Mother Protects Kids From Alleged Carjacker: ‘I Told Him He Messed With the Wrong Witch’

By ROB NELSON and ALEXIS SHAW | Good Morning America, June 16, 2013

A Texas mother’s determination to keep her family out of danger drove her to battle an alleged carjacker until he fled from her minivan — only to be struck by her vehicle as she tried to “stop him so he didn’t hurt anybody else,” the woman said.

While Dorothy Baker and her 2-year-old and 5-year-old sons were shopping Friday at a CVS in Baytown, Texas, a man identified as Ismael Martinez allegedly hid out in her unlocked van, police said.

When the family got back into the car, Baker said Martinez “popped up out of the backseat and said that if I didn’t want my kids to get hurt, that I would do exactly what he said.”

Martinez, 54, allegedly pulled a knife on Baker while she was driving and demanded she stop at an ATM for money, she said.

When she refused, Martinez allegedly became violent, she said.

Baker said she fought back, refusing to compromise the safety of her children.

“She’s got a cut that goes across her chest, and she grabbed the knife and he bit her hand,” Baker’s husband, Charles Flugence said.

“I took my fist and I hit him in the face, and I told him to get out of my car,” Baker said.

Baker intentionally drove her van into a telephone pole in hopes of sending Martinez through the front windshield, according to the Baytown Police Department crime report.

Police said she managed to dial 911 while she grappled with the suspect in hopes that a dispatcher might hear what was going on in the car and find a way to help, ABC station KTRK-TV in Houston reported.

“I thought, ‘If you swerve and hit the pole, he’s not wearing a seatbelt, he’ll go through the windshield or at least hit his head, and you can stop him. You can do something to make sure that he doesn’t hurt your kids,’” Baker told KTRK-TV. “That’s all I was thinking of really, was just to get him away from my kids.”

Police said Martinez eventually jumped out of the van and tried to flee. But before Baker knew it, she had run her car into him.

“I didn’t mean to run him over,” she said. “I was just trying to stop him so he didn’t hurt anybody else.”

Martinez was airlifted to Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston with serious injuries after the alleged attack. He is expected to face felony charges once he is discharged.

Meanwhile, Baytown residents have rallied around Baker’s bravery.

“She was trying to protect herself and her kids. I would do the same thing,” resident Joyce Sparks said.

But Baker said she is just glad her family is safe.

“You don’t come after people with kids,” she said. “I told him he messed with the wrong witch.”

Top-11 “Only In America” Observations

By An Unknown Canadian

1) Only in America  could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not  paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the  government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black  President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.

3) Only in  America could they have had the two people most responsible for their tax code,  Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in  favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react  by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of  thousands of dollars for the privilege yet advocate letting  anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government  investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect  more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still  spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for a total spending of  $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough  money.

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund-raising  event.

11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience …and a complete failure at his job … be re-elected President.

Law Enforcement Must Oppose Amensty for Illegal Aliens!

Law Enforcement Advocates Group Blasts “Shamnesty” Bill

From The New American by Alex Newman, June 13, 2013

As the debate in Congress intensifies over so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” amid fierce opposition from conservatives, critics are hammering the S. 744 legislation from all angles, arguing that it would provide amnesty to potentially tens of millions of illegal immigrants while costing trillions and doing nothing to secure the border. This week, meanwhile, an organization that advocates on behalf of law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents voiced its own opposition to the plan due to numerous concerns over national security, uncontrolled immigration, agent safety, and more. 

Some opponents of the immigration reform measures, meanwhile, are even arguing that the future of America’s constitutional Republic could be at stake if the controversial legislation gets through. More than a few Republicans have also argued that if the bill becomes law, aside from rewarding illegal activities, Democrats may be creating enough new voters to completely seize control of the federal government. Homeland Security boss Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano even predicted that immigrants would turn the Republican stronghold of Arizona into a Democrat-dominated state.

In a strongly worded letter to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) this week, the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council (LEOAC) joined the growing chorus of opposition voices, laying out multiple arguments against what the group blasted as “the U.S. Immigration Capitulation Act of 2013” and “Shamnesty.” According to LEOAC, which is asking for its criticism to be entered into the congressional record, border security is already an abject failure after being sabotaged by top officials from the Bush and Obama administrations — and the amnesty legislation would make the problems worse.

