Even before his downfall in 1973, Dayan was criticized by dovish, radical and/or left-wing politicians and journalists. Their criticism was motivated not so much by love of antiquities, but by hatred of his politics.� However, because of their political standing, they were treated as enemies and their criticism was discarded even when it was accurate. Such early critics included Dan Ben Amotz and Uri Avneri. Dan Ben-Amotz published detailed reports in the radical newspaper �Ha-olam Ha-zeh� (�This World�). In December 1971 he made a long list of accusations against Dayan, republished in one of his books (Ben-Amotz 1974:29-34): Dayan robbed antiquities; lied about it; abused his high position by using army personnel and material for his private aims, sold antiquities, and did not pay income taxes for profits from selling antiquities. Desperate about the authorities� lack of action, Ben Amotz staged a �demonstrative excavation� at Tel Qasileh near Tel Aviv. The police only took his turiyah [hoe] and did not arrest him. He complained at the police, but the file was closed on pretence that the complaint was unfounded (for another early critique see Geva 1977).�
7.1.4� Uri Avneri, a journalist, radical politician who was also an MK, handed a series of queries against Dayan on 6th December 1971 in the Knesset (cf. Kim 1991:4). Dayan denied all allegations. He claimed that he never bought antiquities for money and did not held �any antiquity of archaeological value that is not known to archaeologists working in Israel Museum, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv Universities and the IDAM. Furthermore, archaeologists used and are using, freely, all the finds in my collection for their scientific work and exhibitions�.� Dayan said that he �never sold or gave an Israeli object of archaeological value to someone who has no authority [for dealing] in that by the IDAM ... to the best of my knowledge I do not transgress the law of antiquity and do not use bulldozers, tractors, lifts, trucks and helicopters for excavating and delivering antiquities.�� Dayan only admitted that occasionally he visited sites while on work-tours (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:532).�
Avneri (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:533) surprised Dayan with another question: �I am holding in my hand here an advertisement from the �Los Angeles Times� of 12.10.1970, where archaeological items of the Biblical period �from the famous collection of Moshe Dayan� are offered for sale, priced 100 or 200 dollars each. Have you received permit to excavate, search, trade or export antiquities, and if not- what is the origin of these antiquities�? Dayan replied (Divrei HaKnesset 1971, no. 62:533): �This is not exactly another question, certainly not relating to the Ministry of Defense, but I will gladly answer... I already said that according to the best of my knowledge, I did not transgress any law of antiquities. Second, I do not export or trade in antiquities. As for the advertisement, it is conceivable that the buyer or man from Los Angeles bought while in Israel antiquities from my collection... Occasionally, I take out surplus items from my collection and sell them, so perhaps he bought them in Israel and later sold them in Los Angeles.� Avneri�s remark: �but this is definitely against the law� remained unanswered.
A second round of queries was heard on 22.12.1971 (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1971, no. 62:721). Yig�al Alon, answering for the Ministry of Education, admitted that Dayan had not received permit to excavate, export or trade in antiquities.� Furthermore, no supervision of his collection was made �after December 1971�.�� Avneri asked Prime Minister Golda Meir on 19.1.1972 whether ministers are allowed to trade; whether she investigated if Dayan trades in antiquities; and if so, was he required to cease?� Golda Meir answered (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053) that the law does not specifically forbid a Minister to trade; that she was informed that all these complains were checked properly.� Avneri asked: �Honorable Prime Minister, it is a question of principles: does right order permits a minister in the state of Israel to be a professional trader, in any kind of merchandise? Does not the Prime Minister have an opinion about this?� Golda only mocked him: �If MK Avneri wishes to ask about good order- he may, though I am not quite sure if he is interested in my private opinion. In any case, if he is, he can ask me privately, and if I find it worthy of answering him, I shall.� (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053).
��������� As long as Dayan was a national hero the media refrained from criticizing him, turning a blind eye to his deeds, with very few exceptions. This attitude changed after 1973, but then Dayan was mainly robbing sites through help of others, or buying antiquities, not digging with his own hands.
7.2. �� Criticism by Biographers
7.2.1� Most of Dayan�s biographers do not condemn his deeds. Taslitt barely mentions Dayan�s interest in archaeology, and does so in praising terms: �the farm tools tucked away in the trunk of his car were for a purpose quite apart from agriculture- to dig for ancient sites and uncover relics from days long gone by� (Taslitt 1969:158).� Teveth (1972) does not accept Dayan�s hobby-horse as good, but repeats and accepts his arguments for defending it. Teveth also admires the man �above the law�, and his contempt is directed towards those who fail to stop him.� Teveth (1972:202) quotes Dayan�s words that �if he were given the choice of digging for antiquities half of his life and spending the other half in jail, or not digging at all and remaining a free man, he would choose the former.�� Teveth (1972:202) also admires Dayan�s collection: �the precious relics in the garden, as well as in his house, have made ancient Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Islands an inseparable part of his daily thoughts.�� Falk (1985, cf. Adler 1987) was the only biographer who criticized Dayan�s digs clearly and consistently, perhaps because he, a psychoanalyst, was used to handle deceptive statements (regardless of the contribution of this psychological biography, which can be doubted). Falk understood that Dayan�s claim of saving antiquities is paradoxical, and that� �the fact that Israeli society was not able to limit the narcissistic greatness complex of Moshe Dayan, and put an end to the attitude that he can do whatever he wants, is a sad evidence to its lack of maturity at that time�. It was like in the period of the Judges before the Kingdom, said Falk, quoting Judges 21:25 (Falk 1985:246).
