text:
Recap: Rays offense is a snow-show in Royals rout
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The Royals' Jeremy Guthrie grinded through five shaky innings. Third baseman Mike Moustakas grinded through a calf strain that's still causing him trouble.
The rest of the Kansas City offense ground up Rays starter Jeremy Hellickson.
Salvador Perez hit a three-run homer, Billy Butler also went deep and the Royals romped to an 11-1 victory over Tampa Bay on Monday in a steamy makeup of a snowed-out game from early May.
Perez finished with four RBIs, Butler drove in three runs and Moustakas also drove in a pair as the Royals won their second straight following a seven-game slide.
"We're a good team. We're a good-hitting ballclub," Moustakas said. "We knew we'd be able to get to the pitcher early and score some runs."
Hellickson (10-8) allowed five runs in just 2 2/3 innings for Tampa Bay. It was the struggling right-hander's shortest start since June 30, 2012, when he went the same distance in a game against Detroit before getting pelted in the leg by a line drive.
"The offense to me looks like it is back on track," Royals manager Ned Yost said.
Guthrie (13-10) allowed six hits and three walks but twice delivered timely strikeouts. He fanned Kelly Johnson with two aboard to end the third inning, and then struck out David DeJesus on a called third strike to leave the bases loaded in the fourth.
Rays manager Joe Maddon argued that the call and was tossed by plate umpire Greg Gibson.
"It's been exasperating. They beat us up. We don't like Kansas City," Maddon said, "except for the food. The Plaza is nice and the barbeque, and this is one of the best ballparks in the American League, in all of baseball really, but they just beat us up."
James Loney drove in the only run for the Rays, who no doubt rued having to make the quick trip to Kansas City in the midst of a six-game homestand. They began the day a game back of the Red Sox in the AL East and lead the American League wild-card standings.
It seemed like a season ago when the teams first tried to play. The temperature was 41 degrees with a wind chill of 21 at first pitch on May 2, and Kauffman Stadium resembled a snow globe by the fourth inning as flurries fell. The game called with the Royals leading 1-0.
It was 93 degrees at first pitch Monday, making for a 52-degree difference from the original date. Sunny skies and a slight breeze made it feel even warmer.
The biggest subplot to the game wasn't the weather, though, but the return of Myers to Kansas City. The former minor league player of the year was the key to a seven-player trade last December that netted the Royals starting pitchers James Shields and Wade Davis.
Myers hadn't played at the K since the All-Star Futures Game in 2012, when he went 2 for 4 and drove in the three runs. He didn't fare nearly as well against big league pitching, either: He went 0 for 4 with two strikeouts, slamming his bat down after a pop out in the fifth inning.
"The fans kinds of wore me out in right field," he said, "otherwise it was good."
The Royals struck first on Butler's RBI single in the first, but they didn't really break through until the third inning. Three straight hits and a walk scored two runs, a sacrifice fly added another, and Justin Maxwell's RBI single helped drive Hellickson from the game.
Hellickson fell to 0-5 in his last six starts. He's made it through five innings once.
"It's very frustrating when you don't give your team a chance to win at all, 5-0 in the third," he said. "You don't give them a chance to come back."
The Royals tacked on five more runs in the sixth against the Tampa Bay bullpen, highlighted by Perez's three-run shot. That was more than enough help for the Royals' relief corps, which put together four shutout innings to end Guthrie's three-game losing streak.
"I created some problems for myself," Guthrie said. "The bats picked us up fortunately and we won it pretty easily, even though it was a struggle early."
Notes: Royals RHP Luke Hochevar was absent after his wife gave birth to a daughter Sunday. Hochever will rejoin the club Wednesday in Minnesota. RHP Will Smith took his place on the 25-man roster. ... Rays LHP Matt Moore (sore left elbow) remains on track to start a minor league game Thursday. He could rejoin Tampa Bay at the Angles on Sept. 3. ... Rays OF Jason Bourgeois cleared waivers and accepted an outright assignment to Triple-A Durham.


text:
Breast Cancer Surgery: Avoiding a Second Operation
Study finds one in five women who underwent a lumpectomy needed more surgery
En español | "You have breast cancer." Almost 300,000 women will receive that devastating diagnosis this year alone. Equally frightening, however, is the dizzying array of medical decisions that follow, particularly choosing the right surgery. Up to 75 percent of women with breast cancer today opt for a lumpectomy, or breast-conserving surgery, when appropriate, since it's less disfiguring than a full mastectomy and has similar survival rates when combined with radiation.
See also: The health screenings you need at 50-plus.
But the risks may be greater than previously thought. A new British study shows that one in five women who underwent a lumpectomy needed more surgery, in many cases a full mastectomy, within three months.
Reoperation typically occurs when doctors believe that the first surgery did not remove the cancer and enough of the surrounding tissue to prevent a recurrence. Many surgeons use the term margins, as in "We want to make sure there are clean margins." This refers to the distance between the diseased tissue and the healthy tissue that's removed along with the cancer. But there's an ongoing debate in the medical community about how big a margin is desirable and how that margin affects reoperation rates.
One review of studies in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that wider margins don't necessarily ensure that the cancer won't recur. Another eye-opening study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported substantial differences in reoperation rates, depending on the surgeon and the hospital where the surgery was performed.
If you or a woman you love is weighing a lumpectomy versus a mastectomy, you need to step into the doctor's office prepared for a conversation about the risks of operating again after a lumpectomy. (Bring this article with you.) A second surgery is emotionally, financially and physically stressful, and reoperation may delay important drug or radiation treatments.
At the same time, a full mastectomy is not without its own risks. It's a more extensive surgery, has a longer recuperation time and is typically followed by more surgery to reconstruct the breast. It also holds a slight risk of recurrence in the soft tissues that remain after the breast is removed. Only you and your doctor, armed with all the available data, can make the right call.
As in all serious health matters, I suggest you bring to your appointments a family member or close friend who can take notes and ask questions free of the emotional turmoil that comes with a cancer diagnosis. Nurse and breast-cancer advocates can also help and may be better able to challenge a treatment team, if necessary, on the risks and benefits of one surgery over another.
Also of Interest
- Living through cancer
- Lose weight, live longer with the New American Diet
- Shopping for health insurance? The health insurance marketplace is now open
- More health information you can use
Visit the AARP home page every day for great deals and for tips on keeping healthy and sharp

subset: commoncrawl


text:
m.aircanadacargo.com is your portal to Air Canada Cargo's mobile world! All of our Mobile Services are available at your fingertips when you access m.aircanadacargo.com with your Internet-enabled mobile device.
How can I access m.aircanada.com?
Simply type m.aircanadacargo.com in your Internet-enabled mobile device's Web browser.
TIP: For future access, we recommend that you bookmark m.aircanadacargo.com directly on your mobile device. As each device is different, please consult your device's documentation or contact your wireless carrier for assistance in setting up bookmarks.
What type of device can I use to access m.aircanadacargo.com?
You can access m.aircanadacargo.com from most mobile devices that have an internet browser and internet capabilities. These capabilities are provided through your wireless provider and may cost extra. Please consult your mobile device manual and your wireless service provider for more details.
m.aircanadacargo.com ServicesYou can access the following services on your Internet-enabled mobile phone at m.aircanadacargo.com:
My Cargo
This feature displays pertinent information for all your
packages including:
- Air waybill number
- Origin
- Destination
- Total number of pieces
- Total weight
- Current shipment status
- This feature displays pertinent information for all your packages including:
Track CargoTrack Cargo enables you to view air waybill information at a glance when you don't have the time and view detailed information when you do. Track your cargo by air waybill number and have the ability to add your shipments to My Cargo and add Cargo Notifications.
Flight ScheduleView a comprehensive schedule of Air Canada Cargo's global network. Here you can quickly get the schedule for a specific routing on a specific date. By collaborating with our interline partners, we can move your shipments to almost anywhere.
More shipment details are just a click awayBy selecting one of your shipments you can access more detailed information including booking information and shipment status history. You also have the ability to select Cargo Notifications which will alert you when your cargo reaches a specific status.
Stay in touch with Cargo NotificationsKnow what's happening with your shipment. Customizable notifications enable you to know what's happening with your cargo as its occurring. Subscribe to notifications which can be sent directly to your text-messaging-enabled phone or to your e-mail address.
Learn more about Cargo Notifications
My MessagesView all your messages on your mobile devices through the My Messages notification inbox. Using the Air Canada mobile+ account you can receive and view all Air Canada Cargo notifications as well as any other messages linked to your account including Air Canada Flight Notifications.
Lean more about My Messages


