Theramenes

Theramenes (; ; died 404 BC) was an Athenian statesman, prominent in the final decade of the Peloponnesian War. He was particularly active during the two periods of oligarchic government at Athens, as well as in the trial of the generals who had commanded at Arginusae in 406 BC. A moderate oligarch, he often found himself caught between the democrats on the one hand and the extremist oligarchs on the other. Successful in replacing a narrow oligarchy with a broader one in 411 BC, he failed to achieve the same end in 404 BC, and was executed by the extremists whose policies he had opposed.
Theramenes was a central figure in four major episodes of Athenian history. He appeared on the scene in 411 BC as one of the leaders of an oligarchic coup, but, as his views and those of the coup's other leaders diverged, he began to oppose their dictates and took the lead in replacing the narrow oligarchy they had imposed with a more broadly based one. He served as a general for several years after this, but was not reelected to that office in 407 BC. After the Battle of Arginusae, in which he served as a trierarch, he was assigned to rescue Athenian sailors from sinking ships, but was prevented from doing so by a storm. That incident prompted a massive furore at Athens, in which Theramenes had to exonerate himself from responsibility for the failed rescue; the controversy ended in the execution of six generals who had commanded at that battle. After the Athenian defeat at Aegospotami in 405 BC, Theramenes arranged the terms by which Athens surrendered to Sparta. He then became a member of the narrow oligarchic government, known as the Thirty Tyrants, that Sparta imposed on its defeated rival. As he had in 411 BC, Theramenes soon came into conflict with the more extreme members of that government; his protests against the reign of terror the Thirty implemented led the leading oligarchs to plot his demise; he was denounced before the oligarchic assembly, and then, when that body appeared reluctant to punish him, struck him from the roster of citizens and executed him without trial.
Theramenes remained a controversial figure after his death; Lysias vigorously denounced him while prosecuting several of his former political allies, but others defended his actions. Modern historical assessments have shifted over time; in the 19th century, Theramenes's part in the coup of 411 BC and his use of Arginusae were widely condemned, but newly discovered ancient texts and 20th-century scholarship supported more positive assessments. Some historians have found in Theramenes a selfish opportunist, others a principled moderate. The details of his actions, his motivations, and his character continue to be debated down to the present day.
Historical record.
No ancient biographies of Theramenes are known, but his life and actions are relatively well documented, due to the extensive treatment given him in several surviving works. The Attic orator Lysias deals with him at length in several of his speeches, albeit in a very hostile manner. Theramenes also appears in several ancient narrative histories: Thucydides' account includes the beginnings of Theramenes' career, and Xenophon, picking up where Thucydides left off, gives a detailed account of several episodes from Theramenes career including a sympathetic and vivid description of his last actions and words; Diodorus Siculus, probably drawing his account from Ephorus at most points, provides another account that varies widely from Xenophon's at several points. Theramenes also appears in several other sources, which, although they do not provide as many narrative details, have been used to illuminate the political disputes which surrounded Theramenes' life and memory.
Family.
Only the barest outlines of Theramenes' life outside the public sphere have been preserved in the historical record. His father, Hagnon had played a significant role in Athenian public life in the decades before Theramenes' appearance on the scene. He had commanded the group of Greek colonists who founded Amphipolis in 437–6 BC, had served as a general on several occasions before and during the Peloponnesian War, and was one of the signers of the Peace of Nicias. Hagnon's career overlapped with his son's when he served as one of the ten commissioners appointed by the government of the 400 to draft a new constitution in 411 BC.
Coup of 411 BC.
Overthrow of the democracy.
Theramenes' first appearance in the historical record comes with his involvement in the oligarchic coup of 411 BC. In the wake of the Athenian defeat in Sicily, revolts began to break out among Athens' subject states in the Aegean Sea and the Peace of Nicias fell apart; the Peloponnesian War resumed in full by 412 BC. In this context, a number of Athenian aristocrats, led by Peisander and with Theramenes prominent among their ranks, began to conspire to overthrow the city's democratic government. This intrigue was initiated by the exiled nobleman Alcibiades, who was at that time acting as an assistant to the Persian satrap Tissaphernes. Claiming that he had great influence with Tissaphernes, Alcibiades promised to return to Athens, bringing Persian support with him, if the democracy that had exiled him were replaced with an oligarchy. Accordingly, a number of trierarchs and other leaders of the Athenian army at Samos began planning the overthrow of the democracy. They eventually dispatched Peisander to Athens, where, by promising that the return of Alcibiades and an alliance with Persia would follow if the Athenians would replace their democracy with an oligarchy, he persuaded the Athenian "ecclesia" to send him as an emissary to Alcibiades, authorized to make whatever arrangements were necessary.