7.2.2� Surprisingly, later biographers did not follow Falk. Slater repeated Dayan�s excuses and the unfounded appraisals of his deeds: �As time went Dayan became a great expert in the subject. He had a dexterity that enabled him to take the relics and piece them together into a whole� (Slater 1991:161). �By all accounts, Dayan was a superb archaeologist... the commonly held view of Moshe Dayan as an archaeologist was unfailingly complimentary; it was said that he had a keen sense of where to dig, and when he reached a site, he had the diligence and patience of a prospector looking for gold� (Slater 1991:161-162- not understanding that archaeology is the very opposite of gold prospecting).� �Besides, through some of Dayan�s efforts, valuable relics were saved from being destroyed by oncoming bulldozers� (Slater 1991:326).� As late as 1997, Ehud Ben-Ezer still had a tone of approval and admiration: �Moshe does not intend to devote himself to archaeology, like chief of staff Yadin... he remains an amateur. But what an Amateur!� (Ben Ezer 1997:121; cf. Ben Ezer 1997:218-219).
7.3 ��� Criticism following the display of his collection
7.3.1 An event that furnished occasion for public debate about Dayan�s illicit digging was the display of his collection in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem in April 1985. Many criticized the Israel Museum for displaying stolen antiquities, and for buying them for so much money. Most clear is Tom Segev (1986:61-62). Segev mocks Dayan by reference to an old white porcelain night-pot of Winston Churchill, exhibited in the London WWII bunkers, which he had once seen, �but Churchill, as far as I know, had not stolen this pot, and if he had, his widow had not sold it back to the state�.� Other critics included Ariel (1986:9);� Bar Kedma (1986:23-24); Ilan (1986:7); Hareven (1986) and Boshes (1986).� A demonstration of a group of archaeologists took place at the opening day of the exhibition (Ilan 1986:7; Meshel, pers. com.).� Though some still admired the collection and the Museum (Aarons 1982), it seems that the wide public started to despise Dayan�s deeds as a result of this exhibition. The Israel museum soon dispersed the collection.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
disclaimer 443.dis.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
I need to add a disclaimer: I hated the '60s. While I enjoyed the performances and craft of Hair, the show made my skin crawl. Far too many contemporaries of mine wasted years of their lives in that haze of drug-fueled hedonism. Not a few contemporaries lost their lives.
It was the time we permantently mistook freedom for license, when every boundary was removed from the normal process of young adult rebellion while at the same time the concept of rebellion was elevated to transcendent status. We created a religion out of hormonal reactions.
It was the time we permantently mistook freedom for license, when every boundary was removed from the normal process of young adult rebellion while at the same time the concept of rebellion was elevated to transcendent status. We created a religion out of hormonal reactions.
Monday, March 29, 2010
leapt 33.lea.0001 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
From the confines of the pit, even though the radio was still on, Josefina clearly heard a woman complaining and the sounds of a chain dragging across the floor. A short time later, Rivera's heart leapt as the board was lifted and Heidnik dragged her from the pit. Josefina looked up and saw another young, black woman, naked except for a blouse, chained to the pipe in the ceiling in the same manner, as she had been the first night. She stared at the woman who seemed to be completely oblivious to what was happening to her. Heidnik later introduced the girl as Sandy Lindsay before leaving them alone. As Sandy spoke to Josefina began to understand why the new arrival seemed so detached, she was retarded.
Sandy told Josefina that she had been a friend of Heidnik's for several years since they had met at the Elwyn Institute, which was a local hospital for the mentally and physically handicapped. She described Gary as a good friend who always looked after her. In a voice devoid of emotion she described how she had often had sex with Gary and his friend Tony. Later she became pregnant, but had an abortion. When Heidnik learned what she had done, he flew into a rage and offered her a thousand dollars to have his baby. When she refused, Heidnik took her prisoner and brought her to the house. As she finished her story, Sandy dissolved into tears as she began to realize her predicament.
