By Michelle McKee

The ax has been falling this week at the Discovery Channel as up to 30 people have reportedly lost their jobs due to the failing economy.  David Lohr, a long-time advocate for the missing on his Criminal Report Daily blog, is among those to go.  While it is not the first shake up to go down at Discovery, this one is a major one, and it seems counterproductive to Discovery’s goals to get rid of a journalist and investigative reporter of Lohr’s caliber.  Advertising revenue will be lost if the blog goes down, David’s large fan base will look elsewhere to find their information and, most importantly, the families of those with missing loved ones will have lost an important venue with integrity and crediblity from where they can reach out to others.

This is a major disappointment to readers, and a major setback to the genre of honest and forthright true crime reporting.  No one knows, of course, which direction Discovery and their subsidiary brand, Investigation Discovery, will go without the high-quality people like David Lohr that have been axed, but it almost certainly will not be upward.  Those who are of a mind to express their opinion over Discovery’s cuts can go here to do so.
 
Whether it will do any good remains to be seen, but it certainly can’t hurt to let the powers-that-be know how their readers and viewers think and feel about the decisions that have been made this week.

By Michelle McKee

The normal nighttime twinkle of lights from the little cottage that sat on the shore of Lake Ossipee, in the village of Mountain View, New Hampshire, had been replaced with the roaring flames of an incendiary fire. One set to erase all evidence of the murder that had been committed there and reduce the body of Mrs. Florence Small to little more than bone and ash.

Foiling the plot of what was expected to be a perfect crime; the floor beneath Mrs. Small’s body gave way during the fire and she fell into the basement below, fortuitously landing in a little pool of water that had collected there.

A cord bound tightly about her neck, a skull fractured by numerous blows, and a bullet wound to the forehead told the ghastly tale of the fate that had been bestowed upon Florence Small. She had not met her death by succumbing to the smoke and flame, but rather to a cold blooded killing.

In an effort to eradicate all signs of his crime her killer had applied a resin of thermite to his victim’s body and sprinkled it about the scene. The compound, typically used in welding to generate an extremely high heat, was intended to fuel a fire so hot that it would incinerate the body, the house, and any evidence that remained.

An onlooker who had stood by to watch as the bungalow burned stated that they had peered through a window upon arriving at the fiery cottage and believed they bore witness to Florence Small’s body partially suspended from the bed by a rope.

After the embers cooled, an alarm clock, some wire, spark plugs and a .32 caliber revolver were found amid the debris in the burned-out rubble of the Small’s summer home. The same caliber bullet was retrieved from Florence’s head.

The assailant stood above her as Florence lie prone on her back, and it was from that angle that he had shot her, the medical examiner said. And while the head shot would have eventually proven to be fatal, the thrashing she took to her skull most likely would not. However, the medical examiner presented, it wasn’t the fire, the gunshot or the blows to the head that had killed her. She had died from strangulation, instead. In his professional opinion, after suffering through a beating and being shot in the head, he estimated that Florence succumbed to the ligature around her neck, finally asphyxiated, and five minutes later was dead.

A Boston broker, Frederick Small was Florence’s husband. Out of town when the fire broke at 10pm that night, he had left for Boston at 3pm earlier in the day, just after lunch. But despite being away from the scene at the time, Florence’s loving husband became the primary suspect in her case.

Frederick had been married twice before. His previous love, second wife Laura Patterson Small, had granted his request for a divorce. Frederick came briefly into the public eye when he sued her paramour for the alienation of lovely Laura’s affections. The man in her life, Frederick Small alleged, was none other than millionaire baseball executive, Arthur H. Soden, president of the National League. Frederick Small wanted A. H. Soden to pay for his crime of the heart. He wanted $500,000 in damages for the loss of his lady love. He also alleged that Soden had drugged both he and his Laura, leaving them unconscious within their own home. Awarded a pittance compared to that which he coveted, a mere $10,000 was all that Frederick was deemed to receive.

On the night of the fire, following the dispatch of news regarding the death of his wife, a physician inquired of Frederick as to what should be done with her remains. “Why?” Frederick asked the good doctor, “is there enough left of the body to require a casket?”

The state believed Frederick concocted some kind of infernal machine. One that employed the spark plugs and wires and ignited gasoline, the fuse had been set with a timed device that he had formed with the alarm clock that they had found. They believed that he had killed his wife after lunch, some time near mid-afternoon, and then rigged the device to ignite the fuse after he had already left town.

Upon his return from Boston, Small proffered a theory that his wife had been murdered by a tramp or a thief, and then offered up a $1,000 reward for the capture of the person who had ended her life.

The police didn’t buy it; they believed that Frederick Small was their man and they surmised that a $20,000 life insurance policy was the reason he hatched his plan. The grieving widower was arrested in his hotel room and carted off to jail. From there he made the arrangements to bury his beloved.

After being acquainted for only ten days, Florence and Frederick had now been married for five years. Her husband spared no expense when it came to burying his beautiful wife. Ninety-eight dollars he spent, covering half of a plot, a paltry casket and a few flowers. He requested no formalities that required any additional attention – such as a headstone, grave marker or service. For her burial only one gift of flowers was received. A wreath, arranged in white and sent by her husband with an inscription that read, “To My Love.”

When Frederick returned to New Hampshire and was questioned by police waiting there he stated that he bade Florence farewell and that she was still in the house when he left. The driver who took him to the station for his trip concurred with Mr. Small; he saw for himself Frederick turn toward the door and heard him say “Good-bye” to Mrs. Small. The driver, however, admitted that he didn’t personally lay eyes on Florence at the time nor had he heard her voice at all.

One of Florence’s previous physician’s came in from Massachusetts. He stepped forward and offered up evidence of some possible prior abuse. The physician recounted an exchange from Frederick as Florence was being treated for injuries. Her husband boastfully quipped, said the doctor, “I hit her in the head with a bootjack. I ought to have killed her and I will yet.”

The mother of the victim had very little to say, but opined Frederick to be a “fear-inspiring hypnotist.” He is, she said, a man “without a drop of the milk of human kindness in his heart,” her Florence had feared him for years.

As the trial proceeded forward the jury took a field trip to the scene of the crime. And with an opportunity advantages to a public display of remorse, Fredrick Small broke with the composure that was the trademark throughout his ordeal and collapsed into a fit of tears. He howled and wailed at the site of his burned house. “Oh my dear wife,” he cried. Unable to hold himself up, he had to be propped up by the sherriff at his side. For the most part, the jurors ignored Frederick Small and his histrionic outbursts, but occasionally one would cast a gaze in the direction of his pitiful tear filled sobs and proclamations of grief.

But the most dreadfully alarming piece of evidence, by far, came in dramatic fashion at the trial’s climax; when the prosecution presented, for the visceral response of the jury, a hideous and frightful display. Florence Small’s severed head. What Frederick didn’t know, as they buried his wife, was that the prosecution had obtained an order to remove his bride’s head and have it placed in their possession for safe keeping. A few other portions and parts had also been plucked for possible use at his trial and they were being kept cozy and well preserved in alcohol filled jars nearby.

The judge suggested that women leave the courtroom, as Florence’s head was produced. Eight fair lasses remained seated, and craned their necks with the rest of the court’s observers as the prosecution’s gruesome exhibit was displayed. A gasp went through the courtroom and Frederick Small covered his face. He sobbed into his hands as a witness described in detail the current state of his wife’s face. Her features had been distorted by fire and frozen in time by death; the neck was still attached and encircled by the knotted cord that took her life. There was clearly a gunshot wound to her forehead and her skull had been cracked and damaged by at least seven forceful blows to her head.

The accused never took the stand to speak in his defense and let his counsel do their job. His attorney argued that the state had not offered proof that his client could cause a fire seven hours after he left his home. And they countered that the thermite was not possessed by Frederick Small, he had no knowledge of any such compound at all. The wires found in the basement, they said, near the spark plugs and clock, were merely telephone wires and nothing nefarious.

The prosecution unleashed upon the defendant a closing argument of vitriol and venom. Charging that the crime was as heinous an act as had ever been committed in the state, it was likened to the same unspeakable cruelty that had befallen women and children who had burned at the stake in the days of early New Hampshire. “Frederick Small,” declared the Attorney General, while shaking his clenched fist, was an “Imp form Hell.” A soulless cad teeming with “the spirit of the Devil”

The jury recessed for dinner and then they went to work. After a fourteen day trial it took only three hours for the verdict to be reached. It was a unanimous finding for guilty; murder in the first degree.

