O.J. Simpson testifies in bid for new robbery trial

By Timothy Pratt

LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - O.J. Simpson, the former football star famously acquitted of murder in 1995, offered sometimes emotional testimony in a packed Las Vegas courtroom on Wednesday as he sought a new trial in the robbery case that sent him to prison five years ago.

Simpson, brought to court from a Nevada prison, testified on the third day of a week-long hearing into his claims that his then-defense attorney, Yale Galanter, mishandled the Nevada trial in 2008.

During some five hours of testimony, Simpson portrayed Galanter as a forceful presence who would not listen to other lawyers, stubbornly refused to let him testify in his own defense and never hired the team of investigators and expert witnesses he promised.

He also repeated a key theme of his defense at the 2008 trial - that when he stormed into a room at the Palace Station Hotel and Casino with five other men in September 2007, he was only hoping to recover his own stolen property being peddled by a pair of sports collectors.

"I thought this is stuff I should have, not some guy selling it in a hotel in Vegas," he said.

Simpson, 65, is serving up to 33 years for his conviction on 12 charges, including armed robbery and kidnapping, for taking thousands of dollars in memorabilia and other items from the sports dealers at gunpoint.

His current attorneys have asked a judge to throw out the conviction on the grounds that Galanter had a conflict of interest because he knew in advance that Simpson planned to confront the sports dealers at the hotel.

They also said Galanter never told Simpson that prosecutors had offered a plea deal that included a sentence of two to five years in prison. A separate appeal by Simpson of his conviction in the case was rejected by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2010.

Appearing older, grayer and heavier after five years behind bars, Simpson told the court that Galanter had advised him that his plans were legal the night before the incident.

'TRIAL OF THE CENTURY'

Simpson said Galanter told him during a dinner discussion in Las Vegas: "You have the right to get your stuff" but cautioned he could not trespass on private property.

Simpson said he told Galanter that if the suit he wore during his sensational 1990s murder trial was included among the memorabilia he planned to burn it, and Galanter responded: "You're not going to burn it, you're going to bring it to me."

Asked by his current attorney, Patricia Palm, if he thought the his plan was legal, he responded: "Yes I did. It was my stuff. I followed what I thought the law was. My lawyer told me 'You can't break into a guy's room' and I didn't break into the room. I didn't beat up anybody."

He added: "And the guys acknowledged it was my stuff, even though they claimed they didn't steal it."

Simpson repeatedly and emphatically denied from the witness stand that the use of guns was discussed ahead of the hotel room confrontation and became emotional when discussing personal property, including photos of his deceased daughter and parents, which he said were found with the collectibles.

During cross examination by prosecutor Leon Simon, Simpson conceded that the trial judge had advised him of his right to testify, regardless of Galanter's advice.

Simpson, a former star NFL running back turned TV pitch man and actor, was accused of the June 12, 1994, stabbing and slashing murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, waiter Ronald Goldman.

He was acquitted in 1995 after sensational proceedings carried live gavel-to-gavel on U.S. television, dubbed the "Trial of the Century" by various media outlets.

A civil jury later found him liable for the deaths of his former spouse and Goldman in a wrongful death lawsuit, awarding their families $33.5 million in damages.

Simpson did not testify in his own defense during the murder trial but took the witness stand in the civil case.

(Writing and additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Cynthia Johnston, Chris Reese, David Gregorio and Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here

Gosnell Found Guilty of First Degree Murder in ‘House of Horrors’ Abortion, Murder Trial

Editor's Note: This story contains graphic descriptions.

The court case that has both horrified and gripped the nation is coming to a close. A verdict in the Dr. Kermit Gosnell trial has been reached: The abortion doctor is guilty in three of four first-degree murder counts (these were three of the more than 250 criminal charges against him). The penalty phase of the case is expected to begin on May 21, as Gosnell may receive the death penalty for his crimes.

Phila abortionist Kermit #Gosnell guilty 1st degree murder in 3 of 4 babies.

about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

The emotion surrounding the case has been intense, as abortion continues to be a monumentally-contentious issue in America, specifically terminations past the 20-week mark. Throughout the six-week trial, defense attorney Jack McMahon attempted to paint the abortion doctor as a victim of racism and elitism who is being targeted by the judicial system.

Conversely, the prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron, dubbed him a heartless killer who murdered babies outside the womb. For the most part, the jury agreed with the second descriptive.

The charges against Gosnell included 258 counts in total. As stated, the three first-degree murder counts could yield the death penalty. In addition to these and an additional third-degree murder charge, the abortion doctor faces 24 counts of conducting third-trimester abortions (an illegal act) and 227 counts of failing to counsel patients a day before doing the procedure. According to the Associated Press, "Gosnell was also convicted of infanticide, racketeering and more than 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania's abortion laws by performing third-term abortions or failing to counsel women 24 hours in advance."

Lila Rose, the Founder of Live Action, a pro-life group that has been releasing undercover videos in an effort to expose other abortion providers, is naturally reacting favorably to the Gosnell verdict. In a release, she decried the "gruesome and inhuman" conditions at the clinic and said that "justice has been served."

gosnell carousel 2

Dr. Kermit Gosnell (Photo Credit: AP)

"Even as we celebrate this verdict, we honor and mourn as well those innocents who did not receive 'their day in court' - and we must remember that Gosnell is not an outlier within the abortion industry," she said. "We cannot allow these 'guilty' verdicts, welcome as they are, to make us complacent when it comes to the continuing abuses happening even now in abortion facilities throughout our nation."

