be taken.
An enquiry was set up which soon cleared the Bellon laboratory of any implication in the tragedy. Cyanide is not used at any point in the manufacture of Josacine. The analyses carried out showed clearly that no contamination could have occurred during production or transport and that the poison had been introduced into a single bottle, Emilie’s.
Less than four months after Emilie’s poisoning, Josacine was once again put on the market.
Cyanide
There are several types of cyanide, one of the most common being sodium cyanide. It is stocked as a white solid and is odorless in its dry state. Soluble in water, it acquires a smell of bitter almonds. It calls for handling with care as it carries the risk of serious intoxication by inhaling, ingesting or contact with the skin.
As a poison its effect is terrible: It attacks the tissues of internal organs and blocks the respiration of body cells. In the most severe cases, the victim suffers an attack of tachycardia then falls into a coma accompanied by convulsions. Death occurs within minutes.
Cyanide is used in metallurgy, photography, gold mining and the pharmaceutical industry. Regulations covering the manufacture, stocking and use of cyanide are strict. Personnel who handle the product have to undergo special training and containers must be marked with the skull and cross-bones together with the warning “Very Poisonous.” It may only be bought by approved users.
Cyanide is often used in cases of murder by poisoning.
The Parents as Suspects
The gendarmerie issued their standard statement to the press: They were considering all hypotheses and did not rule out any particular lead. In other words, they were stumped.
They would soon establish that the medicine must have been poisoned during the afternoon, as Emilie had been had been given a dose after lunch by her mother – with no after-effects – before she left home for the fete. Despite this evidence, early questioning was aimed at checking if there was any conflict between her parents or whether they had problems with their daughter.
[The gendarmerie is not a police force but a branch of the military. They therefore tend to carry out their duties in a more calculated and impassive fashion than the police and have often been criticized for their insensitive attitude during investigations and their lack of social skills when faced with the public.]
The Tanays were held for questioning for 18 hours and rather than being treated as victims they were deemed prime suspects. At no time was any consideration given to the grief they were suffering. Details of their daughter’s death were withheld and they were not even aware of the nature of the poison until, like the rest of the nation, they heard about it on the news broadcast.
They were not allowed to see Emilie until after the autopsy, by which time her internal organs had been removed and preserved for evidence and her body crudely stitched up again.
Eventually Captain Martinez, the officer heading the investigation, told reporters that there was nothing to prove that Emilie’s parents had poisoned their child. Translated, this meant that the investigation was looking elsewhere, not that the Tanays were cleared of suspicion.
Since no one else appeared to have any motive for wishing Emilie dead, the investigators thoughts turned towards the idea that the girl had not, in fact, been the intended victim. The case thus acquired a new dimension and they cast their net wider.
An Affair
![]() |
| Jean-Marc Deperrois before the trial |
After a few more days’ investigation, a man came under suspicion: Jean-Marc Deperrois, 43, a well-known character in the town: Boss of a color print works, councilman and a prominent active supporter of local clubs and charities. Following up rumors, gendarmes learned that this married man, father of two children, had for some years been having an extra-marital affair with Sylvie Tocqueville.
The Tocqueville’s house was right next to the Mairie (Town Hall) where Sylvie was the secretary, and in his capacity as councilman, Deperrois was in regular contact with her. By crossing the alley between, he would have been able to gain access to her house without having to go into the street.
Jean-Marc Deperrois was an affable, self-assured (some said arrogant) and well-respected citizen who had influential friends and contacts in high places locally. The investigators needed to make sure of their facts before involving a man of such stature.
The gendarmes started by tapping his phone and were soon rewarded. A caller named Alain phoned to express his concern about a certain substance that he had procured for Deperrois the previous month. Alain was soon traced: He was Alain Bodson and worked in the Prolabo laboratory in Paris. Records showed that sodium cyanide from batch # B062 had been supplied a month before Emilie’s death to someone in the département (county) of Seine-Maritime, in which Gruchet-le-Valasse is situated. Analysis of the poison found both in Emilie’s stomach and in the bottle of Josacine proved that it came from the same batch, #B062.
Under questioning, Deperrois at first denied everything: Acquaintance with Bodson, the phone call, possession of cyanide When he was eventually confronted with the bill for the chemical, he admitted that he had bought some for use in his factory but on learning of Emilie’s death had panicked. Fearing that possession of the poison might make him a suspect, he had thrown it in the river.
The gendarmes did not believe him and on July 27 he was charged with premeditated poisoning.
The Intended Victim
It was clear that the accused hadn’t meant to kill Emilie: He had no motive and no way of knowing that she would be given a dose of the poisoned Josacine, or even that it would be in the house. For this reason he could not be charged with first-degree murder.
So whom had he meant to kill? The obvious answer was Jean-Michel Tocqueville, husband of his lover, Sylvie. Deperrois had repeatedly asked her to leave her husband and make a new life with him, but she had refused because Jean-Michel suffered from both mental and physical health problems and she felt that he needed her support. Although Deperrois was apparently madly in love with Sylvie, for her the affair was merely a mild sexual fling.
Jean-Michel Tocqueville was a hypochondriac – he had 60 different medicines – though his heart disease was real enough, and he was having sporadic treatment for depression. A witness described him as someone who seemed to carry the world’s troubles on his shoulders. In the family home it was he who did the housework and brought up the children while his wife, a fun-loving, outgoing woman, enjoyed herself.
The most likely scenario, the police reasoned, was that Deperrois had slipped into the Tocqueville’s home from the adjacent Mairie, while everyone’s attention was concentrated on the fete, with the intention of putting cyanide in Mr. Tocqueville’s medicine but that in his haste he had contaminated the wrong bottle.
Sylvie had told Deperrois the day before that her husband was suffering from a recurrence of his heart problems and was back on his medicine. Was this the spur that led him to make the decision to act? It was highly probable that had Tocqueville died, the symptom of tachycardia would lead his doctor to believe that he had succumbed to heart failure; there would be no reason to suspect death from poisoning.
Deperrois’s possession of the cyanide since May, even though he tried to justify its industrial use, suggests he had planned the murder some time earlier and was merely awaiting an opportunity.
Further investigation revealed new incriminating evidence. When ordering the cyanide, Deperrois had persuaded Alain Bodson to record the sale under Bodson’s name. Yet there was only one customer in that area of France who had been supplied with cyanide for the whole month.
Deperrois had driven to Paris to collect the order and brought it back in the trunk of his automobile, which was not only highly dangerous but also illegal. Although he claimed he needed it to try out a new process in his printing works, the amount involved – one kilogram (2¼ pounds) – was too small to have been of practical value at industrial level. It was nevertheless sufficient to kill 500 people. It cost a mere 18€ ($25).
Specialists were called in who confirmed that the process Deperrois claimed he wished to carry out would be extremely dangerous, especially for someone with no scientific qualifications. He was not an industrial chemist by training, merely the proprietor of the firm. When asked to demonstrate the experiment he was unable to do so.
Then during enquiries a neighbor, Mrs. Madeleine, said that the afternoon of the fete she had seen Deperrois leave the Tocqueville’s house during their absence via the French-windows, which he then locked with a key. He was wearing “transparent plastic gloves like those that surgeon’s wear.” Or people who handle chemicals, perhaps?
At the time she had thought little of it, as she and her husband, a retired couple, had seen Deperrois letting himself into the house at all hours when Mr. Tocqueville was absent.
The gendarmes searched Deperrois’s house and found latex gloves matching the description given by this witness. They also checked the keys for the Tocquevilles’ French-windows and found that one was missing.
Apart from outright denial and the accusation that Alain Bodson was “a well-known liar,” the only defense Deperrois’s attorney could put forward was that the affair between his client and Sylvie Tocqueville was nowhere near as passionate as gossips alleged but merely a flirtation. Contrary to what the investigators believed, Jean-Michel Tocqueville could in no way be considered a sexual rival and Deperrois therefore had no real motive to murder him.
Surprisingly, this claim was supported when Mr. Tocqueville himself defended Deperrois, saying that although he obviously did not approve of the love affair it had been an “accident” and his wife had confessed to him immediately afterwards. He was certainly not going to let it stand in the way of their friendship.
Deperrois’s defense was also weakened by the fact that, according to his own timetable, he got rid of the evidence before the cause of Emilie’s death was known. The official autopsy report had not yet been published at that point.
But he was clearly a popular and esteemed figure in the community and those who knew him could not brook the notion that he was a common murderer. Soon a support committee was set up by Deperrois’s friends to back him, offering moral comfort, creating a fund to obtain the best legal defense for him and launching a publicity campaign to denounce this “miscarriage of justice.”
His defense attorney produced a statement from Dr. Sylvain Vue who said that he had spoken to Corinne Tanay and she had told him that she had noticed a strange odor from the bottle of Josacine. The liquid “fizzed” when shaken and had particles floating in it. Mrs. Tocqueville confirmed that she had noticed this too.
The implication was that the medicine had already been tampered with before Emilie went to stay with her friend, and that it could not have been Jean-Marc Deperrois who had done so. If this were the case it is difficult to understand why the two women still gave her a dose if they felt it was suspect. And why did Emilie not react to the dose her mother had given her before leaving home?
The investigators did not place much credence on this evidence (denied by Mrs. Tanay), considering that Emilie’s mother had been in a state of shock at the time and had not fully understood the doctor’s questions.
Deperrois’s attorney, Maitre Charles Libman, filed 11 applications for his release from custody; all were refused. When the gendarmerie finally presented witness statements for ratification as evidence, Libman immediately filed an appeal for them to be withdrawn on the grounds of false testimony; in view of the fragility of the defense case, it was necessary to discredit any potentially embarrassing elements as soon as possible
The Trial
The trial opened on May 2, 1997 at Rouen, the chief town of Normandy. A huge crowd gathered outside the courthouse and the press and television were there in force. The main witnesses were photographed and asked for comments “as if they were stars at the Cannes Film Festival,’’ noted Maitre Laurent de Caunes, attorney for Denis and Corinne Tanay
Early in the proceedings it was established that the main point of contention was the exact time when the bottle of Josacine had been tampered with. If it was before midday on June 11 then Jean-Marc Deperrois was in the clear.
Analyses proved that the poison could not have been introduced into the Josacine in the factory because, after a few hours of contamination, it would have caused a caramelizing of the powder which would change its color and consistency.
The only way Josacine mixture could be adulterated with cyanide without it changing color would be if the poison were first diluted in water and then added to the medicine.
The poison could not have been put in when Emilie’s mother prepared the mixture. The fatal solution was found to have contained a high level of zinc. This element is not a constituent of Josacine but is found in abundance in old domestic water-pipes. Tests of the water supply at the Tanay’s house showed a very low concentration and therefore it was not from their faucet that the zinc-rich water had originated.
However, samples from water in Deperrois’s factory revealed an identical percentage of zinc to that found in the poisoned bottle. There was thus a strong suspicion that the water used to dilute the cyanide was indeed from this source.
According to the gendarmes, the medicine was contaminated between 4 and 5:45 p.m. At this time, Deperrois protested, he was with a friend, the dentist Jacques Bachelet, looking at a boat he was considering buying, but he was unable either to name the boat or produce the owner as a witness.
Maitre Libman, for the defense, claimed that the case was devoid of real evidence against his client. The juge d’instruction said, to the contrary, that the investigation had been thorough and to back his claim pointed out that the case files were in a pile 1.4 meters (4 feet) thick. He was determined there should be no judicial errors as there had been recently, particularly in the Grégory Villemin murder case [see my earlier article].
The witness box proved damaging to the defense. Deperrois’s mother didn’t help his case by making such comments as “Poisoning is a woman’s crime” or “We are surrounded by chemical factories, [a gross exaggeration] any one of them could have used cyanide” and “my son threw away the cyanide in panic because he was being hounded.” In fact, Deperrois was not yet a suspect at the time he claimed he disposed of the poison.
Corinne Tanay repeated her denial that she had told Dr. Vue that the Josacine solution she prepared that day had a funny smell and an odd appearance. Furthermore, he wasn’t her regular family doctor, so why would she consult him?
A pharmaceutical expert told the jury that any odor or cloudy aspect of the medicine would only become noticeable several hours after its preparation. This would disappear again after shaking the bottle. The doctor’s evidence was thereby discredited.
Jean-Pierre Madeleine who, with his wife, had seen the accused entering the Tocqueville’s house during the afternoon, had been rankled by Maitre Libman’s frequent statements to the press hinting that he was a liar, and he would not be shifted on the time they had seen Deperrois leave, wearing latex gloves: it was 4:25 p.m. precisely.
Under cross-examination by the prosecution, Jean-Michel Tocqueville retracted his previous support of Deperrois. He now said that he believed he was the intended victim of the poison. A month before Emilie’s death, he and Deperrois had fallen out when the latter had pressed him to leave his wife. He also complained that some days as he left for work, Deperrois was waiting round the corner for the coast to be clear.
Then Maitre Libman made an error. Calling Brigitte Bachelet, the dentist’s wife, as a witness he pressured her into confessing that she was having an affair with Jean-Michel Tocqueville. There was general astonishment in court. Why had he discredited someone who could provide Deperrois with an alibi? He tried to cover up his mistake by telling the jury that this merely showed that extra-marital affairs were commonplace, but the damage was already done and he dismissed her without further questions.
A number of character witnesses, all either friends or relations of the accused, described the accused as kind, intelligent, hard-working, generous, a caring husband and father.
A psychiatrist who had interviewed him in prison gave a completely different portrait of the accused. He diagnosed him as cold and calculating; an infantile personality who hid this defect behind a facade of social geniality and professional success. He was capable not only of denying an act but of eventually convincing himself that he was completely innocent of it. He was a liar, a manipulator and a hypocrite.
Deperrois himself was shaky on the question of his affair with Sylvie Tocqueville. Like her, he claimed that sexual intercourse had taken place on only one occasion. This claim induced suppressed laughter in court: A French jury would find it hard to believe that only a single adulterous encounter had occurred during a two-year romance.
None of this was proof positive of Deperrois’s guilt. As he himself said, after admitting having told some lies: “Being a liar doesn’t make me a murderer.” However, considering the weakness of his defense, the jury felt that suspicion weighed too heavily upon him to believe in his innocence. A unanimous verdict of guilty was returned and he was condemned to 20 years’ imprisonment.
On the pronouncement of the sentence, friends and supporters of the accused let loose their anger. The judge had the court cleared and their frustration was turned against the victim’s parents. The Tanays had to leave the courthouse under the protection of their and Bellon’s attorneys, assailed by threats and insults. The gendarmerie were nowhere to be seen.
Provincialism at Its Worst
One thing had been missing from this case: a confession. In French justice a confession is of paramount importance, an inheritance from the country’s Roman Catholic tradition. In English-speaking countries a decision for or against the prime suspect is based upon the weight of the evidence alone, but in France the investigators’ main task is to gather enough evidence in order to make the accused crack. In the eyes of the public, therefore, no confession equals no guilt.
From this point, it seemed that no one talked of Emilie any more. There was only one victim: Jean-Marc Deperrois. Faced with the impossibility of accepting their friend’s guilt, his supporters subliminally transferred their pent-up resentment against those who had suffered an even worse fate. The Tanays’ was a heavier sentence: a lifetime without their beloved daughter, and with no chance of remission or appeal.
