I have gotten a schooling lately in accepting collect calls from inmates. I pay some 3 cents a minute for long distance. When I take an (automated) collect call from the Cumberland County jail (in Fayetteville), it cost me about $1 a minute. Wow, what a deal.
To get that call, you have to created a prepaid account with GlobalTel. If you use a credit card to create that account, you pay a 19% surcharge.
We put $50 in the account on Friday and it was gone after 4 calls from Fayetteville.
So, at minimum, we have the state of NC supporting usury.
Keep in mind that someone in a jail is still presumed innocent. They need to be able to mount a defense against the charges against them. Their calls are recorded. The state does this to their families. An American tradition to screw the poor? I hope not.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
How organizations police themselves
Color me a skeptic on this subject. To have the police decide if a citizen complaint is valid is kind of useless. All parties to the investigation are paid from the same pool. Same for the prison system. It's an exercise in futility, in my view.
Case in point: Prison guards I believe are a prime source of cell phones, drugs, contraband, etc for inmates since they can be paid for their services and it is relatively difficult to detect their work. They aren't searched on entry to the facility and, as I recall an incident here in Durham last year, the prison guards were excused from having their cars "sniffed" on a Sunday visiting day.
Recently, a guard was "let go" because he was suspected of letting some guys on a road crew consort with their girlfriends. My, my. A roving prison vice squad rolled up to a park where the guys were eating lunch and here is what they found (I'm protecting my source): Bojangles boxes were strewn around (the "packouts" were still in the prison van-these are the bologna sandwiches provided by the prison to those working off site). There was cash lying on the ground that was apparently discarded when they saw the officers pull up (prisoners can't have money at any time for any reason). Two men were missing. The crew sent the prison van back to Guess Rd. One missing guy had a cell phone and arranged to be picked up on the way back by the guard. The other was picked up at the park later with a story that he had gotten permission to take a walk around a nearby field. The crew who found these problems declined to report the other missing person who was picked up by the van, so it appeared that only one was missing.
There's more to the story, but let's hold it to that. An "investigation" proceeds. It is conducted by Guess Rd prison staff. One guy who was an innocent bystander on the crew was offered an opportunity to go to a son's graduation service depending on how he answered the questions about what he knew. Realize also that, no matter what you say, it can be denied by the other party and if corroboration can't made, you can get in another form of trouble. The other members of the crew who were to be interviewed were kept in an adjacent room where they could overhear what the two talked about.
Dilemmas exist here: Squeal in this environment and you will suffer the consequences. Keep your mouth shut and you will be denied an expected privilege based on your continued good behavior. They don't really have to give a reason for denying something when they can make up a reason to deny you or simply not give a reason.
The bottom line: If you are present for wrongdoing by others, you will suffer one way or another no matter what you decide to do. The guard backed up the one inmate's story about being allowed to walk around the nearby field, preventing more serious punishment to the prisoner. The guard was fired but not prosecuted due to a "lack of evidence". You probably never read about this in the paper which is the way they prefer it.
Keep in mind that the potential punishment for these missing guys is severe. They would have been charged with "escape" and sentences extended. If they are caught with a cell phone, the punishment is also severe even though they may be doing nothing more than talking to girlfriends or family.
New laws have just been put in place to charge civilians who provide cigarettes or cell phones/components to inmates with a misdemeanor. Wonder why they don't do a better job of policing their own?
Let me suggest that it makes them look bad for the public to know just how much of the "misbehavior" of inmates is supported by the lure of greenbacks to folks who work within the system and who are then allowed to police themselves. Great system, isn't it?
Case in point: Prison guards I believe are a prime source of cell phones, drugs, contraband, etc for inmates since they can be paid for their services and it is relatively difficult to detect their work. They aren't searched on entry to the facility and, as I recall an incident here in Durham last year, the prison guards were excused from having their cars "sniffed" on a Sunday visiting day.
Recently, a guard was "let go" because he was suspected of letting some guys on a road crew consort with their girlfriends. My, my. A roving prison vice squad rolled up to a park where the guys were eating lunch and here is what they found (I'm protecting my source): Bojangles boxes were strewn around (the "packouts" were still in the prison van-these are the bologna sandwiches provided by the prison to those working off site). There was cash lying on the ground that was apparently discarded when they saw the officers pull up (prisoners can't have money at any time for any reason). Two men were missing. The crew sent the prison van back to Guess Rd. One missing guy had a cell phone and arranged to be picked up on the way back by the guard. The other was picked up at the park later with a story that he had gotten permission to take a walk around a nearby field. The crew who found these problems declined to report the other missing person who was picked up by the van, so it appeared that only one was missing.