Even Planned Parenthood welcomed the verdict. Spokesperson Eric Ferrero called Gosnell a butcher and, as USA Today notes, said the doctor's punishment is warranted.

"This was horrifying and he should be punished," he said. "This was not an abortion provider. This was someone preying on women."

Perhaps the battle -- one that has created new-found interest in discussion and debate surrounding late-term abortion -- can best be summarized by looking back at the arguments that were advanced by both McMahon and Cameron. On April 29, TheBlaze was in the courtroom to hear closing arguments; both sides pointedly defended their viewpoints, providing a look-back at key testimony in the troubling case.

THE DEFENSE'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS

McMahon offered a fiery diatribe, defending his client against the first degree murder charges for four infants allegedly killed after birth and a third-degree charge for the death of Karnamaya Mongar, an immigrant who died following an abortion. While admitting that the clinic, the Women's Medical Society, wasn't perfect, the lawyer launched into a major defensive, railing against the notion that it was a bloody "house of horrors," as prosecutors, pro-life advocates and the media have maintained.

He defended Gosnell as an asset to the community who provided low-cost health care and an opportunity for young females in the neighborhood to learn. Rather than rooting its arguments in fairness, the attorney accused the prosecution of prejudice; he called the case against Gosnell "elitist" and "racist" and said that the charges and claims have been blown out of proportion.

"This isn't a perfect place by any stretch of the imagination -- but it's not what they say it is," McMahon continued, going on to claim that Gosnell was singled-out because he is an African American.

Of particular frustration to McMahon was the use of the aforementioned term -- "house of horrors." While he noted that it "sounds good" and "makes for good press," he rejected the label and said that it has been manufactured to convince people to come alongside the prosecution's concocted vision of what unfolded.

From showing images of a clinic that was clean and well-organized (to contradict the prosecution's claims that the Women's Medical Society was a dirty and disease-ridden establishment) to continuously berating the prosecution over its tactics and purportedly untrue statements, McMahon was candid.

"That, ladies and gentleman, is not a house of horrors," he said, after showing the jury images of a clean and organized clinic environment.

600x39987

Dr. Kermit Gosnell's defense attorney Jack McMahon walks to the Criminal Justice Center, Monday, March 18, 2013, in Philadelphia. Gosnell, an abortion doctor who catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women at the Women's Medical Society, goes on trial Monday on eight counts of murder. Credit: AP

After tackling the conditions within, McMahon moved on to denying that any babies were killed after birth. In making this case, he relied upon the testimony of witnesses that the prosecution called. Considering that the defense attorney didn't call any witness of his own to the stand, he moved line-by-line through transcripts in an effort to both discredit statements and to poke holes in any indication that Gosnell might have delivered live babies and murdered them once they were outside of the mothers' womb.

Kareema Cross, a former clinic worker who delivered some of the more disturbing testimony about what purportedly unfolded at the hands of Gosnell, was dismissed by McMahon as having a grudge against the doctor (read details about her testimony here). Other clinic workers, he alleged, were seemingly intimidated by the government into admitting crimes that they truly did not commit.

And all of the neck-snipping, McMahon maintained, was done after the babies were dead. While this theory was advanced, there wasn't much credence given to critics' notion that spinal cords would not need to be severed if the babies were truly delivered deceased, as is the claim.

Interestingly, McMahon did leave the door open to the idea that Gosnell may have conducted abortions past the 24-week cap that is currently embedded in Pennsylvania law. He wasn't explicit and he didn't devote much time to tackling the subject.

In sum, the defense delivered compelling arguments, but not compelling enough to relieve Gosnell of the murder charges against him. The attorney did find many areas of exploitation and holes in the narrative against Gosnell -- vacancies he was able to fill with questions, curiosities and his own counter-theories.

THE PROSECUTION'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS

The prosecution delivered an equally compelling case, going through, one-by-one, all 54 witness testimonies to paint Gosnell as disorganized and murderous. Going into gruesome detail, the prosecution outlined the notion that the doctor slit babies' spinal cords and essentially forced women to go through delivery, later terminating the children after birth.

Cameron wasted little time in responding to many of McMahon's counterpoints, painting Gosnell out to be a doctor who kept poor records, who used untrained staff and, through witness testimony, a medical professional who put his patients at risk.

The assistant district attorney also appealed to the jury, noting that this case has been a turning point -- one in which people will likely think twice before merely trusting their doctors' qualifications and policies. Seeing as many of Gosnell's patients were unaware of what was allegedly going on, Cameron attempted to use the case as a call for the jury to be more aware of whom they trust with their medical care (especially considering the charges against Eileen O'Neill, a clinic staffer who is also on trial for allegedly pretending to be a doctor).

"This case is not about abortion, he stressed, noting that the procedure is legal so long as it is conducted before 24 weeks and in a safe location.