One day Heidnik told Sandy that her sister and two cousins had come looking for her but had gone away assuming no one was home. He later forced Sandy to write a note to her mother telling her that she had gone away and would call later. He told the women that he would post the letter from New York so her mother would think Sandy had run away. Although Sandy didn't seem to understand the implication of the note, the street-wise Josefina understood that Heidnik's intended to keep them prisoner indefinitely.
As the days dragged into weeks, Heidnik's behavior became increasingly bizarre. He fed them sporadically and kept them semi naked so that he could indulge his sexual appetite when he felt like it, which was often. When he was absent, they huddled together for warmth and waited in fear for his return. On occasion, they tried calling for help, which resulted in savage beatings, which in turn caused them to cry even louder. Any deviation from his rules was punished by further beatings or a period of incarceration in the dreaded hole. Another form of punishment he devised was to attach the girls to an overhead beam by one arm and leave them suspended for hours on end.
While Heidnik was developing his skills as a torturer, Sandra's mother was actively searching for her. The mother told an officer that she believed her daughter was being held against her will by a man she knew only as Gary who lived at 3520 North Marshall Street. She gave the officer all the information she had including a phone number but was unable to furnish a last name. The officer tried calling the number and even went to the house, but got no response and eventually dropped the inquiry.
Sandy told Josefina that she had been a friend of Heidnik's for several years since they had met at the Elwyn Institute, which was a local hospital for the mentally and physically handicapped. She described Gary as a good friend who always looked after her. In a voice devoid of emotion she described how she had often had sex with Gary and his friend Tony. Later she became pregnant, but had an abortion. When Heidnik learned what she had done, he flew into a rage and offered her a thousand dollars to have his baby. When she refused, Heidnik took her prisoner and brought her to the house. As she finished her story, Sandy dissolved into tears as she began to realize her predicament.
One day Heidnik told Sandy that her sister and two cousins had come looking for her but had gone away assuming no one was home. He later forced Sandy to write a note to her mother telling her that she had gone away and would call later. He told the women that he would post the letter from New York so her mother would think Sandy had run away. Although Sandy didn't seem to understand the implication of the note, the street-wise Josefina understood that Heidnik's intended to keep them prisoner indefinitely.
As the days dragged into weeks, Heidnik's behavior became increasingly bizarre. He fed them sporadically and kept them semi naked so that he could indulge his sexual appetite when he felt like it, which was often. When he was absent, they huddled together for warmth and waited in fear for his return. On occasion, they tried calling for help, which resulted in savage beatings, which in turn caused them to cry even louder. Any deviation from his rules was punished by further beatings or a period of incarceration in the dreaded hole. Another form of punishment he devised was to attach the girls to an overhead beam by one arm and leave them suspended for hours on end.
While Heidnik was developing his skills as a torturer, Sandra's mother was actively searching for her. The mother told an officer that she believed her daughter was being held against her will by a man she knew only as Gary who lived at 3520 North Marshall Street. She gave the officer all the information she had including a phone number but was unable to furnish a last name. The officer tried calling the number and even went to the house, but got no response and eventually dropped the inquiry.
Friday, March 12, 2010
characters 33.cha.003 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
On February 24, 2005 Peter Jennings Productions aired a two-hour prime time show about UFOs and abductions, “UFOs: Seeing is Believing.” One part of the show concentrated on UFO sightings and it was excellent. It featured credible people seeing incredible things. The recreations were dramatic and effective. It was, without doubt, the best network presentation of UFO sightings ever done.
The historical segment of the show was in the main accurate, although necessarily incomplete with a limited amount of time to do it. It egregiously left out the name of James McDonald and others and assumed that only astronomer and UFO advocate J. Allen Hynek was “carrying the ball” when Project Blue Book closed.
As the show went on, however, one could see it losing steam. The high standards that characterized the history and sightings part were inexplicably abandoned. Although I am not a Roswell proponent, the Roswell section was inherently unfair because it did not explicate the issues on both sides and it was mean-spirited in characterizing researcher Stanton Friedman as a self-promoter. At the end of the show, it correctly portrayed Peter Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center as a courageous UFO investigator, but suggested strangely that he was the only one and it ignored MUFON and the hundreds of people throughout the nation who indefatigably investigate UFO sightings.
There are many other aspects of that awful second hour that require attention (the SETI people, etc.), but I will confine my remarks to the abduction sequence. That part of the show displayed three segments: Abductees telling snippets of what happens to them and how they feel about it, Budd Hopkins doing a hypnotic regression and briefly discussing the abduction phenomenon, and two Harvard psychologists explaining what was “really” happening.