Two opposing clans formed: the vast majority, mostly citizens of Gruchet-le-Valasse, supported the convicted man; only a minority of close friends remained faithful to Denis and Corinne Tanay. The couple did not live in the town but in a nearby village Saint-Jean-de-la-Neuville. Corinne wasn’t even from Normandy, but had grown up in Brittany, a region of France where the inhabitants consider themselves unique (as indeed do the Normans themselves.) They had never really been accepted in the community.
Their integration was not helped by Mrs. Tanay’s strong personality. Instead of being submissive and appreciative (as newcomers should be) she tended to be opinionated and didn’t suffer fools gladly.
In order to cope with the grief of losing her daughter, Corinne Tanay had turned to Buddhism to find some sort of inner tranquility. At Emilie’s funeral she wore white, a gesture that shocked the reactionary locals ever ready to find fault in others, especially outsiders.
The Deperrois camp considered him, and by association themselves, as the victims of legal injustice. In the battle between the two injured parties, they subconsciously turned against those whom they perceived as setting themselves up as surrogate victims. The Tanays became their legitimate prey.
Insults in the street, muttered threats, anonymous telephone calls, threats to kill their four-year-old son Maxime (born after Emilie’s death), became a part of their daily life. Local shopkeepers would no longer serve them. In an attempt to move out of the area they tried to rent a house in a distant village but the real estate agent, a friend of Deperrois, refused to let it to them.
Malicious rumors were started: Corinne Tanay had AIDS . . . the couple was filing for divorce. . . In the year 2000, when they tried to enroll Maxime at the local school, the principal refused to accept him.
In the local newspapers, Anne-Marie Deperrois became a symbol for the suffering woman, not because her husband was an adulterer but because he had been unjustifiably imprisoned.
She published a book Erreur sur le Coupable (‘They Got the Wrong Man’) and the support committee organized petitions (getting the backing of several well-known figures including TV personalities, singers and sportsmen) and raised 250,000 francs ($50,000) for their fund. They published regular bulletins on her husband’s supposed deteriorating physical and mental health in prison.
The popular press, who in general had favored Deperrois’s innocence, now profited from the controversy over the guilty verdict and fed on the local resentment and national surprise. They talked of “judicial error,” called for a re-trial, anything to keep the story live.
Rumors began to circulate that the real murderer was Maurice Tanay, Denis’s father (by now dead); but how would he procure the cyanide, and how would he know the Tocqueville’s house would be unoccupied at the time the Josacine was allegedly poisoned? Or perhaps it was the Tanay’s friend, Denis Lecointre; but, if he were the poisoner, why would he take the bottle of Josacine to the hospital to be examined?
Deperrois appealed against his conviction but on October 27, 1998 his appeal was turned down. (In 2001, this time with a new attorney, he would apply for the case to be retried but with the same result.)
The hatred and harassment became so intense that eventually, in 2001, Denis and Corinne were forced to leave the area and start a new life in the anonymity of a large city, Le Havre, where they could be free of these constant reminders of their tragedy. In vain. On September 19 – Saint Emilie’s Day – they received two anonymous letters. The first read:
“Living shits, parasites, bitch, filthy whore. I know where to find you. I’ll never leave you in peace. Your place is underground, not in the cemetery but in a cesspool with the rats.”
The second:
“You vermin, your harlot of a daughter has been dead since 1994, the maggots will have gobbled her up by now. If you continue pissing-off honest folk, Maxime will die like a beast.”
Soon afterwards the poison pen letters ceased. Working on the theory that the writer must have been very familiar with the case, probably a relative or close friend of Deperrois, the gendarmes discovered the author’s identity. No action was ever taken against the offender and I am barred by the laws of libel from revealing her name.
In an attempt to come to terms with all the pressure, Corinne Tanay has written two books. One, Lettre à Emilie (Letter to Emilie) [Grasset, 1998], a touching address to her daughter, telling her the intimate secrets she would like to have shared with her had she lived.
The second, Le Châtiment des Victimes (The Punishment of Victims) [Bayard, 2001], is a reflection on the status of victim, comparing and contrasting her experience with that of Deperrois. She also founded a group called l’Association d’Aide aux Parents d’Enfants Victimes (Aid Society for Parents whose Children are Victims).
Postscript
Jean-Marc Deperrois made further applications for a retrial (all rejected) and was eventually granted a conditional release on June 7, 2006 after spending 12 years in jail. He is still married and living at Gruchet-le-Valasse.
This was not a case of legal injustice. In the opinion of the trial jury and of the judges that considered his appeal and applications for retrial, the evidence against Jean-Marc Deperrois justified his conviction. He continues to claim his innocence and at no time has he expressed any remorse.
No, this is a case of social injustice, the hounding of a couple who were unfortunate enough to have lost their only child as the result of a bizarre and tragic coincidence. This is a case which illustrates how the true victims are often isolated, left to cope alone in their suffering, unprotected from the attacks of those blinded by false loyalty to friends; a case of locals sticking together against outsiders; another bitter reminder of how rural life is beset with rivalries, petty jealousies and the settling of old scores.
Parents who lose their children warrant compassion. As Corinne Tanay says in her book Le Châtiment des Victimes, “When you’ve lost a child nothing seems worth doing any more: sleeping, waking, washing, eating, working . . . the victim is always alone.” Yet the Gendarmerie treated them callously, the gutter press suggested – without a shred of evidence – that they were accidentally (or carelessly) responsible for the contamination of the medicine and the local people behaved abominably
The victim is always alone. The guilty receive close attention in prison: doctors, psychiatrists, nutritionists, social workers, teachers all ensure that they are not lacking basic human needs – and quite rightly so. A nation cannot deem itself civilized if it treats any group of its citizens worse than others. But who looks after the victims? Who provides them with succor, advice, financial aid?
For most of us, the affair has dimmed into the past. For Corinne and Denis Tanay it will always be with them.
____________________

During Richard Nixon’s presidency, Jack Anderson was America’s premier investigative journalist—and Nixon’s most despised. In the most chilling crime contemplated by the President’s men, Anderson was targeted for assassination.
A strict moralist, Anderson’s stated lifetime goal was to keep government honest. A devout Mormon, he viewed his reportorial undertaking as a noble summons from the Almighty.
Former Anderson legman Howard Kurtz recalls that Anderson was gentle, patient and avuncular “with the young and ambitious wannabes who rotated through his small office.” He adds that Anderson’s “ability to persuade people at the highest level of government to share secrets with him was uncanny, especially in an era when most journalists were deferential toward the nation’s leaders and when top political columnists had cozy relationships with the high and mighty.”
Anderson was the last of the old-time muckrakers and, according to his biographer, Mark Feldstein, “an important transitional figure in the evolution of adversarial journalism …” Feldstein conceded, however, that Anderson would sometimes stoop fairly low to get a good story: “He swiped secret documents, used bugging equipment to eavesdrop on conversations, and jubilantly savaged his enemies, unconcerned with such journalistic niceties as fairness and balance,” the author pointed out in a 2004 interview with The Washington Post.
By 1972, Anderson had won both a Pulitzer Prize and the highest perch on Nixon’s notorious enemies list. To please or appease their Anderson-phobic boss—or possibly to follow his orders—at least two of Nixon’s presidential henchmen and a CIA doctor actually conspired to bump off the boss’s most hated nemesis.
A bombastic self-promoter as well as an old-fashioned shoe-leather newspaperman of unquestioned accuracy, Anderson had branched out from a nationally syndicated column, “Washington Merry-Go-Round,” (read by some 45 million people) into TV, radio, magazines and the lucrative lecture circuit.
His exclusives—running into the hundreds—included several that sent the volcanic Nixon up the Oval Office wall: A secret U.S. tilt away from India toward Pakistan; the CIA’s clandestine use of the Mob in numerous efforts to murder Cuban leader Fidel Castro (A plot secretly run by Nixon as vice president); and an under-the-table link between a Nixon administration decision to drop a government antitrust suit against ITT and a $400,000 ITT pledge to underwrite the 1972 Republican convention.
After the ITT column ran, an incensed President asked No. 1 aide Bob Haldeman why he could not find someone to rifle Anderson’s files. This, undoubtedly, would have required a break-in at Anderson’s office.
Nixon-Burgers
President Nixon had an even bigger, older reason to hate Jack Anderson. He blamed the intrepid journalist, in part, for keeping him from winning his first White House bid.
As the 1960 election neared, Anderson and his patron, tutor and partner, Drew Pearson (who died in 1969, leaving the column to Anderson), disclosed that, in 1956, Vice President Nixon’s unscrupulous brother Donald had received a $205,000 “loan” from Dick’s longtime Sugar Daddy, billionaire businessman Howard Hughes. Soon after the Hughes money reached Donald, the IRS—reversing a prior ruling—granted tax-exempt status to Hughes’s shady “medical institute.”
Described by Nixon aide John Ehrlichman as a “florid, peach-shaped fellow given to wearing white sports jackets and colorful neckties,” Donald Nixon had always been a potential embarrassment to his brother. “Don talked loudly, extravagantly and incessantly, so the Nixon campaigns always discouraged his participation,” Ehrlichman wryly observed in his book, Witness to Power.
At first, Nixon denied the Hughes loan story; but he was later forced to admit that the billionaire’s bucks had indeed enriched his brother. That is until Don blew the money on a pipe dream—a California chain of “Nixon-Burger” drive-in restaurants that quickly folded.
Richard Nixon was convinced that this particular Pearson-Anderson “Washington Merry-Go-Round” dispatch had contributed mightily to his razor-thin presidential loss to Sen. John F. Kennedy.
Illustrative of Nixon’s enmity toward Anderson and Pearson was the reaction of Ehrichman, a senior 1968 Nixon campaign aide, when he learned that the two reporters would be staying at Nixon’s Miami Beach hotel during the Republican convention: “‘No! Of all the reporters in the world, not those two!’ I yelled. Nixon would have a stroke on the very eve of his nomination; they were his deadliest (author’s emphasis) foes.”
Ehrlichman pressured the mobbed-up Teamsters Union—which held the mortgage on the hotel—and, as a result, Anderson and Pearson had to stay elsewhere.
As President, Nixon was so frightened of the mischief his “poor, dumb, damn brother” Donald might blunder into—and that Jack Anderson might expose—that he bugged Don’s phones and put a full-time Secret Service tail on him.
CIA and FBI Surveillance
Meantime, the Central Intelligence Agency was keeping a close eye on almost all of Anderson’s activities. It was also conducting “personal surveillances” of Jack’s legmen, Brit Hume and Les Whitten.
In addition, Anderson was being watched and followed by agents of the FBI, whose director, Nixon crony J. Edgar Hoover, privately called the columnist a “jackal” with a mind that is “lower than the regurgitated filth of vultures.” When Hoover dispatched agents to stake out Anderson’s house, the columnist sent several of his nine children outside to have some fun: take their pictures and let the air out of their tires.
Hoover volunteered the FBI’s files on Anderson to the White House, where counsel John Dean found them of absolutely no value to Anderson-loathers on the premises. Sadly for them, Hoover’s Anderson files turned out to be mainly old newspaper and magazine clippings.
Next, the White House secretly probed Anderson’s alleged participation in a questionable Maryland land deal. The President’s men came up empty. They got the same result when they tried to pin down a tip about possible shady dealings by Anderson’s brother.
Dean says Nixon had full knowledge of all of the anti-Anderson maneuverings: “Colson was reporting to the President on his efforts.”
The eventual star witness for Watergate investigators, Dean and his accusations against the President and his co-conspirators have stood the test of time. When Nixon’s secret tape recordings were later made released, Dean’s photographic memory of events was totally confirmed. Though he was convicted of multiple felonies, the former White House counsel served only four months in a special U.S. Marshals “safe house” near Baltimore in return for his cooperation with prosecutors. He is now an investment banker, lecturer, and outspoken critic of the Iraq war.
Jack Anderson fought the administration’s efforts to discredit him. He publicly charged that Colson had started a false rumor that the reporter had accepted $100,000 to write articles favorable to former Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. And he had one of his legman do an FBI-style ransacking of J. Edgar Hoover’s garbage. A search of Hoover’s refuse, however, yielded nothing of consequence—just many empty cartons of a popular anti-acid, indicating the FBI director suffered from gas pains.
The Plot to Assassinate Anderson
In this ugly atmosphere, the White House started plotting Anderson’s slaying—one scoop Anderson was not able to break himself. That juicy story was unearthed by Watergate ace Bob Woodward. In a September 21, 1975 Washington Post piece, Woodward reported that an unnamed top White House aide gave Nixon’s chief spy E. Howard Hunt “the order to kill Anderson.”
The plan allegedly involved the use of poison—one that could not be detected during an autopsy—obtained from a CIA physician. Woodward wrote that the assassination order came from a “senior official in the Nixon White House,” and that it was “canceled at the last minute . . .” He added that former Watergate investigators were surprised “that such a plan could have been kept secret for so long.” Hunt’s former White House supervisor, Colson, claimed he’d never heard of the aborted Anderson assassination plan, Woodward elaborated.
Like Colson, E. Howard Hunt was a Brown University grad. He was a handsome, literate (he had written scores of spy novels under an assumed name, and had ghost-written the autobiography of former CIA Director Allen Dulles), gun toting, take-no-prisoners, retired spook who had worked years earlier with Vice President Nixon on the planned CIA-Mafia murder of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. A master of deception and disinformation, Hunt was also a close friend of CIA Director Richard Helms. As a Nixon aide, Hunt got the CIA to supply him with “Mission Impossible”-like disguises—such as a red wig, a voice-altering device, and a gait-changing appliance for one of his legs.
A CIA memo, which came to light in the 1970s, placed Hunt in Dallas the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In the mid-‘80s, Hunt lost a lawsuit he brought against a newsletter for implicating him the JFK assassination.
On his deathbed early in this century, Hunt confessed that he knew of plans by rogue CIA agents to assassinate Kennedy, but claimed he decided against becoming a conspirator. Hunt’s son—St. John Hunt—recently disclosed that his mother told him his dad was in Dallas “on business” on November 22, 1963.
Hunt never publicly acknowledged that Nixon White House anti-Jack Anderson efforts included murder. However, in an affidavit about a key meeting with Colson related to “dirty tricks” against Anderson, Hunt did say, “Colson seemed more than usually agitated, and I formed the impression that he had just come from a meeting with President Nixon.”
The President’s Hit Man
Colson was known around the White House as “the Assassin.” Nixon’s top assistant, Bob Haldeman, actually described him as the President’s “hit man.”
A hard-drinking, beefy, tough-talking ex-Marine captain, Colson lived by the motto on a sign above his bar in his den at home: “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” He spent much time revving-up Nixon’s cruelest instincts. And Nixon did the same with Colson.
Even in the immediate wake of the Watergate break-in, Nixon and Colson had the abominable Anderson on their minds. In a June 20, 1972 conversation, the two men sought to minimize the seriousness of Watergate by comparing it to Anderson’s award-winning story that the Nixon administration secretly tilted toward Pakistan in its war with India.
Colson: “They gave Anderson a Pulitzer Prize. In other words, stealing documents (unintelligible) for (unintelligible).
President: Belonging to the government, top secret, shit … did any of these people (who are criticizing the Watergate burglary) squeal about (Anderson’s actions) then?
Colson: Yeah, isn’t that true?
President: That’s my point. Did (Sen. George) McGovern, did the (New York) Times, did the (Washington) Post squeal about that then? Now here was an attempted theft that failed, against a political party, not against the government of the United States. They give Pulitzer Prizes for publishing stolen documents.