"This case is not about racism or elitism. It's not about a rush to judgment...it was conducted, held before a grand jury," Cameron continued, replying directly to the charges that McMahon had waged against the prosecution during his closing arguments.

gosnell

Dr. Kermit Gosnell (Photo Credit: AP)

Cameron's diatribe followed a similar layout. He noted the importance of having basic standards for clinics, regardless of whether they are in urban, suburban or rural areas. Citing Steven Massof's testimony (another unlicensed doctor who worked in the clinic), he noted that the office was purportedly flea ridden and dirty.

The district attorney added that the women who saw Gosnell trusted him and that, by the prosecution's assessment, the doctor failed to live up to the Hippocratic Oath - and to his responsibility to patients. Then, he proceeded to go through the testimony of all 54 individuals, using their words to highlight the prosecution's belief that Gosnell killed babies after birth and that his clinic was, indeed, a "house of horrors."

In addition to allegedly killing the four babies after birth, Cameron accused Gosnell of hitting patients during procedures. Of Baby A, who he said would have had a 70 to 80 percent chance of survival (the prosecution estimates that he was killed at 29.5 weeks), he said that, "It had scissors jabbed into its neck and it slowly suffocated to death" (Baby A's full story can be found here).

Cameron also argued that, at the least, it was Gosnell's responsibility to keep the babies comfortable. He said, "Whether that baby's going to live or not, you've got to make them comfortable," claiming that, in the cases of these children, that simply didn't happen.

Previously, Massof had said that "it would rain fetuses" at the clinic and that neck snipping was done to ensure that babies would die. If Massof's claims are correct, then Cameron's case is compelling.

For the jury and those in the packed courtroom, many of the gruesome details that were heard earlier in the case were recounted, including the notion that fetal remains were put through the clinic's garbage disposal. Also, the assistant district attorney claimed that, according to testimony, Gosnell would eat cereal and talk on his bluetooth while performing abortions -- bizarre allegations, to say the least.

The prosecution also mentioned Ashley Baldwin, a 15-year-old girl who apparently started working at the clinic after she completed the eighth grade. Now 22, Baldwin recounted helping in the abortion process -- something clearly not appropriate for a young teen at the time. Baldwin also said during testimony that she saw babies breathe and move -- obvious signs of life. A number of employees also heard noises coming from babies after birth.

"A baby making a noise has to have air, has to be alive," said Cameron.

Later, while closing, Cameron turned to Gosnell, pointed and asked, "Are you human?" For those angry over the charges against the doctor, this statement will certainly resonate. But for those who agree with McMahon and believe that this entire scenario has been a witch-hunt, Cameron's accusatory words will surely be met with disdain.

GOSNELL'S VICTIMS

Throughout the case, TheBlaze brought you information about the alleged victims at the clinic. As of today's verdict, five murder charges remained against Gosnell. Previously, Judge Jeffery P. Minehart dismissed three counts of first degree murder on the grounds that there was not enough proof that those three babies were born alive.

Thus, the original eight murder charges were decreased to five (four counts for babies and one for an adult woman who died after having an abortion at the clinic). Considering that the infants did not have names and were intended to be dead upon arrival, the court gave each child a letter (i.e. Baby A, Baby B, Baby C, etc.) to differentiate each circumstance. Now, let's explore information about the alleged victims:

-

Baby A: According to Operation Rescue and LifeSiteNews.com, Baby A was delivered to Shaquana Abrama at 29.4 weeks gestation (this is based on an ultrasound record). Kareema Cross, one of the clinic workers, testified that the baby was the largest she had ever seen delivered at Women's Medical Society. He apparently was so large that he didn't fit into a plastic shoe box that Gosnell placed him in.

And according to Cross, the baby moved his arms and legs (signs of life), but his neck was allegedly cut, regardless. Cross was so shocked by the baby's size that she, along with other clinic workers, took photos on a cell phone.

As TheBlaze and the AP highlighted, the mother of Baby A testified in Gosnell's trial as well:

The mother of "Baby A" testified Tuesday afternoon, describing a painful three-day abortion process that started at Gosnell's clinic in Delaware. She was 17, had an infant daughter and was told by Gosnell she was 24 weeks pregnant -- the legal limit in Pennsylvania, but not in neighboring Delaware, where abortions are banned after 20 weeks.

The Chester woman said she was given abortion drugs in Delaware and sent home the first two days, then was directed to the West Philadelphia clinic the third day. She was in severe pain by then, pain that only worsened the following week, she said.

Her aunt had taken her to the clinic and paid the $1,300 fee, and they had not told her mother.

"I never felt pain like that, ever," the woman said. "I couldn't talk to anybody and tell anybody."

But the teen ended up being hospitalized for two weeks with a large abscess and a blood clot near her heart. Prosecutors say she is one of countless patients injured during botched abortions or unsanitary conditions.

And that's just one of the many alleged stories.

-

Baby C: Cross also testified that she saw another baby breathing for 20 minutes before it, too, was purportedly killed. Baby C apparently also responded when a clinic worker lifted its arm. But later, the clinic worker testified to seeing fellow employee Lynda Williams use scissors to snip the infant's spinal cord. Even more shocking, Gosnell was allegedly in the room when this all unfolded.

In sum, Cross testified that she saw at least 10 babies breathe before they were murdered. She has already plead guilty to administering drugs at the clinic and is hoping for probation after cooperating with prosecutors. "I thought they were breathing. He would say they're not really breathing," Cross testified, according to the Associated Press.