The defendant entered the courtroom looking pale, drawn and haggard. His attorney, brother and nephew were at his side. And as the verdict was read he staggered and swayed just a bit, but then quickly regained his composure.

“Have you anything to say as to why sentence should not be pronounced?” the judge asked of the defendant.

“I have your honor,” Frederick Small replied. “I know no more about this crime than you do. I am an innocent person.”

And then after the formalities of adjournment had been observed, and Frederick Small had been sentenced for his act, he turned to the courtroom, and addressing the reporters still present within he repeated himself for the record, “Gentlemen, I am innocent of this crime. I know no more about it than you do. I am awaiting the next move.”

As journalists crowded around the man who had been damned to hang by his neck a reporter remarked, “The coolest man in the courtroom by far is the man who has just been condemned to death.”

The defense did their level best in lobbying on behalf of their client. Requesting an acquittal on grounds of evidence insufficient for presentation to a jury, appealing the sentence and filing multiple exceptions, but they failed in their endeavor. Affirmation came, supporting the verdict and the sentence. Frederick Small would be executed.

On the day of his death Frederick Small went to the gallows calmly. He would neither admit nor deny that he had ended the life of his wife. “I am resigned. God’s will be done,” were the last words he chose to utter.

The lights were turned out, and amid the blackness that shrouded the hangman’s gallows the strap that operated the trap door beneath Frederick Small’s feet was pulled and the condemned man dropped to his death in darkness.

************

The first case to be heard within the Ossipee, New Hampshire courtroom walls was that of Frederick Small for the murder of his wife Florence. Easily a victim of domestic battery, Florence Arlene Curry Small died on September 28, 1916. She was 37-years old. She had been beaten, strangled, shot, and burned. Her head later removed for the benefit of prosecutorial theatrics and paraded about a courtroom for the shock and awe of spectators and jurors.

Her husband, Frederick Small, was executed for her murder on January 15, 1918. He dropped to his death at 12:18 am and was pronounced dead nine minutes later. His remains were cremated and put into the care of his brother who returned with him to Portland, ME.

At the end of the trial Florence Arlene Small was forgotten. Left abandoned in an unmarked grave at Grant Hill cemetery for 91-years, it was a mystery as to where in the graveyard Florence actually lay buried, or if she was even there at all. There was little to speak to the fact that Florence had ever existed in Ossipee. The court transcripts had been lost and there was no recording of her death in the 1916 record of vital statistics for the town.

Then one day Natalie Peterson, a woman helping to restore the old courthouse, stumbled upon Florence’s grave and the story of how she came to rest there. She set forth to see that the town’s forgotten victim was forgotten no more. Ninety-one years after her passing Florence Small finally received a proper headstone and long awaited remembrance.

I can’t help but wonder, though… if anyone ever remembered to give Florence back her head?

By Michelle McKee

To help In Cold Blog's founder, Corey Mitchell, kick of the release of his newest book, PURE MURDER, a few of his friends are hosting a Virtual Book Tour for him. He’ll be dropping by various blogs and web sites over the next several days where he will be answering our various questions.

My questions for Corey are based on a little Thanksgiving turkey he and I shared last year and our mutual love for the 1st Amendment. But you know… maybe… just maybe… freedom of speech has gone to far, and it’s time to draw a line in order to protect society from the artistic creativity of… well… some of these so-called artists…

I wonder what Corey thinks…

Michelle McKee:
Corey, what do you think of violence in entertainment and the public acceptance of it?

Corey Mitchell:
It is nothing new. Violence in entertainment has existed since man deemed it needed excitement. The main difference these days is that most of our violent entertainment is something that can be experienced without actually harming people. We don't throw people to the lions anymore, we merely unleash them into the multiplex theaters or the safety of their worn-out couches.

From caveman conquests to jousts to the Bard to the Grand Guignol to the National Football League to the Bible, humans have always been drawn to violent activities, plays, music, literature, etc. This election year hoo-ha over violence in movies, music, and video games is merely a simplistic argument made by shallow individuals who are unable to think on levels just slightly above remedial. It is easy to blame a horror film for making someone go on a killing rampage. It is much more difficult to truly assess the cause of an individual's outburst because there are usually a multitude of factors that play into the equation.

Blaming violent entertainment for crime is the work of simpletons merely looking to get elected, to make themselves appear superior to others, and to show off their alleged moral righteousness at the expense of millions of other people who enjoy such entertainment and are mature enough to know how to compartmentalize the real world and make-believe.

MM: What about films such as Hostel and the Thanksgiving trailer from Grindhouse by Eli Roth? On one end of the spectrum we have Roth's Hostel series, probably one of the scariest, bloodiest, most terror inducing set of films ever made. On the other, we have his slasher trailer Thanksgiving and what looks to be a humorous parody of murder.

CM: First of all, if you believe the Hostel films are some of the "most terror inducing set of films ever made," you have not seen many horror films. Try In A Glass Cage, Nekromantik 2, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Man Behind the Sun, Irreversible, Slaughtered Vomit Dolls, Lucio Fulci's Zombie, The Three Mothers, Inside, etc. for quality gore and scares.

Roth's films, just like his Grindhouse trailer "Thanksgiving," offer lots of humor beyond the gore and terror. The mere casting of Roger Bart, Bree's wimpy husband from Desperate Housewives, and Richard Burgi, Susan's macho husband from the same show, in Hostel: Part II in reverse roles, is indicative of Roth's sly wit. There is also lots of silly Porky's-esque humor in his debut film, Cabin Fever, such as the kung-fu kid Dennis who loves to scream "Pancakes!" before delivering a martial arts blow on an unsuspecting college partier.

And, of course, if you have not seen Roth's trailer for "Thanksgiving," do yourself a favor and look it up. It is a perfect parody of the 70's holiday-themed slasher films and offers plenty of gore and sick humor in just over two minutes. And, by the way, SPOILER ALERT!, the stuffed body at the end of the trailer is not a woman, but Eli Roth himself!

MM: Do you think that entertainment in the form of murder says something about the state of our society when we can easily watch someone being sliced and diced on the big screen while chewing on a mouthful of Milk Duds or find the cheerleader scene from Thanksgiving amusing?

CM: Horror films are about pushing boundaries. They are the one realm of entertainment where it is forbidden to forbid anything. You know going in what you are going to get and if you are appalled or offended, then you should have known better.

The vast majority of friends and colleagues I have who are into horror (and heavy metal music) are some of the nicest, most intelligent, and gentle people you will ever meet. They are not sociopaths, they are not misogynistic pigs. They are thrill-seekers who are constrained by societal rules and are looking for an outlet. If they are able to laugh at something horrific and experience a cathartic release, more power to them. They are inevitably much more well-adjusted and stress-free than the Uptight Ninny Brigadeers who believe it is their station in life to impose their stringent views on others and castigate those who do not march in lock-step with them.

Besides, how can you not laugh when Ash (Bruce Campbell) from Evil Dead 2 chops off his possessed hand with a chainsaw only to trap it underneath a bucket when the dismembered hand decided to skitter off like an electrocuted scorpion? Of course, he then weighs the bucket down with a hardcover copy of Ernest Hemingway's novel, A Farewell to Arms. Brilliant!

MM: It seems that every horror film that comes out these days has an escalation of violence. Each has to be bloodier and more depraved than the one before. Should someone break Eli Roth's pencils and unplug his camcorder, shut down all those to dare to walk such a path with their creativity?

CM: Actually, the vast majority of mainstream Hollywood horror fare hitting the theater screens today are of the much more sanitized PG-13 variety. Recent remakes of such films as Prom Night and When A Stranger Calls, which were originally R-rated films, are now much safer than their 70's and 80's predecessors. With the possible exceptions of the Saw franchise and the Hostel flicks, most horror is watered down, less gore-filled, and aimed at the zits and hormones crowd.

Believe me, the horror and gore levels are nowhere near the level of the horror output of the 70's and 80's. Back then you had Dawn of the Dead, The Incredible Melting Man, Last House on the Left, Zombie, the canons of Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento, that were far more gruesome and terrifying than today's films.