There's more to the story, but let's hold it to that. An "investigation" proceeds. It is conducted by Guess Rd prison staff. One guy who was an innocent bystander on the crew was offered an opportunity to go to a son's graduation service depending on how he answered the questions about what he knew. Realize also that, no matter what you say, it can be denied by the other party and if corroboration can't made, you can get in another form of trouble. The other members of the crew who were to be interviewed were kept in an adjacent room where they could overhear what the two talked about.
Dilemmas exist here: Squeal in this environment and you will suffer the consequences. Keep your mouth shut and you will be denied an expected privilege based on your continued good behavior. They don't really have to give a reason for denying something when they can make up a reason to deny you or simply not give a reason.
The bottom line: If you are present for wrongdoing by others, you will suffer one way or another no matter what you decide to do. The guard backed up the one inmate's story about being allowed to walk around the nearby field, preventing more serious punishment to the prisoner. The guard was fired but not prosecuted due to a "lack of evidence". You probably never read about this in the paper which is the way they prefer it.
Keep in mind that the potential punishment for these missing guys is severe. They would have been charged with "escape" and sentences extended. If they are caught with a cell phone, the punishment is also severe even though they may be doing nothing more than talking to girlfriends or family.
New laws have just been put in place to charge civilians who provide cigarettes or cell phones/components to inmates with a misdemeanor. Wonder why they don't do a better job of policing their own?
Let me suggest that it makes them look bad for the public to know just how much of the "misbehavior" of inmates is supported by the lure of greenbacks to folks who work within the system and who are then allowed to police themselves. Great system, isn't it?
On Military Mental Breakdowns
The news media has been selective in its reporting of the incident at Ft Hood when an Army psychiatrist went on a killing spree. They've been reasonably fair at identifying him as an overly stressed soldier who flipped. They've also stressed the aspect of the military not separating him from service because of fear they'd look to be attacking a Muslim.
Well, maybe so, but here's an aspect of the story they've ignored: The military has been bending and rules in order to keep itself staffed up in this environment. They've offered thousands as incentives for guys to reenlist. There are signing bonuses for new enlist
Early in this Ft Hood story, the mother told of her son's efforts to get out of the Army. He admitted to being stressed and concerned about how Muslims attacking other Muslims would be a religous affront. His superiors had had serious concerns about hsi behavior. But, for the Army to allow dissatisfied soldiers to get out and avoid deployment, for example, to Afghanistan, would be a serious affront to their efforts to keep guys in the military. After all, if they let guys go simply because they didn't want to serve anymore, they may be left with too little cannon fodder.
The one exception to their policies seems to be the release of gays. The claim to be gay is a sure-fire exit strategy.
So, here we have two agreeing influences coming together: A man wants out and superiors would prefer him out, but I think an unannounced influence in this whole manner is the Army's policy of keeping itself staffed at all costs.
Well, maybe so, but here's an aspect of the story they've ignored: The military has been bending and rules in order to keep itself staffed up in this environment. They've offered thousands as incentives for guys to reenlist. There are signing bonuses for new enlist
Early in this Ft Hood story, the mother told of her son's efforts to get out of the Army. He admitted to being stressed and concerned about how Muslims attacking other Muslims would be a religous affront. His superiors had had serious concerns about hsi behavior. But, for the Army to allow dissatisfied soldiers to get out and avoid deployment, for example, to Afghanistan, would be a serious affront to their efforts to keep guys in the military. After all, if they let guys go simply because they didn't want to serve anymore, they may be left with too little cannon fodder.
The one exception to their policies seems to be the release of gays. The claim to be gay is a sure-fire exit strategy.
So, here we have two agreeing influences coming together: A man wants out and superiors would prefer him out, but I think an unannounced influence in this whole manner is the Army's policy of keeping itself staffed at all costs.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Why not fix the problem?