“This bill was clearly influenced and partly written by the Mexican government and their agents in America, including Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza,” LEOAC Founder and President Andy Ramirez told The New American, referring to a controversial pro-amnesty outfit with a name that translates to “The Race” and its president. “Murguia testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee along with a self-admitted illegal-alien female. Yet not one conservative Hispanic opposed to the U.S. Immigration Capitulation Act, as I call it, was invited to testify before the Senate.”

A third-generation American of Mexican ancestry with a long history of advocating for Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officers, Ramirez has testified before Congress about border security and immigration-related matters on multiple occasions. This time, however, the deck appears to be stacked in favor of the legislation’s supporters. In an interview with The New American, Ramirez said his organization submitted its declaration of opposition knowing that victory for the bill in the Senate “was a done deal long decided in a backroom deal.”

While there were more than a dozen senators, including Sen. Cruz, who voted against cloture on the bill, even lawmakers say the game is rigged — at least in the Senate, if not yet completely in the House. “However, I am not letting this go without a fight,” Ramirez continued. “The Senate has talked about border security like they actually know what they’re talking about, and they’re just as guilty of misleading the American people as the Department of Homeland Security. In essence, we’re being sandbagged by the Senate yet again with fool’s gold-type promises and a farce that the master of satire, the legendary Mel Brooks, would be proud of.”

Throughout the four-page letter, LEOAC highlights the various roles played by key characters in what the organization views as the “sabotage” of border security. Ramirez, citing his previous congressional testimony and other evidence, argued that the Department of Homeland Security under former President George W. Bush deliberately implemented policies that not only prevented proper immigration enforcement but also put national security and border agents at risk. Those sabotage efforts have continued under Obama, according to LEOAC.

Among the officials at the heart of the problems: ex-Border Patrol chief David Aguilar, who eventually became Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “He is the key player and handpicked all top U.S. Border Patrol managers personally, well documented as cronies and like-minded individuals,” Ramirez and his organization said in the letter to Sen. Cruz. “When we look to why border security has been an abject failure, which is acknowledged by top retired U.S. Border Patrol Agents including managers who have also denounced S-744, the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), it is clear as day, who shares responsibility, David V. Aguilar.”  

Still, while he may have played a crucial part, Aguilar is hardly alone — the crisis is systemic throughout the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. In the letter, Ramirez documented what he argues is a “pattern of internal sabotage by DHS over two presidential administrations to factually demonstrate that the claims of fixing border security… is both false and filled with the same lies and propaganda DHS has stated since its inception,” he told TNA in an e-mail, referring to the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators pushing the bill as “tr8ors.”

“The Gang of Tr8ors and their cohort supporters talk about providing resources,” Ramirez said. “But for all those very resources added, they refuse to admit the fact that DHS is an abject failure serving only as a ministry of propaganda and a money pit. Its agencies are ruled by the type of cronyism and terror tactics one has come to expect from a tyrannical dictatorship instead of what America represented to so many — a cradle of liberty and freedom or, as President Reagan often referred to it, ‘a shining city on the hill.’”

Also among the myriad individuals and government agencies responsible for the current fiasco, Ramirez continued in his letter, are the Department of Justice and some U.S. attorneys. According to LEOAC and its sources, attacks on law enforcement officers near the border, including gun shots, are now occurring on a regular basis. However, when agents ask that the Justice Department prosecute criminals responsible for attacking agents, the requests are regularly denied — especially when Johnny Sutton served as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas. 

“Consider the chilling message that [is] provided to agents: DOJ will protect illegal aliens but not law enforcement,” LEOAC said in the letter. “It’s no wonder when we see agents like Brian Terry are murdered, yet not one person is brought to justice for sending our agents into the field with rules that compromise their safety including the use of non-lethal loads though our agents face heavily armed drug cartels and alien smuggling organizations.” Passing the current “immigration reform” bill will only make it worse, Ramirez said — jeopardizing citizens and law enforcement alike.  

Some critics have gone even further, saying the amnesty plan actually threatens the Republic itself. “I think the master plan of the ruling class that runs Washington, D.C., is to ram this bill through before the American people know what has hit them, and before members of Congress even know what has hit them.” Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) told WND. “This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands.”

Other concerns expressed by critics include the estimated price tag: more than $6 trillion over the next 25 years, according to a study by the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation. Another key problem with the bill, according to lawmakers such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), is the effort to foist an unconstitutional national ID card on Americans. If approved, the identification scheme could include all sorts of biometric data and would be required to have a job. For now, the bill’s fate remains uncertain, but even some lawmakers say a strategy to ram it through both houses of Congress is already in place. The only way to stop it, opponents argue, is a massive public outcry.