Alcibiades, however, did not succeed in persuading the satrap to ally with the Athenians, and, to hide this fact, demanded (claiming to be speaking for Tissaphernes) greater and greater concessions of them until they finally refused to comply. Disenchanted with Alcibiades but still determined to overthrow the democracy, Peisander and his companions returned to Samos, where the conspirators worked to secure their control over the army and encouraged a group of native Samian oligarchs to begin planning the overthrow of their own city's democracy. In Athens, meanwhile, a party of young oligarchic revolutionaries succeeded in gaining de facto control of the government through assassination and intimidation.
After making arrangements to their satisfaction at Samos the leaders of the conspiracy set sail for Athens. Among them was Theramenes; Thucydides refers to him as "one of the leaders of the party that put down the democracy—an able speaker and a man with ideas." Calling the assembly together, the conspirators proposed a series of measures by which the democracy was formally replaced with a government of 400 chosen men, who were to select and convene a larger body of 5,000 as time went on. Shortly afterwards, the conspirators went, under arms, to the council chamber, where they ordered the democratic council to disperse after collecting their pay; the council did as ordered, and from this point forward the mechanism of government was fully under the control of the oligarchic conspirators; they quickly changed the laws to reflect the new form of government they had imposed.
Conflict within the movement.
At this point, several conflicts began to develop that threatened the future of the new government at Athens. First, the planned coup at Samos was thwarted by the efforts of Samian democrats and a group of Athenians who they entrusted with helping them. When the army at Samos heard the news of the coup at Athens, which arrived along with exaggerated reports of outrages being perpetrated by the new government, they declared their loyalty to democracy and hostility to the new government. At Athens, meanwhile, a split developed between the moderate and radical oligarchs, with Theramenes emerging alongside one Aristocrates son of Scelias as the leader of the moderate faction. The extremist faction, led by Phrynicus, containing such prominent leaders of the coup as Peisander and Antiphon, and dominant within the 400, opposed broadening the base of the oligarchy, and were willing to seek peace with Sparta on almost any terms. The moderates, on the other hand, although willing to seek peace with Sparta on terms that would preserve Athens' power, were not willing to sacrifice the empire and the fleet, and wanted to broaden the oligarchy to include the putative 5,000, presumably including all men of hoplite status or higher.
Shortly after taking power, the extremist leaders of the revolution had begun constructing fortifications on Eetioneia, a dominant point in the entrance to the harbor of Piraeus, ostensibly to protect the harbor against an attack from the fleet at Samos. With internal dissent increasing, they joined these new fortifications to existing walls to form a redoubt defensible against attacks from land or sea, which contained a large warehouse into which the extremists moved most of the city's grain supply. Theramenes protested strongly against the building of this fortification, arguing that its purpose was not to keep the democrats out, but to be handed over to the Spartans; Thucydides testifies that his charges were not without substance, as the extremists were actually contemplating such an action. Initially cautious (as enemies of the regime had been executed before), Theramenes and his party were emboldened and galvanized into action by several events. First, a Peloponnesian fleet, ostensibly dispatched to assist anti-Athenian forces on Euboea, was moving slowly up the coast of the Peloponnese; Theramenes charged that this fleet was planning to seize the fortifications on Eetioneia, in collaboration with the extremists. Second, an Athenian militiaman, apparently acting on orders from conspirators higher in the ranks of the government, assassinated Phrynichus, the leader of the extremist faction. He escaped, but his accomplice, an Argive, was captured; the prisoner, under torture, refused to state the name of his employer. With the extremists unable to take effective action in this case, and with the Peloponnesian fleet overrunning Aegina (a logical stopping point on the approach to Piraeus), Theramenes and his party decided to act.