Ironically, some of the best and most gruesome horror right now is coming out of the allegedly wimpy country of France with films such as Haute Tension, Inside, and Frontier(s). What makes these films even more fascinating is, not only do they harken back to the 70's exploitation movement of American underground horror, they tend to base their plots around seemingly real-life tragedies that any reader of true crime can appreciate. Inside tells the story of a pregnant woman protecting her unborn child from a potential fetus-snatcher. It is grim, bloody, and gripping as hell.

MM: But, Corey, perhaps have we finally become too free with our speech? Perhaps there has there come a time when we should say enough is enough and draw a line on the 1st Amendment that says, "Thou shalt not cross?"

CM: Blasphemy! Never!

When the media is barred from taking photographs of our dead soldiers after they return in coffins from Iraq, then you know our speech is not as free as we delude ourselves into thinking. When corporations kill news pieces that are potentially scabrous to prospective advertisers, you know free speech in our country is a joke.

Technically, only the government can violate the First Amendment of an individual, at least when we are talking about damages, recompense, the whole legal spectacle. The reality, however, is that Big Money rules the day and makes the rules of what we can say. It's all bullshit, of course, but it is the painful truth.

Horror films, death metal music, true crime books, Grand Theft Auto -- they are so far down on the radar as far as Big Money is concerned. The only time these subjects come up are during an election year or when some self-promoting do-gooder decides to go on a rampage against these forms of entertainment to draw attention to themselves.

MM: Come on, Corey, some of this stuff is quite offensive. Shouldn't society, our children for crying out loud, be protected from this type of material?

CM: And that, my friend, is what parents are for. That's what teachers can instill. That's why we should rely on the community mentality. Instead of worrying so much about kids seeing a gory film or reading about a brutal murder in a true crime book, we should be encouraging them to devour this material. The more knowledge our children can glean from these stories, the stronger, more aware, and more confident they will become if and when they ever have to deal with the unfortunate horrors that lurk outside.

Sure, we can lock our kids up or we can hold book burning witch hunts, but what good is that going to do anyone? Our kids are going to find a way to get their hands on this material. So instead of denying them the opportunity, we should readily present it to them, discuss it with them, teach them right from wrong, and then send them on their way when they reach adulthood, hopefully, prepared as can be.

Of course, the Uptight Ninny Brigade want you to play ostrich and stick your head in the dirt. They are afraid of their own shadow, and thus, feel compelled to wag their fingers at the rest of us mature individuals who can handle the truth (or the fake).

No matter what we do as purveyors of filth and gore, of horror and true crime, of screaming music and extreme weirdness -- we cannot let the Uptight Ninny Brigade gain the upper hand. Our unique interests are too important to squelch. We have no desire to live by the narrow-minded guidelines the UNB wish to impose on us. It's all a little too Orwellian and Huxleyian for me to swallow some days.

Go to the theaters and scream at a bloody murder on the screen. Crank up some death metal by Decrepit Birth as you cruise down the street in your neighborhood. Tell your friends about the latest true crime book that scared the hell out of you.

Be proud of your interest in the darker side of life.

You are not alone.

By Dr. Marc D. Feldman and Michelle Gray

Child abuse can leave scars that last a lifetime. If you’ve suffered the affects of being traumatized by child abuse you know first hand what I mean. As an adult, depending on how severe the abuse was, you may have some good days, days where you don’t think about it. That’s not to say that there are no dark days, but occasionally you can forget and put it behind you. If you’re one of the lucky ones you’ve been able to move past it altogether and have never looked back.

For a Munchausen by Proxy victim it’s not a matter of being able to put the abuse behind you and move past it. It’s a matter of trying to learn how to live every day with the affects of this type of victimization, and how to cover the medical costs that can go along with it. You see, it’s near impossible to forget something when there is a lasting physical reminder of medical procedures and unnecessary surgeries that serve as a living document to the extent of the abuse endured.

Born a healthy child, the damage done by unnecessary medical treatment leaves you physically altered, you’re now physically broken, you are physically different than everyone else. Parts of your insides have been removed, and other accoutrement has been left in place. Life partners may not exist for you, because you’ll have to find someone willing to accept you the way you were left, with your broken body and all of its new pieces, as well as the emotional and mental trauma you live with every second of every day as a result of being butchered and abused. The emotional and mental damage inflicted from the awareness that your mother did this, that she is the one who purposely shattered your existence, is debilitating. There are days when functioning is near impossible due to the lasting depression that accompanies the victim of this type of abuse. For a Munchausen by Proxy child the memories of abuse don’t stop, they never end. They reply over and over like a really bad 8-track tape stuck on a never ending loop.

I know all of this first hand. You see, what you just read is drawn from my own story. My mother was a Munchausen mom. I am her victim.

Please join me and ICB in an attempt gain a little insight into the phenomenon of child abuse through Munchausen by Proxy. It's too late for me, and others like me, but perhaps someone out there reading will put two and two together and another child can be, will be, saved. I know from my personal perspective that there isn't a day, an hour, a second, that goes by that I don't wish someone would have been able to see the signs of abuse and reached out their hand to save me. [Michelle Gray]

Michelle Gray:
Many crime stories that we see daily involve lying in one form or another. In some cases the lie is to cover up the crime, but in others the discovery of the lie becomes the impetus to the crime. One case that comes to mind is the murder of Lori Hacking by her husband Mark. Mark Hacking had been intentionally lying about several aspects of his life over a long period of time. When his wife discovered his deceptions he shot her as she slept.

I think many readers are like me and when they see the term factitious the word “lie” or “liar” come to mind and when they see the word “disorder” the word “pathological” or “habitual” comes to mind. Therefore, please set us straight, what is Factitious Disorder and is this just another term for a pathological liar?

Dr. Feldman:
"Pathological lying" refers to lying consisting of a triad of features: it is impulsive or compulsive; it is repetitive; and it typically is ultimately self-defeating (e.g., the lie is exposed and undermines people's trust). It can involve anything--not just illness. One variant that often co-exists with full-blown Munchausen syndrome is called "pseudologia fantastica," or the telling of tall tales about one's personal history that mix fact and fiction. Such lies--the ones that are "a little" true--are the best kinds of lies because they are so difficult, generally, to detect. Pseudologia fantastica can be seen among MBP perpetrators as well.

Factitious Disorder (FD) is the feigning, exaggerating, or self-inducing of physical or psychological signs and symptoms to assume the "sick role." External incentives are absent, which contrasts with malingering, in which the principal goal for the disease enactment is external, and often tangible. Examples of malingering include obtaining opioids, evading criminal prosecution, getting disability monies, avoiding military service, etc.

FD is a mental disorder with its own chapter in DSM-IV-TR; malingering is merely listed in the Appendix as a condition that might warrant clinical attention but is not established to be a mental disorder. If the only way to understand the disease enactment is to invoke psychological processes, then the diagnosis is FD. Technically, FD and malingering cannot co-exist, but in reality they very often do because a person's motives for a piece of behavior can shift over time.

MG: How does Hypochondria differ from Factitious Disorder and Munchausen Syndrome?

Dr. Feldman: Hypochondriasis refers to the preoccupation with having a dreaded disease. These patients are convinced that they are genuinely ill but that doctors and others have failed to diagnose it properly. Some people consider chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia to be forms of hypochondriasis, but this is a bit controversial. Based on their convictions of illness, hypochondriacal patients may seek medical opinions repeatedly and from numerous practitioners. Hypochondriasis is one of the somatoform disorders, along with diagnoses such as pain disorder, somatization disorder, and conversion disorder.

Munchausen syndrome is defined by the triad of 1) chronic and severe factitious disorder, 2) pseudologia fantastica, and 3) wanderlust (traveling from place to place to garner new audiences for the deceptions). The professional literature is uniform in stating that Munchausen Syndrome patients are predominantly male, but in my work, women have been more prevalent.

Munchausen by proxy is the feigning, exaggerating, or inducing of physical or psychological ailments in another person, typically by a mother against her child. Men have only rarely been implicated in Munchausen by Proxy maltreatment.

MG: Is Munchausen by Proxy (MBP) a form of mental illness?

Dr. Feldman: Munchausen by proxy, isn't really an "illness," as I see it. It as a form of child abuse, not something a perpetrator "suffers from." In the same way that a mother doesn't "have" shaken baby syndrome, a mother doesn't "have" Munchausen by Proxy (MBP). However, the media almost always get it wrong, as do child protection agencies and courts.

