Slashdot Mirror
Database Finds Fugitive After 35 Years
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian has a story on a woman who was claims she is innocent and was apprehended 35 years after escaping prison by a computer database created by the Department of Homeland Security. Linda Darby was convicted of killing her husband in 1970 and sentenced to life at an Indiana prison but escaped two years later by climbing over a barbed-wire fence at the Indiana Women's Prison. She knocked on a stranger's door in Indianapolis, telling the woman who answered that her cuts and scratches were from a fight with her boyfriend. In Indianapolis she met the man who would become her third husband and moved to his hometown of Pulaski, where they raised their two children and watched eight grandchildren grow up. As Linda Jo McElroy, she used a similar date of birth and social security number to her real ones which allowed a computer database created by the Department of Homeland Security to identify her. Darby says she is innocent and fled prison because she did not want to serve time for another person's crime."
Of course, even if she was innocent of murder, she's now guilty of whatever charge Indiana has on its books for escaping from prison...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The country is now safe from terrorist grandmothers!
Don't be harsh - have you never written a query in such a way that it didn't use the indexes correctly?
/. using the wheelbarrow symbol for database?
P.S. Why is
At the bottom of the
The authorities should focus on finding the one-armed man.
We'll let you have it this time, but in the future please remember that you must claim "frist psot" if you want to be properly recognized for your achievement.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What is interesting is that we have this story probably flagged up by the authorities. I suspect that it is to make us think that the ''big government databases'' are a good thing and that we should approve their continued use. What is buried are the stories where these databases have screwed up and inconvenienced (or worse) innocent people.
Back in the 80's I was setting up a call center for the computer company where I worked and one of the steps was to search for duplicate serial numbers and standardize model numbers, customer names, etc. I'm sure anyone who worked with databases understands this process.
Our databases were regional, so while searching for duplicates a whole computer system suddenly disappeared from the Northeast and mysteriously showed up in Florida. I started researching thinking that the system perhaps was stolen but instead I accidentally uncovered a CIA operation. Don't know if it is still active so I won't say anything else about it except database integration can give insights and glimpses into situations that are at first very transparent.
This sounds like what caught Linda.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
The title off the post is irritating.
The database did nothing. It is a process running on a computer. Information flows in, (potentially useful) information flows out, a suspected criminal is arrested. One could as well claim that the piping system in a house effected the drowning of someone. Water flowed in, water flowed out, and someone died.
The database is just an occasionally useful tool. The code for it is written by people, and the outputs are intrepreted and acted upon by people.
Could we eschew this slipshod causal analysis?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Tricky one.
Rather then attempt to clear her name shed escaped from jail and started a new life - a felony in itself.
On one hand you take the argument that they system has an appeals system designed to right injustice so if she believed she was innocent she should of tried to clear her name, on the other hand you have a possibly inept defense lawyer who seemed not to be dong their job and the possibility that left on her own she would rot in jail.
It is clear that the police have significant evidence to pin the crime on her, and the original jury clearly thought so. And we only have to facts as stated from TFA that make her seem like a saint based on the new life after the original murder.
And a justice system only works if all judgments and laws are upheld.
I am slightly disturbed by the final comment about this database "But there also were other clues that he said he could not talk about." - WTF? has this person never heard of conspiracy theorists? give them a single clue like that and they can invent ten secret organizations by lunchtime.
So basically you are saying murder is OK. Wow. Innocent until proven guilty but that takes some really... interesting thinking to claim that murder is somehow forgivable.
(Bracing for the bitchslaps...)
You know, this is what drives me crazy about how our justice system deals with murder. On the long list of crimes ranked by recidivism rates, murder ranks very near the bottom. Except for the few sociopaths who see murder as acceptable means for financial or personal gain, and the even fewer number who kill to indulge a predatory instinct or because it's just fun for them, the vast majority of murders are very obviously one-time affairs. Most murderers are far less of a continuing threat to society than, say, rapists and molesters.
