Students Visit Blackhawk County Jail

On Tuesday, April 23, I got to visit and tour the Blackhawk County Jail along with my Journalism, Law, and Ethics class. I have always understood that a jail isn’t a pleasant place, but I had never been in one before, so this was a new experience for myself and many others. Of course I had seen what jail life is like from TV and movies, but I got a real feel for what it’s like from getting an actual tour from a sheriff.

Sheriff Tony Thompson greeted us as we got there and we had a question and answer session. He told us about himself, and gave a background on the jail as a whole. He is a very astute communicator and works with the media every week. We were told that the maximum most people stay in the jail is 2-3 years, and this is usually if they are waiting for a trial for a more serious case. He also spoke to us about being sued. If someone gets out of jail and is unhappy with how they were treated while incarcerated they can sue. He says most of these situations he wins, but there was one where he did not. If he is sued this affects his family as well. Being the Sheriff is a very demanding and important part of every county’s public safety.

We then received our tour from Blackhawk County Police officer. Before we entered the jail, he said if anyone makes sexual comments to any girls to let him know because it is not tolerated. This spiked a bit of nerves in me as we entered the jail. We got to see pretty must every part of the jail. One of the first places we toured was the holding cells where people that are arrested go to detox or go before they are booked. There were a few people in these. We also went into the garage where the police cars pull in with people they’ve arrested. The criminals enter through separate doors into an individual cell from the garage into the jail.

Next, we toured the room where the controls and camera security is. This job to me would get very tiring looking over these cameras for an entire shift. They basically said they look for anything people aren’t supposed to be doing. There are two or three people on duty at all times in this room. After this, we entered the library. This was a very small room, but inmates are able to check out books here. There is also a bible study held in the library weekly. If someone has not completed high school, they can also get part time schooling while in jail. This was very interesting to me.

The most thrilling part of the experience was seeing the pods with general population, and especially the maximum security area. We viewed the maximum security first from inside a room with glass windows that looked out to all the pods. I thought the windows were completely tinted and as an inmate came up to the window I looked straight at him, we made contact, and I then found out they aren’t completely tinted. I knew I was safe, but it still was a bit frightening for me. It was crazy standing in the room looking out knowing those people get only one hour out of their cell per day. Can you imagine?

The second most thrilling was seeing the general population room. Many (if not all) of the inmates were outside talking or showering when we entered. They all stared at us, but they knew better to do anything else. It was interesting to me to see that even to shower you hardly have privacy. The officer explained to us that not all of these people are bad people, some good people make bas mistakes but they have to pay for them. This made a lot of sense to me, and it was even sad to think that there may even be innocent people locked up.

There was absolutely nothing happy about the atmosphere of the jail. All of the walls were neutral colors and the most entertaining parts of the place were the library and a recreation room where inmates could play things such as basketball. How sad? Also remember nothing in jail is free. They are paying for food and to be there. There was by far more males than females, and we didn’t get to tour the pods of the women.

Another area of the jail we visited was the dispatch office. It was much bigger than I thought, with computer screens everywhere. This was in a separate area from the jail, and there was about 3 people working at 7 p.m. These people have a very important job and it was very quiet when we were in the room.

The last place we stopped was Sheriff Tony Thompson’s office. His office was very personal with photos of his family, trophies, and other things that are important to him. His desk was surrounded by papers, as he has a very important job. There were also desks of accountants next to his office and secretaries. This room is located near the door of where you walk into the jail.

Overall, this was an eye opening experience for me. The jail gave me many different emotions such as thrill, nerves, and excitement. It also in a way made me sad that these people are locked up with literally no access to the outside world. I can’t even imagine not being able to go outside for months or even years. My favorite part of the experience was seeing the max security just because it was thrilling and intense. The Blackhawk County Jail was able to give us a great opportunity and I am lucky to have been able to experience it.

“All we wanted to do was bury Matt with dignity and respect.”

The 2010 US Supreme Court case of Snyder v. Phelps was an extremely controversial one that had many people upset. For this specific case, the Snyder family filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist church who picketed with provocative signs during their deceased Marine veteran son, Matthew Snyder.