She apparently worked at the clinic from 2005 until 2009, but was so disturbed by its practices that she took pictures and called authorities and gave a relative's name instead of her own. In addition to her claims that babies were breathing, she also purportedly saw three move, including one that was born in a toilet, the AP reports. A fourth purportedly let out a "soft whine."

-

Baby D: This baby was delivered into a toilet and, according to Cross, the child immediately began struggling and "swimming" once outside of the womb. Another clinic worker, Adrienne Moton, apparently snipped the baby's neck while the infant's mother purportedly watched this all unfold. According to LifeSiteNews.com, the baby was estimated to be 12-15 inches long (based on testimony).

As previously reported, in March, Moton provided sickening details about her alleged actions at the clinic, claiming that she snipped the spines of at least 10 babies; she said that another worker -- and Gosnell himself -- did the same. Moton plead guilty and has been in prison since 2011.

-

While not necessarily a victim in the court's eyes (Gosnell was found not guilty of murder), Baby E was one of the infants included in the first-degree murder charges. This baby was estimated to have fallen within the legal time frame and was said to be in utero for about 23 weeks before an abortion took place (abortions are legal up to 24 weeks in Pennsylvania).

According to LifeSiteNews.com, Ashley Baldwin, a teenager who was working at the clinic, heard the baby cry after birth, so she called Cross for help. Cross apparently confirmed this story in testimony and said that it sounded like a "whine." Gosnell then allegedly snipped the baby's neck.

TheBlaze highlighted Baldwin's story earlier this year, noting that she started at the clinic at the age of 15 (she's currently 22). According to her testimony, she saw a number of babies move, squirm -- and one even "screech" -- after birth.

As we previously noted, former employee, Sherry West, shared yet another horrifying story about after-birth noises. She claims that she was once called to the back room at the clinic, where aborted babies' bodies were apparently kept on a shelf. Once there, West heard a live baby among the bodies cry out. The screaming child "really freaked" her out, she told the court.

"I can't describe it. It sounded like a little alien," she said, noting that she previously referred to the babies as "specimens," because it was easier to mentally handle what was going on at the clinic.

-

Karnamaya Mongar: Karnamaya Mongar, an immigrant from Bhutan in South Asia, is the sole adult victim in the Gosnell trial. The 41-year-old woman survived a refugee camp for two decades before coming to America, but her fate was inevitably met after a visit to the embattled doctor's clinic. In 2009, she died after undergoing an abortion at the Women's Medical Society.

Relatives are claiming wrong-doing and, in addition to the criminal trial, a lawsuit is also pending against Gosnell. The Associated Press reports that the woman's daughter, Yashoda Gurung, 24, recently testified through a translator, recapping the events that unfolded on the evening and day after her mother underwent the procedure.

In addition to labor inducing drugs, Mongar was purportedly given painkillers, as she waited for Gosnell to arrive. The prosecution charges that unlicensed staff gave Mongar a lethal combination of oral and intravenous drugs. And the Inquirer reports that too much Demerol is purportedly what led to the woman's death (read more about her story here).

-

Now that the case has come to a close, Gosnell's fate will soon be decided. For TheBlaze's full Gosnell coverage, click here.

View the original article here

Doctor found guilty of murder in Philadelphia abortion trial

By Dave Warner

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Philadelphia doctor was found guilty on Monday of murdering three babies during abortions at a clinic serving low-income women in a case that cast a national spotlight on the controversial practice of late-term abortions.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, who ran the now-shuttered Women's Medical Society Clinic, faces the possibility of the death penalty. The case focused on whether the infants were born alive and then killed.

He was accused of delivering live babies during late-term abortions and then deliberately severing their spinal cords.

Gosnell, wearing a maroon shirt and red tie, was stoic as the foreman read the verdicts. One woman on the jury cried.

After the jury was dismissed, prosecutor Joanne Pescatore threw her arms around a police officer who was a crime scene investigator at the clinic and sobbed.

The trial, which anti-abortion advocates had complained was being ignored by the media because of a bias in favor of abortion rights, was punctuated by graphic testimony.

Witness testimony described the babies as born breathing, moving and making sounds. Testimony also depicted a filthy clinic, and prosecutors called it a "house of horrors."

The jury heard five weeks of testimony in Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia and deliberated for 10 days.

Gosnell also was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the case of Karnamaya Mongar, 41, of Virginia, who died from a drug overdose after going to him for an abortion.

He also was found guilty of performing 21 abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy at his clinic, which served mostly low-income women in a largely black community. It is legal in Pennsylvania to abort a fetus up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

The verdicts come as late-term abortion has become a hot-button issue in a number of statehouses this year.

Nine states ban abortions after 20 weeks, according to the pro-choice organization NARAL. Other states recently put new restrictions on abortions, with Arkansas banning them at 12 weeks and North Dakota at six weeks.

Most abortions, 92 percent, are performed before 14 weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 1.3 percent are performed beyond 20 weeks.

In his instructions to the jury, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Jeffrey Minehart said state law defines a live baby as one that is fully expelled from the mother and showing signs of life such as breathing, heart beat or movement.

If a baby shows those signs, he told the jury: "That baby is a human being."

Gosnell also was convicted of infanticide and conspiracy in the babies' deaths.