So, why do we impose the heaviest sentences for murder, regardless of circumstance, heavier than those crimes that indicate a far more sociopathic personality, if the justice system is first and foremost about protecting society and its interests?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
"Papers please." Americans never want to here these words. But even as far back as 1972, scholars of civil rights were aware of the dangers posed by compulsory provision of social security numbers. The uniqueness property of the SS numbers are so useful, it was quickly becoming necessary to use the number to transact a great deal of government and even private business.
At least it used to be that the FBI couldn't troll through every database the government had, looking for people. The idea was that people don't have a choice about providing their SS number and other information that personally identifies them, so that this information should not be requested unless there was a clear reason to collect it, and should never be used except for that purpose.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Whew! Glad we have her off the streets. Thank God for that database....
When you are convicted by a jury in the United States of a felony, you loose a number of rights by operation of law. You loose your right to freedom by having to go to jail, you loose your right to hold property, by having to compensate the victim and the state, and often, your right to vote. The reason why this is "ok" is because you lost these rights after "due process of law".
Escaping from jail is a serious criminal offense with serious additional penalties. There is no statute of limitation concerns because it is an ongoing crime...the statute would start to run after recapture, however.
Or are you just one of those tools who think everybody in innocent just because they say so. She was convicted by a jury of her peers.
Gone!
I was wondering how it was going...
Because a life sentence for murder is actually a very reasonable deterrent. Remember that almost all murder is done in a premeditated manner (otherwise it would be manslaughter (I'm in the UK)). There are some crimes where you are right, and it is not productive to attach a lengthy jail term as a deterrent (drug use, theft/robbery/burglary etc) but with murder is not one of them.
Murder is the most serious crime, and if you neither attach a jail sentence (to deter) nor a therapy/rehab course (which is pointless because murder, as you said, has a tiny recidivism rate) you aren't actually attaching any judicial response, and murder ceases to be criminal behaviour.
I understand your frustration at the seemingly fruitless punishment for murder (and you are correct; it serves no purpose for the betterment of the convicted), but having a long jail sentence for murder actually does serve society: by deterring murder.
Wow, since you are this lucky why not go out and try to earn yourself a Darwin Award, I'm sure you will win one for sure.
pursuing enemies of the United States. Undoubtedly they also have determined where Osama Bin Laden is hiding?
I am soooo pleased that we now have tens of thousands of otherwise unemployed white-collar workers working diligently to pursue terrorists such as this woman. If only one such terrorist is found by the trillions of dollars then I think the "War on Terror" must be declared a wild success.
Sheesh!
73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Recidivism is low among convicted murderers because they often spend the rest of their lives in prison.
I've got no sympathy for this woman just because she says "It wasn't me!". That's the excuse kids use every time they get caught doing something they shouldn't. However, most outgrow it.
Murder however, is a capital offense, and the argument doesn't wash. Obviously the jury agrees.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
"She was convicted by a jury of her peers."
Jesus, I sincerely hope you get to face one of those one day.. Because juries are the pinnacle of intelligence, can't be mislead, deceived or swayed by irrelevant stuff, right? Just face it, it's a lottery as much as anything, especially if you can't afford a good defense.
Have you ever thought that the heavy sentences for murder are what keep the recidivism rate low? After all, it's kind of hare to commit a second murder while in jail.
Also, as you say, vast majority of murders are by people the victim knew. Ever think that the heavy sentences keep others from committing murder?
Sentences are for multiple reasons. Rehabilitation, Punishment and Deterrence. Rehabilitation so the person does not do it again. Punishment for their crime. Deterrence to keep others from committing the same crime.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Well, maybe I'm being harsh. You should explain what exactly you mean by being "fingered" and what's wrong with it, and why we should be up in arms about it.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
No, he's saying that this massive database that spies deeply into our lives that's supposed to catch terrorists is now catching little 'ol grandmas (who killed a person, but is not a terrorist), and that we're supposed to be happy about it. I am not.
I would rather have her free on the street than lose some of my civil liberties. She didn't re-commit crimes, and she led a good life. She did/does deserve to be in jail, but this database is obviously not being used in the context that it was expected to be used in, and that's disturbing.