Aristocrates, who was commanding a regiment of hoplites in Piraeus, arrested the extremist general Alexicles; enraged, the extremist leaders of the 400 demanded action, and made a number of threats against Theramenes and his party. To their surprise, Theramenes volunteered to lead a force to rescue Alexicles; the leaders of the extremists acquiesced, and Theramenes set out to Piraeus, sharing his command with one other moderate and one extremist, Aristarchus. When Theramenes and his force arrived at Piraeus, Aristarchus, in a rage, exhorted the men to attack the hoplites who had seized Alexicles. Theramenes feigned rage as well, but when asked by the hoplites whether he thought that the fortification on Eetioneia was a good idea, he responded that if they wanted to pull it down, he thought that would be good. Calling out that everyone who wanted the 5,000 to govern instead of the 400, the hoplites set to work. Donald Kagan has suggested that this call was probably instigated by Theramenes' party, who wanted the 5,000 to govern; the hoplites tearing down the fortification might well have preferred a return to the democracy. Several days later, the Peloponnesian fleet approached Piraeus, but, finding the fortifications destroyed and the port well defended, they sailed on to Euboea. Several days later, the 400 were formally deposed and replaced by a government of the 5,000; the most extreme of the oligarchs fled the city.
In command.
Under the government of the 5,000 and under the democracy that replaced it in 410 BC, Theramenes served as a general for several years, commanding fleets in the Aegean Sea and the Hellespont. Shortly after the rise of the government of the 5,000, Theramenes set sail to the Hellespont to join Thrasybulus and the generals elected by the army at Samos. After the Athenian victory at Abydos, he took thirty triremes to attack the rebels on Euboea, who were building a causeway to Boeotia to provide land access to their island. Unable to stop the construction, he plundered the territory of several rebellious cities, then travelled around the Aegean suppressing oligarchies and raising funds from various cities of the Athenian Empire. He then took his fleet to Macedon, where he assisted the Macedonian king Archelaus in his siege of Pydna, but, with that siege dragging on, he sailed on to join Thrasybulus in Thrace. The fleet soon moved on from there to challenge Mindarus' fleet, which had seized the city of Cyzicus. Theramenes commanded one wing of the Athenian fleet in the resulting Battle of Cyzicus, a decisive Athenian victory. In that battle, Alcibiades (who had been recalled from exile by the fleet at Samos shortly after the coup) led a decoy force that drew the Spartan fleet out into open water, while Thrasybulus and Theramenes, each commanding an independent squadron, cut off the Spartans' retreat. Mindarus was forced to flee to a nearby beach, and vicious fighting ensued on land as the Athenians attempted to drag off the Spartan ships. Thrasybulus and Alcibiades kept the Spartans occupied while Theramenes joined up with the nearby Athenian land forces and then hurried to the rescue; his arrival precipitated a total Athenian victory, in which all the Spartan ships were captured. In the wake of this victory, the Athenians captured Cyzicus and constructed a fort at Chrysopolis, from which they extracted a customs duty of one tenth on all ships passing through the Bosporus. Theramenes and another general remained at this fort with a garrison of thirty ships to oversee the collection of the duty. At Athens, meanwhile, the government of the 5,000 was replaced by a restored democracy within a few months of this battle; Donald Kagan has suggested that the absence of Theramenes, "the best spokesman for the moderates", paved the way for this restoration.
According to Diodorus and Plutarch, Theramenes participated under the command of Alcibiades to the siege of Byzantium (408 BC), winning the battle against the Peloponnesian army that was appointed to defend that city: Alcibiades was in command of the right wing, while Theramenes was in charge of the left one.
Arginusae.
Theramenes remained a general through 407 BC, but, in that year, when the Athenian defeat at Notium led to the downfall of Alcibiades and his political allies, Theramenes was not reelected. In the next year, however, he did sail as a trierarch in the scratch Athenian relief fleet sent out to relieve Conon, who had been blockaded with 40 triremes at Mytilene by Callicratidas. That relief force won a surprising victory over the more experienced Spartan force in the Battle of Arginusae, but in the wake of that battle Theramenes found himself in the middle of a massive controversy. At the end of the battle, the generals in command of the fleet had conferred to decide on their next steps. Several pressing concerns presented themselves; 50 Peloponnesian ships under Eteonicus remained at Mytilene, blockading Conon, and decisive action by the Athenians could lead to the destruction of that force as well, but, at the same time, ships needed to be dispatched to recover the sailors of the twenty five Athenian triremes sunk or disabled in the battle. Accordingly, all eight generals, with the larger part of the fleet, set out for Mytilene, while a rescue force under Thrasybulus and Theramenes, both of whom were trierarchs in this battle but had served as generals in prior campaigns, remained behind to pick up the survivors and retrieve corpses for burial. At this point, however, a severe storm blew up, and both of these forces were driven back to shore. Eteonicus escaped, and a great number of Athenian sailors—estimates as to the precise figure have ranged from near 1,000 to as many as 5,000—drowned.