Governor Purdue’s claim that we “will not release violent offenders” to prey on the public is ludicrous on its face. She is referring to the infamous 20 “lifers” who were to be released this month as a result of a NC Supreme Court ruling crediting them with good time and therefore qualifying them for release. Her claim is ludicrous because in the US some 650,000 inmates are released each year.
I’m not sure what she means when she refers to “violent” offenders. Many men who went to prison in the US weren’t violent when they went in, but became violent when they were released and vice versa.
When I give blood at the Red Cross, one of the qualifying questions they ask is whether I’ve ever been locked up more than 72 hours in a jail or juvenile facility. That speaks volumes to the kind of system we have for inmates in this country. There are some inmates who are put in solitary confinement for years on end. What do we expect when they get out? Some walk right out onto the streets from solitary confinement when their sentence is completed. On the NC Dept of Correction website, you can only find out the number of infractions for an inmate and a brief description of each. You can’t determine what punishments were given. The public has no idea of how pervasive this practice is.
Are our actions making them more violent or less violent? I met one inmate who was kept in solitary for three years on the basis that they believed he was associated with a criminal network. I looked at his “infraction” record and for his entire imprisonment, he was charged only with communicating to another prisoner by letter. He’d written his wife and asked her to send a note to a fellow inmate who was in AA with him to find out how he was doing after his transfer to another facility. By golly, we’ll put a stop to this sort of thing won’t we?
It is estimated that 40-60% of prisoners are mentally ill. That’s an ugly number. Something is wrong here.
The posturing and political gamesmanship relating to these 20 men scheduled for release is on a par with the story of “balloon boy”. In the scheme of things, this is nothing. Do you realize that a crime that might get you 10 years in Durham County could get you life if the crime were committed in a rural county in NC? A life sentence is really arbitrary within our justice system. If the DA offers a deal to avoid a trial or because he can’t quite get enough evidence to warrant a sure conviction, the punishment is going to be less severe than for the same crime taken to trial. So, to put “lifers” up for target practice by the public and the news media is disingenuous at best and gives us all a false sense that our politicians are taking care of business.
One of the 20 “lifers” set to be released had a MAP that, if completed successfully, would have released him next year. MAP is an acronym for a plan of release in NC for a prisoner who is given a life sentence. If he follows his MAP (normally lasting about 3 years), even a lifer can be released when he completes the requirements. Normally he has to have no infractions during the time of his MAP, earn a high level of trust in the system and get a work release job. There may be other requirements tailored to the prisoner. I know of several guys sentenced to life who have MAPs. It is a good thing.
The impression you get from the governor and the news media is that the sky is falling. It isn’t, but attention needs to be given to keep those incarcerated from coming back into the system once they are released. Giving them $40 and a handshake isn’t going to cut it, especially in an economy like we are seeing now. We’re willing to spend $30K a year to imprison folks in NC, but virtually nothing to help keep them from coming back into the system. That’s where the story should be.
Calling for more money to be spent to reduce recidivism would be unpopular politically. The fact that it is unpopular is our fault. We don’t know how to attack and fix a problem anymore, assuming we ever did.
I’m not sure what she means when she refers to “violent” offenders. Many men who went to prison in the US weren’t violent when they went in, but became violent when they were released and vice versa.
When I give blood at the Red Cross, one of the qualifying questions they ask is whether I’ve ever been locked up more than 72 hours in a jail or juvenile facility. That speaks volumes to the kind of system we have for inmates in this country. There are some inmates who are put in solitary confinement for years on end. What do we expect when they get out? Some walk right out onto the streets from solitary confinement when their sentence is completed. On the NC Dept of Correction website, you can only find out the number of infractions for an inmate and a brief description of each. You can’t determine what punishments were given. The public has no idea of how pervasive this practice is.
Are our actions making them more violent or less violent? I met one inmate who was kept in solitary for three years on the basis that they believed he was associated with a criminal network. I looked at his “infraction” record and for his entire imprisonment, he was charged only with communicating to another prisoner by letter. He’d written his wife and asked her to send a note to a fellow inmate who was in AA with him to find out how he was doing after his transfer to another facility. By golly, we’ll put a stop to this sort of thing won’t we?
It is estimated that 40-60% of prisoners are mentally ill. That’s an ugly number. Something is wrong here.