The Hay-Adams Hotel Plotters: G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt
It was in this same conversation, incidentally, that the President first indicated, at least on tape, that he had known in advance of the break-in—telling Colson: “It doesn’t sound like a, a skillful job. (Unintelligible.) If we didn’t know better, (we) would have thought it was deliberately botched.”
G. Gordon Liddy—an articulate ex-FBI agent and defeated GOP congressional hopeful from upstate New York—was considered by some of his Nixon cohorts to be a wacky loose cannon. He was a fan of Nazi propaganda films, a strong believer in racial purity, and often packed heat—an expensive German pistol with a silencer. In May of 1972 – only weeks before the first Watergate break-in when the listening bugs were originally planted – Liddy used that gun to shoot out several streetlights during an aborted pre-Watergate break-in at the Washington headquarters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. George McGovern.
When Jeb Magruder, head of the Committee to Re-Elect the President, had an up close and personal run-in with the volatile Liddy, Liddy threatened: “Get your hand off me or I’ll kill you.” Magruder recalled. But when Magruder recommended that Liddy be fired, the White House vetoed the idea. Nixon aide Gordon Strachan responded: “He may be a Hitler, but at least he’s our Hitler.” Nixon himself loved Liddy’s loyalty, once enthusing: “He hates the other side.”
In his 1980 book Will, Liddy said that he and Hunt were assigned the White House task of “stopping” Anderson: “We examined all the alternatives and very quickly came to the conclusion the only way you’re going to be able to stop him is to kill him . . . And that was the recommendation.” As Liddy succinctly told Anderson in person on a subsequent TV talk show: “The rationale was to come up with a method of silencing you through killing you.”
Liddy said he and Hunt originally planned to poison Anderson with LSD (known more for creating colorful hallucinations than for its lethality). A CIA doctor—Edward Gunn, an expert on poisons and their antidotes—sat in on the final rubout talks.
Those occurred in March 1972 over lunch at the swank Hay-Adams Hotel, a block from the White House. The conspirators were convinced Anderson had crossed an unforgivable line by blowing the cover of a CIA spy—an accusation that was never proved.
Liddy later admitted that the group had considered playing “aspirin roulette” with Anderson—“in which one takes a single tablet of a deadly poison, packs it in a Bayer aspirin jar, (then) we place it in the man’s medicine chest, and one day he gets that tablet and that’s that.”
When poisoning and a fake car crash were dismissed as impractical, the Hay-Adams group settled on making Anderson’s killing look like an accidental part of a random sidewalk robbery. Liddy said he handed Dr. Gunn a $100 bill (from Nixon’s re-election committee’s intelligence fund) for the physician’s consultative services.
After the CIA doctor left, Liddy suggested to Hunt that the Miami Cubans already recruited as leak-plugging “plumbers” (and future Watergate burglars) be assigned to kill Anderson. Liddy said Hunt had bragged to him that members of this Hunt-mentored group “had been involved in organized crime and who had, among them, killed … 22 men, including two who were hanged from a beam in a garage.”
The Cubans idolized Hunt, whom they still referred to as “Eduardo,” his CIA code name during secret CIA plots against Castro and his Communist regime, including the catastrophic Bay of Pigs invasion, in the early ‘60s. When Hunt mentioned that his Nixon White House “principal” (assumed by Liddy to be Colson) might object to using the plumbers to murder Anderson, Liddy volunteered: “If necessary, I’ll do it.”
The Anderson assassination scheme was eventually shelved (by Nixon and Colson, according to Liddy), but the columnist went to his grave in 2005 (after a long battle with Parkinson’s) concurring with Liddy’s take that “Richard Nixon wanted me dead.”
Nixon as Thug-in-Chief
Was Nixon capable of ordering a Mafia-style hit on an enemy? The answer is yes. And here are a few examples:
· • As already mentioned, as vice president, he ran CIA-Mafia murder plots against Cuban leader Fidel Castro (Attorney General Robert Kennedy later supervised these “black” operations); and he sanctioned the slaying of Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis—telling an aide, “If it turns out we have to kill the bastard, just don’t do it on American soil.”
· • As president, Nixon gave the green light to the assassination of Chilean President Salvador Allende.
· • His corrupt vice president, Spiro Agnew, feared Nixon would have him bumped off if he didn’t resign over a bribery scandal.
· • Nixon once cabled a thinly veiled death threat to South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu.
· • Nixon loyalist J. Edgar Hoover seldom criticized the President. But in 1972, the FBI chief told a friendly reporter (Andrew Tully, who wrote a syndicated column called “Capital File”), on the condition his remarks would not be published until after his death, that some of Nixon’s aides “don’t know a goddamned thing about due process of law. They think they can get away with murder.”
· • Washington Post Watergate sleuth Bob Woodward, who—with fellow reporter Carl Bernstein—was exposing Watergate crimes left and right, was warned by his secret FBI source, Mark Felt (a.k.a. “Deep Throat”) that “your lives are in danger.”
· • Nixon and his top aide, Bob Haldeman, once discussed enlisting Teamsters thugs (“murderers,” Haldeman called them; “guys who will knock their heads off,” Nixon exulted) to assault a group of anti-war demonstrators.
George Washington University Professor Mark Feldstein, an expert on Anderson, explains why the LSD and poison ideas were discarded: “The trouble was as a Mormon and a teetotaler, (Anderson) didn’t drink alcohol, so that was out. So then they talked about making him crash in an automobile accident, but they would have had to go to the CIA and use a special car for that.”
In Liddy’s memory: “We discussed Dr. Gunn’s suggestion, which was the use of an automobile to hit Mr. Anderson’s automobile when it was in a turn in the circle up near Chevy Chase. There is a way that has apparently been known by the Central Intelligence Agency that if you hit a car at just the right speed and angle, it will flip and burn and kill the occupant.”
In the end, G. Gordon Liddy said he’d carry out Anderson’s assassination himself by “knifing him, slitting his throat, and staging it as a mugging that would look like a Washington street crime.”
Post-Scripts
Who knows what bizarre turn a revived Anderson assassination plot might have taken next, if Liddy and Hunt had not been put out of business—and eventually behind bars—for their leadership of a botched but non-fatal Watergate break-in crime in June of 1972, a black bag job the White House played down as “third-rate burglary attempt.”
That break-in—at the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office building—and its subsequent cover-up forced Richard Nixon to quit the presidency in disgrace in August of 1974 in order to avoid being thrown out of office. When he resigned, all but a few members of his own party had deserted him, and his public approval ratings were only in the teens—far lower than those of the recently unpopular George W. Bush. Only a hasty pardon from his hand picked presidential successor and close personal friend, Gerald Ford, prevented a criminal trial of, and probable jail sentence for, Nixon.
Hunt died several years ago. But Liddy and Colson are still around. Liddy, known in the talk radio trade as the “G-Man,” hosts a syndicated right-wing blab fest on about 150 stations. He served the longest prison sentence of any Watergate criminal—52 months—for refusing to cooperate with prosecutors. He takes pride in the fact he never “snitched.”
Colson became a born-again Christian about the same time he pled guilty to the Watergate crime of defaming anti-war leader Daniel Ellsburg. He was sentenced to one to three years in prison, but was let out after seven months because of a family emergency.
Nixon’s hit man now runs a big ministry for ex-convicts and crime victims. Colson has apparently never wavered from his initial contention that he was out of the loop in the squalid conspiracy to slit the throat of the President’s perceived chief villain.
Of course, Nixon and Colson—if they were indeed the puppet masters in the canceled plot—could have used the same excuse as Liddy. As the G-Man explained to Anderson during their first meeting, on ABC’s “Good Morning America” in 1980: “Murder is a technical term. You call it murder because you think it unjustified. I would say it was justifiable homicide, given the truth of the situation.”
In his post-resignation years, Nixon was never quizzed about the planned hit on Anderson. If he had been, perhaps his answer would have been similar to the one he gave in his famous $1 million 1977 TV interview with David Frost. Seeking to justify his alleged violations of constitutional rights, Nixon told to his British interrogator: “If the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
Aside from those cited, sources include: Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, “Jack Anderson, Gentleman with a Rake,” Dec. 18, 2005; President Nixon, Richard Reeves; Witness to Power, John Ehrlichman; Blind Ambition, John Dean; USA Today; The New York Times; Associated Press; The Virgin Island Daily News; Anderson’s recollections from a George Washington University oral history project; Nightmare, Anthony Lukas; The Arrogance of Power, Anthony Summers; Mark Feldstein, NPR interview on “All Thing’s Considered,” Aug. 3, 2004; Plausible Denial, Mark Lane; and “The Real Story,” CNBC, June 13, 1991; Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia.
This page visited since 06/15/2009
Murderous Mothers
Infanticide is a crime no one living in France can commit; it is a crime that does not exist. Page through the French Penal Code and you won't even find the word. Yet, mothers killing their newborn babies is a French phenomenon. It is just that in France infanticide is called by another name.
Under Art. 221-4-1 of the French Penal Code, infanticide is qualified as the "assassination of a minor under the age of 15." It is "assassination" and not "homicide," because French law makes a distinction between slaying someone in a burst of sudden anger, like a crime passionnel when a spouse kills an unfaithful partner, and a premeditated taking of life. When there has been no medical supervision during pregnancy, no preparation for the confinement, and the pregnancy was concealed from everyone, even from the father of the child, then, French law declares the slaying as "premeditated." Thus, the crime becomes an "assassination," or, as it would be called in the United States, "first-degree murder." Until France abolished the death sentence in 1977, as a rule, punishment for first-degree murder was death on the guillotine; that of second-degree murder was life imprisonment, perp�te in French underworld slang, though it, too, could have fetched a sentence of capital punishment.
There are, according to legal statistics, between 60 and 100 suspected infanticide cases in France annually. Most of these cases come to light when suspicious hospital staff members draw the police's attention to a patient with gynecology problems that indicate she'd recently given birth despite her denials. For various reasons�cost of an investigation being a major one�the hospital's suspicions do not proceed beyond becoming a statistic in police archives, but, since September 2007, the month this article was first published on crimemagazine.com eleven infanticide cases warranted further investigation and resulted in indictment.
So many cases in such a short period emphasize exactly how real a problem infanticide is in France.
The first 5 of the 11 cases
The first of the eleven cases came to light in July 2006. As it was summer with millions of French on their annual vacation, first reports of the case went almost unnoticed. If it did draw attention then it was only because some "foreigners" were accusing two respectable and respected French nationals of having twice committed infanticide. The "foreigners" were the South Koreans and the alleged infanticides had taken place in Seoul, the South Korean capital. It was there where the two French nationals�V�ronique Courjault, 40, and her 41-year-old engineer husband, Jean-Louis�lived and worked. Back in France on home-leave, they were shown on television, looking bewildered as they were being rushed into a police station house. Within hours the presses were rolling to churn out the next day's headlines. The "Babes in the Freezer Case" had begun.
V�ronique and Jean-Louis hail from the town of Chinon, on the River Vienne, 177 miles (285 kms) south of Paris. In Chinon, its population of 8,000 live in clusters of 15th and 16th-century houses with gray-slated roofs. Over the roofs tower the ruins of France's oldest fortified castle, the Chateau Chinon. Small may the town be, but it's one with historical significance; it was there that the French maiden, Joan of Arc, told the French king, Charles VII, that God had, with visions and voices, told her to tell him that he must go to war against the hated English invader, then ruling France, so that their country could once again be free.
In Chinon, the Courjault family was known as quiet and decent. The only time a member of the family had perhaps drawn attention was when Mademoiselle V�ronique Fi�vre dressed in black from head to toe to marry Jean and Genevi�ve Courjault's son Jean-Louis, in 1995. What the town's people did not know was that the bride wore black because she was five months pregnant and she hoped that a dark color would hide her rounded stomach.
V�ronique and Jean-Louis went to live in Villeneuve-la-Comtesse, a village of 700 rural souls close to France's Atlantic coast and not far from Chinon. Eighteen months after the birth of Jules, the son who had hastened their march down the aisle, the couple appeared to welcome the birth of a second son, Nicolas. Content they seemed, but Jean-Louis lost his job and, as V�ronique was a full-time housemother with no salary coming in at the end of each month, doom settled over the household. Not until 1999 when the four set off for South Korea where Jean-Louis took up a job with a Seoul-based car parts manufacturer, did more prosperous and happier days return.
At his work in Seoul, the bespectacled Jean-Louis was highly regarded. V�ronique, short, plump, dark-haired and rather plain, was known as a shy but polite member of the local French community. She worked as an auxiliary teacher at a kindergarten for the children of the ex-pats, so far from their homeland. Her colleagues said she was not only an excellent teacher, she was also a super colleague. There was also no doubt in their minds that she was an exemplary mother to her and Jean-Louis's sons, then 9 and 11 respectively.
In June 2006, the four Courjaults back in Chinon on vacation, Jean-Louis had to rush back to Seoul to resolve a crisis at his office. On July 23, back at the family's luxurious apartment, he opened the freezer and nearly fainted. Running to the apartment building's supervisor, he babbled something about the bodies of two babies being in the freezer. The supervisor followed him up to the apartment and, yes, in the freezer, wrapped in plastic bags, were the bodies of two babies. The South Korean police allowed the greatly shocked Jean-Louis to return to France, but not before he had supplied a DNA sample. They already knew that they could obtain V�ronique's DNA from a hospital where she had undergone an ablation of the uterus (this procedure makes a woman unable to bear children but without removing the womb). Both the DNA samples matched those of the two dead newborns. Autopsies would establish that the boys had weighed 7.5 lbs and 7.9 lbs (3.4 kilograms and 3.5 kilograms) respectively on birth and had been perfectly formed. Information to be given to French police by V�ronique later established that the births had taken place in 2002 and 2003.
The South Korean police, having alerted their French counterparts to the DNA results, and the case being prime-time and front-page news, the Courjaults, still free but indignant, denied that they were the parents of the two murdered newborns. Giving "South Korean media lynching" as reason, they refused to ever return to Seoul. The French public seemed as outraged at the allegations that such a nice couple could have committed such an atrocious crime. French police meanwhile carried out their own DNA tests and theirs confirmed those of the South Korean's.
Promptly arrested, V�ronique and Jean-Louis still continued to deny having killed the two newborns. They did not, they insisted, even have any knowledge of the presence of the bodies in their freezer. It took V�ronique three months to break down and confess. She said that she suffocated the babies immediately after birth. Jean-Louis, she stated, didn't know about the births; he never even knew that she was pregnant.
She had more to say.
She said that she had already killed a newborn in France before they set off for Seoul. This was in 1999, in the financially troubled time, living in Villeneuve-la Comtesse. As with the two babies in Seoul, she suffocated the baby immediately after birth. She burnt the little body. She had done so in the fireplace in the family home and buried the charred remains in the garden. Police started to dig in the garden and found the remains. Was it a boy or girl? She couldn't remember, she said.
The South Koreans wanted the Courjaults to be extradited to stand trial in Seoul. France, who hardly ever extradites one of her nationals, rejected the extradition request. "We will conduct our own investigation and should our examining magistrate find sufficient evidence to successfully bring this couple to trial, the trial will be held here," the ministry of interior told Seoul.
Duly, V�ronique was charged with the "assassination of a minor under the age of 15.� She was to spend her pre-trail detention in the prison of the town of Orl�ans. Jean-Louis was released sous contr�le judiciaire sans caution�under control order without bail�but he remained under investigation for the "non-assistance to a person in danger" which in the French Penal Code is a punishable offence; the police's investigation was to find whether he could have stopped his wife killing the babies after they'd been born. He went to live at a secret address with the couple's two sons described as "traumatized." Both the Fi�vre and Courjault families made it clear that they were supporting him � not only him but also V�ronique.