Soon after the news of this public tragedy reached Athens, a massive controversy erupted over the apportionment of blame for the botched rescue. The public was furious over the loss of so many sailors, and over the failure to recover the bodies of the dead for burial, and the generals suspected that Thrasybulus and Theramenes, who had already returned to Athens, might have been responsible for stirring up the assembly against them, and wrote letters to the people denouncing the two trierarchs as responsible for the failed rescue. Thrasybulus and Theramenes were called before the assembly to defend their behavior; in their defense, Theramenes produced a letter from the generals in which they blamed only the storm for the mishap; the trierarchs were exonerated, and public anger now turned against the generals. All eight were deposed from office, and summoned back to Athens to stand trial. Two fled, but six returned as commanded to face the charges against them.
Diodorus notes that the generals committed a critical error by attempting to shift the blame onto Theramenes. "For," he states, "although they could have had the help of Theramenes and his associates in the trial, men who both were able orators and had many friends and, most important of all, had been participants in the events relative to the battle, they had them, on the contrary, as adversaries and bitter accusers." When the trial came, Theramenes' numerous political allies were among the leaders of the faction seeking the generals' conviction. A bitter series of debates and legal maneuvers ensued as the assembly fought over what to do with the generals. At first, it appeared that they might be treated leniently, but in the end, public displays of bereavement by the families of the deceased and aggressive prosecution by a politician named Callixenus swung the opinion of the assembly; the six generals were tried as a group and executed. The Athenian public, as the grief and anger prompted by the disaster cooled, came to regret their action, and for thousands of years historians and commentators have pointed to the incident as perhaps the greatest miscarriage of justice the city's government ever perpetrated.
Negotiating a peace.
In 405 BC, the Athenian navy was defeated and destroyed by the Peloponnesian fleet under Lysander at the Battle of Aegospotami in the Hellespont. Without sufficient funds to build another fleet, the Athenians could only wait as Lysander sailed westward across the Aegean towards their city. Blockaded by land and sea, with their food supplies running low, the Athenians sent ambassadors to the Spartan king Agis, whose army was camped outside their walls, offering to join the Spartan alliance if they were allowed to keep their walls and port; Agis, claiming that he had no power to negotiate, sent the ambassadors on to Sparta, but there they were told that, if they really wanted peace, they should bring the Spartans better proposals. The Athenians were initially intransigent, going so far as to imprison a man who suggested that a stretch of the long walls be torn down as the Spartans had insisted, but the reality of their situation soon compelled them to consider compromises. In this situation, Theramenes, in a speech to the assembly, requested that he be sent as an ambassador to Lysander (who was at this time besieging Samos) to determine the Spartans' intentions towards Athens; he also stated that he had discovered something that might improve the Athenians' situation, although he declined to share it with the citizenry. His request was granted, and Theramenes sailed to Samos to meet with Lysander; from there, he was sent to Sparta, perhaps stopping at Athens on the way. At Sparta, with representatives of all of Sparta's allies present, Theramenes and his colleagues negotiated the terms of the peace that ended the Peloponnesian War; the long walls and the walls of Piraeus were pulled down, the size of the Athenian fleet was sharply limited, and Athenian foreign policy was subordinated to that of Sparta; the treaty also stipulated that the Athenians were to use "the constitution of their ancestors". Theramenes returned to Athens and presented the results of the negotiations to the assembly; although some still favored holding out, the majority voted to accept the terms; the Peloponnesian War, after 28 years, was at an end.
Thirty Tyrants.
In the wake of Athens' surrender, the long walls were torn down and the troops besieging the city returned to their various homes; a Spartan garrison probably remained in Athens to supervise the dismantling of the walls; Lysander sailed off to Samos to complete the siege of that city. Another clause of the treaty that had ended the war had allowed all exiles to return to Athens, and these men, many of them oligarchic agitators who had been cast out by the democracy, were hard at work in the months after the treaty. Five "overseers" were appointed by the members of the oligarchic social clubs to plan the transition to an oligarchy. In July 404 BC, they summoned Lysander back to Athens, where he supervised the change of government; an oligarchic politician, Dracontides, proposed in the council to place the government in the hands of thirty chosen men; Theramenes supported this motion, and, with Lysander threatening to punish the Athenians for failing to dismantle the walls quickly enough unless they assented, it passed the assembly. Thirty men were selected: ten appointed by the "overseers", ten chosen by Theramenes (including himself), and ten picked by Lysander.