The posturing and political gamesmanship relating to these 20 men scheduled for release is on a par with the story of “balloon boy”. In the scheme of things, this is nothing. Do you realize that a crime that might get you 10 years in Durham County could get you life if the crime were committed in a rural county in NC? A life sentence is really arbitrary within our justice system. If the DA offers a deal to avoid a trial or because he can’t quite get enough evidence to warrant a sure conviction, the punishment is going to be less severe than for the same crime taken to trial. So, to put “lifers” up for target practice by the public and the news media is disingenuous at best and gives us all a false sense that our politicians are taking care of business.
One of the 20 “lifers” set to be released had a MAP that, if completed successfully, would have released him next year. MAP is an acronym for a plan of release in NC for a prisoner who is given a life sentence. If he follows his MAP (normally lasting about 3 years), even a lifer can be released when he completes the requirements. Normally he has to have no infractions during the time of his MAP, earn a high level of trust in the system and get a work release job. There may be other requirements tailored to the prisoner. I know of several guys sentenced to life who have MAPs. It is a good thing.
The impression you get from the governor and the news media is that the sky is falling. It isn’t, but attention needs to be given to keep those incarcerated from coming back into the system once they are released. Giving them $40 and a handshake isn’t going to cut it, especially in an economy like we are seeing now. We’re willing to spend $30K a year to imprison folks in NC, but virtually nothing to help keep them from coming back into the system. That’s where the story should be.
Calling for more money to be spent to reduce recidivism would be unpopular politically. The fact that it is unpopular is our fault. We don’t know how to attack and fix a problem anymore, assuming we ever did.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Some of the failings of capitalism
The poor health care we have in this country is a prime example of how health care should have never been a free market item. It simply doesn't work. It may work in very isolated instances, but overall, the rest of the world has seen its failings and we are late in coming to the party.
It struck me recently that another great example of this "competition failure" is the cell phone industry. If you believe that providing reasonably good cell phone service to urban areas and interstate corridors is the purpose of cell phones, then by golly, we have a good system.
Here are some problems:
1. There is no interoperability between many of the cell phone providers. You have to buy a phone that will work only on a particular network. If you want to switch providers out of competitive dissatisfaction, you have to buy a new phone, so this system discourages competitive pressure.
2. Providers provide only service to the biggest, most densely packed customer locations. It means putting up independent towers for each provider or letting them duke it out over how to share an existing tower. I'm not sure how this actually works, but I do know that coverage is VERY different for the many different providers.
3. Customers in low-population areas are simply out of luck. If you travel away from your urban location, it is a crap shoot as to whether you can get a connection. You can have a breakdown on an isolated rural road and be out of luck.
4. Cell phone quality is simply hit or miss. If a network is overloaded, call quality and call reliability drops dramatically. The fact that you can reliably make a call at a low-traffic time doesn't help when you actually need to make a call at a high traffic time. Requirements for excess capacity is a government regulation function that is simply missing in this competitive environment.
It is looking like Verizon is taking over in the US. They have the largest network since the merger with Alltel. They now have competitive prices, but don't hold your breath when they approach monopolistic power. They'll behave like Microsoft, who charges a ton of money for their operating system since it is the only game in town. Once Verizon has the only game in town, they'll start acting like Pfizer since you won't have a choice. How would you like paying $10 a pill when it costs them $.05 to make?
I read a study some time ago talking about deregulation of the airline industry. The author points out that the sum total of costs to make a trip, adjusted for inflation, are now about the same as when regulated. This is because business travelers pay an outrageous fee to buy a ticket a day or two before the flight as opposed to 2 weeks before the flight. It's the same flight with the same costs, but the price differential can be staggering. The airlines know that businesses have to make spur of the moment trips and they take advantage. It is gamesmanship with money and pricing policies, not actually a good return for customers.
In addition, regulated flights once called for more non-stops. The idea was to get people more places faster. Now, flights are to switching centers like Atlanta where you change planes for the final leg of your flight. Airlines found that approach was a cheaper way to operate and the impact on customer arrival times meant nothing. After all, competition in this case made things worse for the consumer.
The US, in addition to having poor health care, has poor broadband internet service compared to other nations. I measured a download speed in Canada recently at 8MBytes/Sec, a speed unheard of here. We have cell phones that connect in fewer places than other countries. We are behind technologically in so many ways because we do it our way. In many ways, we do it the worst possible way....all in the name of captitalism and the ills it brings with it in many arenas.