These signs stated things such as “Thank god for dead soldiers”, “God hates your tears”, “Fag Troops” and many more. The followers of the church believe God punishes the US for its tolerance of homosexuality, especially in the military. This is their “purpose” for picketing. The Snyder family believes the church committed defamation, invasion of privacy, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress and the displaying of the signs.

For many including myself, this situation has me extremely angry that people can get away with being that disrespectful during a deceased troops funeral, and I completely understand the harm it has done to the family emotionally. But the real question is, were they protected by the first amendment? The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” According to Westboro Baptist Church members, they had every right to be there because of freedom of speech.

To me, technically they did have their “right” to be there in terms of the law. But, I don’t believe what they did was right or respectful in any means. As for what I believe the parameters of free speech should entail, I think this family should be protected and be able to bury their son and soldier in peace without people with signs stating “Thank god for dead soldiers” around. As the military is a part of the government, I think there ought to be some law or bill passed protecting the families involved with a deceased veteran. No matter if you like the military or not, publicly making a scene saying that person deserved to die is emotionally damaging and shouldn’t be covered by freedom of speech and the first amendment.

“There are other countries who won’t even let these people on their soil, and we let them get 500 feet from a soldiers funeral?” says Albert Snyder, Matthew’s father. “ Albert Snyder is very unhappy with the US government right now as he thinks soldiers who go and give their lives for us should be respected under law, and that our government failed to protect them. Margie Snyder, the leader of Westboro, has shown no remorse for picketing at the funeral. She is also the lawyer for the group, and happens to be very knowledgeable on the law and what is allowed for the group to do because of this.

The justices who voted 8-1 in support of free speech sid this had to do with the boundaries of the First Amendment, not what they think is ethically right. It is hard for me to agree with the fact that these people did not break any laws, which is why I believe there should be something out there to protect deceased soldiers.

Specifically, I think it should be prohibited to show disrespect near any funeral of a deceased veteran who died at war. The reasoning behind this is to protect the family and their emotions that could be damaged, and to pay respect for someone who gave their life to protect ours. This has nothing to do with the fact that a funeral is a religious event, it has to do with the fact of protecting military troops. Why die for this country to get disrespected like that? They should be nothing but honored. So that being said, I believe there should be some law that if someone chooses to picket in any way that harms the family or disrespects the veteran at an event (funeral) with a military member who died at war, the police should be able to issue a large ticket and also remove them from the situation. This way, freedom of speech is still honored, except for the situation of a military veterans funeral who died at war to give the family time to put their son, daughter, father, etc. to rest.

The Techniques and Impact of the Spotlight Team

In 2015, an American biographical drama film, Spotlight, was released. The movie is based off of a true story where the Boston Globe is reporting and investigating cases of child sex abuse among Boston Catholic priests. Not only does this film show how important the role of journalism can be, but it also shows many different investigative techniques the reporters used to get the information for this difficult story.

One technique that is prominent throughout the film is asking for help. The reporters in this case certainly needed all the help they could get. A notable time this happens is when Mike is trying to get information from the lawyer. The lawyer wants nothing to do with him, but he keeps after him and eventually admits that he is on the spotlight team and needs his help. He then is suddenly more interested and this gets him a meeting with him the next morning. This technique of asking for help got him information needed for the story and also created an important and interesting relationship throughout the film.

What made the spotlight team so successful is that they kept digging deeper and spoke to anyone who knew anything about their topic. One small detail often times led them to bigger findings, and you never know what someone might know behind the scenes. Mike was very good at this as he never gave up on people even if they turned him down. It came to the point where they even questioned people working for the Boston Globe. Mike questioned his boss, Ben, because he was getting extremely defensive and seemed to be stalling to publish any of the information on the sex abuse among churches they had found. Turns out, this was a hard subject for him as he was a victim himself. Also, by just showing up to the priests house, they were able to get him to say he “fooled” around with young boys but never raped them, which was clearly rape. He also said that the same thing happened to him as a boy, which was huge for the spotlight team to find out.