In addition, he was found guilty of 211 counts of failing to comply with a state law that requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion is performed. Each of those 211 counts carries the possibility of up to one year in prison.

Afterward, Gosnell was taken from the courthouse manacled and clad in a green prison uniform. He has been in jail since his arrest in January 2011.

"He is disappointed, and he is upset," defense attorney Jack McMahon said.

Jury members were whisked away in a van following the trial. The same seven-woman, five-man panel will return to court on Tuesday to decide if Gosnell will face the death penalty or life in prison on the three counts of first-degree murder on which he was convicted.

The jury cleared Gosnell of one charge of first-degree murder related to one of the babies he was accused of killing.

Being convicted of three counts of first-degree murder is considered an aggravating circumstance, which prosecutors could argue merits the death penalty, said William Brennan, a high-profile defense attorney in Philadelphia.

Mitigating circumstances that the defense could cite as a reason to spare Gosnell include his age of 72 and the fact that he has no previous criminal record, Brennan said.

McMahon said he was considering putting Gosnell on the witness stand during the penalty phase.

The jury earlier in the day said it was deadlocked on two counts, without specifying which ones, but the judge ordered them to resume deliberations.

Gosnell's defense had claimed there was no evidence the babies were alive after they were aborted and that any noise or movement would have been involuntary spasms.

A clinic worker testified that Gosnell had cut the spinal cords of babies born breathing, including one she said the doctor had described as "big enough to walk me to the bus stop."

Anti-abortion advocates hailed the verdict as evidence that laws restricting abortions must be strengthened.

"The guilty verdict on charges of killing babies following abortion shows that the law recognizes a point at which the 'right to choose' must yield to the right to life, and also shows that abortionists don't know where that point is," said Frank Pavone, the director of Priests for Life, a group that opposes abortion.

Abortion rights groups said Gosnell was an aberration and the case underscored the need for women to have access to safe and legal abortions.

"The jury has punished Kermit Gosnell for his appalling crimes," said Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

"We must reject misguided laws that would limit women's options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell," he said.

Eight other defendants have pleaded guilty to a variety of charges and are in jail awaiting sentencing. They include Gosnell's wife, Pearl, a cosmetologist who helped perform abortions.

(Additional reporting by Daniel Kelley, Barbara Goldberg and Atossa Araxia Abrahamian; Writing by Ellen Wulfhorst; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Sofina Mirza-Reid, John Wallace, Phil Berlowitz, Richard Chang and Andrew Hay)

View the original article here

Verdict in trial of Egypt activist on June 3

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's state news agency says judges have decided to keep a prominent activist in detention until June 3, when a verdict is expected on a charge of insulting the country's president.

Ahmed Douma is the first to be tried on the charge, punishable by up to three years in prison. He was detained April 30 following a complaint by a member of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group, from which President Mohammed Morsi hails. Douma held Morsi responsible for recent bloodshed, calling him a "criminal" in a TV interview.

The news agency said at the court session Monday, police clashed with Douma's supporters and lawyers.

Lawyer Sameh Ashour told the judges Douma's comments fall within his right to freely express his opinion and should not be considered a criminal offense.

View the original article here

Man arrested following Arias trial bomb threat

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona authorities have arrested an 18-year-old Phoenix man in connection with a bomb threat that was tweeted after the Jodi Arias verdict was announced.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputy Joaquin Enriquez says Laquint Cherry was taken into custody early Thursday. He's facing a felony charge for making threats.

The investigation began Wednesday night after someone tweeted that an explosive device was going to be placed in the courtroom and was going to detonate Thursday afternoon. The sheriff's office increased security and conducted additional bomb sweeps but found nothing.

Enriquez says detectives traced the Twitter activity to a hotel in west Phoenix. The bomb squad and the SWAT team responded, and Cherry eventually came out of the hotel room. A woman who was with him was questioned and released.

Enriquez says the investigation is ongoing.

It wasn't immediately clear if Cherry had legal representation.

View the original article here

German neo-Nazi trial opens in Munich

MUNICH (AP) — The highest-profile neo-Nazi murder trial in Germany in decades opened Monday amid tight security and intense media interest, with the five accused appearing in public for the first time since their arrest more than a year ago.

Police erected security barriers in anticipation of possible protests by far-right extremist groups, while hundreds of reporters queued outside the Munich courthouse in the hope of gaining one of the few available seats in the packed courtroom for the start of a trial scheduled to last for more than a year.

The main defendant is Beate Zschaepe, 38, accused by prosecutor of complicity in the murder of eight Turks, a Greek and a policewoman between 2000 and 2007. If convicted she faces life imprisonment.

Zschaepe is also accused of involvement in at least two bombings and 15 bank robberies carried out by her accomplices Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Boenhardt, who died in an apparent murder-suicide in November 2011. In a break with standard practice the court allowed Zschaepe's face to be filmed as she entered the court in a dark suit, her arms folded, before turning her back to the cameras.

Four male defendants are accused of assisting the self-styled National Socialist Underground in various ways:

— Ralf Wohlleben, 38, and Carsten Schultze, 33, are accused of being accessories to murder in the killing of the nine men. Prosecutors allege that they supplied the trio with the weapons and silencers used in the killings.