If you've ever watched an old western, or any outlaw movie -- there's a very romantic idea in America of old criminals righting their ways by themselves, relocating and turning into great, good productive citizens. Then in the end of the movie, some asshole sheriff shows up and drags the ex-criminal back into court/jail to the sadness of the whole town who then rallies behind him. So, yea, internally a lot of people are conflicted -- this person should be in jail, but there's some part of the rough and tumble American ideal inside of people still that says she made it right and should be left alone. She needs to go back into jail for precedence reasons (can't just let her go once they've found a jail-bird), but a part of me is disgusted at the way she was caught -- by this TERRORIST DATABASE, and not by something that would have happened if the government wasn't actively data-mining in places that they normally wouldn't be if it weren't for 9/11/PATRIOT ACT/Bush.
So yea, lock up the criminals (even better, rehabilitate), but don't justify a massive infringement in civil liberties by saying that it has allowed you to lock up grandma.
True, but this is what the appeals process is for. There are more avenues than escape from prison.
Is it a perfect system? Of course not, but it serve it's purpose "for the most part."
I want to shoot the messenger!
The news is full of stories lately about people who where convicted by juries of their peers, spent 15-20 years in jail and eventually proven innocent by DNA evidence. Also, OJ was not convicted by a jury of his peers. That pretty much illustrates the value of a jury of your peers.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'd be somewhat skeptical of those statistics. It seems to me that a murderer is either 1) in jail for his/her crime, 2) trying to avoid being caught, or 3) has been released after a lengthy prison stay. Case 1 makes recidivism difficult. In case 2, the murderer can be expected to be a bit cautious. In case 3, the murderer is at least a decade or two older, and my understanding is that the vast majority of crimes in general are committed by the youth (which may be due to similar statistical influences).
However, that aside, most people agree that there should be *some* consequence for lawbreaking. From what I've seen, there are 4 basic reasons that people want that consequence applied, and many people seem to weight those reasons wildly differently. This leads to some people having a completely reasonable and consistent opinion that still makes absolutely no sense to someone else. The four reasons I've seen are:
1) revenge
2) deterrent
3) rehabilitation
4) prevention of recidivism (in the aspect that someone can't easily commit some crimes while in jail)
So, for someone who weighs 3 and 4 heavily, the sentence for a first murder should be fairly light, as the criminal is unlikely to commit that crime again. If you weigh 1 and 2 heavily, then the consequence should be correlated to the seriousness of the crime, not the chance of the criminal committing the crime again, so a hefty sentence for murder makes sense.
But even if 3 and 4 are the only concerns, there's got to be a reason why one would want to prevent recidivism. That reason is probably the potential for damage that the crime being committed again poses. Even though the recidivism rate for shoplifting is probably incredibly high, if it happens it's still *just shoplifting*. It costs someone some money. Similarly, even though the recidivism rate for murder may be extremely low, when it happens someone still dies, and that can significantly impact a lot of people. (I'm not trying to imply that you think murderers should receive a sentence lighter than shoplifters, it's just two things that tend to be on opposite ends of the scale for both recidivism and the impact of the crime's effects)
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
You do understand that she ostensibly MURDERED someone? She didn't just steal his ipod or wreck his car - she MURDERED him.
"Given that she spent 35 years on the outside with no further crimes, I'd say that she's pretty rehabilitated already.... but I guess not."
Maybe prison is meant to be *punishment*, and no, I don't think she's done her time if she was in fact guilty.
Or would you agree that someone who kills YOUR sister, son, cousin, father - and managed to evade capture for 35 years should just be therefore forgiven?
-Styopa
Truth of the matter is that there are countries where murder carries long sentences with high murder rates (like the US) and with low murder rates (like the UK) and there are countries where murder carries short sentences with very low murder rates (like the Scandinavian countries) - there's no conclusive link between the length of sentences in these cases and frequency.
The point is that the majority of murders, premeditated or not, are done without any thought for the consequences. It is either done in affect or it is done in emotional states where you most certainly will not spend time worrying about whether you'll be locked up for life or "only" a handful of years.
It's interesting to read this article and wonder where the husband's story has been gone. By carefully eliminating any possibility of sympathising with the victim of the murder, and by introducing fairly spurious ground for doubting the verdirct we're steered carefully towards reaching the writer's conclusion that this woman is innocent, and didn't deserve to be recaptured.