It must be understood that all debunkers commit one or more of three errors: 1, they do not know the data, 2, they ignore the data or 3, they distort the data to make it conform to their explanations. There are no exceptions to this rule. For television producers, the appeal to authority is irresistible, especially if the credentials seem to be the highest. Thus, Drs. Robert McNally and Susan Clancy proclaim the abduction phenomenon to be a product of sleep paralysis and hypnosis fantasies. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the subject knows that this is ludicrous. As with all debunkers, the two professors ignored the evidence or they were unaware of it. Either way their explanations were scientifically dishonest, just ignorant, or both. The clear implication of these explanations was that Hopkins was blind to the pitfalls of hypnosis and to the fact that all abduction events take place when the abductees are asleep. The editing of abductees' comments to suggest that the only experiences they had were when they were sleeping supported this idea.
The blame for these untruths rests primarily with the producers, Justin Weinstein, Jordan Kronick, and Gabrielle Tenenbaum. They had absolute disconfirming information in their possession. They were told directly by Budd Hopkins and by me that sleep paralysis is an untenable explanation because it does not fit the evidence. We informed them of daytime events, events that happened with multiple abductees, events that happened at night when the person was not in bed, events that happened when a person was driving a vehicle, and so on. In fact, the taped regression session I did at their request was an incident that occurred in the daytime while the abductee was driving. And, we told them that a significant percentage of abductions were remembered outright without the aid of hypnosis. Indeed Hopkins pointed out to them that in the first twenty years of our knowledge of the phenomenon, there were no cases of abductions occurring when people were asleep.
In my own research, the sleep paralysis explanation has little statistical support. I have catalogued 669 beginnings of abductions of the nearly 900 regression sessions I have conducted. Of those, 277 began when the person was asleep. But 392, or nearly 60%, happened when the person was not asleep – typically driving, walking, watching television, and so forth. Although I did not tell them this, I made the shortfalls of the sleep paralysis explanation very clear.
Furthermore, I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of hypnosis with the producers. The vast majority of cases that I have investigated have memories associated with them that clearly indicate abduction activity. The abductee tells the investigator the memories and symptoms before the investigator begins hypnosis. Hypnosis brings out the details and the chronology and when used properly does not generate a fantasy. I made it clear that hypnosis, when used improperly, can support “channeled” and dissociative memories that are reflective only of the person’s inner fantasies. I know the difference and so does Budd Hopkins. We have both worked diligently to make sure that “channeled” information along with confabulation is eliminated from substantive memories. The point is that we understand the shortcomings of hypnosis in the area of abduction hypnosis better than most professional hypnotists in any area. It was obvious that the two psychologists were not sophisticated enough to understand the differences.
But even when the producers fully understood that sleep paralysis and hypnosis fantasies do not explain abductions, they decided that they could not allow even thirty seconds of time to have a direct refutation of the nonsense being intoned by the authoritative figures. This was almost certainly a carefully thought-out choice. They preferred to leave it at that perhaps, and I am speculating here, to enhance the verisimilitude of the sightings aspect of the show.
The question is: Why does the media act unfairly when it comes to the abduction phenomenon? Of course the answer has much to do with the state of UFO research today, the refusal of the scientific community to engage with the subject on a realistic level, and the bizarreness of the subject. The media’s responsibility in this situation is to be as fair as possible, even though the claims are extreme. But fairness is not always the best policy. For example, one would be hard put to be “fair” about Nazi activities by giving a Nazi viewpoint as “balance.” However, one would expect that fairness would be extended to the enormous number of people around the world who are describing in exact detail the same activities that have happened to all of them. In fact, the media has abrogated its responsibility to be investigative, fair, and accurate. Investigative reporting has become part of the entertainment industry. Accuracy takes a back seat to the demands of time and interest. Putting on a good show is paramount no matter who is hurt in the process or if accuracy is sacrificed. The object is to put on a good show, not to reveal the truth (there are, of course, many exceptions to this in other areas, but very few when it comes to abductions).
I tell all the brave abductees who agree to go on camera that you never know how the production will turn out. It does not matter what the producers say to you. Their promises mean nothing. Ultimately, you throw yourself on their tender mercies and hope for the best. Once in a while the production is good and most of the times, it is not. Unfortunately, we do not have a great deal of choice. The normal channels of information about the subject are cut off. Academic journals will not publish studies suggesting that abductions are taking place. Scientists are blindly hostile to the subject -— more so than at any other time in the UFO history. Unstable people, self-promoters, publicity seekers, would-be cult leaders, people with New Age, religious, and spiritual agendas, and serious researchers all vie for attention in a very small arena. Thus when the opportunity to tell the public about the seriousness of the situation comes along, it is better to take the chance and give the show the opportunity to be right once in a while. If one does not participate and leaves the field to those characters who would increase ridicule of the subject, then the show will be wrong every time. We’re caught in a squeeze but we have to make the best we can of it. Nobody said it would be easy.
Finally, the Peter Jennings production must be seen in light of something else of which I am assuming the producers were unaware. The sighting phenomenon is the abduction phenomenon. UFOs are here to abduct people. If the show at least opens the door to the acceptance of sightings as reality, it can only help abduction researchers in the long run. At least I hope that is the case, but perhaps my own fantasies are coming out.
