okebit
Barbara Graham’s life and death received plenty of attention in the 1950s, but she is about to return to the spotlight, courtesy of a new book, “Trial by Ambush” by author and former O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark . In 1953, a group of criminals used Graham to get a Burbank widow named Mabel Monahan to open her door so they could follow Graham in and rob her of a supposed stash of money. Things quickly went awry, and Monahan was killed. One of the men involved testified to the police but soon disappeared and was likely murdered by his colleagues; another took advantage of the situation and told the police a version of the story in which he tried to stop the violence and save the woman (in reality, he was likely the killer). SEE ALSO : Sign up for our free Book Pages newsletter about bestsellers, authors and more That man, Jack True, pinned much of the blame on Graham, who’d had a troubled life from almost the beginning but who had never committed a violent crime. While two other men were also tried and sent to their deaths for participating (True barely served time), all the headlines were reserved for Graham as the media tripped over themselves to convict this alleged ice-cold Jezebel in the press before the jury even had their say. But the police and prosecution weren’t taking any chances and they went after Graham with all available legal tools and some that were illegal – they hid evidence and witnesses, lied to judges and pressured a woman in prison to seduce Graham and then get her to hire a man (who actually worked for law enforcement) to provide a fake alibi. They used Graham’s willingness to go along with the scheme as evidence that she was guilty, distorting and lying about what really happened. After being vilified and then convicted, Graham was executed. But her image was partly rehabilitated a few years later when Susan Hayward won an Oscar for portraying her in the melodrama, “I Want to Live!” But while Graham’s story has been told over and over, Clark, who worked as a public defender before becoming a prosecutor, saw that the story of the trial – with the media sensationalism and misogyny as well as the police and prosecutors’ misogyny and misbehavior – had never been fully examined. Clark, who knows a thing or two about headline-grabbing trials as a prosecutor in the Simpson murder trial, saw a chance to “write something with current-day resonance in terms of the issues raised for society, the media and our criminal justice system.” Clark spoke by video recently about Graham and why her story still matters. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. Q. You’ve lived through the media circus. How much had it changed from this case to the O.J. Simpson trial and how much has it changed since? Is this still relevant today? We’re more aware of it but it’s still there. The media fell into lockstep, all of them vilifying Barbara as though they spoke with one voice, calling her a coldhearted evil temptress, which was incongruous given that she was a misdemeanor fringey player who had no violence in her background whatsoever. So even though I have thought, “Thank all the gods there was no Twitter, Instagram and TikTok when I was working on the O.J. case,” with social media and podcasters there would’ve been opposing points of view, which was especially true in Barbara’s case. The multiplicity of outlets today encourages dissenting voices. So there’s a plus to today’s craziness. Q. Based on the law at the time, Graham was likely guilty because she was at the scene of the crime. What do you make of the woman who swore under oath that Barbara was home fighting with her husband? I think the neighbor was being truthful in terms of what she believed had happened. She probably heard them fighting so many nights that it wasn’t very hard for her to be confused. The press covered this young woman in a wheelchair like she was an angel and the jury seemed to fall in love with her. Had Barbara not already been so screwed over by the ambush that occurred in the case, it might’ve won her the case. Q. So Graham went to her death because of a miscarriage of justice by the police and prosecutors. But she might have gone free with a mistaken alibi, which would also have been a miscarriage of justice. Is there a difference? That would have been less upsetting. It is a miscarriage of justice in the sense that Barbara should not be allowed to be completely acquitted. We have a felony murder rule and California is now in the process of refining our understanding of the liability that a defendant should have for being involved in a felony where a homicide occurs. Back in the day, if you were involved it doesn’t matter whether you meant to kill or not, even if it was an accident, everybody’s on the hook for murder. Nowadays, if you are the getaway driver or the lookout and didn’t furnish weapons or know people were armed then you couldn’t anticipate that a murder could happen. so you are liable for the felony but not the murder. I think that’s appropriate. The person should do some time but not be liable for murder. Barbara went to the house as the lure to get this elderly woman, Mabel Monahan, to open the door. Since she left her gun in her bag in the car, then you’d be able to argue under the modern law that she should only be responsible for the felony. Back then, the only defense she had was alibi. If you’re there, you’re done. Today, I would be arguing vigorously that she should not be held liable as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference. SEE ALSO : Nearly 66 years after a notorious killing spree, ‘Starkweather’ aims to find the truth Q. Why did you feel compelled to go after these long-dead prosecutors for their behavior, some of which was illegal but some which was legal although probably unethical? Reading those transcripts and the way that the case was handled made me so upset that I had to stand up and walk away multiple times. They hid evidence. I can easily imagine that there was a cowboy attitude in the DA’s office then, to get ’em at all costs, to put the notch in your belt. That’s why they went after Barbara as they did, because she was the jewel in the crown. You don’t get laurels for convicting the two thugs sitting next to her. So I think there is value in standing back to look at what we now see as malfeasance, but back then probably was accepted as the mission of the prosecutor. I also think it’s good to step back years later and look at what’s moral, what’s ethical. Prosecutors have enormous power. With this book, it’s like I’m holding up a big red flag saying, “Think about what you’re doing. You know what’s right.” Q. What do you hope people take away from the case? All of the malfeasance in this case was truly upsetting, but it could happen today. It does happen today. We really do need to be aware of that. We also need to be aware of confirmation bias and groupthink – the police need to stand back and look logically and rationally at what the evidence is and what the circumstances are of all players, and not be sucked into the hive mind. But so do the prosecutors because they are the next layer. The prosecutor has to be logical and rational about what the evidence does and does not show and not just go blindly forth. Look at what you’re not seeing, look for what is not there as well as what is there. The most important thing is to see both sides and search for the truth. More: On Dec. 20, Clark will appear on the free SCNG Premium Virtual Series “Bookish” discussing “Trial by Ambush.