ObamaCare Costs May Compel U.S. Lawmakers and Aides to Resign

From The New American by Raven Clabough, June 13, 2013

In November 2010, a significant number of members of Congress were ousted from their posts because of their votes for the passage of ObamaCare earlier that year. This year, quite a number of lawmakers may also be leaving their jobs as a result of the healthcare legislation — except this time, it’s voluntary: in fear of the rising costs of their health insurance premiums.

The provision at issue is called the Grassley Amendment, which states that the government may offer members of Congress and their staff only health insurance plans that are “created” in the bill or “offered through an exchange.”

Currently, aides and lawmakers are covered under a very generous federal health insurance package whereby the government subsidizes approximately 75 percent of the premiums for the health insurance plans.

But Politico explains why dozens of lawmakers are considering retiring early or simply quitting:

Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.

Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant.

Politico notes that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are awaiting specific details from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on the ObamaCare provision that will do away with government-subsidized premiums. A decision on that rule is expected by fall.

However, if the issue is not resolved, there is some speculation that there will be a mass exodus of lawmakers and aides from Capitol Hill, just as Congress is supposed to be addressing significant legislation such as immigration.

The issue may be even more dire for members of the House, as they are typically less wealthy than those in the Senate.

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) states that if the issue is not resolved, “I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees.’ They are federal employees.”

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) believes there will not be a resolution and that the fear of high costs will become a reality. “This is the law,” he contends. “It’s going to hinder our ability with retention of members; it’s going to hinder our ability for members to take care of their families.”

Sessions adds that lawmakers have been engaged in “quiet conversations” regarding the impending threat.

Veteran lawmakers are hopeful that if they retire this year, they may be able to remain covered under the current healthcare plan. Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) had already planned his resignation from Congress. And now his staff is being influenced by the effects of Obama’s signature healthcare legislation: “I’ve lost one staffer,” said Bonner, “who told me in confidence that he had been here for a number of years and the thought of losing the opportunity to keep his health insurance on Dec. 31 [forced him to leave]. He could keep what he had and on Jan. 1 he would go into that big black hole. And then I’ve got another staff member that I think it [ObamaCare] will be a factor as she’s contemplating her future.”

Throughout the year, Democrats and Republicans have discussed options to correct the problem, including administrative corrections.

“The leadership has assured members that fixing this issue is a top priority,” said one Democratic leadership aide. “This issue must be fixed by administrative action in order that the flawed Grassley Amendment’s spirit is honored and all staff and members are treated the same.”

Of course, how correcting this issue will be perceived by the American people is another issue. The notion behind the Grassley Amendment is ultimately “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Therefore, it stands to reason that if the provisions of ObamaCare are not sufficient for members of Congress, they are certainly not sufficient for the American people.

For some, the uncertainty is making it difficult to plan.

“Between the constant uncertainty surrounding sequestration, and the likelihood aides will soon be paying for the subsidy portion of their health care coverage, congressional office budgets are being squeezed once again, and it’s causing a lot of concern amongst chiefs of staff regarding how to best handle the situation,” said one chief of staff to a senior Democratic member of the House. “Do we give raises to junior level aides so they can afford to pay for their higher health care costs, and if so, where do we find the funds to do so? Additionally, leadership has been relatively silent in terms of providing guidance to offices, which is frustrating.”

That is a feeling with which the American people are all too familiar. Forbes reported last month that businesses are citing “uncertainty over Obamacare” as a basis for not hiring new employees and insurers are blaming the healthcare law for skyrocketing premiums.

But with many in Congress believing that they deserve to be exempt from these woes, critics are wondering whatever happened to a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”?

Tunisia Rapper Gets 2 Years Prison for Police Song

From The Associated Press, June 13, 2013

A Tunisian court convicted on Thursday a rap artist for insulting police with a song calling them dogs and sentenced him to two years in prison, his lawyer said.

The verdict comes as Tunisia’s justice system is under increasing scrutiny after a series of controversial decisions, including sentencing women’s rights activists to four months in prison for demonstrating topless while releasing suspects in last year’s attack on the U.S. Embassy.

Lawyer Ghazi Mrabet described the sentence as overly severe and said he would appeal the verdict against his client Alaa Yacoub, 24, known by his rapper name Weld El 15, or “Son of 15.”

Yacoub’s song “Boulicia Kleb,” or “the police are dogs,” was released on YouTube.

He was originally tried and convicted in absentia for inciting violence against officials and insulting police back in March. He turned himself in and was retried, but given the same two-year sentence.