At the end of March 2009, some eight months after he was first arrested, the police announced that their investigation of Jean-Louis's role in the infanticide was over. Chief Prosecutor Philippe Varin had notified Marie-Dominique Boulard-Paolini, the judge on Jean-Louis� case, that the police had found no evidence that he had known about the killing of the babies. He had not even known that V�ronique was pregnant, said the chief prosecutor. There would therefore be no case against him.
"The decision is a great relief after an 18-month nightmare. It is a great relief to everyone, but mostly to my children (two teenage sons) who have suffered because of all of this. After all the things they've heard and read, they are happy to know that their father is innocent. I will now be able to devote all my time to support my wife, who I love," he said in a statement to the media.
V�ronique's fate was however to be decided by nine jurors chosen from the voters� list assisted by a presiding judge and two assessors (magistrates). If they found her guilty of assassination, she could be sent to prison for the rest of her life.
On Tuesday, June 9, 2009, an unseasonable cool and rainy summer�s day, V�ronique Courjault was driven in a small police car 71 miles (115 kms) to the town of Tours; her trial was to commence. The round journey of 142 miles she would have to make each day for the duration of her trial, which was expected to last two weeks. When she stepped into the courtroom dressed in blue she did not at all resemble the plump murderous mother as the French remembered her from those days in 2006 when she had first denied any knowledge of the two babies in the freezer in Seoul. She was pale and, for the first time in her life, thin. Her eyes searched for those of her husband; then, the couple exchanged a long, tender look. �I am very very tense. I am here to support the woman I love,� Jean-Louis had told journalists outside the courthouse. During her three-year pre-trail detention he had visited her every week. Often he had taken their two sons with him.
V�ronique�s defense team had requested for the trial to be held behind closed doors but, no, it would not: the �babes in the freezer case� would be reported on television screens worldwide.
The woman�s story was that she had not planned to kill the babies. Speaking in a voice hardly above a whisper, she said: �From the moment when I said that I had killed the babies it was logical to think that I had planned to kill them. But I never planned to kill them.� Asked about having lied at first claiming that she knew nothing about the dead babies, she explained that she had wanted to tell her husband before the media got hold of the story. She said: �I did not have the courage. I really wanted to tell him, but I could not. And then there was all the media interest. It was something that I just could not deal with.�
Jean-Louis would, in his evidence, tell of how he had found the little bodies in the family freezer. He had bought some mackerel fish and he wanted to freeze it. The freezer was one that had small compartments. He had opened one. �Suddenly, I saw a hand. The baby�s body was wrapped in a towel, in a bag. I did not understand a thing.�
Then, in another compartment he had found the second little body.
Asked why he had not immediately contacted his wife, he replied: �But how could I have connected her with that? V�ronique was no longer able to have children.� He told of how, after she had denied in public and in front of television cameras any knowledge of the dead babies, he had asked her whether she had given birth to those babies and had then killed them. �I asked her, �You did it?� And she replied, �Yes, I did it�,� he said.
According to the police officers who were with the couple at that moment, Jean-Louis, having heard the terrible truth from his wife, had taken her in his arms and had hugged her very hard. Both of them were in tears.
V�ronique would tell psychiatrists that she and her husband had decided after the birth of their second son that they would not be having any more children and that she consequently concealed the three subsequent pregnancies from him. And not only from him. From all in both their families. Even from a sister-in-law who was a medical doctor. �I could not feel them move inside me. As far as I was concerned they were never children. It was just part of myself, an extension of myself that I was killing,� she said.
She had also not told Jean-Louis about her very first pregnancy. She was already four months pregnant before she did so; he immediately told her that he would marry her.
But how could she hide her pregnant bump?
�V�ronique was always round and she always wore loose dresses and blouses to hide her shapelessness so when she was pregnant she looked just as she always did and there was no way that anyone could tell that she was going to have a baby. This also explains why she wore a black dress on her wedding day. She wanted to wear something loose as always, and that black dress was the only loose dress that was smart enough to get married in that she could find,� a relative explained in a television interview.
Psychiatrist called in by V�ronique�s defense team had their own explanation for why she had never been one to accept and admit pregnancy. They said that she suffered from �pregnancy denial.� It was, they claimed, not something that should be punished with incarceration; no, it should be treated because it was an illness.
Judge Georges Domergue would not hear of it. He said that V�ronique had killed her three babies because �she did not want them; she said so on her arrest.�
The chief prosecutor asked the jurors to find her guilty of premeditated murder � assassination � and of the judge he requested a 10-year imprisonment.
On Thursday, June 18, half-way through the day, the jurors withdrew to an antechamber to commence their deliberation in the presence of the judge and the two assessors who had been present throughout the trial, although by French law, they had been forbidden to take any part in the proceedings.
Late in the evening, the jurors returned. They found V�ronique guilty of assassination. She portrayed now emotion. The judge sentenced her to eight years in prison. Again she showed no emotion. Jean-Louis went to give the �good� news to his two sons by phone. �I can tell you there is great joy at home,� he told journalists. He added that he was certain that his wife would be home in �a few months� and she would be able to be �with her children again�We will be able to reconstruct our family,� he said.
He was right about his wife being home soon again; legal experts predict that as she has already done three years awaiting her trial, she will be released by the beginning of next year.
�What I had done, I had done. I will regret it all my life. I killed my children, today, I know this,� V�ronique had said at one stage of her trial.
�She is not a monster,� one of her lawyers had said of her in court.
Cases 2, 3, 4,
In November 2006, with the "Babes in the Freezer" case still primetime and front-page news, the second infanticide case came to light.
This was the case of a 39-year-old woman identified only as "a woman from Toulouse." The city of Toulouse is no backwater. Four hundred and thirty-three miles (697 kms) from Paris and only 200 miles (322 kms) from the Spanish city of Barcelona, it has a population of almost half a million, which makes it France's fourth most populous city. It was again the baby's father who discovered the body. And the little body was again hidden in the family freezer.
This infanticide was committed in 2004.
The "woman from Toulouse," already the mother of four children of whom the eldest, a daughter, was 15, found herself yet again pregnant. Although the baby's father was her long-time partner (he was the father of the other four children too) she decided that she did not want another child. The couple's relationship was falling apart and soon it ended and the partner left. He was not told of the pregnancy. Remaining an attentive father all the same, he continued to call in at the house, always carrying food parcels. Then, in November 2006, he did so again. No one was home. He had brought along meat and it needed refrigeration. Opening the freezer, he found the small, naked, frozen body of a baby. The body was in a transparent plastic bag. He summoned the police and his ex-partner, called from her work, quickly confessed to having smothered the baby, a boy, in the minutes after his birth. As she said, "I didn't want it." She was arrested, soon charged with the "assassination of a minor under the age of 15" and incarcerated. Her trial should also open towards the end of 2008. Her eldest daughter, now 18 years old, faces the charge of "non-assistance to a person in danger." She allegedly knew that her mother was pregnant and that she was going to kill the baby. Presumably, she also knew that the tiny corpse was in the freezer. She is in prison.
That November 2006, the third infanticide was also being reported. This murderous mother was named Aline Leli�vre and she was 19 years old.
It was a cold night, the people's minds already on Christmas, when Aline, in great distress, summoned police to her tiny one-roomed apartment in the town of Redon (pop.100,000) in the county of Ille-et-Vilaine of the administrative region (d�partement) of Brittany. David, her son, 14 months old, had been kidnapped. Police wondered who would want to kidnap the child of someone so obviously in dire straights; she surely had no money to hand over to kidnappers. All the same, they waited for the kidnappers to make contact and claim a ransom.
The media alerted to the kidnapping, Aline's bespectacled, pimply, tearful face appeared on television screens and on the front pages of newspapers and magazines. Some photographs showed her cuddling a chubby, smiling, blue-eyed baby David. All France cried with her. And all France was furious to hear and read that the little boy's nanny had stopped taking him in despite Aline's pleas that she would lose her job as waitress in a pizza bar if she had to take the child to work with her.
A sad story certainly, but the experienced police decided that what she was saying about David's kidnapping did not hang together. She told them that she had put the little boy to bed and that she had then gone to chuck out the garbage and to have a smoke outside on the sidewalk before returning to the apartment. Absent for only a few minutes, she had found David's bed empty on her return.
The police were right. Before long they got from Aline that she had killed her child. She confessed to having suffocated him. She had dumped the little body, wrapped in a pink sheet from his bed, in a nearby pond. How did she get to the pond in the dark? On her scooter, the little pink bundle tied to the pillar seat. The police quickly found the pink bundle. It was trapped between stones at the bottom of the pond.
Why had she killed the child? She had no explanation to give the police, only the story of her life.
She was born and grew up in F�gr�ac (pop. 2,000) 12 miles (19 kms) from Redon. Her father worked in a mattress factory there and her mother in a school canteen and the family lived in a small, white-walled house that stood at the end of a gravel lane. She, though, wanted more to her life than a dead-end gravel lane and her job cooking pancakes in a cr�perie. She wanted to go places. Aged 18, her aspirations hit a problem; she found herself pregnant, but her boyfriend, a Portuguese immigrant working as a waiter, didn't want to get married. Hearing that he was to become a father, he even pushed off; he went to Switzerland. Later he would tell French police that he wasn't ready for fatherhood and certainly not for settling down.
Pregnant and her boyfriend gone, Aline turned to her parents and they helped her as much as they could. They loved little David as if he were their own. Aline did not, though, stop craving for a better and more exciting life. Nearby Redon started to look like a gilded metropolis. That was where she and David would go, she decided. She waited until the boy was 14 months old and then she made the move.
She'd been in Redon just two months on the night she summoned the police. She'd been dropping David off with his nanny on her way to the pizza bar and picking him up again on her way home at the end of her working day. On the last few days of the child's life, the nanny, having refused to take him in, she had taken the child with her to work despite her employer's objections. It wasn't the life she had envisaged for herself. There were no bright lights, no laughter in Redon. Each day the gilded metropolis looked more and more like an iron cage, she its prisoner.
Locked up, Aline tried to commit suicide by drinking detergent.
Her trial opened on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 in the Assize Court of Rennes, capital of Brittany and 41 miles (66 kms) from Redon. She hobbled into the courtroom with the help of crutches: She had broken a leg working out in her prison�s gym. Once in the box of the accused she would at first only murmur tearfully, �I don�t know anymore,� to all questions asked her by the judge and the chief prosecutor. But after a while she loosened up and of why she had murdered her little son, she said: �I can�t come to terms with it. It hurts too much to talk about it.� Questioned about her childhood she told of having been sexually abused, of learning difficulties, of not having liked her body - �I thought I was too fat,� she said. When the chief prosecutor interrupted her by saying that she was lying, she retorted, �It is the truth!� Soon again she took refuge in claiming loss of memory. But not when she spoke of the young Portuguese waiter, who had not after all fathered her child as DNA tests had shown. �I loved him. I loved everything about him,� she said. It was another lover who had fathered the child.
When she did finally speak of her dead son, she said, �I had a problem coming to terms with having a child.� She spoke of being bored when he was sleeping because it was �difficult to be on my own, alone.� She had therefore invented a friend whom she called No�mie. When her colleagues at the pizza bar asked her who was looking after her child, she told them that she had left him with No�mie when she had in fact left him on his own at home. So she did too when she wanted to go out partying at night; she would stay out all night.
She was sentenced to 25 years in prison. �She did not want her child. He had become a burden,� the judge said before passing sentence.
The fourth case of infanticide was revealed nine months after that of Aline, in August 2007.
A retired couple bought an old house in the village of Contres in the picturesque Loire region south of Paris, so popular with tourists. Digging in the garden, the couple came across the body of a baby. The police, having been summoned to the property, brought in dogs, and soon they found another tiny body, also buried in the garden. They found still another body; this one was hidden in the fireplace in the living room. The house's previous owner, Marinette Pezin, 39 and divorced, was soon found and questioned. She admitted to having killed the three babies right after their births. She had no explanation for what she had done other than that she was in a bad marriage and, already the mother of four children, she didn't want more.
An alcoholic, she was released on control order without having had to post bail. Her ex-husband Edmond is not facing any charges; he was deemed to be unaware of the three pregnancies.
The name Marinette Pezin was still on everyone's lips when the fifth infanticide case hit the headlines. Another murderous mother had killed three of her newborns.
This case happened in the mountainous Savoy region in Eastern France. Virginie Labrosse, 36, and her partner, the 40-year-old Philippe Viguet-Poupelloz. A plumber by profession, Viguet-Poupelloz had served a seven-month incarceration in2001 for having sexually molested a female hitchhiker. The couple would have celebrated their 16th anniversary of being together that August of 2007. But Virginie had left the elegant double-story house with white shutters that stands in the green hills above the town of Albertville, site of the 1991 Winter Olympics they had bought the previous year. To the surprise of family, friends and neighbors who had considered the childless couple very much in love and happy together, she had moved in with a 20-year-old, a former neighbor who has not been named.
It was again the murderous mother�s �man� who discovered the bodies. Alone at home, her ditched partner, Viguet-Poupelloz, started to rummage through cupboards. Having gone through all those in the house, he went down to the cellar. There was a rather odd smell down there, and a large box caught his attention. Opening it, he found the decomposed bodies of two babies. Horrified and almost incoherent with shock, he summoned the police. Virginie was brought to the house and led the police to another box. In it was yet another tiny decomposed body.
Quickly Virginie confessed. Yes, she had killed the three babies immediately after their births. First, she had refrigerated them, then she had transferred them from the freezer to boxes. She was not "maternal" and had no wish to have a child, she said. She had killed the first in 2001; it was a boy. The second, a girl, she had killed in 2003. Both births had taken place in the bathroom of the apartment where she and Viguet-Poupelloz had then lived. The third baby she had killed in 2006 � just the previous year; she couldn't, she said, remember whether it was a boy or girl. As she had by then already begun her love affair with the 20-year-old, she said that she didn't know who had fathered the child � her partner or her lover. (DNA tests showed that it was her partner.) She had given birth to the first baby "in the toilet" and the baby had "drowned" also "in the water in the toilet bowl." She had hidden all three pregnancies; the first two from her partner and the third from both the men. The 20-year-old's mother though told police that her son had told her that Virginie was pregnant and later he had returned to tell her that Virginie had miscarried while on the toilet. "Virginie had put on a lot of weight and often complained about stomach ache but she wouldn't consult a doctor, and then when I saw her again, that was last October (2006) she had suddenly lost a lot of weight," said the woman.
The police wanted Virginie�s mental state assessed. She told the court-appointed psychiatrist that she kept the bodies because she did not want to abandon the babies. "I considered them part of myself," she said. First, she had kept the bodies in the freezer, then started to move them around the apartment. When moving from the apartment to the house, the bodies had gone along, packed into a box. The psychiatrist�s explanation for her having kept the bodies was that she had turned them into "dolls" and that she was playing "dollies and mummies" with them. But as one of the police on the case said, "When the couple started to carefully wrap the crockery to move from the apartment to the new house, she took great care to wrap the little bodies as well. Make no mistake, they were going along."