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — She’s an Iraq War combat veteran and sexual assault survivor who has advocated for years to improve how the military handles claims of sexual misconduct. But when appeared initially cool to the nomination of ’s choice of — a man who once said and who has himself been — she faced an onslaught of criticism from within her own party, including threats of a potential primary challenge in 2026. “The American people spoke,” said Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of the Family Leader and a conservative activist in Ernst’s home state. “When you sign up for this job, it’s a big boy and big girl job, and she’s feeling the pressure of people vocalizing their disappointment, their concern with how she’s handling this.” The pressure campaign against Ernst, once a rising member of the GOP leadership, shows there is little room in Trump’s party for those who can’t get to yes on Hegseth or any of his other picks for his incoming administration It underscores the power Trump is expected to wield on Capitol Hill in a second term and serves as a warning to other lawmakers who may be harboring their own concerns about other Trump selections, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for health secretary and Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence. “If the king wants a different senator from Iowa, we’ll have one. If he doesn’t, we won’t,” said Iowa talk show host Steve Deace, that he would be willing to jump in against Ernst if Trump wanted a challenger. “I think someone’s got to be made an example out of, whether it’s Joni or someone else.” People close to Ernst, a retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel, stress her mettle and say her eventual decision will depend on her assessment of Hegseth, a former “Fox & Friends Weekend” host and veteran, and nothing else. “Has there been Twitter pressure? Sure. But Joni’s a combat veteran. She’s not easily pressured,” said David Kochel, an Iowa Republican strategist and longtime Ernst friend and adviser. Ernst has worked steadily to shore up her relationship with Trump after declining to endorse him before the Iowa caucuses that kicked off this year’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. During a recent visit to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida club, she met with Trump and billionaire Elon Musk with ideas for their budget-slashing Department of Government Efficiency. She heads up a newly formed DOGE caucus in the Senate. Trump has not tried personally to pressure Ernst to back Hegseth, according to a person familiar with their conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose them. And he has not targeted her — or any potential holdouts — publicly in social media posts. He also hasn’t had to. The response to Ernst built quickly, first in whispers following her initially cool remarks after meeting with Hegseth, then into a pile-on from powerful figures in the “Make America Great Again” movement. Only about 2 in 10 Americans approve of Hegseth’s nomination, according to . About one-third of Republicans approve of him as a pick, and 16% disapprove. Another 1 in 10 Republicans, roughly, are neutral and say they neither approve nor disapprove. Trump allies had been concerned that a successful effort to derail Hegseth’s candidacy would empower opposition to other nominees, undermining his projections of complete dominance of the party. In the narrowly held Senate, with a 53-47 GOP majority in the new year, any Trump nominee can only afford a few Republican “no” votes if all Democrats are opposed. Those piling on included Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Ernst’s political career was “in serious jeopardy” and that primary challengers stood at the ready. One social media post from the CEO of The Federalist featured side-by-side photos , R-Wyo., whom Trump .AMC Is Making a Valiant Effort to Stop Moviegoers From Singing Along to ‘Wicked’Agriculture, IT twin engines of growth: Finance MinisterMicah Richards was 'banned' from discussing Brest on Tuesday night, leading to a hilariously immature conversation about the French side. Brest were facing Barcelona in the Champions League and as part of CBS Sport's coverage of the night's action, Kate Abdo , Thierry Henry , Jamie Carragher and Richards were set to take a look at the side. CBS Sports have built a reputation for combining sports content with comedy and entertainment, leading to a number of memorable moments in their recent coverage. Knowing that ex- Manchester City star Richards has a somewhat immature sense of humour, Abdo took the opportunity to have some fun and try to make him laugh when discussing the unfortunately-named French side. “We are going to do a segment about Brest, but unfortunately you’ve consistently proven that you can’t stay professional when talking about Brest so production would ask are you comfortable just staying silent?” Richards responded: “Come on, Kate. I can do this! You can’t trust me?," to which Abdo replied: “No, we can’t. Experience has taught us not to trust you.” Beginning the segment, Abdo asked: “So after four games, who here likes Brest?," to which Carragher immediately raised his hand. “You like Brest?” asked Abdo, with Carragher replying: “I like the shape of them.” This led Richards to burst out laughing as he watched on in disbelief. Abdo continued: “You look at the setup that the manager has got – do you think he’s going with a front two tonight?” Henry replied: “Yeah, two big – a big pair up front who will try to...” “work off each other,” interrupted Carragher. Abdo then asked: “I’m interested to know how much you like to watch them, would you pay to watch them?” Carragher then replied: “I have done,” which led to hysterical laughter from Henry and Richards. Henry then added: “One thing you have to say is that you don’t have to be big, you can be small to compete,” with Abdo replying: “Hmm, that’s interesting.” The anchor then asked: “Do you think Brest could get exposed tonight?” with Carragher cheekily replying: “I hope so!” With a look of disbelief on his face, Richards asked: “What is this? What is this? Nonsense! HR? Wow!” Abdo then asked: “What do you think Micah? Do you think Barcelona could come a bit quickly for Brest tonight?,” to which Carragher replied: “Oooh, I think we might have crossed the line.” Richards then responded: “You’re trying to get me sacked! I’m taking the fifth (amendment),” with a big exhale. The panel then went on to properly analyse the French side, before Abdo wrapped up the segment. She said: "Daydreaming about Brest, I'm sure you can all relate," to which Richards replied: "What is going on here?" Brest ended up losing the clash 3-0, with Robert Lewandowski helping himself to a double.
Timeline: Jimmy Carter, 1924-2024From a 10-year-old to a Muppet to a president-elect, NYSE bell-ringers range from famous to obscure