His supporters were outraged by the verdict and struggled with police outside the courtroom. Four people, including a journalist, another rapper and two friends of the artist were arrested, according to Mrabet.

Yacoub’s case is remarkably similar to that of Moroccan rapper Mouad Belghouat, who last year served a year in prison for insulting police with his song “Dogs of the State.”

Tunisia under former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was a police state in which security forces were widely reviled.

Tunisians overthrew the government in January 2011 in an uprising that sparked off pro-democracy movements around the region.

Police are still widely mistrusted even under a new elected government.

Budget Cuts Cost Border Patrol Gas Money

From http://www.valleycentral.com by Nadia Galindo, June 7, 2013

Thursday afternoon Weslaco Police were chasing a reckless driver.

The incident started in Donna when two men allegedly threw a rock at a woman.

According to police the men fled the scene and later drove through Weslaco attempting to take the woman to the hospital.

The chase ended and the people inside bailed.

With two people in custody and two on the loose police called the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Air and Marine for a helicopter for backup.

But instead of responding, officers were told the helicopter had no gas.

“Fuel is being reduced as far as agents on the ground on vehicles that we are sending out to the field we are not sending as many vehicles to the field,” union representative Chris Cabrera, National Border Patrol Council, said.

Cabrera told Action 4 budget cuts caused by sequestration have trickled down to the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol which is known as one of the busiest areas on the border.

“We’re not given the resources to properly secure the border and that’s a problem,” Cabrera said.

The cuts are impacting local law enforcement.

“These guys bend over backwards to help us and we appreciate it however they should be concentrating on their communities and we should be concentrating on the border,” Cabrera said.

Border Patrol could not comment on the Weslaco incident because the helicopter requested is part of different department known as Air and Marine.

They did release this statement:

“The effects of sequestration continue to have serious impacts on CBP’s operations including nearly $600 million in cuts. We continue to encourage all parties to work together on a solution that can replace sequestration entirely and avoid the damaging impacts to CBP and critical services across the country.  The Chief Patrol Agent of the sector has a responsibility to operate within a prescribed budget.  The $600 million cut to CBP does impact the local operating budget and therefore the sector must take cost saving actions while still maintaining the integrity of border security operations.”

Cabrera said the cuts are threatening the safety of our border and need to stop.

“Anybody that comes down here and walks in our shoes for more than 10 minutes knows that it’s not secure down here,” Cabrera said.

Bank Robbery Suspect Wants NSA Surveillance Records for Defense

Terrance Brown, 40, is on trial in South Florida for allegedly conspiring with four other men to hijack armored trucks delivering cash to banks in 2010. All have pleaded not guilty. But now Brown has come up with a unique defense: he wants the National Security Agency to turn over his phone records to the court to demonstrate his innocence.

From breitbart.com by Ben Shapiro, June 13, 2013

The case, which is taking place in federal court, involves phone records – the FBI and prosecutors have been using cellphone records to demonstrate the men’s locations near the robbery attempts. The prosecution said that it was unable to get cellphone records from the time before September 2010 because the phone carrier had destroyed the records.

But Brown has new hope: his lawyer, Marshall Dore Louis, filed documents requesting NSA documents showing phone location records for Brown’s cellphones on the night of one of the robberies. “The president of the United States has recognized this program has been ongoing since 2006,” wrote Louis, “to gather the phone numbers [and related information] of everybody including my client in 2010.”

The judge, Robin Rosenbaum, gave the prosecutors a few weeks to respond. “There are security procedures that must be followed,” said Assistant US Attorney Michael Walleisa. One prosecutor, Michael Gilfarb, said that the information might not be relevant, depending on whether Brown carried his phone that night, given the fact that Brown’s wife said he didn’t have a cellphone at that time.

To read the motion filed by Brown’s attorney for the NSA phone records copy and paste the web-address below into your web-browser:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/13/Bank-robber-NSA-records

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News

Louisiana Town Imposes Curfew to Cut Crime

By Sophia Rosenbaum, Staff Writer, NBC News, June 13, 2013

The chief of police of Clinton, La., says he knows everyone in his small town, and that’s why he wants to keep it safe with an 11 p.m. curfew for all its residents.

After 13 years with the Clinton police department, Chief Fred Dunn said he knows when crimes are going to occur. And they usually happen in the night hours.

“The reason why I did the curfews is because of the businesses and home owners,” he said. “My citizens have been telling me that when they go home, they don’t feel safe.”

Clinton is a community of about 1,600 people about 35 miles north of Baton Rouge.