Lastly, the breaking point that really got them in deep was finding documents. This is a technique that should have been done early, but the church was withholding documents and stole them. This proof was extreme and Mike wanted to publish it immediately. He even went up to the recorder’s office and banged on the windows because he cared so much about the story. These documents were the proof the team needed, and they would have never gotten these without the relationship Mike had with the lawyer. All of these techniques lead to information needed and each technique used was essential to the final story. After this story is published, the next morning the phones rang off the hook with victims wanting to tell their story. This film shows the overall power that journalism has on our lives.

Inside the Life of Aaron Hawbaker

A public defender is described as “an attorney to represent people who cannot afford to hire one”. Essentially, this career is defending people who may or may not have committed anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony crime. Aaron Hawbaker, a public defender for the state of Iowa, does just that.

Aaron not only has a difficult job, but he is great at what he does. This is because he believes in what he does and does it because he wants every person to have someone to stand by them in court, and because everyone has that right. He says, “They can’t just put a body beside you, they have to put someone beside you who knows how to fight a fight.” And that is Aaron Hawbaker. If a person is below the poverty level they automatically get an attorney appointed to them. In the office Hawbaker works there are 9 other attorneys, 3 private investigators, and 3 full-time secretaries.

Hawbaker was asked what he does about or even how he represents a criminal that is most likely guilty. He replied, “The first thing you have to do is absolutely believe and adopt.” He also said, “You should feel confident that the people that are sitting in prison should be there. The only way you can do that is having someone like me, testing the proof of the state.” Hawbaker says he has seen some photos that nobody would want to see, and has been through some unimaginable cases. But, this doesn’t change the rights they have and this is why he sticks through with defending people such as this.

Why did Hawbaker choose to defend probable criminals instead of being on the other side? This is a question many people must think about the job he does. Hawbaker says there are many people that hate him on social media, but that he doesn’t care what they think and he owns and believes the importance of what he does. He hasn’t ever had his job break up friendships or relationships, and the opinions of others outside his job aren’t something he makes relevant or affect him.

When given a client, there are many things he has to do to begin. For starters, he creates a relationship with his client. They need to trust in their attorney because sometimes they have to be convinced to make tough decisions, and if the trust isn’t there it can be difficult to represent them. Then, they must look at what they have, and establish if they believe they’re guilty or innocent. But having this said, Hawbaker says he doesn’t go out of his way to ask his clients whether or not they are guilty. He says this also makes his job much easier not knowing.

“You don’t make a lot of friends doing what I do.” says hawbaker. “I’ve had to convince someone that 78 years sounds good.” He also joked about having so many late fees at the Rod Library doing research that they built the 4th floor and named it after him. Hearing him speak, it is easy to tell he puts a ton of work into what he does, and is proud of his worth ethic.

One big topic when it comes to a defense lawyer is putting away leaps of logic and assumptions in the courtroom and only think of the evidence. Hawbaker explained the difficulty of getting the jury to understand this and the idea of the burden of proof. The two most important parts of a court case to him are cross-examination and the closing argument. Often times the only witness he has is his client, and many times his entire case is cross-examination. He says, “Negative space is my playground.” Being a lawyer is thinking of things your average person wouldn’t. For example, if police took evidence from a scene, you must comment on objects at the scene that were not used as evidence, because this proves the point that they didn’t cover the entire scene. There is always a point in time where you have to think: if what they are saying is true, what else must be true? Permanent facts are often ignored by law enforcement, and he makes them important.

Out of all the cases Hawbaker has worked with, he says his most difficult was a not guilty case. It was a domestic abuse situation where a woman stabbed a guy and he died. There was some evidence that the man was bad/abusive and they were claiming self defense. He chose to waive the jury, which is only one of the two times he’s ever done it. If there’s enough credible evidence that it’s self defense, the state will declare it as self defense. This is hard for a jury to grasp, which is why he didn’t have one included with the trial.

Hawbaker was asked what reporters can do better while reporting on court cases. He says he is usually happy to give reporters or the media information because he finds it important that they get their facts right. He doesn’t allow reporters to use his name or put him on the record, and if a reporter does this he says he cuts of the relationship with them and doesn’t give them information in the future. Another thing he says can be improved is making sure you know what you’re talking about and have a background on law before you write about it. He used the example of the difference between prison and jail. Some journalists and reporters don’t realize there is a difference between the two and say someone is going to prison when really they’re just going to jail.