text:
Letter: A thank you to the Rockford Register Star for the Excelsior Award
On behalf of the nine service clubs of Division 12 Kiwanis (Freeport, Loves Park and Rockford) we thank the Rockford Register Star for awarding us the coveted Excelsior Award. Also, we extend a special thanks to our nominators, who like the Excalibur/Excelsior committee, believe that the 447 volunteers of Kiwanis-Division 12 have and will continue to make a collaborative difference in our communities. We pledge to you our continued dedication to serve the children of our communities and the children of the world.
The award of $500 will be given to Project Eliminate. This international and local project is designed to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT) in 25 underdeveloped counties. In one year we have eliminated MNT in 11 counties with Laos being the most recent country to eliminate MNT. This disease can quickly turn the joy of childbirth into tragedy. It is most sad that MNT kills one baby every nine minutes. Just three doses of 60 cent immunization protects the mother who then passes on the immunity to their babies.
In conclusion, we congratulate and thank the other finalist of the Excelsior competition— Girl Scouts of Northern Illinois, Rock River Valley Food Pantry, and the Youth Service Network for their excellent service to the community.
— Randall Larson, Chair-Membership Division 12-Kiwanis


text:
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act
by David Ariosto
NEW YORK (CNN)—A federal appeals court in New York became the nation's second to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that the Clinton-era law's denial of federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
The divisive act, which was passed in 1996, bars federal recognition of such marriages and says other states cannot be forced to recognize them.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Thursday that the federal law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, ruling in favor of widow Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian who sued the federal government for charging her more than $363,000 in estate taxes after being denied the benefit of spousal deductions.
The court upheld a lower court's decision in a 2-1 majority ruling and determined that America's gay population "has suffered a history of discrimination" similar to that faced by women in years past.
"What I'm feeling is elated," said Windsor. "Did I ever think it could come to be, altogether? … Not a chance in hell."
The case centered on the money Windsor wanted back, but it raised the more looming question of whether the federal government can continue to ignore a state's recognition of her marriage and financially penalize her as a result.
"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," wrote Dennis Jacobs, a conservative judge in New York.
A federal appeals court in Boston made a similar ruling in May, but the moves are considered largely symbolic as the issue is expected to eventually be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This court has a limited jurisdiction," CNN legal analyst Paul Callan said. "But this is a very favorable decision for those who believe that the Defense of Marriage (Act) unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples."
Those who back striking down the law "believe this decision will give them a very strong position arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future," he said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also weighed in on the three-judge-panel's decision, saying it "provides further momentum for national progress on this important civil rights issue."
In February, the Obama administration ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the law, though a GOP-backed group has since taken up the issue in courts across the country.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Maryland, Washington, Maine and Minnesota are voting on the issue in November referendums.
Five states—Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island—allow civil unions that provide rights similar to marriage.
Thursday's ruling was celebrated by many top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, gay and civil rights advocacy groups such as GLAAD and the ACLU, and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee.
Others criticized the ruling, including National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown. He said 32 states have, by popular vote, backed a traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman and expressed hope the Supreme Court will decide the matter.
"This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to (act)," Brown said.
For her part, Windsor said she wants Thursday's decision to be "part of the beginning of the end" so that married homosexual couples someday will be viewed the same as heterosexual ones in the government's eyes. And she wants the entire issue of a person's sexual orientation to soon become a nonissue when it comes to marriage in American society.
"My sincere hope is that (it will be irrelevant) in my lifetime," Windsor said.
CNN's Greg Botelho and Mark Norman contributed to this report.


text:
Leaderboard: Blaming The Putter
It is one of the oddities of the professional golf world. When players are questioned after a poor or indifferent round, they invariably point the finger at the putter. It's as if putting isn't really a skill, even though every player desperately hopes for mastery.
The very first time I covered a major championship, I visited post-opening round with a Hall of Fame golfer I had been assigned to follow. His opening 73 was not a disaster, but when I asked about his day, he said he just couldn't get anything going on the greens. I responded by asking since he missed nearly half the greens, wasn't he a little harsh on the flat stick not bailing him out from a mediocre tee-to-green performance? He never tried to hide his game from me again.
This past week, as the return of Tiger Woods opened a new comeback chapter at the Wells Fargo Championship, the 41-year-old recounted after every round how well he played tee to green without ever figuring out how to adjust to slow green speeds. After a final-day 74, his first birdie-free round in a non-major in almost four years, he told CBS Sports his putter was his Achilles heel. "I made nothing. And the chances I did have, I missed them all. It was just a bad week."
Woods has always been more effective on surfaces that score high on the Stimpmeter. His first missed cut at a major came at Winged Foot in 2006, and after both rounds he moaned about slow surfaces he didn't prepare for in a U.S. Open. In contrast, his early starts in 2018 were marked by putting that seemed to turn errant play into contending positions. To his credit, Woods pointed to his short game as propping him up early in his return to tournament golf.
>>MORE: Pro Golf Coverage
But if swift greens are his elixir, the fastest greens he has seen to date weren't his remedy. At Augusta, the ultimate racetrack greens on Tour, Woods trailed Masters winner Patrick Reed by 13 strokes.
The PGA Tour was one of the first professional sports to quantify play in detail when they introduced ShotLink and refined interpretation of the numbers in recent years with Stroked Gained figures. At Quail Hollow, the Strokes Gained Putting stats for Woods showed him 72nd in the field, with only the third round a positive day on the greens.
Those raw numbers belie information similar to what my Hall of Famer tried to sell me years ago. While Tiger racked up a high percentage of GIR, it was not from positions in the fairway where proximity to the hole was likely to be favorable. Of 56 attempts at hitting the fairway, Woods was successful only 25 times, meaning his iron play was stressed better than half the time.
Contrast that with tournament winner Jason Day.
In posting his second win of the season, the Australian was only two fairways better than Woods and a dismal 6/14 on Sunday. He wasn't as efficient from the rough as Tiger, with 10 fewer GIR. What Day did do was dial in a solution to the slower putting surfaces good enough to let him make up a little over eight shots on the field, ranking second overall for the week.
Day's accuracy from the tee at Quail Hollow was down from his season's average. His greens hit was below as well. Where Day played to his 2018 profile is with the putter in his hands, particularly from close range. In 177 attempts from five feet or closer this season, Day has yet to miss a putt. He ranks number one on Tour from 10 feet and in. It is not a coincidence that Day has excelled this year on the greens. He realized last year, when he finished 138th from five feet or closer, that he needed improvement, and in addition to gaining a healthy body and mind for this year, he carried in his bag an eraser club that proved the difference at Wells Fargo.
"I had no idea where the ball was going off the tee. I missed a lot of fairways and I missed a lot of greens but my short game stood the test," he said afterwards.
Woods says he is looking forward to The Players Championship and greens at the TPC Sawgrass that he has learned over the years. Day said he would enjoy his victory in Charlotte but show up in Florida knowing what he needed to work on, not hide behind.
Dan Reardon has covered golf for radio station KMOX in St. Louis for 33 years. In that time, he has covered more than 100 events, including majors and other PGA, LPGA and Champions Tour tournaments. During his broadcast career, Reardon conducted one-on-one interviews with three dozen members of the World Golf of Fame. He has contributed to many publications over the years and co-authored the book Golf's Greatest Eighteen from Random House. Reardon served as Director of Media relations for LPGA events in both St. Louis and Chicago for 10 years.
for more features.


text:
Home > Back to Search Results > The Daniel Sickles trial...
Show image list »
The Daniel Sickles trial...
Item # 584771
April 09, 1859
THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE, a trio of issues dated April 9, 11 & 20, 1859.
* Daniel sickles murder trial
* Philip Barton Key
The first use of a plea of temporary insanity by a criminal defendant made the Daniel Sickles case noteworthy in American legal history.
Daniel Sickles' murder of Philip Barton Key was the kind of crime that piqued the interest of many, captivating the nation's press. Not even the most high-browed Victorian could ignore a killing that occurred in broad daylight on a Sunday afternoon on the sidewalk surrounding Lafayette Park, literally so near the White House it could have been witnessed from its front windows.
The accused, Dan Sickles, was a prominent and well-connected Congressman from New York with a hair-trigger temper and a reputation as a ladies' man. The victim, Barton Key, was not only a close friend of his killer, but he also was the son of Francis Scott Key, author of "The Star Spangled Banner". He was described as "the handsomest man in all Washington society" by the city's most prominent hostess and biggest gossip, Mrs. Clement Clay. But it was the motive that added the most spice to the story. Sickles gunned Key down after discovering that he and the beautiful 22-year-old Mrs. Sickles had been having an affair, at times carrying on in the front library of the Sickles home.
These three issues each contain reports on the trial on page 5 or 6. Photos show only beginning of the reports.
Each issue is complete in 8 pages and in good condition.
Category: Pre-Civil War
Available Now