Dunn implemented the curfew – which lasts until 6 a.m. – on May 30 and he said it’s already producing results. The chief said he encountered two men hanging around one of Clinton’s streets a few days ago. Dunn said he was able to tell the men to move on because of the curfew. Later that night, Dunn said he learned the same men robbed a town 18 miles away.
Advertise | AdChoices

The chief said residents have praised the new ordinance, but not everyone is a fan.

“I think that’s kind of stripping people’s rights to come and go as they please,” Tammy Childress, who works at the only 24/7 gas station in town, told NBC affiliate WVLA.

“We’re the only store open 24 hours here in Clinton, and we do pretty good business between the hours of 11 and 2,” Childress said.

But Dunn said no one has come to his office to complain about the curfew.

“I haven’t had one person come and say they don’t think it’s right,” he said. “I have an open-door policy and anyone can come talk to me.”

Dunn said he understands some people are travelling to and from work, and those people are not stopped. During their patrol, his officers look for cars stopped in the same area for longer than 30 minutes.

He plans to keep the curfew in place while he monitors crime rates.

Whitey Bulger Trial Opens with Startling Statement From Defense

The trial of James ‘Whitey’ Bulger began Wednesday, with the defense admitting Mr. Bulger was a criminal, but saying he was not guilty of two key murders and did not act as an informant.

By Mark Trumbull | Christian Science Monitor, June 12, 2013

It’s a trial where both sides agree that James “Whitey” Bulger is a big-time criminal. And both sides agree that his long-time success in Boston’s underworld can be attributed in good measure to public corruption, such as police officers and FBI agents on the take from Mr. Bulger and his associates.

Beyond that, though, the trial that opened Wednesday leaves more just some shades of gray to be resolved.

Was Bulger a “hands-on killer,” as prosecutor Brian Kelly alleged in his opening statement? And was Bulger a willing informant to the FBI, even as he disparaged “rats” and retaliated violently against them?

Or, as the defense contends, is he being framed by former criminal colleagues whose self-interest lies in shifting blame onto him? And will the trial end up conveying as much about corruption within law enforcement as it does about Bulger’s own activities?

This is a blockbuster trial that will address those questions and more, related to a man who eluded authorities for 16 years after his indictment, which charged him with murdering 19 people. For years Bulger topped the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list as an alleged crime boss, even as the agency also carried a file on him as a “top echelon” informant against other mobsters.

Although Bulger has pleaded “not guilty” to 32 criminal counts in this federal case, lead defense attorney Jay Carney’s opening statement included some startling words.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

“Bulger was involved in criminal activities in Boston,” Mr. Carney said, mentioning loan-sharking, illegal sports betting, and drug dealing as examples. “That’s what he did.”

And Bulger was able to make “millions upon millions” by conducting these activities and by giving generous payments to corrupt police and FBI personnel, Carney added.

Where does that line of defense lead?

First, it’s an effort cast doubt on law-enforcement witnesses, by suggesting that it was only through rampant corruption that Bulger was able to avoid indictment for so long.

Second, the defense will seek to dismantle the credibility of Bulger’s former colleagues as witnesses. (Carney implied that they’ve lightened their own punishments by being ready to tell lies about Bulger and his former FBI handler, John Connolly.)

Third, Carney appears set to cast Bulger as a bad guy, but not that bad a guy – not guilty, for instance, of all 19 alleged murders.

If successful, that defense could not only lighten Bulger’s sentence but perhaps keep alive some fragment of the legend – once believed by some locals – that he was a kind of Robin Hood gangster, looking out for his community even as he profited from its seamier side.

Carney said in his opening remarks that Bulger was not an informant, and that he is not guilty of killing the two women listed by prosecutors among the alleged murder victims.

For the prosecution, however, the case is all about bringing to justice the alleged leader of a major crime ring, who reaped his millions through a reign of terror.

“At the center of all this murder and mayhem is one man – the defendant in this case,” Mr. Kelly of Boston’s US Attorney’s office said, at the start of what’s expected to be a months-long trial.

He sketched some of the vivid and gruesome details the prosecution will present in making its case.

Kelly alleged that Bulger shot one victim in the back of the head – after mining him for information about rival criminals and taking $50,000 of his money – and then sat on a couch while associates buried the man in a residential basement.

Kelly said one witness and former Bulger associate recalls moving three decaying corpses from the house basement to be buried in a field – on Halloween of all nights – so the house could be sold.