Hawbaker is extremely into his career and his strong belief in what he is doing is what makes him inspirational. His job is far from easy, but he wouldn’t have it any other way. If he could have chosen any other career path, he would have pursued his passion for writing.

What to Expect While Reporting on Crime and Court

Dear Aspiring Reporter,

Being a reporter has many exciting aspects. It also has many different topics and areas one may cover. One of these is covering a crime and courts beat. As this is an action filled beat at times, there are many things that are important to know before reporting on these crucial topics.

Defamation is something reporters never want to get wound up into. By definition, it is “the act of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel”. Reporting about crime and courts is one of the topics defamation is seen the most in. It can be hard when there are criminals or people who have done bad things to find reliable sources and find the true story. Some trusted ways to get information from these situations are law enforcement, court documents, notes from being in court yourself, and legal documents. You may get quotes from someone who is not very credible, but stating information with an audience assuming that information is true, you must make sure the information provided is backed by several reliable sources.

An example where this went wrong is the “Rape on Campus” scandal. A reporter published an article for the Rolling Stone magazine about a gang rape that happened, with the only source being the victim. This reporter completely bashed and ruined the reputation of not only the University of Virginia, but left the dean receiving death threats. The victim happened to be lying about the situation resulting in a huge defamation case with the Rolling Stone Magazine. This example is well-known today because of how bad this situation ended up, and also how horrific it was for the people involved on the other side. Reputations were ruined and lives were changed forever. This is how important it is to make sure your sources are credible and checked.

While beginning as a reporter, it is also very important to know about the Clery Act. This comes from a college girl named Jeanne Clery who was raped and murdered in her college dorm in 1986. Her parents fought for legislative reform after the incident which is where the Clery Act comes from. The Clery Act is described as, “A federal law requiring all universities and colleges receiving federal student financial aid programs to report crime statistics, alert campus of imminent dangers, and distribute an Annual Campus Security Report to current and prospective students and employees.

There are a few things to know while examining these reports. First, there is a rule called “the Hierarchy Rule”. This means if there is multiple crimes committed at a scene, only one crime is actually reported. The crime reported would be the one highest up on the Hierarchy. Some exemptions of this rule would be more serious crimes such as murder, VAWA crimes, and arson. For these there would be more than one counted if multiple of these crimes were committed. It is also important to know how statistics are counted. For example, if three people are walking down the street together and they are all robbed at gunpoint, this only counts as 1. Reporting percentages of crime statistics can be misleading.

University of Northern Iowa Police Chief and Director of Public Safety Helen Haire says, “We had somebody that we charged with four burglaries.. So you know it could be one person who has commited multiple of these crimes. If we catch someone doing multiple crimes we have to report each separate.” You may also realize rape statistics have gone up within the past few years, but this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s because it is happening more. Haire states on the topic, “I attribute that to people being more likely to report.” Haire also talked about the common alcohol busts in college dormitories. She said sometimes they go into a dorm from a call thinking it is alcohol related but then marijuana or other substances are found. They only report one of them, which is usually the worst of the two and also depending on the amounts and other factors. Although these reported statistics are important, you cannot always rely on them while reporting. You must dig deeper.

Looking outward and putting yourself in people working on crimes shoes, you have to realize reporters don’t always have the best reputation and you have to really work hard to get information from these people. Private investigator and former Vinton Police Chief Jeff Tilson spoke on this topic. Tilson says, “I can give a thousand examples of being in a miserable situation because of reporters reporting the first thing they heard.” It is extremely important to take the words from Tilson and take it as advice. Always be sure about the information you are putting out there. It is always an exciting moment to be the first to receive information about a crime committed, but putting incorrect information out there isn’t worth it.

Tilson also gave a great example of why it is important to re-read before publishing. Around 20 years ago, he was in a chase down with a car full of kids from Cedar Rapids who stole a car from Vinton. They were going an extreme speed and putting other cars in danger so he took the car out. The car came to a stop, slid in the ditch, and rolled. He went and typed a press release, but instead of copying and pasting, a reporter wrote, “Cop going 984 MPH”. This made the entire story non-credible. It is important to make sure all information is correct, or something like this is bound to happen to you.