text:
Website Detail Page
published by the MathMedics, LLC
S.O.S. MATHematics is a collection of review materials for math subjects. The material includes important results, techniques and formulas in college and pre-college mathematics. Self-testing units are presented in worksheet format and require active participation.
ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!
Record Link
MathMedics, LLC. S.O.S. Mathematics. El Paso: MathMedics, LLC.
AIP Format
(MathMedics, LLC, El Paso), WWW Document, (http://www.sosmath.com/).
S.O.S. Mathematics (MathMedics, LLC, El Paso), <http://www.sosmath.com/>.
APA Format
S.O.S. Mathematics. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2023, from MathMedics, LLC: http://www.sosmath.com/
Chicago Format
MathMedics, LLC. S.O.S. Mathematics. El Paso: MathMedics, LLC. http://www.sosmath.com/ (accessed 31 March 2023).
MLA Format
S.O.S. Mathematics. El Paso: MathMedics, LLC. 31 Mar. 2023 <http://www.sosmath.com/>.
BibTeX Export Format
@misc{ Title = {S.O.S. Mathematics}, Publisher = {MathMedics, LLC}, Volume = {2023}, Number = {31 March 2023}, Year = {} }
Refer Export Format
%T S.O.S. Mathematics %I MathMedics, LLC %C El Paso %U http://www.sosmath.com/ %O text/html
EndNote Export Format
%0 Electronic Source %T S.O.S. Mathematics %I MathMedics, LLC %V 2023 %N 31 March 2023 %9 text/html %U http://www.sosmath.com/
Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.
Citation Source Information
The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.
The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.
The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.
The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.


text:
It's quite a while since I wrote about any of Amy Coffin's 52 weeks of Abundant Genealogy topics but this week's motivated me to re-awaken my efforts.
The topic for Week 35 in the series is Genealogy Friends. Amy says "Genealogy friends are wonderful people. Don't you agree? Tell us about a genealogy friend in your life. How did you meet? Do you share any common ancestors or research interests?"
Who would not agree that our genealogy friends are great people? But they're also a wonderful support to each of us in our on-going research. The Geneabloggers community is a perfect example of how a group of virtual friends can make such a difference to our enjoyment of family history.
However today I want to wind the clock back a couple of decades. Back in those olden pre-internet days, we made contact with fellow genealogists at family history societies where we'd all be ensconced every weekend, and some evenings, pursuing our research leads and learning through tailored classes. We advertised our "Wanted" lists in the society's magazine and if we were lucky someone eventually replied by snail mail. These days we blog and email and can make connections in minutes, if we're lucky.
I got lucky with two of my family branches way back in those times and there are two friends who take equal billing. Both responded to my research interests which included the surnames Gavin and Sherry. One lady, Betty, lived in Sydney but was originally from Brisbane, the other, Carmel, lived in Los Angeles and was also from Queensland. Both were my mother's contemporaries and it later transpired that they had all attended the same Catholic girls school in Brisbane of which I was also a past pupil. How strange a set of coincidences is that?
Back and forth our snail mail letters travelled as we untangled the links between families. We collaborated on certificates, sharing the costs and swapping clues and hypotheses.
Betty and the Sherry/McSharry/McSherry family
Betty quickly enlightened me on why I wasn't finding the McSherry family in Queensland's migration records: they had arrived under their Irish name, Sherry, and the parents (James and Bridget) and most of the children, nearly all adults, had then changed their surname to McSharry supposedly to grab on to the coat-tails of Queensland's famous railway company McSharry and O'Rourke.
My ancestral line, Peter the eldest son of this family, arrived a year later with his wife and two small children, one of whom was my grandfather James Joseph. The tricky bit was that this family's surname became McSherry so Betty's husband and my mother were 2nd cousins, but with different surnames –McSharry and McSherry. No wonder I was confused as a novice researcher.
Betty and I wrote and phoned and even had a couple of meetings in Brisbane and Sydney, and we kept pursuing the elusive James Sherry aka McSharry, who disappeared off the face of the earth. Betty was an experienced researcher but at no point did we manage to find what happened to James though Betty's husband had a theory or two. To this day the mystery remains unresolved.
We did manage to pin down some of the mysteries before Betty had a severe stroke, which completely incapacitated her. It was a tragic loss of a bright, vivacious and intelligent woman caught in a no-man's-land of brain damage.
Carmel and the Gavin/Gavan family
Carmel lived in Los Angeles and it transpired that she had been part of an important research team working on the Rh negative factor when it was first discovered. Not that she told me that – imagine my surprise when I read about it in the history of our alma mater.
As our typed snail mail correspondence criss-crossed the Pacific we worked out that we were actually researching two different Gavin families. However both families and their offshoots lived on the Darling Downs near Dalby for long periods and shared some names. Her Gavins came from Galway while mine came from Kildare and there was no connection, but of course we couldn't just walk away from the intriguing links. I would say there's no doubt at all that the two sets of families knew each other in those early pioneering days. And of course as I collected data on my own I also collected info on Carmel's lot. Imagine my excitement when at Expo 88 I found the record of her great-uncle's convict record newly available through the Irish exhibition. She shared certificates that turned out to be for my lot, I sent photographs of the gravestones she had erected on StradbrokeIsland for her great-grandparents. Along the way we broke down a few myths which would have caused her ancestors to roll in their graves. They would however be astonished to know what amazingly clever and successful descendants they had.
It was Carmel who started me on the habit of writing narratives of my families even as I researched them, something I continue to this day.
Carmel and I, and my youngest daughter, managed to meet in Los Angeles not long before she died of cancer. It was so sad to see her struggling with her illness yet determined to meet me in her home and have her husband Larry show us around LA.
Vale Betty McSharry and Carmel Montgomery, thank you for the wonderful collaboration and friendship we shared. I still think of you both often and miss you. What fun we'd have had together in the internet era.


text:
Well kids, I embark on my first trip of the new year next week. Off to the colder climes of New York City. Aaahhh Manhattan, an environ in which I've spent a lot of time working and playing AND as a result, a locale that I've come to think of as my home away from home. Seriously, I average 1-2 weeks a month there at this point!
Winged Thing
Originally uploaded by ladylinoleum
Winged Thing
Originally uploaded by ladylinoleum
Needless to say, I also spend a lot of time flying around in a big metal tube, which I've come to terms with as it affords me relatively uninterrupted knit or crochet time. This, I love! Sitting in uncomfortable seats and trying to get the frakin' video system to run without a hitch, not so much. Nonetheless, I usually take comfort in knowing that my yarn, needles or hook will pretty much get me through any travel-related irritants no worse for the wear.
Aside from figuring out which project to take along with me on a journey (this can take hours, even days), I've gotten really good at toting my crafty gear around in a user-friendly, I'm-packed-in-like-a-sardine-seat-conditions-so-my-stuff-needs-to-be-easily-accessible kind of way...
First and foremost, I do NOT attempt to bring along a new project. Too many variables here from gauge to yarn amounts needed to sustain me for the trip to possible reference books needed if directions elude my poor little brain. Nope, unless it's already on needles or ready for immediate hook insertion, it ain't making it into my bag.
Second, WIP, yarn, and collateral supplies must fit into my Eagle Creek Pack-It Cube. If this stuff exceeds the confines of my zippered containment system (and I have the biggest one they offer) then this stuff gets to see me again when I return home from my journey.
Third, I have a small zippered pouch (fits inside the big cube) for stitch markers, tapestry needle, crochet hook (knitters, you should also have this with you at all times...makes picking up dropped stitches A BREEZE), smallest post-it notes I can procure from the cube farm, a small pair of scissors (or the Clover ninja star thread cutter), a pencil and/or a pen. Oh, and this little pouch is attached to a lanyard so that I can wear it around my neck during the flight. This way I don't drop anything and my supplies are easily accessible.
That's my patented Have-Yarn-Will-Travel system and trust me kids, it works. I do not have trouble going through security (even toting my little scissors), I can obtain my crafty cube easily out of my larger travel tote when crammed into my seat and I can easily manage my crafty implements when seated for the duration of my flight. Definitely makes for happy trails for this yarn obsessed Lady of the Linoleum!


text:
The Wind Tunnel Model
Transdisciplinary Encounters
Trans-disciplinary collaboration in artistic research beyond a problem.
1st edition, 2017
208 pages, 18 color and 12 b/w illustrations
17 x 24 cm
Where does the wind go when it is not blowing? With The Wind Tunnel Model, artist and scientist Florian Dombois proposes new forms of interaction between art and science.
Key to this project is Dombois's wind tunnel laboratory at Zurich University of the Arts. With an empty test platform, the laboratory is a compelling example of architecture that turns its back on its occupants, forming an invisible, yet disturbingly concrete, secondary model.
The Wind Tunnel Model features essays by Dombois and his collaborators, reflecting on this innovative concept for transdisciplinary collaboration. Together, they present a new model of interaction in artistic research and creation—the "man engine," a mechanism of reciprocating ladders and stationary platforms installed in mines to assist miners between different levels, a mechanism that also serves as a metaphor for work at the wind tunnel laboratory. At the cutting edge of transdisciplinary research and education, The Wind Tunnel Model will forge a new path to creative production.
With contributions by Haseeb Ahmed, Jacqueline Burckhardt, Martin Burr, Florian Dombois, Julie Harboe, Christoph Hoffmann, Kaspar König, Dieter Mersch, Isabel Mundry, Mirjam Steiner, Jan Svenungsson, Sarine Waltenspül, and Reinhard Wendler.