This government, which soon came to be known as the "Thirty Tyrants" for its excesses and atrocities, rapidly set about establishing its control over the city. The oligarchs, led by Critias, one of the "overseers" and a former exile, summoned a Spartan garrison to ensure their safety and then initiated a reign of terror, executing any men who they thought might possess sufficient initiative or a large enough following to effectively challenge them. It was this campaign that first drove a wedge between Theramenes and the leaders of the Thirty; initially a supporter of Critias, Theramenes now argued that it was unnecessary to execute men who had shown no sign of wishing the oligarchy harm just because they had been popular under the democracy. This protest, however, failed to slow the pace of the executions, so Theramenes next argued that, if the oligarchy was to govern by force, it must at least expand its base; fearful that Theramenes might lead a popular movement against them, Critias and the leaders of the Thirty issued a list of 3,000 men who would be associates in the new government. When Theramenes again objected that this number was still too small, the leaders arranged for a military review to be staged after which the citizens were ordered to pile their arms; with the help of the Spartan garrison, the oligarchs then confiscated all arms except those belonging to the 3,000.
This, in turn, marked the beginning of even greater excesses; to pay the Spartan garrison's wages, Critias and the leaders ordered each of the Thirty to arrest and execute a metic, or resident alien, and confiscate his property. Theramenes, protesting that this action was worse than the worst excesses of the democracy, refused to follow the order.
Critias and his compatriots, in the light of these events, decided that Theramenes had become an intolerable threat to their rule; accordingly, speaking before the assembly of the 3,000, Critias denounced Theramenes as a born traitor, always ready to shift his political allegiances with the expediencies of the moment. Famously, he branded him with the nickname "cothurnus", the name of a boot worn on the stage that could fit either foot; Theramenes, he proclaimed, was ready to serve either the democratic or oligarchic cause, seeking only to further his own personal interest. In an impassioned response, Theramenes denied that his politics had ever been inconsistent. He had always, he insisted, favored a moderate policy, neither extreme democracy nor extreme oligarchy, and held true to the ideal of a government composed of men of hoplite status or higher, who would be able to effectively serve the state. This speech had a substantial effect on the audience, and Critias saw that, if the case were brought to a vote, Theramenes would be acquitted. Accordingly, after conferring with the Thirty, Critias ordered men with daggers to line the stage in front of the audience and then struck Theramenes' name from the roster of the 3,000, denying him his right to a trial. Theramenes, springing to a nearby altar for sanctuary, admonished the assemblage not to permit his murder, but to no avail; the Eleven, keepers of the prison, entered, dragged him away, and forced him to drink a cup of hemlock. Theramenes, imitating a popular drinking game in which the drinker toasted a loved one as he finished his cup, downed the poison and then flung the dregs to the floor, exclaiming "Here's to the health of my beloved Critias!"
Historiography.
Theramenes lived a controversial life, and his death did not end the struggle over how to interpret his actions. In the years after his death, his reputation became an item of contention as former associates of his defended themselves against prosecutors under the restored democracy. (The regime of the Thirty lasted only until 403 BC.) It would appear that, as they defended themselves before democratic-sympathizing Athenian jurymen, Theramenes' former comrades in the oligarchy attempted to exculpate themselves by associating their actions with those of Theramenes and portraying him as a steadfast defender of the Athenian democracy; examples of such accounts can be found in the "Histories" of Diodorus Siculus and in the "Theramenes papyrus", a fragmentary work discovered in the 1960s. An example of the sort of attack this portrayal was intended to defend against can be found in two orations of Lysias, "Against Eratosthenes" and "Against Agoratus"; there, Theramenes is portrayed as treasonous and self-interested, doing tremendous harm to the Athenian cause through his machinations. Xenophon adopts a similarly hostile attitude in the early parts of his work, but apparently had a change of heart during the chronological break in composition that divides the second book of the "Hellenica"; his portrayal of Theramenes during the reign of the Thirty Tyrants is altogether more favorable than that of his earlier years. A final portrayal is offered by Aristotle, who, in his "Constitution of the Athenians", portrays Theramenes as a moderate and a model citizen; historians have disputed the origin of this account, with some treating it as a product of 4th-century BC propaganda by a moderate "Theramenean" party, while others, such as Phillip Harding, see no evidence for such a tradition and argue that Aristotle's treatment of Theramenes is entirely a product of his own reassessment of the man. Diodorus Siculus, a historian active in the time of Caesar, presents a generally favorable account of Theramenes, which appears to be drawn from the noted historian Ephorus, who studied in Athens under Isocrates who was taught by Theramenes.