There is much more to know about reporting on crimes and court, but this will give you an idea of some of the more important.

Homework 3: What Happened to Jackie? A “Journalistic Failure”

What happened to Jackie? We may never know the full truth behind this question, but what we do know is that the topic forever changed the lives of Rolling Stone reporter Emily Rubin Erdely and University of Virginia Dean, Nicole Eramo. Below will be a summary of the Eramo vs. Rolling Stone complaint.

The complaint states, “Plaintiff Nicole P. Eramo, in support of her Complaint against Defendants Rolling Stone LLC, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and Wenner Media LLC states the following”.

Going into the Nature of Action, this speaks about the defamatory act published by Rolling Stone Magazine entitled, “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for justice at UVA”. This article is now discredited, but was viewed 2.7 million times beforehand. Section 2 of the Nature of action explains the purpose of Emily Erdely publishing the article, which was to show UVA’s concern with their reputation other than protecting students on campus against sexual assault. Section 3 states that the article claims Jackie was at a fraternity date party with a male she was acquainted with. She was lead to a room upstairs in which she agreed upon going to, but then entered a completely pitch black room where she was tackled onto a glass table and gang raped for 3 hours by 7 men, according to the article. Her date was referred to as “Drew”.

Section 4 talks about how Dean Eramo was made villian of the story by Erdely and Rolling Stone. It claimed that when Dean Eramo met with Jackie and counseled her about the situation, she tried convincing her not to report the rape. It also said she told Jackie not to tell anyone, also saying UVA withholds rape statistics “because nobody wants to send their daughter to the rape school”. Lastly, it stated that she brushed it off and did not report Jackie’s alleged “gang rape” to the police.

Sections 5 and 6 state these allegations false. What Jackie told Dean Eramo was much different than the information within the Rolling stone article. Eramo did indeed tell Jackie she would go to the police and do something about what had happened to her. She persuaded her to speak with the police and arranged and attended meetings she set up with the University Police. Jackie would not cooperate with the police and would not give them any information for the matter to be pushed any further. After the article was released the police tried reaching out to Jackie about the situation but she refused to speak with them and had a lawyer.

Sections 8 and 9 explain Rolling Stone and Erdely’s statements in the article “highly defamatory”. In result to the things said about Dean Eramo, she received threatening emails and letters from people saying things such as “wretched rape apologist” and “disgusting, worthless piece of trash”. The defamatory and untrue statements published highly affected Eramo’s life and even put her in danger.

Sections 11-14 talk about Erdely and Rolling Stone failing to back down from untruthful information that was published and they defended the story that was false. They claimed to verify with other sources besides Jackie and also claimed they knew who Jackie’s perpetrators were when they were in face non-existent. All Rolling Stone cared about was protecting the reputation and credibility of the magazine which is why they would not give the truth. Eventually the “Rape on Campus” article is exposed as a hoax. The article was then called a “disgrace”, a “journalistic failure”, and it upset a vast amount of people. Section 15 states Erdely was not disciplined for her actions.

Section 16 states why this case is being brought upon Rolling Stone. It is stated “Dean Eramo brings this action to vindicate her rights under civil law, to restore her reputation as a highly-regarded university administrator and advocate for victims of sexual violence, and to establish Erdely and Rolling Stone’s liability for the irreparable harm that they caused to her reputation by false and defamatory statements published in “A Rape on Campus”. This concludes the Nature of Action.

The Next part of the complaint is the “Parties”. First, the Plaintiff, Nicole Eramo, will be discussed. She is a resident of the city of Charlottesville, Virginia. Eramo is the Associate Dean of Students at the University of Virginia and was one of the primary targets of the defendants defamatory article. The defendant is Rolling Stone LLC, a magazine in conjunction with Wenner LLC, headquartered in New York, New York. They published a false and defamatory article about Dean Eramo in the December 2014 issue. Defendant Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a journalist and reporter working for Rolling Stone LLC who is the author of said article.