MG: You say that MBP from your perspective is not an illness but child abuse. Therefore, I have to ask you, is child abuse related to a mental illness or is it a behavior choice.

Dr. Feldman: Child abuse is a behavioral choice, in my opinion, at least in MBP cases (an exception might be a phenomenon such as postpartum psychosis resulting in abuse/death of the child, because then the mother has lost contact with reality). These mothers are not psychotic nor necessarily impulsive; often considerable planning is necessary for them to carry out the deceptions. Some perps may claim that the behavior occurred during psychogenic "blackouts," but I'm not aware of any cases in which this was found to be true.

MG: In MBP the perpetrator makes another sick in order to garner attention for themselves. How do the perpetrators of MBP differ from those caregivers who have been termed “Angels of Death?” Don't both sets of perpetrators seek to garner attention for themselves by inflicting extreme illness to another party?

Dr. Feldman: The Angels of Death and MBP perpetrators have so much in common in many cases that I equated them in my co-edited 1996 book, The Spectrum of Factitious Disorders. The relevant chapter analyzes numerous Angel of Death cases, calling them "hospital epidemics" of MBP. But some Angels of Death are "merely" homicidal and not particularly attention-seeking, and in those cases, the MBP term wouldn't be appropriate.

MG: To what extent do perpetrators of MBP seek to harm their victims? Do they seek to cause the eventual death of their victim or is the death of the victim counterproductive?

Dr. Feldman: There are some cases--relatively few--in which the MBP perpetrator seems to delight in the bereavement experience, enjoying funeral and burial rituals, etc. I think that's how the Waneta Hoyt case in upstate New York can be conceptualized, and it may also be true for the Marie Noe case in Philadelphia. But generally, the death of the victim is counterproductive because it removes the "object" they manipulate in MBP. Overall, though, it has been estimated that 9-10 percent of MBP victims eventually die, either as a direct result of the abuse or the iatrogenic complications caused by misdirected treatment efforts.

MG: How well informed is the medical community on the signs and symptoms of MBP?

Dr. Feldman: Overall, I think the medical community is inadequately informed. The reason is that MBP is not routinely taught in medical schools or residency programs. In a 1993 study I did with Barbara Ostfeld, we found that child psychiatrists were quite uniformly aware of the phenomenon, but that most family practitioners and social workers--who, after all, are on the front lines in dealing with families--were unaware even of the term "MBP," let alone what it takes to diagnose a case.

MG: I am pretty sure that if I decide that I want to have half a lung removed I can eventually find someone who will be more than happy to come up with a diagnosis to support the procedure and eagerly bill for it. Therefore, how culpable are the doctors who are involved in these cases, they're trained professionals, how can they be so easily duped?

Dr. Feldman: Regarding the apparent ease with which physicians can be duped: this isn't a surprise to me. Physicians are taught nothing about medical deception in medical school or residency. Even as a psychiatric trainee, I never even heard the word "factitious"; it was only after I submitted my first article about a patient who feigned cancer that I heard the term. In the article, I had called it "malingering," and the reviewers pointed out my mistake.

During medical school, a supervisor got angry with me for writing statements such as "According to the patient, she has shortness of breath" or "The patient states he has chest pain." He said that I was demonstrating that I already doubted what I was being told by not stating it as simple fact, and so I had to re-write the entry simply as "She has shortness of breath" and "He has chest pain." Also, doctors are taught (correctly) that the best clue to what is going on with a patient is what the patient and family have to say about it and that we must form an "alliance" with both (particularly in psychiatry, but actually in all fields). We are not taught ever to doubt what is being said. So, again, it doesn't surprise me that doctors can not only be gullible but also wind up being, as one author put it, "professional participants" in MBP maltreatment.

MG: Is there a victim profile for MBP, such as confined to a particular age group, gender, economic background? What about the perpetrator, is there a profile for them?

Dr. Feldman: MBP perpetrators tend to have personality disorders, especially borderline, antisocial, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders--the so-called "Cluster B" personality disorders, histories of psychiatric treatment earlier in their lives, histories of substance abuse, and, often, personal histories of factitious disorder that they now seem to want to extend to the next generation.

They may have been abused themselves earlier in life, but this is hard to know because the perpetrators often provide false historical information in a kind of attempt to exonerate or explain away their behavior. Clearly, the problems these mothers have allow them to objectify and dehumanize their children. Occasionally, a perpetrator might have an underlying mental disorder such as major depression or bipolar disorder that fuels their behavior to some extent, and we tend to view those cases as more treatable because mood disorders are quite treatable.

They tend to be in the age range associated with having small children. I think that MBP, like abuse in general, is detected more often in lower socioeconomic families, but I don't have research data to back that up. I rarely encounter African-American perpetrators in MBP cases, and I'm not sure what to make of that.

Regarding victims, they are usually, but not always, pre-verbal or scantily verbal and therefore can't communicate about what's going on. They seem not to have bonded terribly well with the perpetrator, and there can be several reasons for this. One is that, as in abuse in general, there may be something about the child (in the eyes of the mother) that makes him/her "imperfect" and dissatisfying.

Only one study of adult survivors of MBP has, to my knowledge, been published. As you would expect, many of the patients (I think there were 12 in the study) had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Some avoided even medically necessary care because of their unpleasant memories, but a few became factitious disorder patients themselves, as if to "master" the trauma by making it their own.

MG: How common is MBP?

Dr. Feldman: It has been estimated by one researcher that there are around 1,200 new cases each year in the U.S., but that statistic makes a lot of assumptions that might not all be true. MBP is a form of abuse/neglect that is bathed in secrecy and I have the feeling that most--yes, most--cases are never identified.

MG: What needs to be done to better understand, identify, and treat MBP perpetrators?

Dr. Feldman: It has been very difficult to study MBP perpetrators because most deny their culpability even when faced with incontrovertible evidence, and therefore aren't amenable to research interviews.

It might help if there were a central database of MBP cases that accredited researchers could access in order to study perpetrators and victims more thoroughly. The victims tend not to be available because the focus is on placement once MBP is identified, and so once again study is stymied.

The broader problem, though, is that many jurisdictions still aren't even aware of MBP as a form of child maltreatment, and obviously one can't diagnose something one has never heard of. So, cases slip through the fingers of anyone who might try to study the phenomenon.

MG: What percentage of the population is affected, or believed to be affected, by MBP as victims and as perpetrators?

Dr. Feldman: We have no information to answer this question. Again, it would be very helpful if there were a central repository of MBP data, but it doesn't exist.

Very little formal research into MBP has ever been performed and government and private foundations in the U.S. have never contributed a dime in grant monies for these issues.

MG: Are children the only victims of MBP? What about the same type of behavior by a caregiver against, for example, an elderly individual or someone who is already disabled, would that also be classified as MBP?

Dr. Feldman: Yes, these would also count as MBP cases. We use terms such as "Munchausen by Adult Proxy" to label such behavior, which can have the very same motives as when a child is the victim. We should be aware, too, that MBP can be perpetrated against pets in order for the perpetrator to receive attention and sympathy, care and concern, from the vet and/or others.

MG: What should someone do if they suspect abuse through Munchausen by Proxy?

Dr. Feldman: First, they need education about what MBP is and is not. They can quickly get this kind of information from the MBP chapters in my book, Playing Sick. Then, they need to match the facts of the given case to the known features and warning signs of MBP. Once they have this kind of information, they will be equipped to make a sound, organized report to their county child protection agencies. They need to cooperate with the authorities and remain available to assist, if possible. Of course, mandated reporters, such as physicians, must make the MBP report at the time they become suspicious that it is occurring, even in the absence of confirmation.

[Dr. Marc Feldman is the Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Alabama (UA), Tuscaloosa. He was formerly Vice Chair for Clinical Services at the University of Alabama, Birmingham (UAB) and Medical Director of UAB’s Center for Psychiatric Medicine. With a specialty in Factitious Disorder, Dr. Feldman is an international expert in Munchausen syndrome, Munchausen by proxy, and malingering.]

image by eyewire

“You shouldn't be getting money back from the government when you owe money to crime victims” - Andy Kahan

Barry Crawford was a Houston Firefighter. He was trained to save lives, not take them. But on April 17, 1998 Barry Bernard Crawford stepped across the line and murdered Steven Ray Hardin in cold blood, shooting him in the heart at point blank range. As Steven lay dying Crawford’s neighbors tried to save his life. But Crawford, the firefighter, never pitched in. Instead, he kept asking if his victim was dead, yet, while he continued to grip the rifle as he peered over the top of Steven Hardin’s body.

