The Freedom Bulletin

Alleged Craigslist killer Philip Markoff was arraigned this morning in Suffolk Superior Court. He is charged with first-degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, 2 counts of armed kidnapping, and 2 counts of illegal possession of a firearm, and he pleaded not guilty to all of them.

I made my way to the 7th floor at about 8:00. From about 9:00 to 11:15 hearings and arraignments took place for various other cases. Markoff’s mother, father, brother, and sister-in-law were present, as were about 7 or 8 relatives and friends of Julissa Brisman, the woman Markoff is accused of murdering.

When it was finally time for him to be arraigned, Markoff entered the courtroom through a side door at about 11:15. I could hear his chains clinking before he came through the door. He was wearing a white shirt with blue stripes, and his blond hair was shorter than at his last court appearance. He stood in the dock and looked toward the judge, never showing any emotion or looking at his family.

When Clerk Magistrate Gary Wilson asked Markoff how he pled to the murder charge, he answered “not guilty” in a clear, confident voice. He waived the right to a formal reading of the charges and also pled not guilty to the other six charges.

Prosecutor Edmond Zabin asked that Markoff be held without bail and summed up the crimes of which he is accused. Zabin described the crimes as three violent assaults against three female victims – a murder and a robbery in Boston and an attempted robbery in Rhode Island. He said that Markoff used a different Tracfone (which does not require identifying information to sign up) to contact each victim after replying to their ads in the “erotic services” section of Craigslist. This February, when his fiancee, Megan McAllister, was out of town, he allegedly went to Mason, New Hampshire, where he purchased a 9mm semiautomatic handgun made by Springfield Armory, using the driver’s license of a New York man named Andrew Miller.

On April 9 he allegedly set up an appointment through Craigslist with an escort named Patricia Leffler at the Westin hotel in Boston. According to Zabin, he forced her to the floor at gunpoint, tied her hands with flex-cuff restraints, and, wearing leather gloves, took her money and some personal belongings. He then removed the gloves and duct-taped her mouth. His fingerprints were found on the cuffs and duct tape.

At this point, defense attorney John Salsberg objected, arguing that listing the alleged crimes in such detail served no purpose, as he was not planning to argue for bail, and would taint the potential jury pool. Wilson dismissed the defense objection, saying that stopping Zabin would be unprecedented.

Zabin continued, saying that Markoff met Brisman at the Copley Marriot on April 14 after answering her Craigslist ad for massages. Shortly after he got to her room on the 20th floor, he allegedly hit her in the head with his gun with severe but not life-threatening force and then shot her three times in the upper torso. She was found with a flex-cuff on one wrist and bruising on the other and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. The cause of death was the gunshot wounds.

Surveillance footage from both hotels shows that the suspect wore similar clothing on both the 10th and the 14th. When police searched Markoff’s apartment at the High Point complex in Quincy, they found a gun in a hollowed-out copy of Gray’s Anatomy, spare ammunition and magazines, flex-cuffs, Tracfones, and laptop computers, one of which contained remnants of an email sent in reply to Brisman’s Craigslist ad. Markoff had Andrew Miller’s driver’s license on him at the time of his arrest on April 20, when he was driving to Foxwoods with his fiancee, and his fingerprints were found on the paperwork that accompanied the gun purchase.

Zabin asked that Markoff be held without bail “given the brutal nature of these crimes…and the strength of the evidence.” Salsberg did not argue otherwise, so Wilson ordered Markoff held without bail.

Wilson called this a “track C” homicide case and set the trial date about a year from now, on June 1st, 2010.

There will be a hearing tomorrow on some defense motions before Judge Frank Gaziano (the same judge as in the Rockefeller case!) at 2:00, which I unfortunately won’t be able to attend. Markoff has waived his right to be present tomorrow, which means he probably won’t be there either. I’ll try to make an update about that if anything of interest happens.

Here’s a list (subject to change) of important dates coming up in this case:

• June 23, 2009 at 2:00 – hearing on defense motions
• December 10, 2009 – hearing
• May 11, 2010 – final pretrial hearing
• June 1, 2010 – trial begins

Edit (6/23): There’s also a hearing scheduled for August 11 of this year.

Philip Markoff, the alleged “Craigslist killer,” was indicted on Thursday by a grand jury. The indictment, which was just made public today, includes charges of murder, attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, 2 counts of armed kidnapping, and 2 counts of illegal possession of a firearm.

Markoff, of course, is the BU medical student who allegedly murdered a masseuse named Julissa Brisman in an apparent robbery attempt and allegedly tied up and robbed another woman. Both incidents took place this April in Boston hotels after Markoff allegedly responded to the women’s “erotic services” ads on Craigslist.