The historical segment of the show was in the main accurate, although necessarily incomplete with a limited amount of time to do it. It egregiously left out the name of James McDonald and others and assumed that only astronomer and UFO advocate J. Allen Hynek was “carrying the ball” when Project Blue Book closed.
As the show went on, however, one could see it losing steam. The high standards that characterized the history and sightings part were inexplicably abandoned. Although I am not a Roswell proponent, the Roswell section was inherently unfair because it did not explicate the issues on both sides and it was mean-spirited in characterizing researcher Stanton Friedman as a self-promoter. At the end of the show, it correctly portrayed Peter Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center as a courageous UFO investigator, but suggested strangely that he was the only one and it ignored MUFON and the hundreds of people throughout the nation who indefatigably investigate UFO sightings.
There are many other aspects of that awful second hour that require attention (the SETI people, etc.), but I will confine my remarks to the abduction sequence. That part of the show displayed three segments: Abductees telling snippets of what happens to them and how they feel about it, Budd Hopkins doing a hypnotic regression and briefly discussing the abduction phenomenon, and two Harvard psychologists explaining what was “really” happening.
It must be understood that all debunkers commit one or more of three errors: 1, they do not know the data, 2, they ignore the data or 3, they distort the data to make it conform to their explanations. There are no exceptions to this rule. For television producers, the appeal to authority is irresistible, especially if the credentials seem to be the highest. Thus, Drs. Robert McNally and Susan Clancy proclaim the abduction phenomenon to be a product of sleep paralysis and hypnosis fantasies. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the subject knows that this is ludicrous. As with all debunkers, the two professors ignored the evidence or they were unaware of it. Either way their explanations were scientifically dishonest, just ignorant, or both. The clear implication of these explanations was that Hopkins was blind to the pitfalls of hypnosis and to the fact that all abduction events take place when the abductees are asleep. The editing of abductees' comments to suggest that the only experiences they had were when they were sleeping supported this idea.
The blame for these untruths rests primarily with the producers, Justin Weinstein, Jordan Kronick, and Gabrielle Tenenbaum. They had absolute disconfirming information in their possession. They were told directly by Budd Hopkins and by me that sleep paralysis is an untenable explanation because it does not fit the evidence. We informed them of daytime events, events that happened with multiple abductees, events that happened at night when the person was not in bed, events that happened when a person was driving a vehicle, and so on. In fact, the taped regression session I did at their request was an incident that occurred in the daytime while the abductee was driving. And, we told them that a significant percentage of abductions were remembered outright without the aid of hypnosis. Indeed Hopkins pointed out to them that in the first twenty years of our knowledge of the phenomenon, there were no cases of abductions occurring when people were asleep.
In my own research, the sleep paralysis explanation has little statistical support. I have catalogued 669 beginnings of abductions of the nearly 900 regression sessions I have conducted. Of those, 277 began when the person was asleep. But 392, or nearly 60%, happened when the person was not asleep – typically driving, walking, watching television, and so forth. Although I did not tell them this, I made the shortfalls of the sleep paralysis explanation very clear.
Furthermore, I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of hypnosis with the producers. The vast majority of cases that I have investigated have memories associated with them that clearly indicate abduction activity. The abductee tells the investigator the memories and symptoms before the investigator begins hypnosis. Hypnosis brings out the details and the chronology and when used properly does not generate a fantasy. I made it clear that hypnosis, when used improperly, can support “channeled” and dissociative memories that are reflective only of the person’s inner fantasies. I know the difference and so does Budd Hopkins. We have both worked diligently to make sure that “channeled” information along with confabulation is eliminated from substantive memories. The point is that we understand the shortcomings of hypnosis in the area of abduction hypnosis better than most professional hypnotists in any area. It was obvious that the two psychologists were not sophisticated enough to understand the differences.
But even when the producers fully understood that sleep paralysis and hypnosis fantasies do not explain abductions, they decided that they could not allow even thirty seconds of time to have a direct refutation of the nonsense being intoned by the authoritative figures. This was almost certainly a carefully thought-out choice. They preferred to leave it at that perhaps, and I am speculating here, to enhance the verisimilitude of the sightings aspect of the show.
The question is: Why does the media act unfairly when it comes to the abduction phenomenon? Of course the answer has much to do with the state of UFO research today, the refusal of the scientific community to engage with the subject on a realistic level, and the bizarreness of the subject. The media’s responsibility in this situation is to be as fair as possible, even though the claims are extreme. But fairness is not always the best policy. For example, one would be hard put to be “fair” about Nazi activities by giving a Nazi viewpoint as “balance.” However, one would expect that fairness would be extended to the enormous number of people around the world who are describing in exact detail the same activities that have happened to all of them. In fact, the media has abrogated its responsibility to be investigative, fair, and accurate. Investigative reporting has become part of the entertainment industry. Accuracy takes a back seat to the demands of time and interest. Putting on a good show is paramount no matter who is hurt in the process or if accuracy is sacrificed. The object is to put on a good show, not to reveal the truth (there are, of course, many exceptions to this in other areas, but very few when it comes to abductions).