Next comes Jurisdiction and Venue, which covers sections 21-25. The court has jurisdiction over the defendants under Virginia’s long-arm statute, code 8.01-328.1, as well as under the Due process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Facts take up sections 26-296. There are 6 counts included within this section. Count one is “Defamation for statements in the November 19, 2014 online edition of the Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus”. Erdely and Rolling Stone published “A Rape on Campus” on November 19, 2014. This article was false, and there is linked a copy of a hereto as Exibit A. This states a variety of quotes throughout the article deemed defamatory. The article basically called the administration the the dean abusive by not doing anything about what she told them, in which was false. It stated UVA keeping sexual-assault proceedings in secrecy saying they don’t publish that sort of data and also included false quotes from Dean Eramo.

Count two is “Defamation for statements in the December 2014 print edition of the Rolling Stone Article “A Rape on Campus”. This is the magazine print copy, so this goes very similar in terms with Count One.

Count three states “Defamation for statement on the Brian Lehrer Show”. Erdely appeared on the Brian Leher Show on November 26, 2014 at the direction and encouragement of Rolling Stone. This show is a radio program broadcast on WNYC. It is broadcasted nationwide. Erdely made defamatory statements such as stating things about jackie and the UVA administration saying they did nothing with the information Jackie gave them. This statement is completely false therefore, defamatory in court.

Count Four is “Defamation for statements on the Slate Doublex Gabfest Podcast, in which Erdely appeared on and is nationally published and available on itunes. She trash talked the Dean once again.

Count Five states “Defamation for statement to the Washington Post”. Erdely and Rolling Stone also gave interviews to the Washington Post and made statements that wetre false. They also called Jackie “a person whom I found credible”. Which they knew was not true. They knew she wasn’t credible and did not have any other sources to back up their story.

Count Six states “Defamation for December 2, 2014 press statement”. This press statement was provided to numerous media outlets republished nationwide.In this press release Rolling Stone said the rape story was “entirely credible”.

In conclusion of this complaint is the Prayer for Relief, which is what the plaintiff requests the court enter in favor against the defendants actions. She requested compensatory damages of not less than $7,500,000, punitive damages of not less than $350,000, all expenses and costs, including attorneys’ fees; and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

A Jury Trial is Demanded…

Unfinished News: Words From the Family of Elizabeth Collins

“It’s old news, I guess. But it’s not to us. It’s unfinished news.” These are the words from the grandmother of Elizabeth Collins, Sharon Collins. Drew Collins and his family came to speak to my Journalism, Law, and Ethics night class. This night was snowy and the roads were far from good. This didn’t stop the family from coming and sharing their story and vulnerability to us on the topic of their family member who was taken and murdered along with her cousin, Lyric Cook.

Immediately when the Collins family walked in the room, I could tell this wasn’t the first time they had talked about the tragedy in their family, but it didn’t get much easier for them. Anelia started the conversation by asking when the last time was that they talked about the girls (Elizabeth and her cousin Lyric). Drew’s mother responded right away, “everyday”. Drew explained that the family speaks of her on the daily, but recently when the case in Indiana came up, it ramped things up again. They never know when it is going to happen.  

This being a journalism class, they were then asked how they reacted to the media and how they were treated. Drew stated they hadn’t had much trouble with the media. They had a couple times where people were hiding and taking photos at their house, but other than that the journalism if anything helped them. I found this interesting, and also was glad that they haven’t had a negative experience with the media. Drew did mention that Lyric’s parents were a whole different story on this topic. Apparently Lyric Cook’s parents, Misty and Dan, had been in and out of prison for meth and didn’t cooperate with the police well which made it harder on the Collins family during the start of the investigation. Drew said that basically they grew up thinking the police were bad, and that they weren’t being helpful for the sake of their daughter. Even though Drew doesn’t speak with the Cook’s anymore, his mother Sharon does. She stated that she wanted Lyric to be remembered too, and is working on books for both girls. I thought this was especially nice because I think Lyric may have missed the spotlight a little because of her family. I also understand why Drew would be angry with the family and cut ties with them as well.