A few new details came out in today’s press release from the Suffolk County D.A.’s office:

• Markoff allegedly called the victims using two different Tracfones, which do not require users to provide identifying information.
• He allegedly hit Brisman on the head several times with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun, fracturing her skull.
• The surviving victim identified Markoff in a photo line-up after Boston Police obtained his college ID photo from the BU Police Department.
• Four pairs of women’s underwear (not 12 as some news reports have said) were found in his Quincy apartment inside his box spring. There were also several Tracfones and laptops in the apartment.

With this indictment, Markoff’s case moves from Boston Municipal Court to Suffolk Superior Court. He will be arraigned tomorrow morning. I’ll be there and will blog back with all the details tomorrow night.

In March, Steve Bierfeldt, development director of the Campaign for Liberty, was pulled aside by TSA agents and questioned relentlessly and brutally about $4700 that he was carrying. He was returning from a conference, and the money was from selling political memorabilia. The TSA agents questioned him for a half hour in a windowless room, swearing at him and refusing to answer his questions about whether he was legally required to tell them where the money came from.

Now, the ACLU is suing the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, saying that Bierfeldt was harassed and illegally detained.

I support this lawsuit. Lately the TSA has really been going too far and is violating our rights and the Constitution. First the naked machines, and now this! There are no laws against carrying large sums of money on planes, nor should there be, since this does not violate anyone else’s rights. It’s none of their business how much money this guy wants to carry or where he got it from. Plus, the officers’ belligerence and foul language were just unprofessional.

The TSA has taken disciplinary action against one of its employees as a result of this incident, which is a good start. Hopefully the ACLU wins the lawsuit. Americans need to send the TSA a clear message to back off and stop their excessive interference in our lives.

And now for something a little different: the Enchanted Village, one of Boston’s oldest Christmas attractions, has a new home. The colonial Christmas scene, which has been displayed in Jordan Marsh at Downtown Crossing from the 1940s until 2006, was bought at an auction by another Jordan: Jordan’s Furniture. It consists of 75 animated child figures and 75 bears, plus some adults, other animals, buildings, and props. It will be displayed in Jordan’s Avon store around Christmas time.

I remember going to the Enchanted Village when I was a little kid, and I’m happy that it has a new home and will be on display to the public again :)

Read more: Boston Globe & Boston Business Journal

A UNH professor was arrested on Saturday for leaving his 16-month-old son in the car for 15 minutes on a 70-degree day while he was a few feet away outside a coffee shop. He was charged with endangering the welfare of a child. Police said the baby was suffering from the heat.

This is just ridiculous. This guy did absolutely nothing wrong, let alone illegal.

First, the car was locked, so there’s no way anyone could have kidnapped the baby. Second, the baby was sleeping and would probably have rather stayed in the car than gone to the restaurant with his dad. Third, 70 degrees isn’t even hot. I find it hard to believe that it could be uncomfortably hot inside a car when it’s only 70 degrees outside.

This arrest is just a sign of overprotective, obsessive parenting gone too far. Our society expects parents to watch their children every single second, go to the doctor for every tiny cut, scrape, or cough, monitor everything they do on the Internet, go through their cell phones, diaries, and Halloween candy, and so on – it never ends. In addition to imposing undue burdens on adults, this is really bad for kids. You can’t develop a unique identity and sense of self if you are never allowed to make your own decisions or spend time alone. You also can’t enjoy your childhood if everything you do is supervised, organized, and monitored.

In any case, leaving a baby in a car on a 70-degree day is not dangerous. Even if he wasn’t within sight of the car and didn’t check on the baby (which is disputed), this dad didn’t harm his child. Parents should not be obligated to constantly watch their children. Leaving kids alone from time to time is absolutely fine – it’s monitoring every aspect of their lives that’s harmful.

See also:

Score one for neurotic nanny state – Margery Eagan (Boston Herald)

The real child abuse is by the Durham cops – Michael Graham (Boston Herald)

The opinion that follows is probably going to be very unpopular. But I think it is right.

Despite the recent furor over a few high-profile accidents, I am opposed to increased testing requirements and restrictions for elderly drivers. People from across the political spectrum, from Michael Graham to Attorney William Kickham to Governor Deval Patrick, have been speaking out in favor of restricting older people’s right to drive. However, anyone who truly believes in freedom would oppose such restrictions.

Because of the tragic death of 4-year-old Diya Patel after she was hit by an 89-year old driver, popular opinion seems to be strongly in favor of limiting the right to drive in order to prevent similar occurrences. State Senator Brian Joyce has introduced a bill to require vision and road tests at age 85, while others support requiring frequent road tests for people of all ages, or banning elderly people from driving altogether. This little girl’s death was truly sad and horrible, and if the driver is at fault, then she should be punished. However, all of the other drivers in the state are not responsible for Diya’s death and it makes no sense to punish us for something that we didn’t do. Yet that is exactly what driving restrictions and increased testing requirements amount to.