text:
STROBLE v. CALIFORNIA(1952)
Petitioner's conviction of first degree murder was affirmed by the Supreme Court of California. Petitioner here challenged the validity of his conviction under the Fourteenth Amendment, on the grounds (1) that it was based in part on a coerced confession; (2) that a fair trial was impossible because of inflammatory newspaper reports inspired by the District Attorney; and (3) that he was in effect deprived of counsel in the course of his sanity hearing. He urged that each of these grounds independently was a denial of due process; and that the combination of them with other circumstances denied due process. Held: The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Pp. 183-198.
Petitioner's conviction of first degree murder, challenged as violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of California. 36 Cal. 2d 615, 226 P.2d 330. This Court granted certiorari. 342 U.S. 811 . Affirmed, p. 198.
John D. Gray and A. L. Wirin argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief were Fred Okrand, Clore Warne and Loren Miller.
Adolph Alexander argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California, William V. O'Connor, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Frank W. Richards, Deputy Attorney General. [343 U.S. 181, 183]
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner has been convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. He asks this Court to reverse his conviction as wanting in that due process of law guaranteed against state encroachment by the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner claims (1) that his conviction was based in part on a coerced confession; (2) that a fair trial was impossible because of inflammatory newspaper reports inspired by the District Attorney; (3) that he was in effect deprived of counsel in the course of his sanity hearing; (4) that there was an unwarranted delay in his arraignment; and (5) that the prosecuting officers unjustifiably refused to permit an attorney to consult petitioner shortly after petitioner's arrest. Petitioner urges that each of the first three circumstances is independently a deprivation of due process; and that, in any event, the combination of all five circumstances operated to deprive him of a fair trial.
The murder of which petitioner has been convicted occurred on Monday, November 14, 1949; the victim was a girl, aged 6. Petitioner was arrested around noon on Thursday, November 17, 1949. He was arraigned in the Los Angeles Municipal Court at 10 o' clock the following morning, and the City Public Defender was appointed to represent him. A preliminary hearing was held on Monday, November 21, and petitioner was bound over for trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. On November 25, petitioner was arraigned in the Superior Court and the County Public Defender was appointed as his counsel. From that point until the conclusion of his trial, petitioner was vigorously defended by two deputies of the County Public Defender's office. On December 2, 1949, petitioner pleaded both "not guilty" and "not guilty by reason of insanity." The case came on for trial on January 3, 1950. The issue of guilt was tried to a [343 U.S. 181, 184] jury, which, on January 19, returned a verdict of guilty of first degree murder, without recommendation; under California law, this automatically fixed the penalty at death. On January 20, 1950, petitioner waived jury trial on the issue of insanity, and the court found that petitioner was sane at the time of committing the offense. On January 27, 1950, on petitioner's motion, a private attorney was substituted as petitioner's counsel. On February 6, 1950, the trial court, after a hearing, denied petitioner's motion for a new trial, motion in arrest of judgment, and motion to set aside the waiver of jury trial on the issue of insanity.
On appeal the Supreme Court of California unanimously affirmed the conviction. 36 Cal. 2d 615, 226 P.2d 330. We granted certiorari because of the seriousness of petitioner's allegations under the Due Process Clause. 342 U.S. 811 .
The facts leading to petitioner's arrest may be summarized as follows:
In the early morning of November 15, 1949, the victim's body was found behind the incinerator in the back yard of the home of petitioner's daughter and son-in-law. It was wrapped in a blanket and covered with boxes. A necktie was wound twice around the child's neck. An axe, knife, and hammer were found in the vicinity of the body. An autopsy revealed that the immediate cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. It also revealed numerous lacerations on the top and sides of the head, six skull fractures, a deep laceration in the back of the neck, abrasions and discolorations on the child's back, irritation of the external genitalia, and three puncture wounds in the chest.
Suspicion immediately focused on petitioner, who had been visiting his daughter and son-in-law until the day before, when he had disappeared. Some six months before, petitioner had jumped bail on a charge of molesting a [343 U.S. 181, 185] small girl and had never since been apprehended. At approximately 11.50 a. m. on November 17, as petitioner entered the bar of a restaurant in downtown Los Angeles, a civilian recognized him as the man whom the police were seeking in connection with the murder. The civilian summoned a police officer, Carlson, who thereupon arrested petitioner.
From this point on there are some conflicts in the testimony, as noted below. Carlson, accompanied by the civilian, took petitioner to the park foreman's office in nearby Pershing Square; where Carlson called headquarters to report his arrest of petitioner and to request that a police car be sent. Then Carlson, in the presence of the civilian and the park foreman, proceeded to search petitioner. Carlson had petitioner stand facing the wall with his hands raised against it and his feet away from it. While being searched in this position, petitioner pulled his feet closer to the wall and then Carlson, with the side of his shoe, kicked petitioner's shoes at the toes in order to push petitioner's feet back into position. The civilian testified that "possibly" Carlson's foot slipped and hit petitioner's shin "once or twice." Carlson testified that at no time did he "strike" petitioner or "inflict any kind of physical injury on him." 1 No marks were found on petitioner when he was examined by a physician a few hours later. It also appears that after searching petitioner, Carlson took out his blackjack, held it under petitioner's nose, and said either, "Do you know what this is for?" or "Have you seen this?" Petitioner makes no claim that Carlson used the blackjack on him. While waiting for the police car to arrive the civilian asked petitioner whether he was guilty of the murder, and petitioner "mumbled something under his breath that sounded like `I guess I am.'" Thereupon, according to the civilian, [343 U.S. 181, 186] the park foreman slapped petitioner with his open hand and knocked off petitioner's glasses.
Without undue delay the police car arrived and petitioner was driven to the District Attorney's office in the Hall of Justice Building. While en route one of the police officers in the car began a conversation with petitioner by asking him where he had been. Petitioner replied, "Well, after that terrible thing happened, I went down to the beach, down to Ocean Park. I was going to do away with myself." The officer said, "What do you mean by that terrible thing?" to which petitioner replied, "When the little girl got killed." The officer then interposed, "Do you mean when you killed the little girl?" and petitioner answered, "Yes. I was going down to the beach. I was going to jump in the ocean and commit suicide but I decided that I would have to pay on the other side so I might as well come back and pay on this side." The officer testified that he did not promise petitioner any reward or extend to him any hope of immunity, and that he did not use force or threats of any kind. The officer's entire testimony regarding this conversation is uncontradicted, and, insofar as it contains a confession by petitioner, no objection was made at the trial on the ground that such confession was involuntary.
Petitioner did object at the trial, however, to the introduction in evidence of a confession which he made after his arrival in the District Attorney's office. Petitioner was brought to the District Attorney's office at approximately 1 p. m., and an assistant district attorney began questioning petitioner in the presence of some nineteen persons, attaches of the District Attorney and the police department. The entire proceeding was recorded on a recording machine which had been set in operation before petitioner's arrival. Petitioner stated that on the afternoon of November 14, his victim came to the home of petitioner's daughter, where petitioner was visiting; he [343 U.S. 181, 187] took his victim into the bedroom and made advances upon her; when she began to scream, he became frightened, got hold of her throat, and squeezed it until she became quiet; she started to squirm again, so he took a necktie from the dresser and tied it around her neck; when she continued to move, he took her off the bed, wrapped her in a blanket, and hit her on the temple with a hammer which he had obtained from the kitchen drawer; he then dragged her across the back yard to the incinerator, returned to the kitchen to get an ice pick, and pushed the pick into her three times in an effort to reach her heart; next he got an axe from the garage and hit her on the head and backbone; finally he got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her in the back of the neck, covered her body with boxes, and left for Ocean Park, a beach resort within the city of Los Angeles, where he remained for the three nights before his apprehension.
Towards the end of the recording petitioner stated that the officers had not threatened or abused him in any way, either in the park foreman's office or the District Attorney's office. The recording disclosed no mistreatment at the time of the making of the confession.
The questioning of petitioner in the District Attorney's office lasted approximately two hours. About 45 minutes after petitioner had begun his confession, an attorney, Mr. Gray, called at the waiting room of the District Attorney's office and asked for the assistants handling the case. Upon being advised that they were busy he then asked for the District Attorney. Upon being told that the District Attorney was also in conference and could not be disturbed, Mr. Gray asked to see petitioner. It is uncontradicted that at that point Mr. Gray stated to a police department inspector who was present in the waiting room that he "just wanted to hear from [petitioner's] lips whether or not" petitioner had committed the murder, "so that [he] could report back" to petitioner's son-in-law. 2 [343 U.S. 181, 188] Mr. Gray was denied admission to the room in which petitioner was being questioned, but talked to an assistant district attorney after the confession had been completed. Mr. Gray was permitted to see petitioner that evening. Mr. Gray did not represent petitioner during the trial, but on the motion for new trial was substituted, at petitioner's request, for the Public Defender.
Shortly after 3 p. m., petitioner was taken from the District Attorney's office to Dr. Marcus Crahan, a physician in charge of the hospital of the county jail, for a physical and mental examination. Dr. Crahan, when called by petitioner as a witness at the trial, testified that he examined petitioner carefully, including his feet and shins, but found no bruises or abrasions of any kind. According to Dr. Crahan, during the examination petitioner stated that since his arrest the police officers had been very kind to him and that he had not been "mistreated" and had been given "every consideration." Petitioner related to Dr. Crahan the details of the killing.
Petitioner was lodged in the county jail for the night and was arraigned in the Municipal Court at 10 o'clock the following morning, November 18.
Thereafter, in the six weeks' period between the date of his arraignment and the beginning of his trial, petitioner was examined by four psychiatrists 3 and one clinical psychologist. To each of these persons he stated that he had killed his victim and recounted, in greater or lesser detail, just how he had gone about the killing. These experts, when testifying at the trial (two having been called by the prosecution and three by the petitioner), related to the jury what petitioner had told them. Petitioner did [343 U.S. 181, 189] not object at the time, and makes no objection now, to the admission of these confessions on the ground that they were involuntary.
The trial court charged the jury that it could not consider a confession unless it was voluntary; that the jury was the sole judge of voluntariness; and that a confession was not voluntary when obtained by any kind of violence, abuse, or threat, or by "any coaxing, cajoling, or menacing influence which induces in the mind of the defendant the belief or hope that he will gain some advantage by making a confession." The court further charged that the fact that a confession is made while an accused is under arrest and being detained, or when he is not represented by counsel, or without his having been told that any statement he makes may be used against him, does not in itself make the confession involuntary, but is one circumstance to be considered in determining the voluntariness of the confession. The court admonished the jury to view with caution the testimony of any witness which purports to relate an oral confession by a defendant.
The California Supreme Court stated: "We may assume that, as a matter of law under the circumstances shown," petitioner's confession in the District Attorney's office was involuntary. 4 The court felt, however, that the use of that confession "could not have affected the fairness of [petitioner's] trial," because petitioner "thereafter made at least five confessions, of materially similar substance and unquestioned admissibility, which were put in evidence," and because "[i]t does not appear that the out-come of the trial would have differed" if that confession had been excluded. 5 Therefore the court concluded that use of the confession had not deprived petitioner of due process. [343 U.S. 181, 190]
We take a somewhat different view. If the confession which petitioner made in the District Attorney's office was in fact involuntary, the conviction cannot stand, even though the evidence apart from that confession might have been sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 402 , 404 (1945); Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U.S. 596, 597 , n. 1 (1944). That confession was a prominent feature of the trial. First a stenographic transcript of the confession was read, and then a wire recording of it was played to the jury. Under these circumstances we cannot say that the jury's verdict could not have been based, at least in part, on the confession made in the District Attorney's office. Since we take this view, we cannot merely "assume," as did the state supreme court, that that confession was involuntary, but must go on to determine the question of voluntariness.
Petitioner does not so much as suggest that the action of any officer during the taking of the confession was accompanied by force or threats. His sole contention is that the incidents in the park foreman's office, coupled with the presence of nineteen officers in the District Attorney's office, render the confession which he made in the latter office involuntary.
This Court has frequently stated that, when faced with the question whether there has been a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by the introduction of an involuntary confession, it must make an independent determination on the undisputed facts. Malinski v. New York, supra, at 404, and cases cited; id., at 438 (dissenting opinion). We adhere to that rule. In the present case, however, we need not confine ourselves to the undisputed facts; for, even if we give petitioner the benefit of every doubt as to the alleged coercion, we do not think it can fairly be said that his confession in the District Attorney's office was coercion's product. [343 U.S. 181, 191] Whatever occurred in the park foreman's office occurred at least an hour before he began his confession in the District Attorney's office, and was not accompanied by any demand that petitioner implicate himself. Likewise his statement to the officer while on the way to the District Attorney's office was admittedly voluntary. In the District Attorney's office, petitioner answered questions readily; there was none of the "pressure of unrelenting interrogation" which this Court condemned in Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 54 (1949). Indeed, the record shows that from the time of his arrest until the time of his trial, petitioner was anxious to confess to anybody who would listen - and as much so after he had consulted with counsel as before. His willingness to confess to the doctors who examined him, after he had been arraigned and counsel had been appointed, and in circumstances free of coercion, suggests strongly that petitioner had concluded, quite independently of any duress by the police, "that it was wise to make a clean breast of his guilt." See Lyons v. Oklahoma, supra, at 604. In the light of all these circumstances, we are unable to say that petitioner's confession in the District Attorney's office was the result of coercion, either physical or psychological.
We turn now to petitioner's contention that the newspaper accounts of his arrest and confession were so inflammatory as to make a fair trial in the Los Angeles area impossible - even though a period of six weeks intervened between the day of his arrest and confession and the beginning of his trial. Here we are not faced with any question as to the permissible scope of newspaper comment regarding pending litigation, see Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1946); Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947); but with the question whether newspaper accounts aroused such prejudice in the community that petitioner's trial was "fatally infected" with an absence of "that [343 U.S. 181, 192] fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice." Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941).