I tell all the brave abductees who agree to go on camera that you never know how the production will turn out. It does not matter what the producers say to you. Their promises mean nothing. Ultimately, you throw yourself on their tender mercies and hope for the best. Once in a while the production is good and most of the times, it is not. Unfortunately, we do not have a great deal of choice. The normal channels of information about the subject are cut off. Academic journals will not publish studies suggesting that abductions are taking place. Scientists are blindly hostile to the subject -— more so than at any other time in the UFO history. Unstable people, self-promoters, publicity seekers, would-be cult leaders, people with New Age, religious, and spiritual agendas, and serious researchers all vie for attention in a very small arena. Thus when the opportunity to tell the public about the seriousness of the situation comes along, it is better to take the chance and give the show the opportunity to be right once in a while. If one does not participate and leaves the field to those characters who would increase ridicule of the subject, then the show will be wrong every time. We’re caught in a squeeze but we have to make the best we can of it. Nobody said it would be easy.
Finally, the Peter Jennings production must be seen in light of something else of which I am assuming the producers were unaware. The sighting phenomenon is the abduction phenomenon. UFOs are here to abduct people. If the show at least opens the door to the acceptance of sightings as reality, it can only help abduction researchers in the long run. At least I hope that is the case, but perhaps my own fantasies are coming out.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
voices 88.voi.23 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Both the prosecution and defense looked at William Martin Mullin as a reason behind the murders, but with drastic differences in the level of responsibility. The prosecution blamed Mullin's intense hatred of his father, while Herb Mullin blamed his father directly for the murders. He was the murderer, as far as Herb was concerned, because he was "telepathically" issuing the kill-commands to his son. William Mullin was a Marine, who was proud of his World War II service, and according to Herb, taught his son that violence is "natural," and taught him how to shoot a gun with the aim of a marksman.
It is hard to know the extent of William Mullin's rational influence over his son. It is not a crime to tell your son war stories, or to teach him to how to handle a gun. Perhaps William Mullin was attempting to engage his child in the events in his life that rendered the most meaning, which can be true for many war heroes. And the boxing matches in the kitchen had seemed to be no more than a little playful roughhousing before dinner. But for Herb, these gestures were intimidating. He thought his father was challenging him.
Boxing with father
After Herb's experience in the ring, he returned to his father's house, a month before the murders began. He cornered his father with his fists up: "Come on, let's go, it won't last long." Herb punched his father out. "It scared me," the elder Mullin told Dr. Lunde. "It was such a departure from what we had normally done all our lives . . . He was not the same kid we had raised and known."
Herb's father appeared to be a stoic, stern, but reasonable man. William Mullin even wrote a letter supporting Herb's CO status, which must have greatly upset him. Later Herb wrote to his dad: "My conscientious objection thing was against your will. Well, that is past now. I don't know who was right or who was wrong. All I know is that I got hurt real bad because of all the confusion. Would you let me live in your home again?" But at the trial, Mullin blamed his father for sending him to San Jose State University, knowing that the anti-war movement was strong on the campus and he somehow wanted to trick his son into falling in with the counter-culture.
Herb was caught in a spiral of rebellion and reconciliation with his father, doing things that hurt him, then trying to win back his approval. One psychiatrist, in his testimony for the prosecution, said that Mullin's "inability to express hate to his father led to some of it being misdirected to others."
"Father was a Marine Corps sergeant and was used to ordering people to kill," said Herb. "I feel I was under my father's control, like a robot." Throughout the trial he asked Dr. Lunde and his attorney to compare his father's fingerprints to evidence from all the murder cases in Oregon and California since 1925. If Herb could prove his father was a mass murderer, perhaps they would go lighter on him.
Mullin takes the stand
On the stand in his own defense, Mullin was described by one reporter as "striking a lecturer's pose." He stood in the witness box with his many notes, and blamed his family, friends, and teachers who wanted to keep him from becoming "too powerful in the next life." Reincarnation wasn't just a cosmic ponderance — for Mullin, it explained everything. Everyone was bargaining for power and position in the next life.
"I am chosen as a designated leader of my generation," he said, because Einstein died on his birthday. This birthday also "gives me an extremely dominant position in the reincarnation." He believed that his parents told him that "they were going to give me a good time in the next life but they couldn't this time."
"One man consenting to be murdered protects the millions of other human beings living in the cataclysmic earthquake/tidal area. For this reason, the designated hero/leader and associates have the responsibilities of getting enough people to commit suicide and/or consent to being murdered every day," Herb Mullin explained to the jury.