It struck me recently that another great example of this "competition failure" is the cell phone industry. If you believe that providing reasonably good cell phone service to urban areas and interstate corridors is the purpose of cell phones, then by golly, we have a good system.
Here are some problems:
1. There is no interoperability between many of the cell phone providers. You have to buy a phone that will work only on a particular network. If you want to switch providers out of competitive dissatisfaction, you have to buy a new phone, so this system discourages competitive pressure.
2. Providers provide only service to the biggest, most densely packed customer locations. It means putting up independent towers for each provider or letting them duke it out over how to share an existing tower. I'm not sure how this actually works, but I do know that coverage is VERY different for the many different providers.
3. Customers in low-population areas are simply out of luck. If you travel away from your urban location, it is a crap shoot as to whether you can get a connection. You can have a breakdown on an isolated rural road and be out of luck.
4. Cell phone quality is simply hit or miss. If a network is overloaded, call quality and call reliability drops dramatically. The fact that you can reliably make a call at a low-traffic time doesn't help when you actually need to make a call at a high traffic time. Requirements for excess capacity is a government regulation function that is simply missing in this competitive environment.
It is looking like Verizon is taking over in the US. They have the largest network since the merger with Alltel. They now have competitive prices, but don't hold your breath when they approach monopolistic power. They'll behave like Microsoft, who charges a ton of money for their operating system since it is the only game in town. Once Verizon has the only game in town, they'll start acting like Pfizer since you won't have a choice. How would you like paying $10 a pill when it costs them $.05 to make?
I read a study some time ago talking about deregulation of the airline industry. The author points out that the sum total of costs to make a trip, adjusted for inflation, are now about the same as when regulated. This is because business travelers pay an outrageous fee to buy a ticket a day or two before the flight as opposed to 2 weeks before the flight. It's the same flight with the same costs, but the price differential can be staggering. The airlines know that businesses have to make spur of the moment trips and they take advantage. It is gamesmanship with money and pricing policies, not actually a good return for customers.
In addition, regulated flights once called for more non-stops. The idea was to get people more places faster. Now, flights are to switching centers like Atlanta where you change planes for the final leg of your flight. Airlines found that approach was a cheaper way to operate and the impact on customer arrival times meant nothing. After all, competition in this case made things worse for the consumer.
The US, in addition to having poor health care, has poor broadband internet service compared to other nations. I measured a download speed in Canada recently at 8MBytes/Sec, a speed unheard of here. We have cell phones that connect in fewer places than other countries. We are behind technologically in so many ways because we do it our way. In many ways, we do it the worst possible way....all in the name of captitalism and the ills it brings with it in many arenas.
N&O Sensationalizes the early release of "violent" offenders
The News and Observer deserves serious criticism for its sensational coverage of the early release of NC prisoners who were in for life. How many 60+ year old men do you know that you would describe as “violent”? Yet, that’s the moniker you put on men who’ve been behind bars for years, many of whom have demonstrated good behavior within the system.
The facts are that over 650,000 inmates are released yearly from incarceration in the US. Some walk out onto the streets directly from isolated confinement. They have served their time and must be freed. The state is willing to spend about $30k per year to keep them in prison, but virtually nothing to help them find housing and jobs to help keep them from going back. Giving a guy $40 and wishing him good luck isn’t going to cut it. With proper attention to this problem, we could cut our bills dramatically…never mind that it is also the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, we are so tuned to locking folks up for so long that many have been institutionalized and will feel comfortable in no other setting than prison.
Senator Jim Webb thinks our justice system is a national disgrace and has called for a blue ribbon commission to recommend changes. See http://webb.senate.gov/email/criminaljusticereform.html It's time to do something about it.
The facts are that over 650,000 inmates are released yearly from incarceration in the US. Some walk out onto the streets directly from isolated confinement. They have served their time and must be freed. The state is willing to spend about $30k per year to keep them in prison, but virtually nothing to help them find housing and jobs to help keep them from going back. Giving a guy $40 and wishing him good luck isn’t going to cut it. With proper attention to this problem, we could cut our bills dramatically…never mind that it is also the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, we are so tuned to locking folks up for so long that many have been institutionalized and will feel comfortable in no other setting than prison.
Senator Jim Webb thinks our justice system is a national disgrace and has called for a blue ribbon commission to recommend changes. See http://webb.senate.gov/email/criminaljusticereform.html It's time to do something about it.