— Andre Eminger, 33, is accused of being an accessory in two of the bank robberies and in the 2004 nail bombing in Cologne's old town that injured 22 people, four of them seriously. He is also accused of two counts of supporting a terrorist organization.

— Holger Gerlach, 39, is accused of three counts of supporting a terrorist organization.

Like Zschaepe, the co-defendants were known to German authorities before the existence of the self-styled National Socialist Underground came to light. Many in Germany have asked how the country's well-funded security services, with their network of informants in the far-right scene, could have overlooked the group's existence for so long. For years, police suspected the immigrant victims of being involved with foreign gangs linked to gambling and drugs.

Families of those killed and survivors of the bomb attacks in particular have said they are hoping not just for justice, but answers to questions such as how the group chose its victims, none of whom were high-profile targets.

One of Zschaepe's three lawyers has claimed that his client faces "execution by media."

Wolfgang Stahl told public broadcaster SWR last week that Zschaepe was being portrayed as "evil incarnate, a murderer, a member of a murder gang, a Nazi bride or a Nazi killer" in a way that could prejudice the trial judges.

Her lawyers have said she will remain silent during the lengthy trial. Under German law Zschaepe won't have to make a plea until the end, though her lawyers have said they will contest the prosecution charges.

___

Frank Jordans contributed from Berlin. He can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/wirereporter

View the original article here

German neo-Nazi trial begins in Munich

MUNICH (AP) — The trial of five Germans alleged to have been part of a neo-Nazi terror campaign against immigrants begins Monday in Munich.

The main defendant is 38-year-old Beate Zschaepe. Prosecutors accuse her of complicity in the murder of eight Turks, a Greek and a policewoman between 2000 and 2007. Her lawyer has contested the charges.

Zschaepe is also accused of involvement in at least two bombings and 15 bank robberies carried out by her accomplices Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Boenhardt. Both men died in an apparent murder-suicide in November 2011.

Four male defendants are accused of assisting the self-styled National Socialist Underground in various ways.

The trial has raised questions about German authorities' inability to prevent the crimes and the apparent readiness with which police initially dismissed a far-right motive.

View the original article here

Germany riveted at start of neo-Nazi murder trial

By Alexandra Hudson

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - The surviving member of a neo-Nazi cell blamed for a series of racist murders that scandalized Germany and shamed its authorities goes on trial on Monday in one of the most anticipated court cases in recent German history.

The chance discovery of the gang, the National Socialist Underground (NSU), which had gone undetected for more than a decade, has forced Germany to acknowledge it has a more militant and dangerous neo-Nazi fringe than previously thought, and exposed staggering intelligence failings.

The trial in Munich will focus on 38-year-old Beate Zschaepe, who is charged with complicity in the murder of eight Turks, a Greek and a policewoman between 2000-2007, as well as two bombings in immigrant areas of Cologne, and 15 bank robberies.

"With its historical, social and political dimensions the NSU trial is one of the most significant of post-war German history," lawyers for the family of the first victim, flower seller Enver Simsek, said in a statement.

The case has profoundly shaken a country that believed it had learned the lessons of its past, and has reopened an uncomfortable debate about whether Germany must do more to tackle the far-right and lingering racist attitudes.

Four others charged with assisting the NSU will sit with Zschaepe on the bench.

DOUBLE SUICIDE

The existence of the gang only came to light in November 2011 when the two men believed to have founded the NSU with Zschaepe, Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Boehnhardt, committed suicide after a botched bank robbery and set their caravan ablaze in the eastern town of Eisenach.

In the charred vehicle, police found the gun used to murder all 10 victims. They also found a grotesque DVD presenting the NSU and claiming responsibility for the killings. In it the bodies of the murder victims are pictured while a cartoon Pink Panther tots up the number of dead.

After her companions' suicides, Zschaepe is believed to have set fire to a flat she shared with the men in Zwickau, 180 km (110 miles) away, and gone on the run. Four days later she turned herself in to police in her hometown of Jena, saying "I'm the one you are looking for."

For the victims' families the trial will be the first chance to come face to face with Zschaepe, a woman whose troubling, blank expression and resolute silence since her arrest has left people struggling to make sense of her motives.

The trial offers a chance for the woman dubbed "Nazi bride" in the media to break her silence, but few think she will.

Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in 2011, wrote to Zschaepe in May 2012, addressing her as "Dear Sister" and urging her to use the trial to spread far-right ideology, according to German media.

Hearings are scheduled into early 2014, and witnesses due to appear include Zschaepe's estranged relatives and the parents of Mundlos and Boehnhardt.

FAMILIES' GRIEF

Prosecutors say the gang chose people running small businesses or shops as easy, vulnerable targets, in an attempt to terrify migrants and hound them out of Germany.

Some of the relatives even came under suspicion themselves because police simply did not consider a far-right motive.

"All the relatives have the huge problem that they were never treated as victims. During the investigations they were either considered suspects, or as relatives of criminals," said lawyer Angelika Lex.

The start of the trial comes as a relief to families, after it was postponed by a fortnight due to the court's poor handling of media access. It initially did not guarantee any Turkish media a courtroom seat, despite the number of Turkish victims.

This prompted a successful complaint by a Turkish newspaper and the Munich court was ordered to redistribute seats, which it did via a lottery.