Both her partner and her lover were taken in for questioning, but neither was charged. Viguet-Poupelloz�s family described him as a �broken man� while he himself told journalists: �There I was thinking that I will never father a child, but from one day to the next I learn that I had fathered three. Put yourself in my place� Frankly, I don�t know whether I will ever get over this. If she did not want my babies, then she could have had abortions. But to have given birth all alone and then to have killed the babies and to have put them into the freezer, this is something I did not think she was capable of.� Explaining how he could not have known there was a little body in the freezer, he said: �I worked hard. When I got home I was tired. I didn�t do the cooking so I never had to open the freezer. That was her domain and she certainly made use of it.� Of not having seen that she was pregnant, he said: �She told the police that pregnancy caused her to lose weight rather than to put it on, so this is probably why I had no idea that she was pregnant.�
Cases inspire French novelist
With all of France devouring news of the five cases, the French novelist, Mazarine Pingeot, 35, love-child of the late President Fran�ois Mitterrand and museum curator Anne Pingeot, decided to put pen to paper and write a novel about infanticide. The novel, La Cimeti�re des Poup�es�The Cemetery of Dolls�written in the voice of a murderous mother writing letters to her husband from her prison cell to explain her deed, was published at the end of September 2007. Rapidly it reached No. 1 on all France's best-seller lists.
On publication of the novel the Courjault family complained that the fictional murderous mother's story resembled that of V�ronique too closely. Jean-Louis Courjault's mother, Genevi�ve, wrote to Pingeot; she wanted the novel to be withdrawn. She said the "Babes in the Freezer" case has caused the family enough heartbreak. It had even killed her husband, she said; Jean-Louis's father had died of a heart attack. The people of Chinon backed the family. Said Marie-Fran�oise Canal, who drew up a petition to be presented to the publishers to request the pulping of the novel, "The Courjault family is very highly regarded here and they have suffered enough. We are also considering Jean-Louis and V�ronique's two boys � they must be protected. Jean-Louis's father had even died because of this tragedy that hit the family."
Pingeot, at the time expecting her second child, strongly denied that she had drawn inspiration from the "Babes in the Freezer" case. She said she had studied all five infanticide cases in order to get into the head of a mother who would kill a child she had carried in her womb for nine months. (The late President Mitterrand had successfully hidden Pingeot's existence from the French people as well as from his wife and two sons. Journalists had however been aware that Mitterrand had a love-child, but none had dared to break the story until the French Magazine "Paris Match" did so in 1992 with a cover story. Pingeot's writing career has enjoyed ups and downs. Le Cimeti�re des poup�es was her fourth novel and fifth book. Her first novel, Premier Roman (1998) sold 60,000 copies, whereas sales dropped to 12,000 for the second and third. Her autobiography Bouche Cousue � Not a Word!, however sold 200,000 making it a best-seller in France. She shares her life with the Moroccan-born Mohamed Ulad-Mohand, 41, a movie producer.)
Yet another case, the 6th
Pingeot was still making television appearances to talk about infanticide when, on October 19 of that year (2007) yet another infanticide case�the 6th since the "Babes in the Freezer" case�hit the headlines.
First reports spoke of the discovery of the bodies of "several" newborns in garbage bags in a cellar of an apartment in the town of Valognes (pop. 7,412) 210 miles (338 kms) north of Paris. Gendarmes thought that there might be four or five bodies, but they were waiting for pathologists to name the number. (Gendarmes "police" rural areas and towns of fewer than 20,000 inhabitants. Unlike the French police who fall under the jurisdiction of the "Ministry of Interior", "gendarmes" fall under that of the "Ministry of Defense" and they hold military ranks.)
Reporters rushed to Valognes, This murderous mother was at first identified only as C�line L. Later, as Celine Lesage. By her own confession she had killed six of her newborns. She had started to do so in August 2000 and the last she had killed in September 2006, or 13 months previously.
Yet again, it was a partner who made the grizzly discovery. Luc M. went down to the cellar of the couple's first-story apartment in a government-housing complex for people of low income, and almost overcome by a nauseating odor, he started to search for its source. There were quite a few garbage bags down there. In one he found the decomposed body of a baby. He ran upstairs to "have it out" with the woman he had been living with for two years.
What was said between Luc M. and C�line is not known, but it persuaded him to summon the gendarmes. He was almost incoherent on the phone to the duty officer. Later he was to learn that DNA tests showed that he had fathered the dead baby. He was also to learn that killing her newborns was not new to the 34-year-old C�line; she had already killed five, all fathered by her previous lover, Pascal Catherine.
Pascal, apprehended, claimed he didn't know a thing about his former lover having killed the children he had been fathering. He did however know that she did not much care for bringing up a child. They had a child, a boy, and when their relationship broke up, he had taken the child with him so that his new partner, identified only as Nad�ge, could bring up the 9-year-old. "She didn't want to look after him, so we recuperated him," said Pascal to the gendarmes.
However, the boy (his name has not been revealed) ended up living with his paternal uncle and aunt. Having been told about the arrest of his mother and father, the couple could not get him away from the television screen; his eyes red from crying, he had to know more about what had been going on at home.
C�line confessed to having given birth to the babies all on her own in the bedroom and to having suffocated them immediately after birth. "I put my hand over their faces and kept it there until I could see that they were no longer breathing," she said. Not sure on two occasions that the babies were indeed dead, she next strangled them. She claimed that she could no longer remember whether the babies were boys or girls.
Why did she kill her newborns? The gendarmes wanted to know. The only explanation she would give was, "I wanted them, but I also did not want them."
Her relatives, friends and neighbors told reporters that they had often suspected that she was pregnant. "She always denied that she was and we couldn't be 100 per cent certain because she was always wearing large sweaters," said one friend.
All described her as "very charming" and "an intellectual," she wore metal-framed "granny" glasses and never used make-up.
Pascal�s mother told journalists of how her son had one day in 1996 brought C�line, then pregnant but denying it, to her house to try to get the young woman to admit that she was going to have a child. �He shouted at her �tell my mother that you are pregnant, tell her!� He forced her to admit it,� said the woman.
C�line had not however told anyone else that she was pregnant and having admitted to her partner�s mother that she was, she had had no choice but to let the child � the boy who could not take his eyes off the television screen � live. She had given birth to him in hospital, but no one had accompanied her to give her support.
At the time of her arrest, she was unemployed and augmenting her unemployment allowance by babysitting for her neighbors. She was also doing voluntary work at a local child care association. A spokesperson for the association told journalists, �She was a devoted worker. She was always ready to listen to the children, to give me advice and to take them out on day trips. We knew that we could count on her. Never before had we had someone who we could trust so totally with the children.�
But as a policeman said: �While killing her own children, she was devotedly looking after those of other mothers.�
Both C�line and Pascal are awaiting trial. It was established without reasonable doubt that he knew that C�line was killing his babies. He faces 10 to 15 years imprisonment for "non-denunciation of a crime". Nad�ge, the woman who had taken in C�line's son when she took in Pascal, does not face any charges. When Pascal had moved in with her, he had kept his dark secret to himself. Luc M. is free; he did really not know about the killings.
A 7th Case
There was almost relief in France's legal chambers when 2007 ended. Hopefully the wave of infanticide had passed. Not so. In March of 2008, just as the nation was returning from the Easter break, a new case came to light. This infanticide was committed on a horse farm outside Guingamp - Pop. 8,008 and 300 miles (483 kms) south of Paris � in the county of C�tes-d�Armor, which, like Redon, is in the administrative region of Brittany.
Fr�d�ric and Val�rie Le Gall and their two children aged 5 and 3, went away for Easter. As the horses had to be fed and exercised, Fr�d�ric's father went to stay on the farm. Every day he fed the horses and walked them around the paddock. He got bored and started to rummage through boxes and bags in the outhouses. In one of the outhouses stood a freezer; he wanted to see what was in it. To his horror he found the body of a baby; it was in a transparent freezer zip bag. Not waiting for the return of his son and daughter-in-law, he summoned the police. They brought the couple back to the farm.
Val�rie, 35, arrested, first denied to the police that she had killed the newborn, but quickly she admitted that she had given birth to the baby in July 2007 in the bath without anyone present. She had then killed the child. An autopsy on the little body pointed to strangulation as cause of death, but cranial lesions and bruises on the little torso caused pathologists to venture that the newborn could have been battered to death � Unless the injuries had been caused by a rough unassisted confinement.
Fr�d�ric was arrested too, but he was released without charge; he convinced the police that he did not know there was the body of a baby in the freezer in the outhouse. He also had not known that his wife was pregnant, he said. Neither had anyone else in the couple's acquaintance known. "Val�rie was a well-built woman," said a neighbor.
This murderous mother's explanation for having kept her pregnancy secret from everyone was that her 9-year marriage was under pressure and she feared her husband's reaction on hearing that another child was on the way. She was incarcerated in the prison for women in the French town of Rennes, 216 miles (348 kms) from Paris.
There, six months later, on Wednesday, September 3, she was to surprise all: her cellmates, her jailers, the prison doctor, even her husband � �stupefied he was,� a relative described him � by going into labor and giving birth to a little girl. She had started to complain of stomach cramps that a doctor had quickly identified as contractions. He had immediately summoned SAMU, France�s emergency paramedics to take her to hospital, but before the ambulance could reach the hospital, the one-month premature baby was born.
Val�rie had been in her third month of pregnancy on her arrest, but, true to herself, she had again made it her secret. And the doctor who had carried out the compulsory routine medical examination on her on the day of her admittance to prison had failed to detect the fetus in her womb.
�Val�rie Le Gall was medically followed like all inmates. On her arrival at prison she had certainly undergone a medical examination. This shows that a woman can hide a pregnancy even to those most observant,� said Yves Bidet, the director of prisons for that region of France. He added that he was alarmed because the birth could have resulted in yet another drama. He did not explain but it was generally thought that he meant that the woman might yet again have killed the newborn.
DNA tests were carried out and the results showed that husband Fr�d�ric had fathered the baby. �We now have the proof that he had not known of the previous pregnancy and of the murder of that baby,� said G�rard Zaug, chief prosecutor on the case.
By law, a baby born in prison may remain with its mother for two years. This little baby girl though remained behind in hospital when its mother returned to jail to await her trial.
Val�rie�s trial opened at the Assize Court in Saint-Brieuc 20 miles (32 kms) from Guingamp on Tuesday, June 9, 2009. She stood trial under her maiden name of Serres; Fr�d�ric had divorced her.
Asked to explain her act, she said: �I do not know �I am incapable of �� Then, her voice trailed away.
She was sentenced to eight years incarceration.
Finally, she had something to say. She spoke of having �flashes� and �visions� of giving birth and of the little dead body.
�I want to understand,� she said. �Know that for every day of the rest of my life, I will have to live with what I had done.�
She added that she should not be locked up.
�I need my children. I want to be with my children if I have to continue to live,� she sobbed.
The eldest two are living with their father. The baby is with foster parents.
The 8th Case
On July 30, 2008, a woman turned up at a hospital in Roanne, (pop. 42,000) 242 miles (389 km) south from Paris and on the River Loire. She had severe stomach pain and vaginal bleeding. It was quickly established that she had recently given birth. She denied that she had. The hospital summoned the police.
Forty-eight hours later a "breaking news" banner during prime-time television newscasts revealed that there was yet another�an 8th�infanticide case in France.
Chryst�le Labour�, 35, a supermarket cashier in the village of Cherier (pop. 445) 12 miles (20 kms) from Roanne, confessed to having given birth to a baby on Monday, July 28�48 hours previously�and that she had burnt the little body in a nearby wood. But, she insisted, she had not killed the baby; he was a stillborn. She took police to the wood. They removed the infant's charred remains, buried in a shallow grave. Pathologists would have to establish whether the baby was stillborn.
Chryst�le's stunned husband, who is deputy mayor of Cherier, is now caring for the couple's two daughters of 7 and 9. They are staying at a secret address so that journalists can't get to them. As for this murderous mother, she's in jail and there she will stay for perhaps the next two years before her case will be heard in court.
And then yet another three cases
The year of 2009 had hardly started when France was rocked by a 9th infanticide case.
On Monday, February 2, a tenant in a four-story apartment building in the town of Montlu�on (pop 44,000) 204 miles (329 kms) south of Paris, went down to his cellar in the basement when he was almost overcome by a very bad odor. It emanated from behind the closed door of one of the other cellars; in France in modern buildings all apartments have cellars (caves) and belowground parking bays. The tenant alerted the supervisor and the two of them descended together. They found the source of the smell: The naked decomposed body of a baby. It was in a black plastic bin-liner. Immediately, the supervisor summoned the police who discovered a second tiny decomposed body in the cellar. This little body was in a portable �picnic� freezer bag.
Finding the one who�d dumped the tiny bodies in the cellar was not a problem. The building, an HLM (habitation � loyer mod�r�) � government housing at moderate rents for low-income families � was subject to rigorous documentation. Therefore, records led the police to a 38-year-old unemployed waitress (unnamed) who had moved from the apartment the cellar belonged to some twelve months previously. A single mother, she was living in another HLM with two young children. Taken in for questioning for the next two days she denied any knowledge of bodies, small or large, adult, child or baby, in the cellar of her previous apartment.
Police, keeping her locked up, began questioning dozens of the apartment building�s former as well as current tenants. Those who had come across the woman described her as �gentile and discreet�. The police also started questioning her current lover; he was flabbergasted and shocked on hearing about the dead babies. So were the woman�s former lovers. There were quite a few of those and two readily acknowledged having fathered the two �living� children. But not one of the lovers admitted knowledge of the dead babies.
On her third day of custody the woman began to talk. She had not, she said, murdered the two babies. She had merely abandoned them on birth. One was born in 2003, the other in 2005. It was one of each sex. �They cried on birth, so they were not stillborn,� she told the police. Had she taken them down to the cellar immediately after birth? She would not say, but she did say that each baby took two days to die. How come she was so certain of this? Oh, she said, she had looked in on them to see whether they were still breathing.
This murderous mother, like the other eight, has been charged with the "assassination of a minor under the age of 15." Her case won�t come to court for another two years at least.
On Friday, April 17, in the town of Troyes (Pop 63,000) 93 miles (150 kms) south-east of Paris in the county of Champagne-Ardenne of the administrative region of L�Aube, a man summoned the police to his family home. When the police arrived, his story was that his wife, 37, had gone out to work (she was a maid in a hotel) and on her return she was �covered in blood.� As he could not get a word out of her about the blood, he thought it best to telephone the police.
Quickly, the police got from the woman what was going on. She had earlier that morning given birth, she said.
So where was the baby?
She directed the police to a garbage bin on a nearby street. In the bin, they found the little body. She had given birth to the baby secretly that morning at work and had then smothered it. On her way back home she had dropped the body, wrapped as it was in a plastic freezer bag, into the bin. Hemorrhaging badly, she was admitted to hospital. On her discharge she went straight to jail: she was in fact known to the police: In August 2003 she was a suspect in a case of abandonment of a newborn in a toilet of a supermarket in a nearby town. A customer had heard whimpering coming from behind the closed door of a cubicle in the restroom and found a newborn in the toilet bowl. The healthy, full-term baby was handed to foster parents. The police must now explain how, despite the possibility of DNA testing, they had failed to pinpoint her and her husband as that baby�s parents.
This murderous mother�s husband was taken in for further questioning, but as he had genuinely been unaware of his wife�s pregnancy and her subsequent murder of their child, he was released. He is now caring at home for their four children aged from 5 to 17.