Drew was asked what he remembers about when the girls went missing. He remembered there being a storm the night before. As he owns a tree business, he had a lot of work to do that day as trees had fallen. He stated that he walked out the door just like a normal day, but came home to his ex wife Heather saying the girls went out on a bike ride and hadn’t come home yet. Kelly, the eldest son, went out on his bike looking for them, but did not find a trace of them. The police were then notified and their bikes were found near a lake near their home and Elizabeth’s purse was found thrown over the fence with her cell phone in it. Immediately Drew knew something wasn’t right because she wouldn’t have done that with her purse.

How could this happen to a loved one? Why would god let this happen to such a young and innocent girl? Drew was asked by a student about his faith and if it was questioned or made stronger by this. He told us he wasn’t ever mad at God because God can’t stop any of this from happening. He did say at that time with all the chaos and devastation in his life he wasn’t as close with god, but he didn’t put any blame of what happened on him.His wife had a heart attack before the girls went missing and had a pacemaker put in. The doctors initially told him they didn’t think she would make it but he felt in his heart that God was with them and was telling him she wasn’t going to die. After Elizabeth went missing he didn’t get this reassurance from his prayers, and this worried him. Statistically kids that are taken are killed within hours.

When a person or a family goes through something like this, I can’t imagine anything would be the same after the fact. The family was asked how they thought their family has changed from it. Drew said he remembered one day there was a slow moving van out front and it was the FBI. This was normal for his family, which certainly shouldn’t be the normal for your average family. He also stated that his marriage fell apart, and going through this tragedy weakened his relationship with his ex-wife, Heather. When something this horrible happens in ones family, I imagined they would do anything in their power to make sure it would not happen again. He was eventually asked if this has changed what he allows his younger girls to do (grades 5th and 7th), and he said it has greatly. Drew stated, “If I’m in the house, they don’t even go out to the car alone.” I definitely don’t blame him for this because after losing one child, he wants to do everything in his power to keep his other children safe.

One thing I noticed is that the eldest son, Kelly, was quiet when it came to the subject. He was originally supposed to go on the bike ride with the girls, and I can’t imagine the type of guilt that would give him. He showed a lot of strength while talking about the topics he did respond to. His girlfriend was with as well, and she said he has known him ever since Elizabeth went missing, but started dating after. She noted that he has his days, usually holidays and anniversaries are the hardest, but she just gives him his space and is there for him as much as she can be. Kelly also works with his father at his tree business and is a big part of the success of the family business.

A hard question asked by Anelia was what they thought should happen to someone who did this. Drew’s mom, Sharon, said she wants the courts to be the ones to decide and stated, “I certainly don’t think someone like that should be loose in society again.” Drew replied and said, “I’d like to take a blow torch and a pair of pliers to them.. That’s the truth. Can you blame him? I can’t even imagine how I would contain myself if someone who murdered my child had been found. He also said, “This person took my daughter and threw her outside like trash after they murdered her.” This was a very emotional statement because of how heartbreaking but true this is.

The family always had hope Elizabeth would someday come home. They are not giving up in hopes to finding the person behind this vicious and hateful crime. They want justice. Sharon Collins mentioned everyone sees this type of thing happen on the news and on TV, and nobody thinks it will happen to them, but it can. Sharon also dedicates a lot of her free time working at angles park, which is a park in Evansdale which was originally dedicated to the girls, but then there were a couple other families who had children die/murdered. It has morphed into a park for the community and is also located across where the bikes were found.

I am glad I could experience hearing the Collins Family’s story. It doesn’t get more raw and true than hearing it straight from the family themselves. Before the family left, Sharon talked about how amazed she is by drew. This was extremely touching to me because of everything he has gone through as a father. She truly would do anything for her son and said he teaches her things about life every day. Elizabeth was lucky to have a father such as Drew, and I am glad he had the courage to come speak with our class.

Homework

Smart’s Kidnapper Claims to be “Servant of God” and Dodges Questions

As many may know, on June 4th, Salt Lake City was struck with an event completely unimaginable and upsetting. Elizabeth Smart, 14 years old, was kidnapped and taken from her own home and from her own bed during the night. Nine months later she was found 18 miles from her home and was reunited with her family. Two interrogators conducted an interview with the man who committed this crime, Brian David Mitchell. How Mitchell reacts to being asked questions about Smart and the crime made retaining any logical information on what happened challenging.