Theramenes' reputation has undergone a dramatic shift since the 19th century, when Xenophon's and Lysias' unfavorable accounts were widely accepted, and Theramenes was execrated as a turncoat and blamed for instigating the execution of the generals after Arginusae. The discovery of Aristotle's "Constitution of the Athenians" in 1890 reversed this trend for the broad assessment of Theramenes' character, and Diodorus' account of the Arginusae trial has been preferred by scholars since Antony Andrewes undermined Xenophon's account in the 1970s; Diodorus' more melodramatic passages, such as his elaborate presentation of Theramenes' last moments, are still discounted, but he is now preferred on a number of issues, and on the Arginusae trial in particular. Aristophanes, in The Frogs, pokes fun at Theramenes' ability to extricate himself from tight spots, but delivers none of the scathing rebukes one would expect for a politician whose role in the shocking events after Arginusae had been regarded as particularly blameworthy, and modern scholars have seen in this a more accurate depiction of how Theramenes was perceived in his time; Lysias, meanwhile, who mercilessly attacks Theramenes on many counts, has nothing negative to say about the aftermath of Arginusae.
Recent works have generally accepted the image of Theramenes as a moderate, committed to the ideal of a hoplite-based broad oligarchy. Donald Kagan has said of him that "...his entire career reveals him to be a patriot and a true moderate, sincerely committed to a constitution granting power to the hoplite class, whether in the form of a limited democracy or a broadly based oligarchy", while John Fine has noted that "like many a person following a middle course, he was hated by both political extremes." The constitution of the 5,000 is recognized as his political masterpiece; his attempt to bring about a similar shift towards moderatism in 404 led directly to his death. That death, meanwhile, has become famous for its drama, and the story of Theramenes' final moments has been repeated over and over throughout classical historiography. "Because he met his death defying a tyrant," John Fine notes, "it is easy to idealize Theramenes." In the millennia since his death, Theramenes has been both idealized and reviled; his brief seven-year career in the spotlight, touching as it did on all the major points of controversy in the last years of the Peloponnesian War, has been subject to myriad different interpretations. From the polemical contemporary works which describe his career have emerged the outlines of a complex figure, charting a dangerous course through the chaos of the late 5th-century Athenian political scene; although historians from ancient times to the present have offered far more specific portraits, of one form or another, it may be that nothing more than that outline will ever be known with certainty.


Joe Sheeketski

Joseph L. Sheeketski (April 15, 1908 – April 22, 1995) was an American football player, coach, and college athletics administrator. He served as the head football coach at the College of the Holy Cross from 1939 to 1941 and at the University of Nevada, Reno from 1947 to 1950, compiling a career college football record of 39–29–3.
Early life and playing career.
Sheeketski attended prep school in Shadyside, Ohio. He played halfback at the University of Notre Dame from 1930 to 1932 and graduated from the university in 1933.
Coaching career.
From 1933 to 1938, Sheeketski served as the backfield coach at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, working under fellow Notre Dame alumnus, Eddie Anderson. Sheeketski succeeded Anderson as head coach in 1939 when Anderson left for the University of Iowa. Sheeketski was a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1942 to 1945. After World War II, Sheeketski returned to his alma mater as an assistant football coach for part of the 1945 season. The following year, he reunited with Anderson at Iowa and coached the line for the Hawkeyes.


Gautam Das

Gautam Das ( – November 17, 2005) was a Bangladeshi print journalist and bureau chief for "Dainik Samakal" in Faridpur, Dhaka Division, Bangladesh when he was murdered in his office. He was known for his reporting on crime and corruption throughout the area.
Personal.
Das was 33 at the time of his death. Das's widow is Dipali Das. Guatam Das is now buried at Chandidashi village of Bhanga Upazila in Faridpur, Bangladesh. On the 9th anniversary of his death, journalist Gautam Das Memorial Association, Faridpur Press Club, and Samakal Surid Samabesh provided various programs to remember the day.
Career.
Das was well respected for his reports exposing corruption. He was the Faridpur bureau chief of the "Dainik Samakal". He was a journalist for print media. A short time before his murder, Das had published a series of reports for the Dhaka-based daily "Samakal", which detailed illegal activity corruption by Bangladesh Nationalist Party officials. In addition, The Associated Press reported Das having written about local government officials accused of taking bribes in exchange for construction contract awards.