What about her ex-husband's relatives, who have had to live a lifetime knowing the woman that was convicted of murdering their son/brother/father, ran away from justice and never served the punishment for her crime? What are their feelings that the person who had escaped a horrible crime to live a free life has been recaptured? Should they not feel relieved and even happy that a fugitive murderer has been apprehended to serve her time?
Take whichever side you will, and believe what you will. But at the very least acknowledge the victim's side of the story, and that this article was one-sided and emotionally manipulative.
Punishment? No, you mean Revenge.
Revenge is about hate.
The supposed purpose of the police system is to ensure that people are free of fear and hate. That we are safe to live in peace. Prison is supposed to remove people from society as long as they pose a threat, and it is meant to rehabilitate people so that they can lead peaceful lives. That is the end purpose of the law. That is the way we protect ourselves.
Without knowing more about the woman and the life she has lived, we cannot judge. Perhaps she was being abused and her killing the man was an accidental result of self-defense. Or perhaps she was a jealous lunatic. Or perhaps she really was falsely accused. We do not know. But I DO know that revenge is not why I pay taxes. If this woman today poses no threat, if she has become a giving person who helps society, then containing her and ruining her psyche in a prison system which has a lousy track record of actually rehabilitating people, then what has happened here is a step backwards.
You cannot un-kill people. The past is the past, and it may be very sad. But the future is not well served through revenge and further acts of hate. As Gandhi put it, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
-FL
In the People's Republic of California, a conviction equals guilt. It never matters if a crime actually occurred, or who did it. Just round up the usual suspects and see if any plausible story can be cooked up with the DA. Who is the jury gonna believe? We are all just out on our own recognizance until they find out who didn't bring a lawyer. A litmus test for people I meet is to tell about one of the times that I was grabbed off the street as a likely suspect. A witness was brought by my cell, he told the cop "That ain't the guy" cop says "Are you sure? look again." Witness got pissed off that the cops dragged him out there, cop was pissed that the witness wouldn't finger me. I reckon a lot of folks go "well maybe it could have been him". Its not like it was a line-up either, just me, alone in a box. An amazing (to me) number of people say I wouldn't have been arrested if I didn't do anything, and shun me. Those are MY peers.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
A guy at our church used to be a domestic terrorist. He had joined a KKK group. When he was finally caught and imprisoned, he had bombed dozens of black churches and synagogues. Initially, prison made him worse. But during a long stretch of solitary confinement, he finally took stock of his life and asked God to help him change into a better person.
So, why do we impose the heaviest sentences for murder, regardless of circumstance, heavier than those crimes that indicate a far more sociopathic personality, if the justice system is first and foremost about protecting society and its interests?
Eh? "Regardless of circumstance?" Circumstances are why we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, not guilty by reason of mental defect, and so on. Even then, the state can decline to bring charges, a plea bargain can be made, immunity given for help in prosecuting other crimes, a jury of our peers can choose to give a 'not guilty' verdict, and the governor/president can issue a pardon or commute the sentence. Society can even ignore murder if it chooses to (such as lynchings.)
On the long list of crimes ranked by recidivism rates, murder ranks very near the bottom. Except for the few sociopaths who see murder as acceptable means for financial or personal gain, and the even fewer number who kill to indulge a predatory instinct or because it's just fun for them, the vast majority of murders are very obviously one-time affairs.
It sounds more like rapists and other predators should be given life sentences, or otherwise removed from society in much the same way that murderers are. However, if the penalty for rape and murder are the same, then rapists might as well kill their victims.
How do you determine if a murderer won't murder again? If/when you're wrong, then that's another life lost. Society isn't in the mood to trust someone who committed the ultimate crime of taking a life.
And as others have stated, there's no way to undo, fix, or survive a murder, hence the harsh punishment.
(Bracing for the bitchslaps...)
Criticism and/or civilized debate are not equivalent to being bitch slapped, so don't play the martyr. Justice systems have been evolving for thousands of years and their workings have been analyzed, discussed, and debated by many minds greater than you or I.