The search for and apprehension of petitioner was attended by much newspaper publicity. Between the time of the murder and the time of petitioner's arrest, newspapers of general circulation in the Los Angeles area featured in banner headlines the "manhunt" which the police were conducting for petitioner. On the day of petitioner's arrest these newspapers printed extensive excerpts from his confession in the District Attorney's office, the details of the confession having been released to the press by the District Attorney at periodic intervals while petitioner was giving the confession. On the following Monday, four days later, Los Angeles newspapers reprinted the full text of that confession as it was read into the record at the preliminary hearing. Most of these events were given top billing on the front page of the papers, and were accompanied by large headlines. Petitioner was variously described, both in headlines and in the text of news stories, as a "werewolf," a "fiend," a "sex-mad killer," and the like. The District Attorney announced to the press his belief that petitioner was guilty and sane.
The spate of newspaper publicity accompanying petitioner's arrest and confession soon abated, however. During the month of December, 1949, petitioner made the headlines of Los Angeles newspapers only infrequently, such as when he entered a plea of "not guilty" on December 2. Petitioner points to certain other events which occurred during that month. The Governor of the State called a special session of the legislature to consider, among other things, the problem of "sex crimes"; the Governor called a one-day conference of law enforcement officers to consider the same subject; a committee of the state legislature investigating sex crimes held hearings in Los Angeles, at which the District Attorney stated that he did not see why sex offenders "shouldn't be disposed of [343 U.S. 181, 193] the same way" as mad dogs; and various citizens' groups made proposals for studying and dealing with sex crimes. Los Angeles newspapers published accounts of each of these events, and the accounts at times made reference to the murder with which petitioner was charged.
Petitioner's trial itself was reported by Los Angeles newspapers, usually on inside pages. Petitioner makes no objection to this phase of the newspaper coverage except for the newspapers' occasional reference to petitioner as a "werewolf."
While we may deprecate the action of the District Attorney in releasing to the press, on the day of petitioner's arrest, certain details of the confession which petitioner made, we find that the transcript of that confession was read into the record at the preliminary hearing in the Municipal Court on November 21, four days later. Thus in any event the confession would have become available to the press at that time, for "[w]hat transpires in the court room is public property." Craig v. Harney, supra, at 374. Petitioner has not shown how the publication of a portion of that confession four days earlier prejudiced the jury in arriving at their verdict two months thereafter.
We agree with the California Supreme Court that petitioner has failed to show that the newspaper accounts aroused against him such prejudice in the community as to "necessarily prevent a fair trial," Lisenba v. California, supra, at 236. At the outset, it should be noted that at no point did petitioner move for a change of venue, although the California Penal Code explicitly provides that whenever "a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county" in which a criminal action is pending, the action may, upon motion of the defendant, be removed to "the proper court of some convenient county free from a like objection." 6 Of course petitioner's failure to make such [343 U.S. 181, 194] a motion is not dispositive of the issue here, since the state court did not decide against petitioner on this ground but rather rejected on the merits his federal constitutional claim. 7 But, in an effort to determine whether there was public hysteria or widespread community prejudice against petitioner at the time of his trial, we think it significant that two deputy public defenders who were vigorous in petitioner's defense throughout the trial, saw no occasion to seek a transfer of the action to another county on the ground that prejudicial newspaper accounts had made it impossible for petitioner to obtain a fair trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
The matter of prejudicial newspaper accounts was first brought to the trial court's attention after petitioner's conviction, as one of the grounds in support of a motion for a new trial. At that time petitioner's present attorney urged that petitioner had been "deprived of the presumption of innocence by the premature release by the District Attorney's office of the details of the confession," and offered in support of that allegation certain Los Angeles newspapers published at the time of petitioner's arrest. The trial court replied as follows:
We find no substance in petitioner's contention that he was deprived of effective counsel at a critical point in the case, namely, when he waived trial by jury on the issue of insanity. The attorney who consulted with petitioner as to whether he should make such a waiver was the Public Defender himself, although prior to that time two deputy public defenders had handled the case in court. The Public Defender took this action because the trial court, at the conclusion of the trial on the issue of guilt, had requested that he personally attend the trial on the insanity issue. 9 We fail to see how this action harmed petitioner. As the California Supreme Court found, the Public Defender "was familiar with the case, having read the daily transcript and consulted with and advised [his two deputies] and interviewed witnesses during the trial"; 10 moreover, before consulting with petitioner on the waiver question, [343 U.S. 181, 196] he discussed the matter with his two deputies. Thereafter, petitioner twice stated in open court, in reply to inquiries by the trial judge, that he wished to waive a jury trial on the issue of insanity. Furthermore, there was no real question as to petitioner's sanity. He introduced no additional evidence at the sanity hearing; instead the parties stipulated that the sole evidence would be that adduced at the trial on the issue of guilt, plus the complete reports of the psychiatrists who had testified at that trial. 11 Every psychiatrist who had testified, whether on behalf of petitioner or on behalf of the prosecution, had reached the conclusion that petitioner was sane. On the motion for new trial, when petitioner's present attorney sought to set aside the waiver of jury trial on the issue of insanity, he offered no new evidence relating to petitioner's mental state and did not indicate that any such evidence was available. We conclude that petitioner received the full assistance of competent counsel in deciding that he wanted the insanity issue tried to the court. On that question, as on all others, he has been afforded "the assistance of zealous and earnest counsel from arraignment to final argument in this Court." Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 450 (1940). 12
Nor can we agree with petitioner that a combination of these grounds with other circumstances, namely, unwarranted delay in arraignment and refusal to permit counsel [343 U.S. 181, 197] to consult petitioner during the making of the confession, amounts to such unfairness as to deny due process. The arraignment was had within less than twenty-four hours after the arrest. The officials questioned petitioner only during the two-hour period in the District Attorney's office, described above. The remainder of that afternoon was devoted to a physical and mental examination, to which petitioner makes no objection. Counsel called on petitioner at the county jail at 9:30 p. m. the evening of the arrest; presumably petitioner remained alone from then until the time of his arraignment the following morning. Although the California Supreme Court found that the failure promptly to arraign petitioner before a committing magistrate was a violation of state law, 13 that is not determinative of the issue before us. When this Court is asked to reverse a state court conviction as wanting in due process, illegal acts of state officials prior to trial are relevant only as they bear on petitioner's contention that he has been deprived of a fair trial, either through the use of a coerced confession or otherwise. Lisenba v. California, supra, at 234, 235, 240; Lyons v. Oklahoma, supra, at 597, n. 2; Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U.S. 55, 59 , 65 (1951). Upon the facts of this case, we cannot hold that the illegal conduct of the law enforcement officers in not taking petitioner promptly before a committing magistrate, coerced the confession which he made in the District Attorney's office or in any other way deprived him of a fair and impartial trial.
As to the refusal of the prosecutors to admit counsel during their interrogation of petitioner, counsel stated that he had come to the District Attorney's office at the request of petitioner's son-in-law merely to inquire of petitioner as to his guilt. At no point did petitioner himself ask for counsel. In light of these facts, the District [343 U.S. 181, 198] Attorney's refusal to interrupt the examination of petitioner, which had been proceeding for almost an hour, so that counsel could make inquiry for petitioner's son-in-law, does not constitute a deprivation of due process, either independently or in conjunction with all other circumstances in this case. While district attorneys should always honor a request of counsel for an interview with a client, upon the record before us there is no showing of prejudice. As was said in Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 281 (1942):
[ Footnote 2 ] R. 287-288 (testimony of John D. Gray); see also R. 210 (testimony of Inspector J. A. Donahoe).
[ Footnote 3 ] Three of these psychiatrists had been appointed by the trial court pursuant to Cal. Penal Code, 1951, 1027.
[ Footnote 4 ] 36 Cal. 2d at 623, 226 P.2d at 335.
[ Footnote 5 ] 36 Cal. 2d at 623, 226 P.2d at 336.
[ Footnote 6 ] Cal. Penal Code, 1951, 1033, 1035.
[ Footnote 7 ] See Grayson v. Harris, 267 U.S. 352, 358 (1925); International Steel & Iron Co. v. National Surety Co., 297 U.S. 657, 665 -666 (1936); Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U.S. 95, 98 (1938); Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 414 , n. 4 (1948).
[ Footnote 8 ] R. 361-362.
[ Footnote 9 ] The trial court made this request as a result of certain conduct on the part of one of the deputy public defenders, set forth in the opinion below at 36 Cal. 2d 628, 226 P.2d 338-339.
[ Footnote 10 ] 36 Cal. 2d at 628, 226 P.2d at 338.
[ Footnote 11 ] At no point has petitioner challenged that stipulation. Indeed, the stipulation had been entered into by one of the deputy public defenders, in whom petitioner states he had complete confidence, prior to the time the court asked the Public Defender to be personally present at the insanity trial.
[ Footnote 12 ] In People v. Adamson, 34 Cal. 2d 320, 333, 210 P.2d 13, 19 (1949), the Supreme Court of California had this to say about this same Public Defender and his office: "This court can take judicial notice, too, that it would be difficult to find in California any lawyers more experienced or better qualified in defending criminal cases than the Public Defender of Los Angeles County and his staff."
[ Footnote 13 ] Cal. Const., Art. I, 8.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, dissenting.
One of the petitioner's grounds for attacking his conviction is that the trial lacked fundamental fairness because the district attorney himself initiated the intrusion of the press into the process of the trial. Such misconduct, the petitioner contends, subverted the adjudicatory process by which guilt is determined in Anglo-Saxon countries, so as to offend what the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects. The issue was raised after verdict, and the Supreme Court of California might have disposed of the claim by ruling that it had not been made at the stage of the proceeding required by State law. That court, however, chose not to do so. It permitted the petitioner to invoke the Due Process Clause and thereby tendered a federal constitutional issue, as this Court recognizes, for our disposition. [343 U.S. 181, 199]
The Supreme Court of California thus formulated the issue and indicated its conception of the allowable standards of fairness under the Due Process Clause:
And so I cannot agree to uphold a conviction which affirmatively treats newspaper participation instigated by the prosecutor as part of "the traditional concept of the `American way of the conduct of a trial.'" Such passion as the newspapers stirred in this case can be explained (apart from mere commercial exploitation of revolting crime) only as want of confidence in the orderly course of justice. To allow such use of the press by the prosecution as the California court here left undisciplined, implies [343 U.S. 181, 202] either that the ascertainment of guilt cannot be left to the established processes of law or impatience with those calmer aspects of the judicial process which may not satisfy the natural, primitive, popular revulsion against horrible crime but do vindicate the sober second thoughts of a community. If guilt here is clear, the dignity of the law would be best enhanced by establishing that guilt wholly through the processes of law unaided by the infusion of extraneous passion. The moral health of the community is strengthened by according even the most miserable and pathetic criminal those rights which the Constitution has designed for all.
As to one other branch of the Court's opinion I must enter a caveat. This concerns the legal significance of petitioner's first confession, the one made to the district attorney. The California Supreme Court disposed of the claim that this was a coerced confession by assuming that it was, but finding that the fact was immaterial because of later, so-called voluntary confessions. I agree with my brethren that this view disregards our decision in Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401 . But I cannot agree that, despite the refusal of the California Supreme Court to determine affirmatively the legal character of this first confession, this Court may do so here on its own independent interpretation of the facts. That conclusion does not at all follow from the fact that we make such a determination, at least upon the undisputed evidence, when the State court finds the confession to be free of constitutional defect. The question whether or not a confession is coerced involves a complex judgment upon facts inevitably entangled with assumptions and standards which are part and parcel of the ultimate issue of constitutionality. See Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 670 -671. The finding of "fact" that a confession is voluntary may involve the application of improper standards to the evidence, and thus the denial of a constitutional [343 U.S. 181, 203] right of the accused. But a wholly different situation is presented when a State court concludes that coercion entered into the inevitably complicated factors included in the totality of circumstances that constitutes a confession.
Moreover, items of evidence may be undisputed, but not their meaning. "Facts," except the most rudimentary, are not like members of a lodge who identify themselves by badges. When a State court has denied an asserted constitutional right, the State court cannot foreclose this Court from considering the federal claim merely by labelling absence of coercion a "fact." But if a State court, reading the record in the light of its intimate knowledge of local police and prosecutorial methods, should conclude that a confession was coerced, I cannot believe that this Court would set aside that appraisal and decide independently that the confession was wholly free and self-willed. It is not fortuitous that all the cases in which this Court has indicated that it was not foreclosed by the determination of the State court have been cases in which the State rejected the federal constitutional claim by finding the confession voluntary.
Since, as I believe, an affirmative determination of the California Supreme Court that the confession was coerced would not and should not be reexamined here, I would, on this aspect of the case, remand for that court to say whether or not, in its judgment and not as an assumption, the first confession was involuntary.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, dissenting.
My views on the illegality of confessions obtained between the time of arrest and arraignment are contained in Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 56 -57; Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62, 66 -67; Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 71 -73. The practice of obtaining confessions [343 U.S. 181, 204] prior to arraignment breeds the third-degree and the inquisition. As long as it remains lawful for the police to hold persons incommunicado, coerced confessions will infect criminal trials in violation of the commands of due process of law.
The facts of this case illustrate the evils of this police practice. While the defendant was being held by the police prior to his arraignment, a lawyer tried to see him. The police refused the lawyer's repeated requests. It was only after a confession was obtained that the lawyer was allowed to talk with the prisoner. This was lawless conduct, condemned by the Supreme Court of California. It was not only lawless conduct; it was conduct that produced a confession.
This confession as well as subsequently obtained confessions were used at the trial. The fact that the later confessions may have been lawfully obtained or used is immaterial. For once an illegal confession infects the trial, the verdict of guilty must be set aside no matter how free of taint the other evidence may be. Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401 .
Moreover, the fact that the accused started talking shortly after he was arrested and prior to the time he was taken before the District Attorney does not save the case. That talk was accompanied or preceded by blows and kicks of the police; and the Supreme Court of California assumed that it was part and parcel of the first confession obtained through "physical abuse or psychological torture or a combination of the two." [343 U.S. 181, 205]