While judges try Zschaepe and the NSU's suspected accomplices, Germany's lower house of parliament is conducting its own inquiry into the institutional failings.

Germany's patchwork of intelligence agencies are set to undergo reforms, after the inquiry found they failed to share information and neglected the far-right threat. The head of domestic intelligence resigned last July.

The trio had been known to authorities during their teenage years in Jena, for their racist hate crimes and bomb making, but had managed to escape arrest and assume new identities.

(Additional reporting by Reuters television in Munich; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

View the original article here

Jurors start deliberating in Arias murder trial

PHOENIX (AP) — The murder case against Jodi Arias in the death of her onetime boyfriend has gone to the jury, which is weighing weeks of evidence and the defendant's ever-changing version of events.

After closing arguments, the panel deliberated for just about an hour Friday before concluding for the day. Deliberations resume Monday.

Arias says she killed Travis Alexander in self-defense, but prosecutors say it was an act of premeditated first-degree murder that could carry a death sentence or life in prison.

The eight men and four women on the jury have the option of finding Arias guilty of second-degree murder, too, if they don't believe she planned the attack but think it occurred in the heat of the moment. If convicted on that charge, she could face up to 25 years in prison. A manslaughter conviction carries a sentence of seven to 21 years.

The final statements wrapped up with Arias' lawyer imploring jurors to take an impartial view of his client, even if they don't like her, and prosecutors describing the defendant as a manipulative liar who meticulously planned the attack and is still lying.

"It's not about whether or not you like Jodi Arias. Nine days out of 10, I don't like Jodi Arias. ... But that doesn't matter," defense attorney Kirk Nurmi told jurors. Arias smiled as he made the remark, then returned to an unemotional gaze.

Nurmi told jurors the entire case was about "fear, love, sex, lies and dirty little secrets" and repeated over and over that the prosecution's theory of a planned attack "doesn't make any sense."

The trial has become a tabloid and cable TV sensation and has attracted spectators from around the country who line up as early as 2 a.m. for a chance to score a few open seats in the courtroom.

Authorities say Arias, 32, planned the attack on Alexander in June 2008 at his suburban Phoenix home. They say she was enraged because he wanted to end their affair and was preparing for a trip to Mexico with another woman.

Arias initially denied any involvement and later blamed it on masked intruders. Two years after her arrest, she said she killed Alexander in self-defense when he attacked her after a day of sex.

"Fear, love, sex, lies and dirty little secrets," Nurmi repeated several times Friday. "Each one of these aspects of the human condition plays a prominent role in the relationship that Jodi Arias shared with Travis Alexander."

On Thursday, prosecutor Juan Martinez delivered the state's closing arguments, displaying autopsy photos of Alexander's body covered in stab wounds and bruises, a bullet wound to his forehead.

He described Arias as a liar who planned the savage attack. Martinez said Arias lied from the start and is still lying.

The images displayed Thursday, one after another, of Alexander's decomposed body and the bloody scene of the killing were too much for Alexander's friends and family members. They sobbed and buried their faces in their hands.

Alexander suffered nearly 30 knife wounds, was shot in the head, and had his throat slit. Arias' palm print was found in blood at the scene.

Arias said Alexander grew physically abusive in the months before she killed him, but there was no evidence or testimony during the trial to corroborate her allegations.

The defense has portrayed Alexander as a womanizer who used Arias for sex and abused her physically and emotionally. Prosecutors depicted Arias as an obsessed ex-girlfriend.

Arias' grandparents had reported a .25 caliber handgun stolen from their Northern California home about a week before Alexander's death — the same caliber used to shoot him. Arias was staying with them at the time, and the burglary occurred two days after the two exchanged text messages that indicated Alexander no longer wanted anything to do with her. Arias denies taking the gun, but prosecutors say she staged the burglary to get the murder weapon.

Martinez told jurors that Arias had been stalking Alexander and arrived armed and unannounced on the day she killed him, sneaking into his home at about 4 a.m. The two went to sleep together, then awoke and had sex.

At some point, Martinez said, Arias decided it was time to carry out her plan.

Nurmi told jurors on Friday that the state's theory is "nonsensical."

He pondered out loud: If Arias had planned the attack in advance, why not kill him right when she arrived at Alexander's home? Why leave a paper trail, starting with the police report from the burglary? Why rent a car instead of borrowing one from friends or family? Why use her debit card for gas and other purchases instead of cash?

"It doesn't make sense if you're on a covert mission," Nurmi said, adding Arias had numerous other opportunities to kill Alexander.

"But she didn't," he said.

Nurmi acknowledged his client is a liar. But he explained she isn't on trial for lying.

"Nowhere, nowhere in your jury instructions are you asked to convict Jodi Arias of lying," he said.

Arizona criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Taylor, who sat in on closing arguments, said the defense did a good job at raising reasonable doubt about premeditation.

"Nurmi showed she had plenty of time if she really wanted to kill him," Taylor said. "After today, it's going to be hard to get 12 jurors to agree unanimously on premeditation."

The judge previously instructed jurors that if they couldn't unanimously agree on premeditation but believed the killing was carried out with malice and not in self-defense, they could settle on a second-degree murder conviction.

Arias said she recalls Alexander attacking her in a fury on the day he died. She said she ran into his closet to retrieve a gun he kept on a shelf and fired in self-defense but has no memory of stabbing him.