The 11th case
The town of Metz (Pop 322,526) is a place of yellow limestone buildings and green parks, known in the 9th century as Divodumum � the place of the holy mountain. There is however nothing �holy� about its past: Because of its proximity to Germany it has twice been annexed by the Boches, the derogatory name that the French employ when they speak of Germans in anger. (The first annexation was during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) and the second during World War II.) It was also there that in the 15th century a mother accused of infanticide was burned at the stake, her head down and her �guilty� hand � the one with which she had strangled her newborn child � nailed to the stake above her head.
And it is in Metz where France�s 11th murderous mother ended the life of the baby she had only moments before birthed.
The case came to light in the afternoon of Monday, May 18, 2009. A 15-year-old youth returned home to his foster parents after having spent the weekend with his biological mother. He had gone straight to school that morning on setting off from the small apartment in the HLM where his mother, 32 and unemployed, and his 2-year-old half-brother lived. He had another two half-sibling and they were, like him, also being brought up by foster parents.
The youth had something he needed to tell his foster mother: That weekend while with his real mom he had gone to get an ice-cream from the freezer and there was the body of a baby in there. The little body, as he said, was in a transparent plastic bag. His foster mother immediately summoned the social services to her home and they called in the police.
This murderous mother has not been locked up; she was taken in for questioning, kept for 48 hours and charged with �abandoning a minor that resulted in death,� but released on control order without having had to post bail. Her toddler was taken away from her and, like his four half-siblings, he is also now being looked after by foster parents.
At the time of writing the police were still waiting for the results of an autopsy. The woman claims that the baby was stillborn, but should the autopsy show that she�s lying, then she will be indicted for infanticide. Or rather for the "assassination of a minor under the age of 15."
What is it with the French?
The French, apart from now wanting to know what in their psyche makes the nation's mothers kill their newborns, also ask themselves what this says of French men as fathers. How can a man, who does not only share a woman's daylight hours but so too her nights, not know, not see, that she's pregnant, especially when she's in an advanced state of pregnancy?
Another puzzle is why a woman would carry a child to termination that she really does not want and then to slay it brutally on birth, when she lives in a country where she may undergo an abortion legally. Abortion was legalized in France in 1975 and can be obtained on demand and free of charge on the state's health scheme, the Securit� Sociale. Adoption is also a viable option.
In 1976, the first year of legal abortion in France, 134,173 women underwent the procedure here, whereas in 1975, the year before legalization, there had been a reported 36,400 illegal abortions in the country. In 2002, the most recent year for which full statistics are available, 134,797 women underwent an abortion. Of these the majority (34,887) were aged between 20/24, while 968 were 45 and over, and 6,137 were aged between 12/17.
The abortion rate, or its medical name IVG (Intervention Volontaire de Grossesse) meaning termination of pregnancy, is increasing though. In 2006 there had been 209,699 terminations. A termination is legal up to 12-weeks after conception and each �applicant� is given a compulsory �period of reflection� of one week. A minor (girl under the age of 18) and an unmarried woman must also consent to meet with a counselor. The minor would not need her parents� permission to undergo the procedure and neither would the unmarried woman need that of the man who had caused her condition. A non-resident visitor may also undergo an abortion. A doctor, however, has the right to refuse to perform the procedure, but, by law he must direct the patient to a doctor who would be willing to do so.
With so many infanticide cases coming to light in France now, the country�s non-partisan and non-profit F�d�ration Nationale des Familles de France (National Federation of Families of France) that promotes family values has now spoken up. It wants the state to become more watchful when it knows there are hardships such as single-parent households or where a parent is in jail or there is a history of alcohol, drugs and domestic violence.
The federation also wants the state to rethink its policy on surrogacy. Currently, both traditional surrogacy (pregnant with own biological child but will relinquish the child on birth to others) and gestational surrogacy (pregnant via embryonic transfer to relinquish the child to others on birth) are illegal. The federation however feels that traditional surrogacy should be legalized. A pregnant woman who is unable or unwilling to keep and bring up her baby should therefore be allowed to give the child to someone else for legal adoption.
Others women�s right movements however argue that with the easy availability of the contraception pill as well as that of RU-486 (France was the first country in the world to legalize its use in 1988) no unwanted child should be conceived or come into the world.
The V�ronique Courjault � �babes in the freezer� � case has now however made it possible for murderous mothers in France to claim that they are suffering from �pregnancy denial,� which would mean that the life of a murdered newborn would not count for much.
This article has been viewed
|
|
| Richard Nixon’s Plots Against Ted Kennedy by Don Fulsom In the summer of 1969, President Richard Nixon was licking his chops to discover just what had really happened to Edward Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts. He speedily dispatched two undercover White House investigators to the scene of the suspicious watery car crash that took the life of Kopechne, Kennedy’s companion. Nixon told top aide Bob Haldeman he didn’t want Kennedy to get away with anything. Haldeman wrote a dairy entry saying the President believed Kennedy “was drunk, escaped from the car, let (May Jo) drown, said nothing until police got to him. Shows fatal flaw in his character, cheated at school (Kennedy was expelled from Harvard for cheating), ran from accident” When the senator went on TV to tell his version of what happened, Nixon privately noted many “gaps and contradictions,” adding: “I could not help thinking if anyone other than a Kennedy had been involved and had given such a patently unacceptable explanation, the media and the public would not have allowed him to survive in public life.” Two ex-New York cops, Jack Caulfield and Anthony Ulasewicz, who posed as newspaper reporters, carried out the Nixon-ordered sleuthing in Massachusetts. They turned up nothing of consequence. Their probe took six months and cost $100,000. Kennedy pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was handed a suspended sentence of two months. His driver’s license was revoked for one year. Caulfield and Ulasewicz were busy, if not all that productive, in Massachusetts. In a memo from Caulfield, released in 2009, the snooper reported to the White House that Robert Kennedy Jr. was discreetly observed going to see the car that his uncle had driven off the Chappaquiddick Bridge two weeks earlier. And, more important, Caulfield suggested a Kennedy family bodyguard could become a useful source of information for the Nixon forces. Caulfield and Ulasewicz pressed on. They eventually rented and furnished an expensive wiretapped Manhattan apartment with the improbable aim of hiring handsome young men to seduce some of the young women who had attended the Chappaquiddick party that preceded Kennedy’s fatal accident. The plan, according to Nixon aide John Dean, would result in the women volunteering “details of Kennedy’s conduct in a moment of tenderness, or under fear of extortion.” Dean actually stayed in the planned undercover apartment one night when he was in New York. “I was aghast. (Dean’s blind date) had one quick drink and left. The apartment looked like a Chicago whorehouse—red velvet wallpaper, black lace curtains, white Salvation Army furniture, and a fake fur rug.” In April 1971, Nixon told Haldeman they should find some way to “cover Kennedy … I really like to get Kennedy taped.” (More than taping, what Nixon wanted most of all, according to Haldeman in The Haldeman Diaries, was to photograph Ted Kennedy in compromising positions, then leak the photos to the press.” In June, Nixon listened with rapt attention as aide Henry Kissinger, who sometimes traveled in the same social circles as Kennedy, passed along gossip that EMK had now become “a total (sexual) animal.” In July, Nixon spoke to several aides about the possible need for a special $2-million dollar “Nixon discretionary fund” to keep tabs on Kennedy and for other clandestine pursuits. On September 8, 1971, the President ordered aide John Ehrlichman to have the IRS investigate Kennedy’s taxes—and those of other prospective Democratic presidential candidates. And Nixon was given an update on surveillance that was already being carried out on Senator Kennedy. Ehrlichman reported EMK was being “covered” by an unnamed informant (the Kennedy bodyguard Caulfield suggested could be used as an informant?) during the senator’s vacations. And, as Nixon’s tape recorders rolled, he filled in the President on an inspection trip Ehrlichman himself had made to Chappaquiddick: Ehrlichman: And (Kennedy) was in Hawaii on his own. He was staying at some guy’s villa. And we had a guy on him every night (unclear interjection by Nixon). And he was just as nice as he could be the whole time. President Nixon: The thing to do is just watch him, because what happens to fellows like that, who have that kind of (sexual addiction) problem, is that they go for quite a while and then they go (unclear). Ehrlichman: Yeah. Yeah. That’s what I’m hoping for. President Nixon: I don’t think he would break really while he was, you know, trying for the big thing. Generally, they don’t. Although Jack [Kennedy] was damn careless. Ehrlichman: This time between now and convention time may be the time to get him. President Nixon: You mean that he would be under great pressure? Ehrlichman: He would be under pressure, but he will also be out of the limelight somewhat. Now, he was in Hawaii very much incognito. Very little staff. And played tennis, moved around, visited with people and socialized and so on. So you would expect that at a time like that you might catch him. And then he went up to Hyannis. And we've got an arrangement-- President Nixon: How about (Senator Edmund) Muskie? (Unclear.) What kind of a life is he living? Ehrlichman: Very cloistered. Very monkish. President Nixon: (Unclear.) Ehrlichman: Yeah, big time. He's got six kids. And very ordinary (unclear). Teddy . . . I-we were over on Martha's Vineyard last week. President Nixon: Yeah-- Ehrlichman: I had never seen that site before, that Chappaquiddick-Edgartown ferry. That is a very short swim. Having seen it now, I would bet he swam it that night. It's--I don't see why--you know, they could build a bridge across there. It's a very short distance. President Nixon: Hmm. Ehrlichman: And it's no farther than from here to the West Wing. And not a bad tide, the time we were there. So it was quite interesting. I took some pictures of it because it amazed me how short a distance it really was. But we do cover him when he goes to Hyannis. President Nixon: He will never live that down. Ehrlichman: No. I don't think he will. President Nixon: Not that one. Ehrlichman: I think that will be around his neck forever. In October 1971, Ehrlichman induced a chuckle in Nixon when he suggested that placards be made showing Ted Kennedy’s picture and asking “Would you ride in a car with this man.” In September 1972, Nixon’s continued political fear, personal loathing, and jealously of Kennedy led him to plant a spy in Kennedy’s Secret Service detail. The mole Nixon selected for the Kennedy camp was already being groomed. He was a former agent from his Nixon’s vice presidential detail, Robert Newbrand—a man so loyal he once pledged he would do anything—even kill—for Nixon. The President was most interested in learning about the Sen. Kennedy’s sex life. He wanted, more than anything, stated Haldeman in The Ends of Power, to “catch (Kennedy) in the sack with one of his babes.” In a recently transcribed tape of a September 8, 1972 talk among the President and aides Bob Haldeman and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon asks whether Secret Service chief James Rowley would appoint Newbrand to head Kennedy’s detail: Haldeman: He's to assign Newbrand. President Nixon: Does he understand that he's to do that? Butterfield: He's effectively already done it. And we have a full force assigned, 40 men. Haldeman: I told them to put a big detail on him (unclear). President Nixon: A big detail is correct. One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes. (Laughter obscures mixed voices.) President Nixon: Right. No, that's really true. He has got to have the same coverage that we give the others, because we're concerned about security and we will not assume the responsibility unless we're with him all the time. Haldeman: And Amanda Burden (one of Kennedy’s alleged girlfriends) can't be trusted. (Unclear.) You never know what she might do. (Unclear.) Haldeman then assures the President that Newbrand “will do anything that I tell him to … He really will. And he has come to me twice and absolutely, sincerely said, "With what you've done for me and what the President's done for me, I just want you to know, if you want someone killed, if you want anything else done, any way, any direction …" President Nixon: The thing that I (unclear) is this: We just might get lucky and catch this son-of-a-bitch and ruin him for '76. Haldeman: That's right. President Nixon: He doesn't know what he's really getting into. We're going to cover him, and we are not going to take "no" for an answer. He can't say "no." The Kennedys are arrogant as hell with these Secret Service. He says, "Fine," and (Newbrand) should pick the detail, too. Toward the end of this conversation, Nixon exclaims that Newbrand’s spying “(is) going to be fun,” and Haldeman responds: “Newbrand will just love it.” Nixon also had a surveillance tip for Haldeman for his spy-to-be: “I want you to tell Newbrand if you will that (unclear) because he's a Catholic, sort of play it, he was for Jack Kennedy all the time. Play up to Kennedy, that "I'm a great admirer of Jack Kennedy." He's a member of the Holy Name Society. He wears a St. Christopher (unclear).” Haldeman laughs heartily at the President’s curious advice. Despite the enthusiasm of Nixon and Haldeman, Newbrand apparently never produced anything of great value. When this particular round of Nixon’s spying on Kennedy was uncovered in 1997, The Washington Post quoted Butterfield as saying periodic reports on Kennedy's activities were delivered to Haldeman, but that Butterfield did not think any potentially damaging information was ever dug up. Were Nixon’s men more than just spying on Edward Kennedy? In 1974, William Gilday of Boston told investigative reporter Anthony Summers, among others, that presidential aides had asked him, as early as 1970, to take part in dirty tricks that included the assassinations of both Edward Kennedy and George Wallace. Wallace was convinced, to his dying days, that Nixon was behind a conspiracy to assassinate him. Supporting this view, when Nixon was told of Wallace’s shooting he asked Colson whether one of “our” men was responsible. And he joked with Colson that he had only “finished half the job” (paralyzing the governor from only the waist down) on Wallace. In a newly released Nixon tape, Colson informs the President that anti-Kennedy efforts did indeed extend beyond surveillance: “I did things out of Boston. We did some blackmail and … my God, uh, uh, uh, I’ll go to my grave before I ever disclose it. But, uh, we did a hell of a lot of things and never got caught …(E. Howard Hunt, Nixon’s chief spy) ran 15 or 20 black projects in Boston, and that’ll never be traced. No way.” The world will never know just what Hunt and his cohorts had gathered on Kennedy. The former CIA spymaster kept his ultra-sensitive reports on Chappaquiddick and other Kennedy-related intelligence (as well as his pistol, which prompted Dean to shout, “Holy shit!”) in his White House safe, which was cleaned out after Hunt was connected to the Watergate burglary of June 1972. Those secret files were eventually turned over by presidential aides John Dean and John Ehrlichman to acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray. They came with instructions from Dean, “These should never see the light of day.” He added: “They are of a very, very, very secretive nature.” Gray subsequently burned the Hunt files, he said. William Gilday, the Boston man who claims he was instructed by the White House to kill Edward Kennedy and George Wallace was later convicted of murdering a Massachusetts policeman. In his biography of Nixon, The Arrogance of Power, Summers declines “for legal reasons” to name the Nixon aides identified by Gilday. But the author says Gilday “has appeared to have knowledge of corroborating details—their nicknames, for example—and has provided reconnaissance photographs he said were taken with Kennedy’s murder in view.” Was Richard Nixon capable of ordering a political enemy’s assassination? That is a definite possibility. He was a violence-prone paranoid who ran the White House in much the same way as a godfather ruled a Mafia “family.” Nixon believed that the means, any means, justified the end. Aside from pistol-packing staffers such as E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, Jack Caulfield and Anthony Ulasewicz, Nixon could depend on a group of real godfathers to do his bidding. After all, he had been doing them big favors—and they had been secretly financing his political rise—ever since he was first elected to Congress in 1946. Organized crime expert Dan Moldea has quoted an anonymous Justice Department source as saying: “The whole goddamn thing is too frightening to think about. We’re talking about the president of the United States … a man who pardoned organized crime figures after millions were spent by the government putting them away … I guess the real shame is that we’ll never know the full story, it’ll never come out.” As Nixon’s White House tapes continue to be released, more of the “full story” will emerge. ______________________________________ Sources: Aside from those cited in the text, sources include President Nixon by Richard Reeves; In Nixon’s Web by L. Patrick Gray; Blind Ambition by John Dean; Edward M. Kennedy by Adam Clymer; Kennedy and Nixon by Christopher Matthews; tape transcripts from the Miller Center of Public Affairs and Nixontapes.org; Crossfire by Jim Marrs, and The Haldeman Diaries by Bob Haldeman. This page has been viewed
|
|
Homeless Afghan War Refugees - Afghanistan to the Streets Part 1
Posted: 07 Jul 2009 09:45 AM PDT
Each year, as the conflict in Afghanistan continues to escalate, more and more Afghans choose to flee their homeland in search of work and safety. They follow rumors of freedom and refuge but often end up on the streets, stuck in yet another desperate situation.