Perhaps it’s true that statistically, elderly drivers are more likely to be bad drivers than younger ones. But that is irrelevant. Laws should never be based on statistics, and people’s legal rights should not change based on their age, gender, or other characteristics that they cannot control. 

Michael Graham (a great radio host and blogger who I usually agree with) asks why 30-year-olds and 90-year-olds are treated the same by the RMV. The answer is because it’s the right thing to do. People of all ages should always be treated the same under the law. It violates human dignity and equality to do otherwise.

Everyone has a right to drive, since driving is not immoral and does not interfere with others’ rights. Injuring innocent people or damaging their property does interfere with their rights, and that’s what should be banned and, in fact, is banned. If a person violates someone else’s rights while driving, then they should be punished for that. However, it is unjust to violate people’s rights to drive if they have done nothing wrong. Simply being in a demographic group that is statistically more likely to be dangerous is not a legitimate basis for the government to deprive people of rights or put conditions on those rights.

Although I oppose driving laws that discriminate against old people and teens, I think that laws restricting old people’s rights are even worse. When I passed my driving test, I was happy. The reason I was happy was because I knew I would never again have to worry about taking a driving test. Requiring me to be tested again when I am old would take that away. At least now, even though teenagers are discriminated against, people have something to look forward to as they get older: escaping from this discrimination. If old people’s rights are taken away too, then all people will have to look forward to is losing their independence, seeing their freedom shrink, and being treated in a paternalistic manner. The government should pass laws that enable people to be happy about getting older, not make them dread it.

Contrary to what Graham says, it would take no courage for politicians to go along with the emotional, knee-jerk reaction of the masses. It would take courage to make the rational decision to respect freedom. 

Our government, both on the federal and state levels, is moving in the direction of trying to increase safety at the expense of liberty, and that isn’t good. It’s horrible when an innocent person dies, but horrible things are going to happen, sometimes at the hands of bad people and sometimes as an accident. Taking away freedom in an attempt to prevent tragedies can never be fail-proof, and (more importantly) would be a bad trade-off even if it was. I’d rather live in a society with dignity, equality, freedom, and occasional danger than in a perfectly safe society without dignity, equality, or freedom.

See also:

Pressure building to test elderly drivers – Boston Globe

Pols might finally be driven to act – Margery Eagan, Boston Herald

Clark Rockefeller’s kidnapping conviction is not the end of this strange, fascinating case. On Friday, Rockefeller was convicted of custodial kidnapping and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and sentenced to 4-5 years in prison. Because he has already been in jail awaiting trial for 314 days, he could be released from prison in slightly over three years.

However, Rockefeller’s attorney, Jeffrey Denner, said on CBS’s “The Early Show” yesterday that he plans to appeal the conviction and possibly move for a new trial.

Also in Rockefeller’s future is the possibility of being deported. He was born in Germany as Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter and obtained his green card by marrying a Wisconsin woman, whom he never saw again after signing immigration papers. Marriages for the sole purpose of gaining a green card are not legally considered a legitimate reason to be in the country. If federal authorities begin deportation proceedings, Rockefeller will be held at the Federal Detention Center in Louisiana for six months before being deported.

Additionally, Rockefeller is a person of interest in the 1985 disappearance of Linda and Jonathan Sohus, a San Marino, California couple. He was staying in their guest house while calling himself Christopher Chichester, an aspiring actor. A skeleton matching Jonathan Sohus’s description was found buried in the couple’s backyard in 1994, but the identity of the remains could not be confirmed through DNA. Handwriting experts have analyzed postcards supposedly sent from Paris by Linda Sohus after the disappearance, but they disagree on whether or not they were actually sent by her. A grand jury is investigating the case.

On Friday, Rockefeller’s defense lawyer, Tim Bradl, told me that if his client is charged in the California case and they decide to use the insanity defense, it will be harder to prove than in Massachusetts. Not only would it be difficult to prove what Rockefeller’s mental state was all the way back in 1985, but in California the defense is required to prove the defendant’s insanity by a preponderance of the evidence, unlike in Massachusetts where the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is sane. However, Bradl says that he probably won’t use the insanity defense because there isn’t much evidence that Rockefeller was even involved in the disappearance.

He also said that he and Denner will continue to represent Rockefeller on any immigration issues or California charges that may arise.

FYI, click here for a PDF file of the statements from Friday by jury foreman Michael Gregory, Rockefeller’s ex-wife Sandra Boss, and social worker Howard Yaffe. Thanks to Jake Wark from the Suffolk D.A.’s office!