This interview was done  professionally, not only due to heart breaking circumstances of the situation, but how Mitchell acted. It took almost two hours to conduct this interview without getting answers as to why the crime was committed. This video was also recorded and will be released at a later date. Even more repugnant, Mitchell was hired by the Smart family to do work around their property, which is how he became familiar with Elizabeth. The interview began with specific background information about the suspect. When asked his address, Mitchell said his home was heaven, and refused to give a legal address. Mitchell stated his name as “Immanuel Babid Isaiah”, which is not his legal name. He preferred to be called Immanuel throughout the entire interview. His body language was noticeable as he was sluggish; not sitting in his chair upright.

First, he was asked how he came to have Elizabeth Smart with him. Mitchell responded, “By the power of God”, and also told them God led her to him. He did not call Smart by her real name. He referred to her as “Esther”, stating, “the lord told me she is 18”. One of the big topics brought up at this point of the interview was if he had sexual relation with Smart. He would not answer this question even though Smart had said she was raped and physically abused every day.  He chose not to reply with anything except for conversation from the bible and religious terminology.

When asked how he took Smart, he explained that God delivered her. It was extremely tough to decipher through the biblical talk Mitchell spoke and he was then asked to explain what happened in a way they would understand. This was Mitchell’s only chance to explain himself and what happened throughout those 9 months, and he sat in his chair with his feet up refusing to answer direct questions. Mitchell was told multiple times that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. None of this information made him tell his story.

After keeping their cool, the two integrators started telling him he is a shame and a liar. After Mitchell had said nothing but that what he did was because of the content within the bible, he was asked, “How many times did christ get pulled over for a DUI?” Mitchell has multiple criminal records to his name, one of these stealing beer from a liquor store. It was clear that not only does he have some psychological problems, but he also may have a drinking problem. Him being faithful to the lord was out of the question, and that was not what this was about.

Eventually, Mitchell opened up and without directly stating having sexual intercourse with Smart, it was clear he admitted to it. He said god told him to have sex with her and take her as his own. Mitchell was not happy with the questions he was being asked and called them out for asking “trick questions”. The interrogators used a flattery tactic by talking about his past and making it seem like they feel for him making him feel like they understood his closeness with the lord. This technique is used in integregations in hopes that the suspect feels praised and complemented and will feel that he can release information.  However, this did not work in their favor. Mitchell told them he could see them using flattery as a tactic and shows he is not oblivious to what they were doing.

“As long as I am obeying the lord, I don’t care.” These were the words Mitchell said after being told he is under arrest and that the charges can keep him in custody for the rest of his life. He strongly believes the lord has brought him to do these crimes. The topic of his wife, Wanda Barzee, was brought up. They told her he would never get the chance to see her again and that she had turned her back on him. At this point, the interrogators were getting quite frustrated with Mitchell not answering their questions. One stated, “This is worse than Christmas Mass.”

They then moved to Mitchell’s side of the room and began talking to him closer. They started using a repetition tactic, where they repeated the same words and phrases over and over. These being “bullshit”, “liar”, “tell us the truth”. This tactic was used in hopes that eventually it would get to him and he would break. Of course, this did not happen. Mitchell continued talking over them talking about the lord and the bible. After, he starts singing. This is where it was known that the interview was not going to change. An investigator told him, “We both know you’ve got no explanation for this.. You’ve got nowhere to go. You’re a pussy.. You’re a loser”

At the conclusion of the interview/interrogation, the interrogators assumed there was no point in continuing at this time. Mitchell was uncooperative and did not appear sane. Why Mitchell took Smart and kept her captive for nine months is still unclear, but investigators will still be working hard to get to the bottom of it. Smart is spending this time with her family, and does not wish to talk about such matters at this time. During the interview an investigator told Mitchell, “We want to be able to go to Elizabeth’s family.. We want to be able to have an explanation for them.” This is the motive for this integration and there will be an ongoing investigation with Brian Mitchell.  In conclusion, an Investigator stated, “But you know what.. I feel comfortable knowing that Elizabeth Smart from here on out that Elizabeth Smart is where she belongs. And I feel comfortable that you will never be able to put your hands on her again, and you’ll spend the rest of your life in prison.”