text:
Man held without bond after shooting at Ocala hospital
OCALA — A man has been charged after a nurse was shot and wounded at a Florida hospital.
Florida Highway Patrol troopers took 38-year-old Jason Ronald Gignac of Summerfield to West Marion Community Hospital in Ocala on Saturday after finding him walking along a highway.
Authorities have said Gignac grabbed one trooper's gun and fired, wounding a nurse in the leg. Three troopers also suffered minor injuries while struggling with Gignac.
Marion County jail records show Gignac was charged Sunday with battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting a law enforcement officer with violence. He is being held without bond.
Gignac's mother, Rachael Delannoy, told WFTV that her son has a drug problem and he had a fight with his girlfriend Saturday morning before leaving her house without shoes.


text:
Product Review: Philips HeartStart FRX
AED offers rugged, easily accessible solution for CPR
"If you can flip a light switch or put on a band aid, you can work this thing." – Chief Stephen Johnson, Rochester (Minn.) Police Department
I tested the Philips HeartStart FRX, an advanced AED, or Automated External Defibrillator. I found that, with the electronic coaching afforded by this product, almost anyone can competently aid a person suffering from sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), including me.
SCA is the leading cause of death in the US. It differs from a heart attack because it is a result of irregular electrical impulses on the heart, not the plumbing. It occurs when the heartbeat becomes rapid or irregular, or sometimes too slow. This condition is called an arrhythmia. Either of these conditions will cause the heart to be unable to pump blood to vital organs and the brain. Without some kind of intervention, patient survival is unlikely. Even some world class athletes have fallen victim to SCA.
SCA survival is measured in seconds, not minutes. The quicker the response, the the better the treatment. This is the reason why a law enforcement officer is the best user of an AED. Experts agree that the most effective program is wide dissemination of AEDs. A recent study found that strategic placing of AEDs, including patrol cars, triples the survival rate for patients.
The Philips HeartStart AED was designed, using a proprietary algorithm, to deliver the therapeutic shock quickly after chest compressions. Studies have shown that quicker defibrillation after compressions increases the effectiveness of the treatment.
An AED plus CPR is the most appropriate response for SCA because it is truly automated. Once the pads are on and the device is connected, it will analyze the patient, one of the most important features of the AED. In many cases, the "shock" or defibrillator is the necessary element to steer the heart back to its normal rhythm.
When I first received my Philips HeartStart FRX, I wanted to know the answer to the two questions foremost on everyone's mind; will it hold up and can it be used under the stress and confusion of law enforcement service? Yes and Yes. I took the thing out of the box and timed myself without reading the instructions. Within 15 seconds I had it plugged in and the device was delivering clear audible instructions. Everything is guided by simple and minimal illustrations which guide the user toward correct placement.
The Philips HeartStart FRX has a rechargeable battery that only fits one way in the unit. The plug for the pads will only fit one way into the device. The voice prompts are augmented with flashing illustrations that tell the user when to press the correct button and which button to press.
The unit tells the user to stay clear of the patient when the shock needs to be delivered. It disables the ability to shock when the shock is not needed. In other words, using the device is a no-brainer.
The Philips HeartStart FRX also has an optional training pad kit, which looks and operates exactly like the real thing, without the corrective shock. When one plugs the training pads in, the unit acknowledges them, advising that they are for training. There is a fold out plastic mat with a victim illustration where one can actually place the pads and run through a scenario. I ran through a few scenarios while the unit coached my CPR and told me to back away from the patient while it delivers a shock. If I had to be critical, I would ask for a way to turn the volume down as it was designed to be a clear voice on a battleground, which is much too loud for the classroom.
Jamie Froman, the director of marketing for Philips, explained that the Philips HeartStart FRX is one of three models available within the product line. The HeartStart Home Defibrillator and the HeartStart OnSite (HS1) are also available without a prescription
The HeartStart OnSite (HS1) Defibrillator was designed for use by persons with minimal training. The HeartStart FRX is specifically marketed for officers. The HeartStart FR2+ is marketed for emergency medical professionals. The FRX differs because ruggedness is part of the design. It is designed for its ability to survive being dropped and to resist exposure to water. Philips received design input from officers who stressed ruggedness, simplicity and minimal training.
The Philips HeartStart FRX has only has three buttons and only weighs 3.5 lbs. It is weather-sealed and ruggedized.
I asked Froman what kind of training would be typical for officers using the FRX. He said that officers usually receive about four hours of a CPR AED course, which is usually paired up with a first aid class. These types of classes are usually driven by national organizations like the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross. For police officers, these classes are usually statutory driven. The Philips Heartstart FRX was designed to fit into these programs because it requires minimal training and refreshers.
Froman reiterated that the Philips HeartStart FRX was engineered for hard use. The defibrillator pads are pre-connected, taking some of the guesswork and speed of deployment out of the equation. It performs self tests at regular intervals; daily, weekly, and monthly. It has a pediatric key, which changes the operation to pediatric mode, which reduces the defibrillator output without the need of changing to pediatric pads. It has the ability to coach through the steps of CPR, including compression-only CPR.
I practiced with the training pads, using the pediatric key. The device announces that the key has been inserted and the child illustration overlays the adult one on the lighted case, avoiding any confusion.
One of the other features the FRX has is a wireless data transfer. I asked Jamie about this and he explained that incident history, important to a treating physician, can be sent wirelessly to a Palm or similar device.
I interviewed Deputy Chief Steven Johnson of Rochester, Minnesota, a city 70 minutes south of St. Paul. Rochester has 54 square miles of patrol area with 134 sworn and a staff of 190.
Deputy Chief Johnson explained that Minnesota POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) has a CPR requirement with no refresher or expiration. Rochester PD provides its own block of training for newly hired officers. Rochester PD has an additional new officer training, which consists of six-and-a-half weeks of office training and other in-house requirements. Some of these requirements emphasized the use of AEDs.
Rochester has the luxury of having The Mayo Clinic (Minnesota Location) in their backyard. Their input encouraged the use of a combined response for medical emergencies, which included equipping responding officers with AEDs. This practice increased the survival statistics astronomically.
Johnson told me that the feedback from officers using their program is outstanding. The Philips AED equipment has been deployed several hundred times. His officers have reported that there is "no better high" then a "save", which includes many where a shock without CPR was administered. Using the Philips AED equipment, Rochester PD has recorded a 100 percent equipment readiness rate.
Johnson related a story about a near drowning in a river in their jurisdiction. Officers responded to both sides of the river, which was impassable in the area. When the victim was pulled from the water, it was on the bank opposite from where the AED was. The easiest way to get it to the team nearest the victim was to throw it. They attached a rope and tossed it across. It hit the rocks on the opposite bank and landed in the water. The Philips AED was retrieved and tossed again. It worked flawlessly, logging another save.
Rochester PD maintains a website about early defibrillation which includes statistics, a map of "saves" in the area and a history of their program (www.policedefib.com). They are the exemplar of integrating public assets to improve survival rates.
Johnson told me they have a regular inspection program, which includes inspecting the batteries once a month. Their agency used to check the batteries daily but this proved unnecessary. Once the monthly check is performed, the unit is sealed in their Pelican Case. The Pelican Case is given an external seal. The unit only needs its routine inspection or if the seal is broken.
The Philips HeartStart FRX is a rugged, uncomplicated tool for the first responder. I found that a person of reasonable intelligence could be in the middle of an emergency and be effective with it. It is something that every patrol car should have. After all, there is no better high than a save.
For more information on the HeartStart FRX, visit http://www.healthcare.philips.com/in/products/resuscitation/products/frx/.
Request product info from top Police AEDs companies
Thank You!