Steven Hardin was a wrecker driver for Midwest Auto Storage in Houston when he caught the call to go to Crawford’s place and tow his vehicle. Crawford had been parking his vehicle illegally on his neighbor’s property for quite some time and had received a number of warnings that the vehicle would be towed. There is no question that Crawford was quite aware that his vehicle was going to be towed. No question at all. When Hardin showed up and crawled under the vehicle to hook it to the tow truck Crawford emerged from his home proclaiming that Hardin wasn’t going to tow the vehicle, and then began hitting him in the face with the butt of the rifle he had brought outside with him. When Hardin emerged from under the truck he asked Crawford what he was going to do, shoot him? And with that, Crawford shot Hardin point blank in the chest.

On July 31, 1998 Barry Crawford was convicted of murder. But in what is an obvious mockery of justice a jury gave Crawford only 10-years of probation. Judge Ted Poe stipulated the following conditions of Crawford’s supervised release: 1,000 hours of community service and Crawford is mandated by the court to take flower’s to Steven’s grave, pay child support to Steven’s wife for their two children, carry a photo of Steven in his wallet and carry a sign 5-times during the year that reads, “I killed a citizen in Humble.” Even with the sign Steven Hardin isn’t given the dignity of being identified as Crawford’s victim. He’s just a nameless, faceless person on a sign that few people will probably ever look at closely enough to read.

Crawford was also given 6-months in jail but bonded out pending appeal, 17-days after being incarcerated.

Crawford has shown no remorse for his actions, he’s given no apology to the victim’s family. He arrogantly goes about town, walking free, with punishment that is befit of owning an unlicensed pet, not the arrogant wanton murder of an innocent man.

It should come as no surprise that when you give probation for murder the killer is not necessarily going to take the conditions of his generous Get Out of Jail Free card seriously. Such is the case with Barry Crawford. Crawford has never conformed to the conditions of the minuscule slap on the hand that he received for his unjustifiable murder of Steven Hardin.

“Crawford has been skirting the conditions of his probation for years,” [Andy] Kahan said. “He was supposed to carry a picture of the victim in his wallet. But he supposedly doesn’t carry a wallet. He was supposed to have a bumper sticker on his car reading, ‘Don’t mess with drugs,’ but he says he doesn’t have a car. He is about $10,000 in default on his restitution, but he’d make a $2 payment just to say he paid. He was supposed to carry a sign five times a year, but I don’t know the last time he’s done it.”

Barry Crawford, like many American’s, is waiting for his tax rebate check to arrive. Thanks to Andy Kahan’s persuasiveness and the judge's willingness to listen, Barry Crawford isn’t going to have to wait for his tax rebate any longer. Crawford’s not going to be getting one, he has been ordered to forfeit the money as part of the condition of his probation.

“That money shouldn’t be going back to your pocket. That money needs to go back to the victims,” Kahan said.

Andy has also sent a letter to the administrative judge requesting that all Texas courts give consideration to doing the same to other criminals ordered to pay their victims restitution. “It makes sense to me. You shouldn’t be getting money back from the government when you owe money to crime victims,” Kahan said.

There is a balance of tens of millions of dollars in unpaid restitution that is owed to victims. Parolees and those on probation are regaining their freedom and being released from supervision without every having completed the conditions to go along with the privileged liberation from their jail cell. These individuals are regaining their freedom without ever having paid the money owed as part of their agreement to be outside of that jail cell to begin with.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has now said that it will begin intercepting tax refund and rebate checks, and thanks to Andy Kahan other Texas criminals might just receive the same fate as Barry Crawford, which is only fitting.

Equally offensive as letting the criminal walk away into freedom without ever having paid their victims the restitution ordered by the court is the notion that murder is such a paltry little crime that it merely warrants probation. In my opinion, offering probation to someone like Barry Crawford is the equivalent of pissing on the grave of the victim. Since when did the taking of a life begin to merit such a disregard in, at the very least, human compassion, that probation and 1,000 hours of community service could be thought of as a justifiable punishment?

According to Andy Kahan, “In 1998 we had about 109 murderers on probation in Texas. We have filed legislation to eliminate murderers from being sentenced to probation, but it has been unsuccessful. Today we currently have 58 murderers on probation in the state. In my opinion this reduction is largely due to the outrage expressed by citizens over the Hardin case.”

House Bill 187 would eliminate the possibility of receiving probation for murder. Steven Hardin’s mother is pushing for it, “We can get the bill out of the House, but we haven’t been able to get it through the Senate. Hopefully this next session it will be passed. So this won’t happen to another family.”

[Andy Kahan is a victim’s advocate and the Director of Crime Victim’s Assistance for the Mayor’s Office in Houston, TX, and is the leading voice against the sale of murderbellia. You can catch Andy tonight on Nancy Grace.]

“This monstrous evil demanded justice. Whoever did this should never walk the face of the earth again.”

– Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation, by Jon Hersley, Larry Tongate and Bob Burke

Jon Hersley: The victim families in the Oklahoma City bombing; what a dignified group of people they are. They’re like your own families. Like your brothers and your sisters, your sons and daughters, your moms and your dads. That’s who they are. They’re just like you are, like we are.

I sat in the courtroom and watched and listened to many, many of those victim family members testify about their loved ones that were killed. Spouses who’ve had their husbands or wives killed, their kids killed, their sons and daughters, their aunts and uncles, their grandmas and their grandpas, and their mothers and fathers killed in the Oklahoma City bombing.

I was a thirty-year law enforcement officer; I’ve had all kinds of cases. But this one changed me. I watched the dignity that all these people testified with. And they all tried to maintain their composure on the witness stand, and they all broke down before they could finish. It honestly just rips your heart out, and it changed me as a person. I am a different person today after experiencing all of that, knowing these people, and watching what they’ve been through.

“And Helena saw another man carry Brandon Denny from the building. Colton Smith was carried out next and laid on the concrete. Helena did not want to leave Colton but she wanted desperately to find Tevin.

She stayed with Colton, watching him, waiting and watching as more and more of the babies were carried out and laid down next to her. She screamed to the men, “Please don’t lay our babies on this glass, we don’t want our babies on this glass.” Pieces of glass were everywhere. A man swept the glass away from the children as they lay on the plaza floor.

Helena had not yet realized the babies were dead. A nurse came and began tagging the tiny bodies, and finally Helena realized they were gone. But still there was no sign of her precious Tevin.”

"On Saturday, three days, and what seemed like years after the bombing, Helena was notified that Tevin had been found. She was at church when the news came. Helena was never able to see Tevin’s face again. Tevin had a severe head injury, necessitating a closed casket funeral. She was able to kiss his feet and legs, but the rest of his body remained covered."

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

“It was impossible to walk around inside the building. There was smoke and debris everywhere, and the officers had to crawl.”

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

"Floors of concrete had fallen and were pancaked on top of where the officers were trying to free trapped victims. [Sgt.] Flowers heard a woman scream and saw her rolled up in a ball, her feet and legs tucked under her chest. She was imprisoned in a mass of cement blocks and steel rebar. He reached up through the concrete and touched the woman, telling her she was going to be okay, although he knew there was no way – it was impossible to move the concrete and steel rebar by hand."

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

“Daina Bradley’s leg was caught between the basement floor and a slab of the collapsed floor above. For hours she had laid in six inches of water and was in shock. Dr. [Andy] Sullivan removed the hard hat he had been given and crawled on his stomach until he reached the patient. A light bulb rigged by the rescue workers provided a small glimpse of light.”

“He had to make quick decisions. A rescue harness was hooked to her body so she could be pulled immediately from the rubble after he amputated her leg.

The doctor was afraid to administer Demerol or Morphine in fear that the medicine would kill Daina. Instead, he gave her Versed, an amnesic that would help her forget what was about to happen. He prayed Daina would not bleed to death and die in his arms as he performed the crude surgery.

With the tourniquet tightened, Dr. Sullivan told Daina what he was about to do. At first she said no, but then relented, recognizing that loosing a leg was better than loosing her life.