I recently spent some time on the streets of Paris with several groups of homeless refugees from Afghanistan. Stuck in a state of limbo, unable to gain official refugee status and the right to work, unable to make the difficult and illegal crossing to England where they would be able to gain that status and employment, they spend their days and nights on streets trying to survive.
Villemin Square Park in Paris is home to between 150 to 300 Afghan refugees. They store sleeping supplies such as cardboard and blankets in the bushes during the day and at night, after the police have cleared and locked up the park, they enter by sneaking back through a loose fence. They do their best to remain clean, doing laundry and bathing in a park faucet. They sleep through rain and cold temperatures (I slept out with them in June with my nice sleeping bag and woke up in the middle of the night extremely cold) only to be woken up in the morning by the police who clear the park and then re-open it to the public. After coming back they shave in the bushes and all 300 share three overflowing, portable toilets outside of the park, along with the other homeless in the neighborhood.
Unable to work, there is not a lot to do during the days. Some go to Internet cafes and try to find out information about which European Union countries may offer them asylum. Others have taken to drinking, despite their faith. Fights have become common and a recent murder in the park has shown yet another danger these refugees face.
Most of the men are young and there are no women. Several that I spoke to had worked as interpreters for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. When the Taliban found out that they were assisting the U.S. troops, they received death threats. The US military responded by offering them permits to carry hand guns—they laughed when they told me this story and one said “What will my little gun do against 20 men with AK-47s and rocket launchers?” So, when left with the choice of fleeing their country and leaving their family behind or facing nearly certain death, the choice is obvious.
Others have left for different reasons. One man's entire family had been killed during an aerial bombing run that destroyed his home. Others left merely to avoid such things and some just wanted a new life or the possibility of a good job.
For now they are stuck. They rely on the Salvation Army for some bread and coffee in the morning and the Red Cross provides a meal service in the evening. A local hospital is tasked with providing them emergency medical care, but one man had been suffering from a headache nearly the entire week I spent with them and each day he was turned away from the hospital.
In the short time I spent with them I ended up exhausted and sick. It took me two weeks to fully recover from whatever bug I picked up. I was so thankful that I only had to spend one week on this particular project and that I could go to a friend's house and sleep to get over my sickness. Unfortunately the Afghans do not have such basic luxuries.
To the Afghans: I know you guys will see this story when it is posted. I want to offer you my sincerest thanks for letting me into your world and allowing me to document your lives. I hope that this will educate people about your situation and that your lives will become easier soon. I consider you my brothers and my thoughts are with you! See you in the fall.
Homeless Afghan refugees are reflected in the window of social services bus tasked with bringing the men from a Red Cross feeding station to a night shelter on the outskirts of Paris. The shelter has limited space and many refugees prefer to sleep on the streets or in the parks.
A young refugee slips though a broken fence into a public park where he will find sleep for the night.
Doing laundry at night in a park faucet.
A group of refugees sleep on top of cardboard boxes in the dirt of a public park near Gare de L'est in Paris.
A young refugee sleeps on the ground outside of a large apartment complex.
An older man says his prayers before going to sleep.
Nearly 300 refugees as well as local homeless share three run-down portable toilettes.
A group of young Afghan refugees sleeping under a bridge.
Refugees asleep on the grass of Villemin Square Park during first light.
Passing time playing football (soccer) in the park.
A young refugee reviews papers issued on the web by the French government which guarantee them certain rights that they say they have not given, such as access to medical care and other basic needs.
Shaving in the park's bushes in the morning.
Eating a dinner donated by the Red Cross on the streets of Paris

Aired on HBO originally in the USA, then on network television.
Cable Ace Award Best Supporting Actor, Ian McKellen
Winner of the Emmy® for Outstanding Made for Television Movie
Winner of the Special Grand Prize of the Jury at the Montreal World Film Festival
Winner of the Humanitas Prize
Winner of the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding TV Movie
Released theatrically in Great Britain.
| And the Band Played On | |
Promotional poster | |
| Approx. run time | 141 minutes |
|---|---|
| Distributed by | HBO |
| Creator | Randy Shilts (book) |
| Written by | Arnold Schulman |
| Directed by | Roger Spottiswoode |
| Produced by | Sarah Pillsbury Midge Sanford |
| Starring | Matthew Modine Alan Alda |
| Editing by | Lois Freeman-Fox |
| Music by | Carter Burwell |
| Cinematography | Paul Elliott |
| Budget | $8 million |
| Country | |
| Language | English |
| Release date | September 11, 1993 |
And the Band Played On is a 1993 American television film docudrama directed by Roger Spottiswoode. The teleplay by Arnold Schulman is based on the best-selling 1987 non-fiction book And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic by Randy Shilts.
The film premiered at the Montreal Film Festival before being broadcast by HBO on September 11, 1993. It later was released theatrically in the United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Germany, Argentina, Austria, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and Australia.
Contents[hide] |
In a prologue set in 1976, American epidemiologist Don Francis arrives in a village on the banks of the Ebola River in DR Congo and discovers many of the residents and the doctor working with them have died from a mysterious illness later identified as Ebola hemorrhagic fever. It is his first exposure to such an epidemic, and the images of the dead he helps cremate will haunt him when he later becomes involved with HIV and AIDS research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 1981, Francis becomes aware of a growing number of deaths from unexplained sources among gay men in Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco, and is prompted to begin an in-depth investigation of the possible causes. Working with no money, limited space, and outdated equipment, he comes in contact with politicians and numerous members of the medical community, many of whom resent his involvement because of their personal agendas, and gay leaders. Of the latter, some — such as Bill Kraus — support him, while others express resentment at what they see as unwanted interference in their lifestyles, especially his attempts to close the local bathhouses. While Francis pursues his theory that AIDS is caused by a sexually transmitted virus on the model of feline leukemia, he finds his efforts are stonewalled by, among others, the CDC, which is loath to prove the disease is transmitted through blood, and competing French and American scientists, particularly Dr. Robert Gallo, who squabble about who should receive credit for discovering the virus. Meanwhile, the death toll climbs rapidly.
In his review in Variety, Tony Scott said, "If there are lapses, director Spottiswoode's engrossing, powerful work still accomplishes its mission: Shilts' book, with all its shock, sorrow and anger, has been transferred decisively to the screen."[1]
Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly graded the film B+ and called it an "intriguing, sometimes awkward, always earnest combination of docudrama, medical melodrama, and mystery story . . . The stars lend warmth to a movie necessarily preoccupied with cold research and politics, and they lend prestige: The movie must be important, since actors of this stature agreed to appear. The result of the stars' generosity, however, works against the movie by halting the flow of the drama every time a familiar face pops up on screen . . . The emotions and agony involved in this subject give Band an irresistible power, yet the movie's rhythm is choppy and the dialogue frequently stiff and clichéd. The best compliment one can pay this TV movie is to say that unlike so many fact-based films, it does not exploit or diminish the tragedy of its subject."[2]
Time Out New York says, "So keen were the makers of this adaptation of Randy Shilts' best-seller to bombard us with the facts and figures of the history of AIDS that they forgot to offer a properly dramatic human framework to make us care fully about the characters . . . The film [is] a disjointed, clichéd narrative."[3]
Channel 4 says the film "is stifled by good intentions and a distractingly generous cast of stars in leads and cameos."[4]
Film review website Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 100% "Fresh" rating based on eight reviews.[5]
Additional awards
| And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic | |
Paperback Edition of the Book | |
| Author | Randy Shilts |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Genre(s) | Nonfiction |
| Publisher | St. Martin's Press |
| Publication date | 1987 |
| Media type | print (hardcover and paperback) |
| Pages | 630 pp |
| ISBN | ISBN 0312009941 |
And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic is a nonfiction book written by San Francisco Chronicle journalist Randy Shilts, published in 1987. It chronicles the discovery and spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) with a special emphasis on government indifference and political infighting—specifically in the United States—to what was initially perceived as a gay disease. Shilts' premise is that while AIDS is caused by a biological agent, incompetence and apathy toward those who were initially affected by AIDS allowed the spread of the disease to become much worse; AIDS was allowed to happen. The book is an extensive work of investigative journalism, written in the form of an extended time line; the events that shaped the epidemic are presented as sequential matter-of-fact summaries. Shilts describes the impact and the politics involved in battling the disease on particular individuals in the gay, medical, and political communities. The book begins its discussion in the late 1970s with the then-first confirmed case of AIDS, that of Grethe Rask, a Danish doctor working in Africa. It ends with the announcement by actor Rock Hudson in 1985 that he was dying of AIDS, when international attention on the disease exploded.
The title of the book is a reference to the story about the dance band in the first-class lounge of the RMS Titanic, which kept playing as the ship sank, thereby alluding to the multiple agencies and communities who neglected to prioritize a swift medical response to the crisis. After publication of the book, Shilts explained his use of the title: "And the Band Played On is simply a snappier way of saying 'business as usual'. Everyone responded with an ordinary pace to an extraordinary situation."[1]
And the Band Played On was critically acclaimed and became a best-seller. It made Shilts both a star and a pariah for his coverage of the disease and the bitter politics in the gay community. Judith Eannarino of the Library Journal called it "one of the most important books of the year," upon its release.[2] Shilts described his motivation to undertake the writing of the book in an interview after its release, saying, "Any good reporter could have done this story, but I think the reason I did it, and no one else did, is because I am gay. It was happening to people I cared about and loved."[3] The book was adapted into an HBO docudrama of the same name in 1993. Shilts was tested for HIV while he was writing the book; he died of complications from AIDS in 1994.
Randy Shilts grew up in a conservative household near Chicago, Illinois and was active in Young Americans for Freedom in high school. He earned a journalism degree at the University of Oregon in 1975, where he also came out of the closet as a homosexual. Shilts was determined to live openly about his sexuality, but was unable to find steady work as a reporter due to what he believed was homophobia in the media.[4][5] He worked as a freelance reporter for the gay magazine The Advocate before moving to San Francisco's Castro District while it was becoming the first gay neighborhood in the world. In a 1989 interview, Shilts recalled his anger as he was trying to get established as a reporter: "At the beginning I was angry at this big, nebulous 'them'—all the places where I couldn't get work. My anger became more specific as time went on."[6]
Shilts worked for two Bay Area television stations from 1977 to 1980, becoming somewhat of a star in the Castro neighborhood. With writer Armistead Maupin, Shilts was voted one of San Francisco's most eligible bachelors in the gay community.[7] He published a highly acclaimed biography of San Francisco politician Harvey Milk in 1982 titled The Mayor of Castro Street, and began working full time with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting on gay issues in a city where 25% of the population was gay. Almost from the onset of the disease Shilts covered news involving the public agencies and individuals who were researching and fighting it.[5]
Shilts decided to write And the Band Played On after attending an awards ceremony in 1983 where he was to receive a commendation for his coverage on AIDS. In an anecdote that is included in the book, television announcer Bill Kurtis gave the keynote address and told a joke: "What's the hardest part about having AIDS? Trying to convince your wife that you're Haitian."[8] Shilts responded to the joke by saying that it "says everything about how the media had dealt with AIDS. Bill Kurtis felt that he could go in front of a journalists' group in San Francisco and make AIDS jokes. First of all, he could assume that nobody there would be gay and, if they were gay, they wouldn't talk about it and that nobody would take offense at that. To me, that summed up the whole problem of dealing with AIDS in the media. Obviously, the reason I covered AIDS from the start was that, to me, it was never something that happened to those other people."[3]
Shilts focused on several organizations and communities that were either hit hardest by AIDS—and were given the "Sisyphean" task of finding the cause of the disease—or begging the government for money to fund research and provide social services to people who were dying. Shilts often uses an omniscient point of view to portray individuals' thoughts and feelings.
AIDS in the U.S. first struck gay men and IV drug users in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco. Shilts' sources in the gay community tried to remember that last time everyone they knew was healthy, which was the U.S. Bicentennial celebration in 1976 when sailors came from all over the world to New York.[9] Some of them carried sexually transmitted diseases and rare tropical fevers. There was a marked difference in these cities between two phases of consciousness in the gay community: "Before" in 1980, and "After" by 1985. "Before", according to Shilts, was characterized by a care-free innocence, preceding the period when gay men were aware of a deadly infectious disease.[10] "After" signified the realization that gay men knew most or all of their friends were infected with AIDS, and the term became pervasive throughout the media.[11]
In San Francisco, particularly in the Castro District, gay community politicians such as Bill Kraus and Cleve Jones found a new direction in gay rights when so many men came down with strange illnesses in 1980. The San Francisco Department of Public Health began tracing the communicable disease and linked it to certain sexual practices, made recommendations to gay men on how to avoid getting sick—stop having sex—a directive that defied the reason why many gay men had migrated to the Castro, and what gay rights activists in San Francisco had fought for for years.[12] Kraus and Jones often found themselves fighting a two-fronted battle: against city politicians who would rather not deal with a disease that affected such an undesirable population as gay men, and the gay men themselves, who refused to listen to doomsday projections and continued their unsafe behavior.[13]
In New York City, men like Larry Kramer and Paul Popham, who had no desire for public acclaim, were forced by bureaucratic apathy into forming the Gay Men's Health Crisis to raise money for medical research and to provide social services for scores of gay men who began getting sick with opportunistic infections.[14] Shilts describes the desperate actions of the group to get recognition by Mayor Ed Koch, and assistance from the Public Health Department to provide social services and preventive education about AIDS and unsafe sex.[15]
In these cities, however, the sizable gay communities in most instances were responsible for raising the most money for research, providing the money for and subsequently the social services for the dying, and educating themselves and other high-risk groups. Many of the men who were involved in the early phases of community activism during the AIDS crisis realized their life's missions. Larry Kramer went on to form AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) as a political activist organization that forced government and media to pay attention to AIDS.[16] Cleve Jones went on to form the NAMES Project that created the AIDS Memorial Quilt, the largest folk art display in the world.[17]
Doctors were the first to deal with the toll that AIDS would take in the United States. Some, like Marcus Conant, James Curran, Arye Rubenstein, Michael Gottleib, and Mathilde Krim would also realize their professional life's courses in dealing with patient after patient who showed up in their offices with baffling illnesses, most notably lymphadenopathy, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, Kaposi's Sarcoma, toxoplasmosis, cytomegalovirus, cryptosporidia, and other opportunistic infections that caused death by a grisly combination of ailments overtaxing a nonexistent immune system. With no information on how the disease was spread, hospital staff were often reluctant to handle AIDS patients, and Shilts reported that some medical personnel refused to treat them at all.[18]
Shilts praised how the Public Health Department of San Francisco handled the new communicable disease by tracking down people who were sick, and linking them to other people who had symptoms though some of them were living in different parts of the country. He criticized how the New York City Public Health Department did very little, specifically when Public Health Director David Sencer refused to call it an emergency and stated that the Public Health Department need not do anything since the gay community was handling it sufficiently.[19]
Around the same time gay men were getting sick in the U.S., doctors in Paris, France, were receiving patients who were African or who had lived in Africa with the same symptoms as American gay men. Parisian doctors Francoise Barre, Luc Montagnier, and Willy Rozenbaum began taking biopsies of HIV-affected lymph nodes and discovered a new retrovirus.[20] As a scientific necessity to compare it to the American version of HIV, French doctors representing the Pasteur Institute sent a colleague to the National Cancer Institute where Robert Gallo was also working on the virus. The colleague performed a switch on the samples, Shilts reported, because of a grudge he had against the Pasteur Institute.[21] Instead of Gallo comparing his samples with the French samples, he found the very same retrovirus as the French sample, putting back any new results in AIDS research for at least a year.[22]
Departmental ego and pride, according to Shilts, also confounded research as the Centers for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institutes battled over funding and who might get credit for medical discoveries that were to come from the isolation of the HIV virus, blood tests to find HIV, or any possible vaccine.[23] Once AIDS became known as a "gay disease" there was particular difficulty for many doctors in different specialties to get other medical professionals to acknowledge that AIDS could be transmitted to people who were not gay, such as infants born from drug-using mothers,[24] children and adults who had hemophilia (and later, their wives),[25] Haitians,[26] and people who had received blood transfusions.