As far as his victims go, Mullin said, "I never thought about them. I wasn't thinking, I don't think. I was reacting." He claimed his victims consented to die, in fact were willing to die, and told him so by psychic transmissions. "Every homosapien communicates by mental telepathy. . . It's just not accepted socially," he said.
He blamed his father, and asked that he be removed from the courtroom before he continued his testimony, but the judge refused. But the elder Mullin was moved so that his son wouldn't have to look at him.
He also blamed the Santa Cruz police for not keeping him incarcerated after he was arrested for drug possession. "I never would have killed anyone if they sent me to jail. If they don't punish you for breaking the law, what were they doing? Waiting until I broke a big law so they could put me in prison all my life?"
Disobeying Commands:
Mullin admitted that he could, and did, disobey commands to kill. He had received telepathic commands to commit suicide, but refused. "If he was the victim of irresistible voices, he would have killed himself," said prosecutor Chris Cottle.
He said that he ignored messages to kill. "I received a message in December I did not act on. I just didn't want to kill anymore — I just didn't think it was right." This last statement was crucial to the prosecutions case against Mullin. He was admitting he knew the difference between right and wrong. He was not his father's "robot," powerless to disobey, as he had previously said.
He was capable of selectively obeying his father's messages to kill. When he heard his father tell him to kill his uncle Enos, Mullin refused, and the voice then suggested an alternative victim. For all the fearful wrath Mullin associated with these telepathic commands, they were surprisingly reasonable and willing to negotiate.
It is hard to know the extent of William Mullin's rational influence over his son. It is not a crime to tell your son war stories, or to teach him to how to handle a gun. Perhaps William Mullin was attempting to engage his child in the events in his life that rendered the most meaning, which can be true for many war heroes. And the boxing matches in the kitchen had seemed to be no more than a little playful roughhousing before dinner. But for Herb, these gestures were intimidating. He thought his father was challenging him.
Boxing with father
After Herb's experience in the ring, he returned to his father's house, a month before the murders began. He cornered his father with his fists up: "Come on, let's go, it won't last long." Herb punched his father out. "It scared me," the elder Mullin told Dr. Lunde. "It was such a departure from what we had normally done all our lives . . . He was not the same kid we had raised and known."
Herb's father appeared to be a stoic, stern, but reasonable man. William Mullin even wrote a letter supporting Herb's CO status, which must have greatly upset him. Later Herb wrote to his dad: "My conscientious objection thing was against your will. Well, that is past now. I don't know who was right or who was wrong. All I know is that I got hurt real bad because of all the confusion. Would you let me live in your home again?" But at the trial, Mullin blamed his father for sending him to San Jose State University, knowing that the anti-war movement was strong on the campus and he somehow wanted to trick his son into falling in with the counter-culture.
Herb was caught in a spiral of rebellion and reconciliation with his father, doing things that hurt him, then trying to win back his approval. One psychiatrist, in his testimony for the prosecution, said that Mullin's "inability to express hate to his father led to some of it being misdirected to others."
"Father was a Marine Corps sergeant and was used to ordering people to kill," said Herb. "I feel I was under my father's control, like a robot." Throughout the trial he asked Dr. Lunde and his attorney to compare his father's fingerprints to evidence from all the murder cases in Oregon and California since 1925. If Herb could prove his father was a mass murderer, perhaps they would go lighter on him.
Mullin takes the stand
On the stand in his own defense, Mullin was described by one reporter as "striking a lecturer's pose." He stood in the witness box with his many notes, and blamed his family, friends, and teachers who wanted to keep him from becoming "too powerful in the next life." Reincarnation wasn't just a cosmic ponderance — for Mullin, it explained everything. Everyone was bargaining for power and position in the next life.
"I am chosen as a designated leader of my generation," he said, because Einstein died on his birthday. This birthday also "gives me an extremely dominant position in the reincarnation." He believed that his parents told him that "they were going to give me a good time in the next life but they couldn't this time."
"One man consenting to be murdered protects the millions of other human beings living in the cataclysmic earthquake/tidal area. For this reason, the designated hero/leader and associates have the responsibilities of getting enough people to commit suicide and/or consent to being murdered every day," Herb Mullin explained to the jury.
As far as his victims go, Mullin said, "I never thought about them. I wasn't thinking, I don't think. I was reacting." He claimed his victims consented to die, in fact were willing to die, and told him so by psychic transmissions. "Every homosapien communicates by mental telepathy. . . It's just not accepted socially," he said.
He blamed his father, and asked that he be removed from the courtroom before he continued his testimony, but the judge refused. But the elder Mullin was moved so that his son wouldn't have to look at him.