___

Follow Brian Skoloff at https://twitter.com/bskoloff

View the original article here

Jurors get case in Jodi Arias murder trial

PHOENIX (AP) — Jury deliberations have begun in the trial of Jodi Arias, who is charged in the stabbing and shooting death of her one-time boyfriend in Arizona.

Jurors got the case Friday after hearing closing arguments from both sides.

Arias is accused of premeditated, first-degree murder in the June 2008 killing of Travis Alexander in his suburban Phoenix home.

Arias initially denied involvement, then blamed the attack on masked intruders. Two years after her arrest, she said it was self-defense.

Testimony began in early January and has been ongoing for nearly four months.

The trial has been a made-for-the-tabloids drama, garnering daily coverage by the cable news networks, with tales of lurid sex, lies and death, nude photos and accounts of a salacious relationship that ended in a bloody killing.

View the original article here

‘Gosnell Should Be Acquitted’: Feminist Argues That Abortion Doc Should Be Released, Trial Is a ‘Sham’ — But It’s Not What You Think

There's at least one feminist out there openly arguing against Dr. Kermit Gosnell's murder trial. In an op-ed published today on Live Action News, Kristen Walker Hatten writes, "I say we acquit him," of the now-infamous abortion doctor.

You may already feel your blood boiling at the prospect, but Hatten has some unique stances -- ideas that the pro-choice side of the isle will patently reject. And her call for acquittal likely isn't what you'd expect. At the center of her arguments is the notion that abortion laws often spawn schizophrenic legal ramifications.

gosnell

In this March 8, 2010 photo, Dr. Kermit Gosnell is seen during an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News at his attorney's office in Philadelphia. (Photo: Philadelphia Daily News, Yong Kim.)

We'll let the pro-lifer, who embraces a "righteous, virtuous, intelligent and moral" form of feminism (she's a member of New Wave Feminists for Life), explain why she's pushing for a Gosnell acquittal:

There is nothing more disgusting about pulling a baby out and killing her than there is about sticking an instrument into the womb and killing her. Why is it worse if she's a foot away? Is the difference location? Should a few feet of space be the difference between "perfectly legal" and "first degree murder?"

It's preposterous. The whole trial is kind of a sham. Let him go. If it's legal a few feet to the left inside the womb, then why not just let it be legal a few feet to the right outside the womb?

Let him go. You know what, drop the charges. If I were the prosecuting attorney I'd say, "We thought about it, and we decided, y'know, if it's legal over here, then why not let it be legal over there? If it's legal at 24.5 weeks, then what the hell is the difference at 25 weeks? Or 33 weeks? Or a couple days after birth?"

Hatten's point? In her view, there isn't much difference between killing a baby inside of the mother's womb and doing so once the child has been born into the world. She points out that there's such a fine line between when it is and is not legal to terminate a baby's life that the parameters present in the Gosnell case -- and in any abortion scenario, really -- cause a bit of head-scratching.

The activist makes it clear that, in her view, abortionists are murderers, even if they are operating within the bounds of the law. Continuing to pose thought-provoking questions, she goes on to note that Gosnell falls under scrutiny for running a purportedly dirty clinic -- one that has been described by prosecutors as a "house of horrors." But Hatten asks, "Are we saying it's okay to kill babies if you use clean instruments and don't accidentally perforate the uterus?"

dr-kermit-gosnell-3

Photo Credit: AP

Part of the issue she sees with the current Gosnell case is that "pro-abortion" people are condemning the doctor only because he "makes them look bad." If they were truly concerned with the charges against him, she essentially argues that they would have grander problems with the abortions that take place on a daily basis in America -- and not only the crimes Gosnell is accused of committing.

"I want Kermit Gosnell walking the streets. I want him free because there is nothing he did that is incompatible with a pro-abortion ideology," Hatten continues. "I want him to serve as a constant reminder that abortion and infanticide are the same thing, and it was the Supreme Court's idea -- supported by around half of the citizens of this country -- that some doctors are murderers who get to be free citizens."

Read the powerful -- and controversial -- op-ed here.

This article was released as the Gosnell jury continues to deliberate. After the second full day of convening, it seems the jury is most focused on Eileen O'Neill, Gosnell's co-defendant who worked with him at the clinic. O'Neill is accused of practicing without a license and is charged with racketeering and theft by deception for purportedly billing as a doctor, the AP reports. Eight other employees have already pleaded guilty.

There's no word on when the jury will decide on the multitude of charges against Gosnell.

-

Other Must-Read Stories:

• Calif. Gov. Signs Bill Allocating Funds to Confiscate Guns From Criminals, Mentally Ill
• Hannity Panel Clashes Over Radical Islam, 'Alarming' New Research: 'Pull Your Head Out of the Sand'
• Do Heaven, Hell and Ghosts Exist? Author Tackles What He Believes Happens After You Die
• Mysterious Jesus-Era Stone With Ancient Hebrew Text Sparks Major Debate Among Scholars
• Woman Who Had Abortion at Gosnell's Clinic Gets Emotional After Learning He Kept Baby's Foot
• 'I'm Very Pro-Life': Musician Opens Up About His Views on Abortion, Compares It to Holocaust

View the original article here