The discovery of AIDS in the nation's blood supply and subsequent lack of response by the blood banking leadership occurred as early as 1982,[27] yet not until 1985, when AIDS antibody testing was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), did blood bank industry leaders acknowledge that AIDS was transmitted through blood transfusions.[28] Shilts covered that blood bank industry leaders asserted that screening donors for hepatitis alone might offend them, and the cost of screening all the blood donations provided across the country every year was too high to be feasible.[29]
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the agency responsible for tracking down and reporting all communicable diseases in the U.S., faced governmental apathy in the face of mounting crisis. Shilts reported how CDC epidemiologists forged ahead blindly after being denied funding for researching the disease repeatedly. Shilts expressed particular frustration describing instances of the CDC fighting with itself over how much time and attention was being paid to AIDS issues.[30]
Although Reagan Administration officials like Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler and Assistant Secretary Edward Brandt spoke publicly about the epidemic, calling it in 1983 its "Number One Health Priority" no extra funding was given to the Centers for Disease Control or the National Institutes of Health for research.[31] What the U.S. Congress pushed through was highly politicized and embattled, and a fraction of what was spent on similar public health problems.[32]
Shilts made comparisons to the government's disparate reaction to the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders, and the recent emergence of Legionnaire's Disease in 1977. In October 1982, seven people died after ingesting cyanide-laden Tylenol capsules. The New York Times wrote a front-page story about the Tylenol scare every day in October, and produced 33 more stories about the issue after that. More than 100 law enforcement agents, and 1,100 Food and Drug Administration employees worked on the case. Johnson & Johnson disclosed they spent $100 million attempting to uncover who tampered with the bottles. In October 1982, 634 people were reported having AIDS, and of those, 260 had died. The New York Times wrote three stories in 1981 and three more stories in 1982 about AIDS, none on the front page.[33] The Tylenol Crisis was a criminal act of product-tampering; Legionnaire's Disease was a public health emergency. Twenty-nine members of the American Legion died in 1976 at a convention in Philadelphia. The National Institute of Health spent $34,841 per death of Legionnaire's Disease. In contrast, the NIH spent $3,225 in 1981 and about $8,991 in 1982 for each person who died of AIDS.[34]
Shilts accused Ronald Reagan of neglecting to address AIDS to the American people until 1987—calling his behavior "ritualistic silence"—even after Reagan called friend Rock Hudson to tell him to get well.[35] After Hudson's death and in the face of increasing public anxiety, Reagan directed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to provide a report on the epidemic. A political conservative, Koop's report was nevertheless clear about what causes AIDS and what people and the U.S. government should do to stop it, including sex and AIDS education provided for all people.[36]
On a civic level, the closure of gay bathhouses in San Francisco became a bitter political fight in the gay community. Activists put pressure on the San Francisco Public Health director to educate people about how AIDS is transmitted, and demanded he close bathhouses as a matter of public health.[37]
Shilts was assigned to AIDS full time at The San Francisco Chroncile in 1982. It was from this unique vantage point that he repeatedly criticized the U.S. news media for ignoring the medical crisis because it did not affect people who mattered, only gays and drug addicts. Shilts noted most newspapers would print stories about AIDS only when it affected heterosexuals, sometimes taking particular interest in stories about AIDS in prostitutes. AIDS was not reported in the Wall Street Journal until it involved heterosexuals.[38] Many stories called AIDS a "gay plague" or "homosexual disease" in articles that pointed to it showing up in new populations, like hemophiliacs or people who had received blood transfusions.[39] Shilts recounted the irony of a reporter commenting on how little was reported about the disease, then linking it once more to rarer instances of transmission to non-drug-using heterosexuals.[40] On the other end of the extreme, a general phobia of AIDS was exacerbated by the news media who erroneously reported that AIDS could be contracted by household contact, without checking any facts in their stories, which prompted mass hysteria across the United States.[41]
The book became a commercial success, contrary to Shilts' own expectations.[42] It remained on the New York Times Bestseller List for five weeks, was translated into seven languages, nominated for a National Book Award, and made Shilts an "AIDS celebrity".[42] In Rolling Stone, Shilts is compared to great American writers whose careers were made by the circumstances surrounding them, such as Thomas Paine in the American Revolution, Edward R. Murrow during the Blitz, and David Halberstam during the Vietnam War. Writer Jon Katz explains, "No other mainstream journalist has sounded the alarm so frantically, caught the dimensions of the AIDS tragedy so poignantly or focused so much attention on government delay, the nitpickings of research funding and institutional intrigue".[43] Howard Merkel, in the American Journal of Public Health characterized And the Band Played On as the first volume in the historiography of AIDS.[44] Because the content expanded into law and science, reviews were published not only in literary sources but legal and medical journals as well.
Literary reviews of the work were generally positive; Judith Eannarino noted, "Shilts has the ability to draw the reader hypnotically into the personal lives of his characters. That, and his monumental investigative effort, would have made this a best-selling novel — if the contents weren't so horribly true."[2] A reviewer with the feminist magazine Hera agreed, saying, "And the Band Played On reads like a mystery thriller. The fact that it is non-fiction adds to the intensity but also increases the rage the reader is left with."[45] Elena Brunet in The Los Angeles Times called it "An important, masterful piece of investigative reporting".[46] Anthony Clare in The Times stated in a review, "And the Band Played On is a formidable chronicle of wasted time, petty intrigue, bigoted posturing, blind faith and suffering," before warning the United Kingdom their response to AIDS was drawing too close a parallel to the United States'.[47] Joan Breckenridge in The Globe and Mail gave the book high praise for "an excellent piece of both investigative and political journalism," and for the style of writing, although cautioning that at more than 600 pages casual readers might be overwhelmed.[48] Nan Goldberg in The Boston Globe characterized it as a, "groundbreaking book on the history of the AIDS epidemic...every element of a thriller."[49] And the Band Played On won the Stonewall Book Award for 1988.[50] It earned the 10th spot on "100 Lesbian and Gay Books That Changed Our Lives", compiled by the Lambda Book Report.[51] In 1999, The New York City Public Library topped its list of "21 New Classics for the 21st Century" with And the Band Played On.[52] Two years after it was published however, Shilts remained "fundamentally disappointed" when a radical response to the AIDS crisis did not materialize, despite the reaction to his book.[53]
In a 1988 book review, Jack Geiger of The New York Times commented that the detail in Shilts' work was too confusing, being told "in five simultaneous but disjointed chronologies, making them all less coherent," and notes that Shilts neglected to dedicate as much detail to black and Hispanic intravenous drug users, their partners and their children as to gay men. Geiger also expressed doubts that a swifter response by the government would have stemmed the spread of AIDS as quickly as Shilts was implying.[3] Woodrow Myers from the Los Angeles Times was frustrated by Shilts not asking the right questions: "Shilts fails to probe the broader questions and stops where far too many of us stop: We don't ask why the Department of Defense and the entitlements like Social Security are getting all the money when the homosexuals and the IV drug abusers with AIDS and the multiple sclerosis patients are not."[54] The Gay Community News in Boston also criticized the book's implications that a diagnosis of HIV indicated that death was sure and imminent.[55] Richard Rouilard, editor of The Advocate in 1992 criticized Shilts for being out of touch with the contemporary style of activism and its sexual overtones.[56]
Shilts' book has been used as a standard when compared to subsequent medical crises including breast cancer,[57] chronic fatigue syndrome,[58] Agent Orange,[59] and continued response to AIDS.[60][61] Howard Merkel notes Shilts' tendency to assign blame, writing "A requirement of the journalist, and certainly the historian, however, is to explain human society rather than to point fingers".[44] Jon Katz in Rolling Stone refutes this by stating "[Shilts] fused strong belief with the gathering of factual information and the marshaling of arguments, the way the founders of the modern press did. In doing so, he has exposed the notion of objectivity as bankrupt, ineffective, even lethal".[43]
Although Sandra Panem in the journal Science praised Shilts' efforts and the attention the book brought to AIDS, she criticized his simplistic interpretation of science and the ways research is fostered and accomplished in the U.S. Panem furthermore believes Shilts gives appropriate weight to the issue of homophobia hampering attention on the disease, but remarks that even if AIDS had struck a more socially acceptable group of people, similar delays and confusion would have slowed medical progress.[62]
Wendy Parmet, a professor at Northeastern University Law School, highlights the greatest strengths of And the Band Played On is "the pain and courage of individual confronted with AIDS" and how it "eloquently portrays the human side of the crisis". Parmet justifies the blame others criticized, but considers his technique of assigning an omniscient point of view a weakness, suggesting that it blurs the lines between fact and fiction.[63] In Contemporary Sociology, Peter Manning and Terry Stein also call Shilts' narrative method into question, and ask why, for a syndrome that affects people beyond race, class, and sexual orientation, that Shilts focuses so narrowly on AIDS as it is related to homosexuality. The writers, however, were mostly impressed with the book, calling it an "informative, often brilliant, overview of the emergent meanings of the AIDS epidemic".[64]
The book includes extensive discussion of Gaëtan Dugas, a Canadian flight attendant who died in 1984. Dugas was labeled Patient Zero of AIDS, because he was linked directly or indirectly with 40 of the first 248 reported cases of AIDS in the U.S., and after he was told of his ability to infect others, defiantly continued to have unprotected sex. Many book reviews concentrated their material on Dugas, or led their assessment of the book with discussion of his behavior. Some reviewers interpreted Shilts' naming Dugas "Patient Zero" to mean that Dugas brought AIDS to North America; the National Review called Dugas the "Columbus of AIDS" and in their review of And the Band Played On states, "[Dugas] picked up the disease in Europe through sexual contact with Africans. Traveling on his airline-employee privileges, he spread it here from coast to coast."[65] Shilts never stated this in the book, instead writing, "Whether Gaetan Dugas actually was the person who brought AIDS to North America remains a question of debate and is ultimately unanswerable ... there's no doubt that Gaetan played a key role in spreading the new virus from one end of the United States to the other."[66] Time magazine titled their review of And the Band Played On "The Appalling Saga of Patient Zero", erroneously confirming again that Dugas brought AIDS to the continent.[67] Even a press release by St. Martin's Press made the connection between Dugas and the introduction of AIDS to the Western World in its title, but not its text.[68]
When the book was released, Dugas' story became a particular subject in Canadian media; Shilts claimed, "the Canadian press went crazy over the story," and that "Canadians...saw it as an offense to their nationhood."[1] The original study identifying Dugas as the index case had been completed by William Darrow, but it was called into question by University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Andrew Moss. Moss wrote in a letter to the editor of The New York Review of Books, "There is very little evidence that Gaetan was 'patient zero' for the US or for California," also stating that Shilts did not overstress the role of Dugas even though he did identify Dugas.[69] Sandra Panem in Science uses Shilts' treatment of Dugas as an example of his "glib" treatment of the science involved in the epidemic.[62] Author Douglas Crimp suggests that Shilts' representation of Dugas as "murderously irresponsible" is in actuality "Shilts' homophobic nightmare of himself," and that Dugas is offered as a "scapegoat for his heterosexual colleagues, in order to prove that [Shilts], like them, is horrified by such creatures."[68]
Shilts is often quoted as claiming that Ronald Reagan neglected to mention AIDS publicly until 1987. However, Reagan briefly mentioned AIDS research in questions and answers during a news conference on September 17, 1985.[70]
While Shilts was writing the book he was tested for HIV but insisted his doctor not tell him the results until the book was finished so it would not affect his journalistic integrity.[71] On the day he sent the final manuscript to the publisher, he learned he was HIV-positive. He also revealed that he received abuse from gays for the articles he wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting the bathhouse closures, as well as for And the Band Played On, saying it was common for him to be spat upon in the Castro District.[72] He was openly booed when he attended the showing of The Times of Harvey Milk—based on his book The Mayor of Castro Street—at the Castro Theatre. Footage he had shot as a television reporter was included in the film, but during the construction of the documentary he was so controversial that the film's editors removed him from footage showing him with Milk.[73] Following the publication of And the Band Played On, however, he was "worshiped" by many in the gay community for writing the book, but also seen as someone who pandered to publicity.[74]
Shilts declared while promoting the book in Australia in 1988 that AIDS in the western world could be eradicated, and by 1994, "AIDS could be as manageable as diabetes". However, in reference to Africa, Shilts noted, "At this point it's inconceivable that there will be an AIDS-free world in Central Africa, as we're looking at a death rate on the scale of the Holocaust."[75] Shilts gave an interview in 1991 where he noticed, "the stellar AIDS reporters in the early years...the people who did the best job – and the reporters who wanted to cover AIDS but their male editors wouldn't let them – tended to be women," and made a connection that if more women were allowed to write about the epidemic, media coverage would have been vastly different.[76]
Randy Shilts died from complications of AIDS in 1994. Upon his death he was eulogized by Cleve Jones who said, "Randy's contribution was so crucial. He broke through society's denial and was absolutely critical to communicating the reality of AIDS."[77] Larry Kramer said of him, "He single-handedly probably did more to educate the world about AIDS than any single person."[78]
And the Band Played On was used as the basis for a 1993 Emmy-winning HBO movie of the same name. It was produced by Aaron Spelling, directed by Roger Spottiswoode, and starred Matthew Modine as epidemiologist Don Francis and Richard Masur as Dr. William Darrow at the Centers for Disease Control. Alan Alda portrayed controversial viral researcher Robert Gallo and many other stars in supporting and cameo roles, who agreed to appear in the film for union-scale pay. The film was released the same year as Philadelphia and Angels in America, which prompted one reviewer to note it a triumph and a loss: 12 years after the epidemic had begun, such works of art were necessary still to draw attention to it.[79] Reviews of the film were mixed, claiming that it was a noble try, but failed to be comprehensive enough to cover all the intricacies of the response to AIDS.[80] However, And the Band Played On, along with other well-received films at the time, was noted for raising the standards of HBO-produced films.[81]
This is a partial list of published versions of the book.

DeviantART is one hell of a inspiration source, of all kinds of arts, like traditional oil paint on canvas to vector illustrations, and it keeps inspiring everyone here at Abduzeedo! Hope you all like my selection of blue works. Cheers!