Death.
Gautam Das was found killed in his office on November 17, 2005. In his office, he was found to be strangled and his hands and legs were fractured. Journalists' leaders in Dhaka protested the killing of Das and gave a three-day ultimatum to the government to arrest the killers. On November 19, 2005, police arrested Tamjid Hossain Babu, 35. Babu is the son of a former Bangladesh Awami League lawmaker. He was arrested from his residence, followed by being produced in court where he was placed on a seven-day remand.
On June 27, 2013 nine assailants were convicted of killing Gautam Das. The Dhaka court sentenced Asif Imran, Asif Imtiaz Bulu, Zahid Khan, Kamrul Islam Apon, Asad Bin Kadir, Siddiqur Rahman Miah, Tamjid Hossain Babu, Rajib Hassan Miah, Abu Taher Mohammad Mortuza Ahsan (Appollo Biswas) to a life in prison. Of these nine convicts, eight are junior politicians belonging to the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
It was confirmed in court that they had killed Gautam Das for publishing news on the corruption of Faridpur Mujib Road repairing works in the newspaper.
Of the nine convicts, Appollo went in hiding on June 19, 2013 after the court had fixed June 27, 2013 for delivering the judgment in the case. Punishment of Appollo was effective from the day of his arrest or surrender, added by the court. Judge Shahed Noor Uddin also fined 50,000 each and in default they will have to suffer one additional year in jail. During the court date, 27 prosecution witnesses were recorded. The case remained a High Court order for a long while, but charges were framed against the accused on August 15, 2006. An investigation officer on the case pressed charges in the case on January 19, 2006, showing 31 people as prosecution witnesses. During the trial, the judge of the Dhaka Speedy Trial Tribunal, Shahed Nuruddin, called Das “brave, fearless, honest” and a crusader against social injustice and graft as he handed down life sentences to the nine accused.
Context.
Attacks on Bangladesh's ethnic and religious minorities has been on the rise for many years according to Desh Rights.
Regarding the case, a colleague of Das called the police after repeatedly failing to contact him by phone and his work door remained locked throughout the day. Police had eventually busted Das' office door down to find his body inside. Colleagues were not aware of any threats against the reporter, but did note the journalist wrote on sensitive topics such as Islamic militant group activities.
Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists (BFUJ) and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned the killing. Leaders from both of these organizations demanded the arrest and punishment to perpetrators of the murder.
Bangladesh was ranked to be among the fourteen countries worldwide with the worst record of violence against journalists/bloggers, and 19th deadliest country for the press. Since 1992, at least 27 journalists and freelancers have been killed in Bangladesh. However, with Bangladesh being so high in violence against these individuals, only one case—Gautam Das—has had its perpetrators tried and convicted. The motives behind the crimes have only been confirmed in 19 of these cases and the remaining eight are determined unconfirmed.
Of the killings since 1992, the other victims include Mohammad Kamaruzzaman, Saiful Alam Mukul, Mir Eias Hossain, Shamsur Rahman, Nahor Ali, Harunur Rashid, Shukur Hossain, Syed Faruq Ahmed, Manik Saha, Humayun Kabir, Kamal Hossain, Dipankar Chakravarty, Shahid Anwar, Sheikh Belal Uddin, Golam Mahfuz, Belal Hossain Dafadar, Jamal Uddin, Talhad Ahmed Kabid and Sadrul Alam.
While Das' case received the outcome Bangladesh was searching for, not every suspect was prosecuted. During the course of the trial, an accused died. Alongside the accused, all were released on bail right away, and witnesses backed out of the trial as they began to get scared of testifying. Also, in 2006 the case was transferred from the local district court to Dhaka Speedy Tribunal Court 1 for an expedited after being pressured by local journalists—the speedy trial lasted for seven years. The case lasted for several years after a defendant challenged the legality of the transfer.
The legal system in Bangladesh is sure the men prosecuted are the killers behind Das' murder, but what remains unknown is whether or not they were also the masterminds based on the police investigation, witnesses, and confessions from the convicted. Of the nine prosecuted for Das' murder, eight were junior politicians belonging to the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
Impact.