text:
RFID Credit Card Holder
RFID Credit Card Holder
Our RFID credit card holder can hold up to five credit cards. Its one-click action feature allows you to easily pop up your cards with just one click, while its pocket-friendly, ultra-slim body makes it easy to fit into your pocket. The holder's surface is also designed to be anti-scratch and bend-resistant, ensuring that your credit cards remain in excellent condition.
Delivery timeline for custom print logo: 14 working days
Min purchase for custom logo print: 20 units
Single purchase: Check out directly from this page by clicking button 'add to cart'
Colours available: Black
Size: 1cm(D) x 6.3cm(W) x 9.5cm(H)
Packaging: Comes in a box
How much is courier shipping fee?
RM5 - RM7 for courier delivery within Peninsular Malaysia.
What is the lead time for courier delivery to location within Peninsular Malaysia?
Lead time 1-3 days after order confirmation.
How much is same day delivery fee?
After adding item into cart, choose same day delivery option when you check out. Price will be displayed according to the areas. We only cover selected areas for same day delivery within Klang Valley and orders must be placed before 11am from Monday to Friday.
Do you cover shipping to East Malaysia?
Yes, there is an additional RM7 - RM15 per delivery for East Malaysia address.
What is the delivery lead time to address within East Malaysia?
Lead time 4-7 days after order confirmation.
Lead Time
Peninsular Malaysia
1-3 days upon order confirmation
West Malaysia
4-7 days upon order confirmation
Bulk Order (more than 10 boxes)
7 - 10 days upon order confirmation
Purchase 3 and above to get a free craft box to protect your parcel during shipment.
To choose a different packaging for gifting purpose, go to Create Your Own Gift section and select from the options available based on your total budget.
Customise tags and cards
Customise tags and cards
For corporate purchase, customise card message / tags and logo print on card are complimentary for min order of 100 packages and above.
Free Delivery
Free Delivery
Enjoy FREE courier delivery for minimum purchase of 50 units. Use promo code FREEDELBK during check out (applicable for location within Peninsular Malaysia only)
Door Gift Bulk Purchase
Door Gift Bulk Purchase
(For gift items under Events collection only) Minimum 100 pcs for bulk purchase discount. Use the following promo code during checkout to be entitled for instant discount:
Free delivery to one location address within Peninsular Malaysia.
Free custom tags with logo print and event name (limited characters)
To inspire relationships through gifting that matters.
With Apprecious, you can be there for every moment of joy, big or small-whether someone has won an award, been promoted, made a personal achievement that deserves recognition or just because you want them to know how much you appreciate them.
We make it easy for you with beautifully curated gift packages for every occasion. Now you can send a gift that cares for their health and well-being. Items that are practical and useful that wouldn't go to waste.
Happy Reviews
James appreciates his new team members with Apprecious gift box
"Thank you for a seamless experience. Delivery was fast, and the recipient enjoyed the treats inside the box"
Irrfan from Agoda Malaysia chose to send Apprecious for her employees appreciation
"Another day, another gift box. Thank you to team MY and Effortless for this pleasant surprise"
Cheryll Anne Anthony appreciates her team members with Good Night Sleep Care Pack
"All my friends received their lil care package and they were super excited. Loved it, the packaging, smell and it's usefulness. A calm sleep! Thank you for making this happen"
Jothi appreciates her friend with a Self Care Abundance and Joy Care Pack
"In total I would rate the service 5 stars along with the package delivery and also the person I was speaking too. She was very helpful and was accommodating to my asks. Definitely will recommend his to my friends and family for a pick me up for this pandemic that doesn't seem to leave us."
Nur Shazlyn appreciates her friend with a Soothing Hydration Care Pack
"The delivery was very quick!! Only took about 2 days and the service was very friendly and easy üòÅ Would repeat again in the future!"
Steven from Kingdom Digital chose Apprecious for his team appreciation during the pandemic
"Thank you for the team's effort. The team is excited and happy when received the package"
Top Gift Ideas
Care PackageView gift recommendation
Variety Corporate GiftView gift recommendation
Mini Door GiftsView gift recommendation
Going awayView gift recommendation
Birthday GiftsView gift recommendation
Self-care her and youView gift recommendation
Explore Gift Category
Our Promise
The way we handle your package is vital. We ensure the gift package arrives safely, and in good shape.
We focus on overall value from content to packaging to ensure the recipient feels good when they receive it.
We offer a great variety of gift items – one that focus more on health and well-being needs.
Never a dull moment! Make your gift fun and colorful with smileys, stickers and awesome cards
For corporate gift, we ensure your gift represents your brand and the way you want it.