He also blamed the Santa Cruz police for not keeping him incarcerated after he was arrested for drug possession. "I never would have killed anyone if they sent me to jail. If they don't punish you for breaking the law, what were they doing? Waiting until I broke a big law so they could put me in prison all my life?"
Disobeying Commands:
Mullin admitted that he could, and did, disobey commands to kill. He had received telepathic commands to commit suicide, but refused. "If he was the victim of irresistible voices, he would have killed himself," said prosecutor Chris Cottle.
He said that he ignored messages to kill. "I received a message in December I did not act on. I just didn't want to kill anymore — I just didn't think it was right." This last statement was crucial to the prosecutions case against Mullin. He was admitting he knew the difference between right and wrong. He was not his father's "robot," powerless to disobey, as he had previously said.
He was capable of selectively obeying his father's messages to kill. When he heard his father tell him to kill his uncle Enos, Mullin refused, and the voice then suggested an alternative victim. For all the fearful wrath Mullin associated with these telepathic commands, they were surprisingly reasonable and willing to negotiate.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
hugged 30.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Those plans unraveled on May 6, 1989, when police arrived on Rio Sena, going door-to-door and asking questions. As luck would have it, they were searching for a missing child—a completely unrelated case—but when Constanzo glimpsed them from a window he panicked, opening fire with his submachine gun. Within moments, 180 policemen surrounded the apartment house returning fire in a fierce exchange that lasted some 45 minutes. Miraculously, the only person wounded was an officer struck by Constanzo's first shots.
When Constanzo realized that escape was impossible, he handed his weapon to El Duby and issued new orders. As the hit man later told police, "He told me to kill him and Martin. I told him I couldn't do it, but he hit me in the face and threatened that everything would go bad for me in hell. Then he hugged Martin, and I just stood in front of them and shot them with a machine gun."
When Constanzo realized that escape was impossible, he handed his weapon to El Duby and issued new orders. As the hit man later told police, "He told me to kill him and Martin. I told him I couldn't do it, but he hit me in the face and threatened that everything would go bad for me in hell. Then he hugged Martin, and I just stood in front of them and shot them with a machine gun."
Saturday, January 30, 2010
afternoon 33.aft.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
The next day Carl got into his car and drove to his father's grave. He began talking to his father's headstone. He thought the headstone was speaking back. His mind was so gone that he began to believe he was God's only son.
"I believed that if I could find Michele I could bring her back to life. And if was able to do that, then I must be Jesus," he said. He began calling himself the White Messiah.
The cops took all this to be a form of confession. They had Michele's father in for questioning again and again. It wasn't long before Carl Dorr was committed to a hospital for 72 hours of psychiatric observation. As soon as he got out, he was hauled in for questioning again.
Airtight Alibi
In truth, Carl did have something to hide. Ashamed that he had neglected his daughter that afternoon, he fudged the timeline. The last time he had seen Michele was around noon of May 31st. But he told the cops it was around 2:10 p.m. The time discrepancy was about to give Hadden Clack a perfect alibi.
Detective Wayne Farrell would later recall cruising Sudbury Road on the day after Michele Dorr vanished. He was grasping for any straw and came upon Hadden Clark in the driveway of his brother's house, tinkering with his truck's engine.
"Were you here yesterday?" the cop asked him.
"For about two or three minutes," Hadden claimed.
Farrell told Mike Garvey about the encounter. He said he had checked around and that Hadden Clark seemed to be the neighborhood weirdo. Garvey said to bring him in. Farrell called Geoff Clark and Geoff called Hadden and told him to be at the police precinct the next morning. He was on time but Garvey let him cool his heels for 10 minutes before going to work on him.
"I believed that if I could find Michele I could bring her back to life. And if was able to do that, then I must be Jesus," he said. He began calling himself the White Messiah.
The cops took all this to be a form of confession. They had Michele's father in for questioning again and again. It wasn't long before Carl Dorr was committed to a hospital for 72 hours of psychiatric observation. As soon as he got out, he was hauled in for questioning again.
Airtight Alibi
In truth, Carl did have something to hide. Ashamed that he had neglected his daughter that afternoon, he fudged the timeline. The last time he had seen Michele was around noon of May 31st. But he told the cops it was around 2:10 p.m. The time discrepancy was about to give Hadden Clack a perfect alibi.
Detective Wayne Farrell would later recall cruising Sudbury Road on the day after Michele Dorr vanished. He was grasping for any straw and came upon Hadden Clark in the driveway of his brother's house, tinkering with his truck's engine.
"Were you here yesterday?" the cop asked him.
"For about two or three minutes," Hadden claimed.
Farrell told Mike Garvey about the encounter. He said he had checked around and that Hadden Clark seemed to be the neighborhood weirdo. Garvey said to bring him in. Farrell called Geoff Clark and Geoff called Hadden and told him to be at the police precinct the next morning. He was on time but Garvey let him cool his heels for 10 minutes before going to work on him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