Dr. Sullivan began his work. The first, second, and third scalpel blades broke as Daina screamed and thrashed about with her free arms and leg. The doctor used his body to pin her leg against the concrete wall and switched to an amputation knife. Hitting against the concrete dulled the knife, so Dr. Sullivan had to complete his horrible task with his pocket knife.

Because of Dr. Sullivan’s heroic effort, Daina survived."

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

Michelle Gray: Did both men know that there was a daycare inside the Murrah building?

Jon Hersley: Well, you know, that’s speculation. But Michael Fortier said that McVeigh certainly knew. We didn’t have as concrete of evidence that Terry Nichols knew that there was a daycare there. But I believe they both knew it.

Michelle Gray: Did Nichols or McVeigh ever express any remorse for anybody that they killed, even for just the children, the babies that died?

Jon Hersley: No. Not one bit.

“As she rounded the corner from Harvey and looked across Northwest Fifth Street, Helena could see the Murrah Building had been almost completely destroyed. The entire face of the building had blown off. As she ran toward the building, she counted in her mind, “One, two,” trying to imagine where the second floor of the day care center would have been. She began climbing the pile of debris - she desperately needed to be where Tevin would have been.”

“As she moved closer to the plaza area immediately behind the day care center, Helena screamed at two strangers that her baby was inside the building. The men asked her what she meant, and Helena screamed, “There’s a day care center in there, my baby’s in there.”

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

“He told his old friend about The Tuner Diaries. It was important to McVeigh, and he pressed Hodge to read the book. He left a copy of the book, along with a letter, for Hodge to read.

The letter stated in part, “Steve, Read the book when you have time to sit down and think. When I read it, I would have to stop at the end of every paragraph and examine the deeper meaning of what I had just read…..It is like you have written a diary during now and (when) a “revolution” took place in about 3 years; you keeping a diary the whole time. Then in 10 years or so, or even a thousand, an "archeologist” discovers your diary…..I am not giving you the book to convert you. I do, however, want you to understand the “other side” and view the pure literal genius of this piece. Again this is accomplished by not just simply reading this, but in analyzing every sentence you’ve read. Think “what made the author write that paragraph”, or “what deeper meaning is he trying to convey”, or “How, by wording it like that, is he trying to subliminally influence someone’s thinking”. If you look at it like that, it is a masterpiece.”

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

Michelle Gray: Was McVeigh’s hatred for the government fueled by his failure in the military?

Jon Hersley: McVeigh had a lot of anti-government hatred built up for years, before he went into the military.

Before he went into the military he was upset and very, very angry with the government over gun control. He had even written a letter to the newspapers up in the Buffalo area about gun control rights, saying something like “what does this have to come to? That blood might have to be spilled in the streets about this?”

He completed his military career and tried out for Special Forces. But he was unable to compete in the physical arenas that Special Forces competed in and he voluntarily dropped out, after he had tried to do a five-mile walk with a rucksack on his back and found it to be too difficult.

Michelle Gray: What was the true motive for the bombing? Was it really retribution for Waco?

Jon Hersley: Yes, Waco had a lot to do with it. I think McVeigh, in his own warped mind, felt like he was avenging what had happened there.

He also, in my estimation, had not accomplished what he wanted to accomplish in his life. He was seeking relevance in life because he had none. So, I think in his own twisted mind, Waco gave him the excuse he wanted to try and make something of himself.

“It was no small coincidence that the book, Homemade C-4, ordered and shipped to McVeigh in May 1993, detailed the mixture of ammonium nitrate fertilizer with nitromethane and/or anhydrous hydrazine to complete a powerful explosive material. FBI explosives experts were certain the bomb that was exploded in front of the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995, was an ammonium nitrate based bomb.”

“Agent Hersley and other Agents assigned to the investigation took full note of the fact that Homemade C-4 was ordered and delivered to McVeigh approximately one month after the fire on April 19, 1993 at David Koresh’s compound in Waco, Texas.”

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

“Though scores of buildings were damaged, there was no looting. When rescue workers and firefighters asked for something, they got everything. By the box – by the truckload – there was no limit to the love.

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

“A rescue and recovery operation involving thousands, for weeks, around the clock, in rain and wind and under the white of lights on cranes, conducted simultaneously with the investigation of the largest criminal case in the history of the United States. Firefighters, police officers, emergency service personnel, construction workers, all feverishly picking the building apart with their hearts, hands, and five-gallon buckets.”

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

Michelle Gray: Is it true that witness recollections are notoriously inaccurate?

Jon Hersley: Not necessarily witness recollections, but witness identifications you have to be really careful with. I think eye-witness sightings may be what you mean. With eye-witness sightings, unless there’s some other significant event that happened along with it, I would say to law enforcement that they have to be very careful on eye-witness sightings.

When you’re conducting a business transaction with somebody it’s much easier to remember them. And it’s much more reliable than if you just pass somebody on the street or you see something happen very quickly, that’s when you really have to be careful.

For me to consider them to be reliable there would need to be some other event that took place with it. If the victim was assaulted, you’re going to have a better chance of remembering the person. Even though it’s a real traumatic event, and sometimes that impacts your ability to remember.

What I’m saying is that if there’s some reason for you to focus on the person, it’s easier to remember them.

For example; When McVeigh came into Elliot’s Body Shop for the first time on Saturday morning. Well, it was only him and Eldon Elliot that were in there together, and they were less than two feet apart when McVeigh was reserving the Ryder truck. Then Eldon Elliott got a chance to see McVeigh again when he came in on Monday afternoon. I bring up Eldon Elliot because Eldon had a reason he could remember McVeigh, and it was because he waited on McVeigh, signed the paperwork with him and talked with him.

Another example would be if I were to say to you that you’ve probably stayed at hotels in the last five years, other than the manager or someone working at the hotels, would you really remember any of the other guests staying next door to you, or that you might have passed?

McVeigh and Nichols stayed at different hotels and any time that that they stayed at hotels we would go and get the reservation cards and find out if the managers or the hotel office people knew anything about either of them. But to expect any of the guests that stayed there to remember McVeigh or Nichols, remember whether they were actually there or if somebody was with them, is really asking those individuals to stretch their mind too far.

Michelle Gray: Wasn’t there someone who came forward who stated that they had witnessed some men, that they believed to be of Middle Eastern decent, in the area just before the explosion?

Jon Hersley: There was a homeless man in downtown Oklahoma City on the morning of the bombing that said he saw two Middle Eastern people running across the street, jumping into a brown pick-up and hurrying away from the bombing.

Then he said they went west on Fifth Street, and turned north on Harvey Avenue. Well, those are both one way streets, and they go in the opposite directions of where he said he saw these two people go. He was interviewed the next day and he couldn’t keep his directions straight as to which direction they had gone.

He also provided really elaborate descriptions of those two people. You have to ask yourself “why was he so focused on those two people?” Nothing had happened, yet. The bomb had not gone off. There was no reason for him to sit there and analyze everything about these two guys and what they were wearing.

We conducted all kinds of investigations and follow-ups to people calling the hotline reporting brown pick-up trucks that were being spotted all over Oklahoma City, many at the same time.

As the investigation continued we were able to determine that the information just wasn’t accurate. There weren’t two people running across Fifth Avenue, Middle Eastern or otherwise, that the homeless person’s information was not at all reliable.

Michelle Gray: Jon, is there any Middle East connection to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?

Jon Hersley: Absolutely not. There is absolutely no Middle Eastern connection to the Oklahoma City bombing at all, and I am 100% confident in that.

Michelle Gray: Is there specific criteria for the FBI to come into an investigation? Do you have to be invited in or are there specific types of crimes that fall within FBI jurisdiction?

Jon Hersley: It’s both of those, really. Mainly it comes down to whether Congress has enacted legislation and laws that give us the jurisdiction over those crimes.

There are specific types of crimes that the FBI has jurisdiction over, the Oklahoma City bombing was one. We don’t have to be asked by anybody to come into an investigation like that.

Certain types of crimes we do have to be invited in. There is some where we have to be asked by other state or local law enforcement agencies to lend assistance, and we will do that. Crimes that are not in our country; sometimes in terrorism crimes we are invited to come into other countries with crime scene investigations and things of that nature. Kidnappings in the United States; there has to be indications that the victim, or victims, have been transported across state lines before the FBI can be involved in it. Most of the crimes that the FBI investigates they have jurisdiction over, and they don’t have to be invited.