Hi,
if I remember correctly the department of homeland security was created to fight dangers for the national security, that is terrorists. How does a database of Americans fit into this? And why was it used to catch a fugitive prisoner - no matter whether she was was acutally a murderess or not? What's next? Catching people for speeding?
twm
Privacy.
A huge government database full of your SSN and other personally identifying information (Lexis-Nexis, anyone?), including relative's names, former names, former SSNs, birthday's you've listed, jobs you've worked at, places you bank with... list goes on and on.
I don't know about you, but having all of that information readily available and consolidated in one place seems like a dangerous thing to me, and would violate my privacy.
interesting thinking to claim that murder is somehow forgivable.
Excuse me while I play devil's advocate here - am I to understand that your point of view is that life imprisonment should mean life?
Because if not, then the idea that society should never forgive a murderer to my mind implies that anyone who is let out of prison after serving such a term should never be able to find work, should be denied even the most basic of social housing or benefits and should essentially have no choice but to wind up living as a tramp, wandering the streets, drinking methylated spirits and shouting at people who aren't there.
Prison is supposed to be used as a reformation tool. She escaped and has lived a criminal free (ie: reformed) life ever since. So what is the good of locking her up right now going to do? Reform her some more? Murder might not be forgivable (unless you have the money and power) but locking her up won't bring the dead guy back. It will only cause more strife in this world, since her husband will lose his wife, her children will lose their mother, and her grandchildren won't know their grandmother, and she's gonna die in prison. What a solution!
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
What I suspect actually happened is that Linda Darby needed to provide her SSN on some application for something recently and since identity theft has become a major problem over the last decade the agency that took her application found that the SSN belonged to multiple people and forwarded the information to the FBI for possible criminal investigation. This would automatically make Linda Darby a suspect for a crime which would justify the DHS trying to figure out who actually belonged to the SSN in question and who didn't, eventually giving DHS a justification for attempting to make a connection between Linda Darby and Linda McElroy. But the article doesn't go into this sort of detail and probably should.
There are two arguments for prisons: punitive and preventative.
Regarding the second, preventative, it is fairly clear that locking this woman away would not prevent any further crimes - she has not done anything in criminal (apparently) in over 30 years. There would be societal benefit to putting her away.
Further, if she IS innocent and wrongly charged (as she claims), then there's no reason to put her away at all. If she is guilty, she has proven that it was a mistake that she will not repeat, so no one is in danger because of her being free.
Regarding the first, purely punitive, then you are right, but I would argue that punitive prisons are a backwards notion that does not serve society in any way - this is essentially societal revenge, which does not sound like a reasonable way for society to exist. There is such a thing as forgive and forget - but ONLY if it is clear that the person will not do it again. People make mistakes, people can get crazy, and people can be wrongly tried. If it's clear that the person is no longer a threat to society, then (this is not a rhetorical question) what is the point of locking them up? Who does it benefit?
Considering she hasn't killed anyone in the time she's been out, I think they should consider the possibility that she is not a danger to society and change the conviction to manslaughter with credit for time served.
Good job. We caught her. Now let it drop.
Why isn't it called murder when the president slaughters people? Every single president we've had has killed at least 1 person. Yet they roam free and give speeches and get applause.
That's a hell of a double standard there.
You're nothing; like me.
>Why isn't it called murder when the president slaughters people?
Because most rational and intelligent people understand the difference between killing and murder. Sorry you don't have the intellectual capacity to fit into the rational and intelligent category.
If I terminate your life while you are attempting to shoot children on a playground, that is killing in defense of others.
If I terminate your life because you are suffering horribly from terminal cancer, that is killing for mercy.
If I terminate your life after buying a big life insurance policy on you, that is murder.
>So how sure are you that she's really guilty?
Sure enough to know that a Judge and jury listened to all the evidence and returned a guilty verdict. Sure enough to know that she felt 'escaped convict' offer a better chance to her than an overturned conviction through the appeals court...
But since you read an article summary, I am sure you understand the facts better than the jury that convicted her.
Actually, she doesn't deserve to be in jail.