Monday, October 12, 2009
How to indict a ham sandwich
Prosecutors, it has been joked, can indict a ham sandwich. That really means that, if they want to get you, it won't take much to get you locked up awaiting trial.
That idea was brought home to me by a good friend called to jury duty last week. They were TRYING a young muslim who was accused of stealing a $15 sweatshirt. They suspected him of being a terrorist (he'd been going from campus to campus and hanging around muslim centers). They had no witness seeing him inside the Muslim Center at UNC, but had found some of his possessions there as it appeared he was living inside. No evidence of a break-in and no one had actually seen him there when it was locked up.
They arrested him near the center wearing a sweatshirt that was unique in that it had been available only inside the center. So, on this premise, they jailed him last May and tried him this past week. He was found guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering, but not for stealing the $15 sweatshirt. The trial took 2 days.
Contrast this with a breaking and entering at my home while my wife and I were asleep upstairs. The thief stole my laptop and a computer scanner. I had video of him entering my car and walking to the back to try the door. It was a pretty good picture when all is said and done. I made some pictures from the video and some friends of mine recognized the guy...said that was his Modus Operandi. One of the guys said he grew up with the thief and it was clearly him. The perpetrator had recently been arrested for breaking in to a church. With the name of the suspect in hand, the detective took the pics down to the jail and interviewed the guy who swore it wasn't him. The detective said there was a resemblance, but didn't think it was the same guy.
So, a serious crime like breaking/entering/theft/after 11pm/occupied building is simply swept under the rug because they have actual evidence, but it must not be as good as an eyewitness id. Case closed....while the DA pursues ^&*() like the above.
Also, contrast their choice of what to prosecute with the case in which a Durham Policewoman (Ruth Brown) was held up in her home. She was robbed of $3000 cash (not exactly sure why she had that kind of $ on hand, but I have some ideas). She ID's a 15 year old middle school student by recognizing his "eyebrows" in a school picture. The robber had on a mask, so she couldn't see anything else except his eyebrows and hair which was in a completely different style than the kid who was ultimately convicted.
So, we have another ham sandwich held in jail, then put away until some independent folks began asking questions. Several years later, he's freed.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be a Durhamite at times. You don't want to be the next ham sandwich.
That idea was brought home to me by a good friend called to jury duty last week. They were TRYING a young muslim who was accused of stealing a $15 sweatshirt. They suspected him of being a terrorist (he'd been going from campus to campus and hanging around muslim centers). They had no witness seeing him inside the Muslim Center at UNC, but had found some of his possessions there as it appeared he was living inside. No evidence of a break-in and no one had actually seen him there when it was locked up.
They arrested him near the center wearing a sweatshirt that was unique in that it had been available only inside the center. So, on this premise, they jailed him last May and tried him this past week. He was found guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering, but not for stealing the $15 sweatshirt. The trial took 2 days.
Contrast this with a breaking and entering at my home while my wife and I were asleep upstairs. The thief stole my laptop and a computer scanner. I had video of him entering my car and walking to the back to try the door. It was a pretty good picture when all is said and done. I made some pictures from the video and some friends of mine recognized the guy...said that was his Modus Operandi. One of the guys said he grew up with the thief and it was clearly him. The perpetrator had recently been arrested for breaking in to a church. With the name of the suspect in hand, the detective took the pics down to the jail and interviewed the guy who swore it wasn't him. The detective said there was a resemblance, but didn't think it was the same guy.
So, a serious crime like breaking/entering/theft/after 11pm/occupied building is simply swept under the rug because they have actual evidence, but it must not be as good as an eyewitness id. Case closed....while the DA pursues ^&*() like the above.
Also, contrast their choice of what to prosecute with the case in which a Durham Policewoman (Ruth Brown) was held up in her home. She was robbed of $3000 cash (not exactly sure why she had that kind of $ on hand, but I have some ideas). She ID's a 15 year old middle school student by recognizing his "eyebrows" in a school picture. The robber had on a mask, so she couldn't see anything else except his eyebrows and hair which was in a completely different style than the kid who was ultimately convicted.
So, we have another ham sandwich held in jail, then put away until some independent folks began asking questions. Several years later, he's freed.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be a Durhamite at times. You don't want to be the next ham sandwich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)