Michelle Gray: If you were to give others in law enforcement any advice in conducting an investigation of this magnitude what would it be?

Jon Hersley: If I was to be asked what to tell an investigator heading up a case like this I would say to keep an open mind and cover every base, look under every rock. It’s very important that an investigator keep an open mind when they go through a case like this, because you don’t want to miss anything. You don’t want to miss one single thing - and we didn’t.

You learn that you can’t do everything in an investigation yourself. You have to depend on other people, and we literally had thousands of people across the country helping us in this case. I remember thinking to myself, “My gosh, I can pick up the phone and call anywhere in the United States and ask that ‘this’ be done, or that ‘this’ be checked out and any law enforcement officer across the country would not only say, “We will help you”, but “We will help you right now. We will do it right now.” That was pretty nice to be able to do that, it gave us a sense of confidence.

And I think you need to have people with some experience. That’s one of the things that I felt that Larry Tongate and I had in this investigation. We had a tremendous amount of trial experience and courtroom experience, and that helped us a lot.

Michelle Gray: What do you think is, or was, the biggest public misconception in this case and of the FBI’s investigation

Jon Hersley: Well, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories out there. Were there more people involved, did the FBI rush to judgment, were there people involved that we didn’t investigate early because we had our men and we wanted to prosecute them, was the government actually involved in some type of a cover-up, and was there actually a sting that had gone wrong?

You know, it’s really offensive to me that people with really no foundation or base whatsoever would accuse the government of being involved in the bombing, or say that it was some type of sting that had gone wrong and the government was trying to cover it up. That’s really pretty asinine and ludicrous. It’s absolutely unfounded, there is no basis for it whatsoever, and it is really, really offensive.

Having known people and had friends that were killed in that bombing, there is no way I would have ever rested if I would have thought anything like that had happened. If there had been anything pointing to someone else having been involved I certainly would have wanted to know that! And, in the position that Larry Tongate and I were in, in the bombing investigation, if there was ever even a hint about any of this we would have known about it, and that absolutely did not happen.

Michelle Gray: Did McVeigh belong to a militia?

Jon Hersley: No. That’s a misnomer. No, he was not a militia member.

You know, that’s one of the things that I almost would like to get out to people. I’m not signing up for militias, but you know, they’re not like this. They’re not like McVeigh. They don’t do that. They don’t like this. They don’t want to be associated with this crime. Again, I’m not signing up for militias, but you know, most of these militia people are not really bad people. They’re not like this. They don’t act out like this and take people’s lives just because they might disagree with certain things.

Michelle Gray: In your career with the FBI have you ever been told not to investigate a tip associated with a case, regardless of how ridiculous the tip sounds?

Jon Hersley: No, absolutely not.

Michelle Gray: Were you ever asked not to investigate any tip associated with the Oklahoma City bombing case?

Jon Hersley: There was not ever any hint at any time, and we were never told not to look at any tip coming in to this case. Nor were we ever told, or even hinted at, that we shouldn’t look at anything we wanted to in this investigation. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. We were encouraged to look at absolutely everything, and we did that.

Contrary to some of the conspiracy theorists belief that the FBI rushed to judgment, I would say exactly the opposite occurred. In fact, it turned out that we may have over investigated this case at times. But in retrospect I’m glad we did that, and I feel very confident in our investigation because we did do that.

Michelle Gray: Where you ever told not to investigate Elohim City?

Jon Hersley: I have seen it reported in the news media that the FBI was told to back off of the investigation in Elohim City. There is absolutely no truth to that whatsoever.

Michelle Gray: Was the FBI successful in positively confirming the identity of the individual identified as John Doe #2?

Jon Hersley: Yes. That was Todd Bunting.

McVeigh went into Elliot’s Body Shop and picked up his Ryder truck on Monday afternoon, April the 17th. Michael Hertig and Todd Bunting went in there on Tuesday afternoon, April 18th.

Michael Hertig and Todd Bunting were both soldiers at Fort Riley. Hertig was being transferred to a new duty station and he went into Elliot’s Body Shop to pick up a Ryder truck in conjunction with his move Tuesday afternoon. His buddy, Todd Bunting, drove him over to pickup the Ryder truck and had gone inside with Hertig

Todd Kessinger was a mechanic at Elliot’s Body Shop. He had started going into the office in the afternoon to take his break, because he liked to talk with Vicki Beemer. So he was in there on Monday afternoon eating a bag of popcorn and having a soda pop when McVeigh came in to pick up his truck. He was also in there Tuesday afternoon, doing the same thing, having his break and talking with Vicki Beemer, when Michael Hertig and Todd Bunting came in to pick up their truck. He had started paying attention to Hertig because Vicki Beemer made a comment to Hertig when he pulled out his drivers license that she had been married longer than Hertig had been alive. Kessinger said that when she said that he looked up at Hertig and studied him a little bit, and also saw his partner, Bunting.

Michelle Gray: Did Hertig and McVeigh look similar?

Jon Hersley: Well, if you described them orally they would be similar in their description. They were roughly the same height and weight, and hair color. But they really don’t look a whole lot alike. It’s kind of hard for a guy to say this, but Michael Hertig was a better looking man than McVeigh was. So when you saw them you wouldn’t necessarily confuse them, but if somebody described them to you their description would be pretty similar. They both had the same general hair color, wore it relatively the same length, Hertig’s was a little bit longer than McVeigh’s. And Hertig had a moustache at that time and McVeigh didn’t.

Kessinger did not mistake Hertig for McVeigh in his mind. Kessinger is the one that we did the composite drawings from and Kessinger absolutely described McVeigh as John Doe #1. And he’s been very consistent, and has always been consistent about that. When he saw McVeigh for the first time after McVeigh was arrested he said, “That’s the guy. That’s John Doe #1 right there. That’s who I was describing.” After he saw a series of pictures of Todd Bunting he said “that’s who I was drawing as John Doe #2, right there.” Kessinger had mistakenly taken Bunting, from the Hertig / Bunting episode and put Bunting in with McVeigh. That’s a fairly common thing that happens. There’s a word for that, and I can’t think of it right now, but there have been books written on it. Where you take somebody from one event and replace them in another event mistakenly. That’s what happened there.

Michelle Gray: Who is Danny Coulson, and how does he fit into this investigation?

Jon Hersley: Danny Coulson, is the former FBI SAC [Special Agent in Charge] of the Dallas division, and a guy that I know pretty well.

Danny Coulson was not involved in the Oklahoma City investigation for any real length of time, at all. So he doesn’t know the inner workings of the investigation. But that hasn’t stopped him from speaking about it as if he does.

He had made one comment in the news media that there should be a Grand Jury called to investigate this. That tells me volumes, because there was a Grand Jury that investigated this. For eighteen months. Apparently Danny doesn’t even know that. That’s kind of sad, really.

Unfortunately, Danny handles himself very well when he talks, and he presents himself pretty well on TV.

I’m a little bit upset with Coulson for what he’s done. But he can do what he wants to, I guess. He’s entitled. But when he goes out and makes statements about the bombing investigation on things he knows nothing about, that’s kind of frustrating.

Michelle Gray: So, the public sees his remarks as having credibility, as though he knows what he’s talking about, because he carried those FBI credentials too?

Jon Hersley: Yep. For whatever reason, and I don’t want to speculate on what his reasons are, Danny feels the need to come out and comment on this investigation and he wasn’t even involved in it for very long at all. He really doesn’t know very much about it.

Michelle Gray: How long was Danny Coulson actually involved in the investigation?

Jon Hersley: He worked on the case for about one month.

Michelle Gray: Your wife was brought into one of these conspiracy theories, wasn’t she?

Jon Hersley: Yes. She worked at a department store and there was a woman who worked there whose husband is a conspiracy theorist. He has accused her of knowing about the bombing beforehand. He has claimed that she told his wife about the bombing beforehand, and that is absolutely and blatantly false. There is absolutely no truth to that at all. My wife is one of the most decent people I’ve ever met in my life, and she certainly didn’t have any information like that because there absolutely was no information like that.

It’s upsetting to you as an FBI agent to have somebody accuse your wife of that, but she’s also confident in me, and confident in what our investigation shows.