text:
Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco has established himself as a postseason winner with an 8-4 career mark in the playoffs. Meanwhile, San Francisco 49ers signal-caller Colin Kaepernick seems to be redefining how the QB position is played. If you were starting an NFL franchise from scratch, which young quarterback would you want on your team?
In the week leading up to the NFC Championship Game, 49ers cornerback Carlos Rogers told me something about Colin Kaepernick that impressed me: Rogers said he believes Kaepernick has staying power in this league because of his comfort and ability under center. In other words, he isn't just a read-option quarterback. We started to see that in his second-half performance against the Atlanta Falcons, which is hugely important when predicting his long-term future.
While I'm a fan of Joe Flacco, Kaepernick's versatility simply makes him too appealing to pass up.
Colin Kaepernick. Although we primarily think of him as a runner, he also is a good thrower. That would allow me to acquire versatile personnel -- including backup quarterbacks who are either pocket passers or runners -- and keep me from having to tinker with the offense much.
I've spoken to someone close to Kaepernick who said the quarterback's drive and focus are off the charts. We've seen how poised he has remained under some pretty adverse circumstances. This isn't a young QB playing caretaker. He is making plays to win games.
This isn't an easy decision. Joe Flacco has had his share of critics during his young career, but his postseason success speaks for itself. He has outstanding arm talent and is a better athlete than he gets credit for being.
That said, I would choose to start my franchise with the hyper-athletic Colin Kaepernick. NFL offenses continue to evolve; he'll provide the skill set to incorporate a thicker playbook.
When you lay out the numbers of Joe Flacco's young career, it is very hard to pick against him. But the offensive diversity that Colin Kaepernick provides is too exciting to pass over. Kaepernick can create explosion plays in both the pass and running games.
As good as Joe Flacco has become, Colin Kaepernick is the wave of the present -- and future. Colleges are starting to exclusively manufacture the dual-threat QB now. Everybody has to have one.
But what really tilts me toward Kaepernick instead of Flacco is this: If your team has the ball on its own 40-yard line, Flacco is capable of throwing a 60-yard bomb for a touchdown. Kaepernick is capable of throwing a 60-yard TD pass, too -- and running for one. You just can't account for the value of a player who not only can make things happen with his legs when protection breaks down but is a threat on designed runs, as well.
I would want Colin Kaepernick. His mobility is far superior to Joe Flacco's. I mean, that's like comparing a Porsche 911 to an '83 Pulsar. But I digress ...
Kaepernick has shown that he can throw the football very well, particularly on intermediate throws. He might not have Flacco's incredible touch in the vertical game, but for a guy with just nine NFL starts under his belt, he's shown ridiculous upside. At this point with Flacco, we know what we're getting. He's a good quarterback who doesn't complete a high percentage of his passes but can seriously hurt teams with the deep ball and plays relatively well in the postseason. The sky might be the limit with Kaepernick, even though the jury is still out at this point. Nonetheless, if you're starting from scratch, it's all about upside.
Joe Flacco certainly has earned himself a ton of money during this postseason run. And he should be considered among the game's best, given what he's done in the playoffs over the past two years -- scratch that, his whole career.
But Colin Kaepernick is the future of the NFL. He does things on the field no other quarterback has done before. If there were a re-draft for the NFL right now, I'm not sure how many quarterbacks I would take over Kaepernick. It's less than five, but probably more than one.