You may think I'm crazy for saying that, of course, but I'm not a fan of the retributive concept of "justice" that countries like the USA use. For me, prison has two functions, and none beyond these: 1) keep society safe from those criminals who're actually dangerous; 2) reeducate criminals for the purpose of enabling them to function as productive members of society again.
Now look at this case. 1) Is it necessary to put her in jail to keep society safe? No; she's been living for 35 years without doing anything, and possibly never was a threat at all, depending on whether she was indeed rightfully convicted or not (something I naturally can't comment on). 2) Is is necessary to reeducate her? No; she's already become a productive member of society again.
Therefore, putting her in jail is counterproductive and wrong - QED. Unless, of course, one believes in using prison to take revenge on people, but that's not something I do (although I do realise I'd probably be in the minority if I lived in the USA).
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Last time i looked, in Indiana, yes there is additional punishment for escaping.
Oddly enough, this woman led a seemingly normal crime free life for 35 years. Perhaps she was innocent in the beginning like she claims, as its really hard for a criminal to go cold turkey.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
3) Deterrence.
I really do have to disagree with you about theft, robbery, and burglary. Putting the people who do those things in jail prevents these things from being done by those people. The fact that the UK does not do this is a big part of why your crime rate is so high.
.22 can ruin someone's day, not to mention a pump action shotgun.
My wife is from the UK, and the stories she's told me about burglaries, assaults, robberies, etc over there was almost more than I could believe. I live in Phoenix, AZ which is an area of some 5 million people. I don't even remember the last time I heard of someone being burglarized. It happens of course, my point is that it not such a common phenomena that you hear about it happening to anyone you know. No one I know has ever been burglarized to my knowledge, certainly no one in my family. Meanwhile among my wife's family back in Stoke there have been three different burglaries in the past 6 years. Nearly everyone in her town has a burglar alarm, which here are only used by people in wealthier areas, who actually have something worth enough to attract a burglar.
At the end of the day the main reason why burglaries are so rare here is because the life expectancy of a burglar is pretty short. Breaking into someone's house is a good way to get shot. Burglar alarms are uncommon here, but firearms are not. Even a
When these sorts of criminals are caught here, we send them up for several years at a time. This keeps them off the street, thereby preventing them from committing more crimes. If they are smart they change their ways and stop being criminals. If they are not smart we have a 3-strikes law in this state the results in a life sentence upon their 3rd felony conviction, making crime a very self-limiting occupation.
I do agree that sending drug USERS to prison is a waste all around. It wastes my money as a taxpayer locking up someone who should not be there. It wastes the state's resources keeping someone locked up when actual criminals could be kept there instead. And it wastes the life of someone who has committed no real crime. While smoking weed is a stupid waste of time and a somewhat self-destructive activity, it is not a crime. It is merely illegal. You damage yourself by doing it, but then that is your right as a free person. It is not the job of the state to protect citizens from themselves. Down that path lies tyrany. The state is invested with the power and authority to prosecute and punish those individuals who violate the rights of other individuals, as defined by law. Drug use violates no one.
The truth is that most drug laws have very little do to with drugs, and everything to do with the kinds of people that society imagines uses certain drugs. Marijuana is illegal not because of any harm it does to an individual or to society, but because of the public's perception of the kinds of people who use it. The term "pothead" does not invoke images of a successful person. Instead it brings to mind images of a dysfunctional person, the kind of person that most people wish would go away. Drug laws are an attempt to outlaw certain types of people that the rest of society disapproves of. This does not work of course, but there you have it. This is why the laws against these drugs are on the books and enforced. Any mention of legalizing these drugs is interpreted by the public as creating more of these unsavory characters. Soccer moms don't want more potheads and so the drug that is associated with them stays illegal. In the meantime people are arrested and incarcerated because of who they are, namely potheads. Their identity has been tied to a particular substance. The prohibition of it is a prohibition of them. If they're stupid enough to go around looking like potheads then sooner or later they're going to get done up for it.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I don't understand how it is that we get a story like this, set in Middle America ... reported by an English newspaper. Isn't there something just a little suspicious there? Or is it just too small a story for the USA papers to bother with? Or is Dept. of Homeland Security controlling the US press ... back in a minute, there's a knock at the doo .......
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post