But, you have all kinds of things like that.

I’ve told my wife, if people ask you questions about the Oklahoma City investigation, or they want to know your feelings about it, feel free to tell them. But don’t try to convince them of anything because they have their own feelings and they need to derive their own thoughts from what happened. You’re not going to convince somebody who doesn’t want to believe it. So, if you want to speak your mind about it, go right ahead. But then give those people the right to feel how they want to feel about it, they’re entitled to that, and you shouldn’t feel badly because they feel differently than you do.

Michelle Gray: If there was one thing that you could say to those individuals who continue to promote conspiracy theories, what would it be?

Jon Hersley: Well, I’d ask them to keep in mind that every time they come up with one of these unfounded conspiracy theories it sends the victim families on an emotional rollercoaster.

Every time one of these conspiracy theories is brought up, and they’re brought up in a way that encourages the victim families to believe that there is somebody else involved, and that not everybody has been brought to justice, it sends these victim families on these tremendous emotional rides. I think that is very unfortunate because they’ve already been through enough. They’ve had their insides completely ripped out. They’ve had their loved ones taken completely away from them for no legitimate reason whatsoever and they want to have some type of closure. Closure, I don’t think is the right word, because they don’t ever really experience closure. They only learn to live their lives in a different way. They now have a different life. I would ask them to maybe consider this a little bit before they start putting out theories to the public that have no basis and no foundation at all.

Imagine having a family member killed in a tragedy like this, and then not knowing for sure whether the people that were responsible for it have been brought to justice. It’s going to completely churn up all of those feelings that you have had to deal with for the last twelve years, and it’s going to be the same thing after twenty years. So I think there needs to be some credibility to these theories when they’re brought up. There needs to be some basis for them. I would only ask these individuals to consider the victim family members feelings when they go off and start promoting these half-cocked theories.

I think the evidence comes out when we are twelve years after the Oklahoma City bombing and none of these theories have proven to have any life whatsoever because there’s no basis for them, there’s no foundation for them, there’s no proof, there’s no facts and there’s no evidence for them. Yet individuals continue to engage in mere speculation.

We’ve had three trials, two federal trials in Denver and a state trial in Oklahoma. McVeigh and Nichols each had upwards of about fifteen attorneys apiece for those trials. Those attorneys did not further these conspiracy theories in those trials because there is nothing to them, and you know if there was any substance or foundation to them they would have. There is no substance, there is no foundation, and there is no evidence. And no conspiracy theorist, investigator, reporter, Congressman, or any other member of the public has come forth with anything credible in the past twelve years that suggests otherwise.

We can’t deal in mere speculation in law enforcement. We have to deal in facts and we have to deal in evidence. That’s what it takes in the courtroom. That’s what you need when you charge someone and you are going to try them in our country. You need to have the law and the facts and the evidence on your side, you can’t engage in speculation and go off on something half-cocked. And that’s what these conspiracy theories are based on, half-cocked speculation with no basis in facts or evidence.

I think if individuals are going to continue to try and push these conspiracy theories on to others when those theories simply have no basis in fact then I think they need to examine what their own agendas are for doing that.

I’ve told people that I now know how the investigators who did the Kennedy assassination felt. Because I’m sure they are very, very confident in their investigation just like I am in ours. Yet there is always going to be people who are going to question that, and that’s their right. I don’t have animosity or ill feelings towards people for that, but I know how those investigators feel now, I think.

I fully encourage anybody to look into our investigation. Congress, conspiracy theorists if they would like, any member of the public. I invite them to look into our investigation because I am 100% confident that we came to the right conclusions and that we know exactly what happened in the Oklahoma City bombing. So people can look at it for the next twenty-five years if they want to, there’s not going to be any change in the outcome because we know what happened.

There was a Congressman from California that investigated the FBI’s investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing, and put different theories out there. The Congressman has not found anything that the FBI did not find in the course of their investigation.

I’m going to say this very carefully, because I would never have any ill feelings toward any member of Congress who wanted to look into our investigation. I think that is one of the duties Congress has in their position. They should do that. But I think they also need to be careful in what they put out to the public, and make sure that what they are putting out is accurate. When they conduct investigations into things like the Oklahoma City bombing then at the end of that investigation they need to be very forthright with the American public about what they did or did not find. I think Congressmen, conspiracy theorists, any member of the public, if they’re going to look into this investigation should have the responsibility, after the fact, to report back to the American people what they did or did not find.

The FBI concluded that two men, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, planned and carried out the making of the bomb, and McVeigh delivered it to it’s destination outside of the Alfred P. Murrah Building on the morning of April 19, 1995.

Many people have wondered if anyone else accompanied McVeigh to pick up the bomb truck at Elliott’s and deliver the truck in front of the Murrah Building on the morning of the bombing. The answer might lie in the fact no one else was needed.”

“With a crime as horrific as the Oklahoma City bombing, it is natural to assume that many suspects had to have been involved. However, the reality is that one man alone could have carried out the crime. Two men were more than enough. Other than uncorroborated and unsubstantiated eyewitness testimony, no credible evidence existed that anyone other than McVeigh and Nichols were involved.”

“McVeigh and Nichols, through the literature they possessed and the conversations between themselves and Michael Fortier, as well is others, tried to project themselves as patriots and heroes. They were neither.

They attempted to compare themselves with the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, men of honor. McVeigh and Nichols were neither.”

“Their actions are the actions of cowards. Hopefully, our great country and the world will remember them as such.

When all is considered, the simple truth is that Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols tried to satisfy their hatred for the United States government by killing innocent men, women, and children in the heartland of America. May their
dastardly and cowardly deed never be repeated – nor forgotten.”

Simple Truths: The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation

M.G.: So, Gregg, what’s the story behind your now infamous tattoo, and do you have any others? Enquiring minds want to know…

G.O.: I’d been thinking about getting a tattoo for awhile when I went to Slave to the Needle in Seattle a few years back. I toyed with having something done to commemorate the men who’d died in the Sunshine Mine fire (the subject of my book THE DEEP DARK), but nothing seemed appropriate. I didn’t have the biceps for a pick and shovel motif, to say the least. I decided on a simple band with the names of my wife and daughters woven into it.

People say tattoos and names are a bad idea, but hey, I know that I’ll never have any more kids and I know that I’d never marry again if Claudia dumped me. There are spaces for grandchildren, too. I might add them in. That is, if I’m so lucky.

By Michelle Gray

Mike Huckabee signed a police commission for an individual named Steven James Nemec, allowing him powers as a railroad police officer. Here’s the problem; Nemec had just been released from prison and has a lengthy record of impersonating various public officials that is traceable back to when he was a teenager. How do I know this? Well, it just so happens that I became acquainted with Steven J. Nemec shortly after he obtained his commission.

Nemec submitted his request under a fraudulent business he incorporated with a friend of his who used to be a police officer with a California police department, until he resigned just prior to an investigation into allegations of improper conduct – he allegedly would use the backseat of his cruiser for sex with various females. This former good guy gone stupid is who Nemec has listed as his Chief of Police for the fraudulent railroad company.

Nemec was not a resident of Arkansas. He showed residency in CA and had established his phony business, The Continental Railroad Company, in IL. Apparently Huckabee not only did not have an issue with Nemec’s manufactured background and phony credentials, he also had no issue with him not being a resident of the state in which he applied for his commission.

I find it hard to imagine that Arkansas is inundated with requests for police commissions to the extent that NO ONE was able to verify the background and prison record of Steven Nemec. Anyone with a keyboard could have found the evidence of Nemec’s criminal background in a matter of minutes.

I’m wondering just what in the hell is wrong with Huckabee and his administration. Because frankly, if you are incapable of figuring out that you are approving a commission for an individual with a prison record, let alone someone with a long documented record of impersonating various public officials, then how in the hell am I supposed to trust you with the responsibility of something slightly more complicated, such as running a country?

Nemec’s incarceration information and criminal background was easily obtainable at the time that Huckabee signed off on his commission. All one had to do was click on over to the Bureau of Prisons and do a quick search. There is no excuse for Nemec slipping through the cracks on this and it makes me wonder just how many other phony baloney law enforcement wannabes Huckabee has signed off on? Surely Nemec can’t be the only one to get past Huckabee and his crack team of professionals.

[Michelle Gray writes for National Lampoon]