On Day 1 of the trial the prosecution also showed visual evidence: a photo of Bulger-linked machine guns, an image of an alleged extortion payment (by check) for $200,000, and video showing Bulger conferring with associates and making motions with his arms and fists as if describing physical violence.

With Bulger on the run for 16 years after being indicted, his alleged crimes date back to an era of grainy black-and-white surveillance videos by law enforcement and a “Southie” section of Boston that was still a rough part of town dominated by Irish-Americans.

Carney said up front that the defense faces a “challenging task.”

He said he’ll try to show “what happens in the prosecutors’ kitchen,” referring to the way that prosecutor goals – and the way those are perceived by witnesses interested in lighter punishment – can influence what witnesses say.

Carney said Bulger’s ties with FBI Agent John Connolly involved paying for information, not serving as an informant. This could become an important matter of contention during the trial, since some witnesses are former Bulger associates have also testified against Connolly (citing his relationship with Bulger) in the past.

Carney suggested that to become an informant was anathema to Bulger, since to “rat” went against the code of his Irish heritage.

Bulger is reportedly also eager to have the jury find him not guilty regarding the killings of two women in the 1980s.

While making no comment during his opening statement about most of the alleged murders, Carney sought to cast doubt regarding some of them – including the allegation that Bulger strangled Debra Davis (a girlfriend of his alleged crime partner, Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi) and Deborah Hussey (Mr. Flemmi’s stepdaughter) during the 1980s.

He asserted that Bulger had no motive in those murders, while Flemmi did.

The trial promises to pack some emotion along with Boston-mob intrigue.

Victims’ family members will be among the witnesses. Bulger himself may take the stand to rebut murder-related testimony by Flemmi. The two men, once “inseparable” as partners according to one witness who testified Wednesday, haven’t been in the same room for years.

Jury Gets Case in Trial of Former Kansas Lawman

By ROXANA HEGEMAN | Associated Press, June 10, 2013

KINGMAN, Kan. (AP) — Jurors began deliberations Monday in the first-degree murder case against a former Kansas lawman accused of killing his wife and setting their house on fire while their young sons slept down the hall.

Associated Press/The Hutchinson News, Travis Morisse, Pool – Defendent Brett Seacat, left, talks with his attorney Roger Falk as they look over evidence before the start of his trial on Friday, June 7, 2013

Prosecutors in closing arguments Monday portrayed Brett Seacat, 37, as a manipulative man who used his law enforcement background to make it look like his wife shot herself. The defense tried to cast reasonable doubt by repeatedly pointing out that even an experienced coroner couldn’t decide whether the death was suicide or homicide.

The prevailing argument will determine whether jurors can reach a verdict on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated arson and two counts of child endangerment in the April 30, 2011 shooting death of 34-year-old Vashti Seacat. Jurors met for a half hour Monday and are expected to resume deliberations Tuesday.

Seacat is a former Sedgwick County deputy who was an instructor at the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center when his wife’s body was found.

Prosecutors cited witness testimony that Vashti Seacat was happy on the day of her death and was making plans for her future after having filed for divorce just 16 days earlier. She had just paid for a parenting class as part of the divorce proceedings, bought concert tickets and made hotel reservations for an upcoming trip.

Prosecutor Amy Hanley told jurors Vashti Seacat wouldn’t have endangered the couple’s two young sons, ages 2 and 4, by setting fire to the house.

But the defense recounted her multiple bouts of depression dating back to high school, her refusal to take medication for depression recommended by her doctor and her injections of a diet drug known to cause depression as a side effect.

Defense attorney Roger Falk recounted his client’s testimony on the witness stand and how it was bolstered by the evidence in the case, including a suicide note over whose validity experts disagree.

Addressing the impending divorce as a motive, Falk noted the couple had seriously discussed divorce in 2007 and 2009 and had briefly separated.

Seacat’s attorney told jurors the evidence, including burns and blisters on his feet, bolstered his client’s testimony. He methodically offered possible explanations for much of the state’s evidence as it related to either Seacat’s work at the law enforcement center or his own police training.

Prosecutors contend that the day before his wife died, Seacat had obtained an overhead projector so he could trace handwriting from a journal to construct a fake suicide note. They also noted a Powerpoint presentation on arson investigation was on the table on the night of the fire.

Seacat had testified the overhead projector was used for a lesson on financial fraud, and said the arson material was scrap paper he had used from an old class he took.

Prosecutors scoffed at the notion.

“Has it dawned on you yet how many coincidences or how many things that are bad luck you are going to have to accept in this case to believe his side of the story?” Hanley said to jurors.