Gautam Das' case is considered a landmark for Bangladesh journalists, as this is the first ever case to prosecute the murderer of a journalist in the country. Following the murder, the International Press Institute claimed the many journalists killed over the past twenty years has compromised their freedom of speech in Bangladesh. Bulbul of the CPJ claims "this is the beginning of the end of the culture of impunity that exists for journalist murders in Bangladesh." Overall, several local journalists in Gautam's surrounding area found that the verdict of his murder was a landmark, being the first time Bangladeshi court had ever successfully prosecuted a murder of a journalist.
Reactions.
Just two days after the murder of Das, journalist groups around the country of Bangladesh protested the killing and even protested the government for not doing more to protect the press from acts such as this.
Koïchiro Matsuura, the director-general of UNESCO said, "I condemn the brutal assassination of Gautam Das. I am shocked by the brutal killing of this young reporter and wish to support the large number of Bangladeshi journalists and other professionals who have been calling for the arrest and trial of the perpetrators of this crime. It draws some comfort from the fact that so many people in Bangladesh realize that this crime affects their society as a whole in view of essential role journalists play in sustaining democracy and rule of law."
During Das' funeral, the town was filled with hundreds of people who came to fill the streets and hold rallies demanding exemplary punishment for the killers. Of the rallies, several organizations in Bangladesh participated, such as Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists, Dhaka Union of Journalists, Jatiya Press Club, and Bangladesh Chamber of Industries.


Andrew Harwood (television host)

Andrew Harwood (7 September 1945 – 6 February 2008) was an Australian quiz show host, announcer and actor. He had a career that spanned over 40 years in the Australian entertainment industry.
Career.
Harwood was the son of Ena Harwood, a panellist on "Beauty and the Beast", an Australian talk show. His career began at a radio station in Warwick, Queensland. Harwood moved to Sydney after a job offer from radio station 2KY. He next worked as a voice announcer on Channel Seven (now the Seven Network).
Through his work at Channel Seven, Harwood was chosen as the television presenter of "It's Academic", which he hosted from 1971 until 1979. He then became the compere of the Australian version of the "Jeopardy!" game show. Harwood's other quiz shows included "Class of 82" and "Class of 83".
Harwood also regularly appeared as a supporting actor in the "Paul Hogan Show", which starred Paul Hogan. Additionally, he also hosted several Miss New South Wales beauty pageants during the 1970s and 1980s.
Harwood went on to host "Good Morning Sydney". He also made regular appearances on the "At Home" show. Harwood then hosted "Till 10", which aired on Channel Ten, for three years.
Harwood performed in a series of dinner theatre comedy shows in 1988 with Louise Burfitt-Dons.
Death.
Harwood died of respiratory failure following a severe asthma attack on 6 February 2008, at the age of 62. He was survived by his wife, and two daughters.


Johnny St. Valentine Brown

Johnny St. Valentine Brown (also known by the nickname Jehru) was a police detective for the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., who served as a chief investigator for a U.S. House committee studying drug trafficking and worked for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He also served as an advisor to Eric Sterling, counsel to the House committee responsible for the drafting of anti-drug laws.
Career.
As chief investigator and Sterling's advisor, he was instrumental in setting the "100-to-1 crack-to-powder" ratio and other weight-based triggers for sentencing guidelines in the "Len Bias Law" that set much stricter sentencing guidelines for drug offenders. This law was passed in the shocking death of NBA draft pick and college star Len Bias from a cocaine-induced heart attack two days after being drafted by the Boston Celtics. Critics of this law, eventually including Eric Sterling, would go on to say that the weights that Brown suggested ended up targeting low-level offenders instead of mid- to high-level traffickers, as was the original intention of the bill. Critics contend that Brown's "expertise" ended up worsening prison overcrowding and wasting enforcement efforts with low-level offenders.
During the course of his deposition in "Butera v. District of Columbia", a case related to the infamous D.C. Starbucks murders, Brown testified under oath as the District's expert witness that he'd earned a doctorate in pharmacology from Howard University in 1972. After the deposition, attorney Saul Jay Singer checked the alleged credentials of the opposing expert. Howard University confirmed to Singer that not only had Brown not obtained any advanced degree from Howard but that, in fact, he had never even attended the university. Singer's instincts that something was off about Brown had been heightened when Brown fell hard for Singer's trap. Consistent with his regular practice in preparing questions for the deposition of an opposing expert witness, Singer fed co-counsel Peter Grenier a nonsensical question to ask Brown: "Have you ever heard of the 'Marijuana Reagent Test?'" In fact, there was no such test, yet Brown testified under oath that not only was he intimately familiar with it, but he had, in fact, personally administered the Marijuana Reagent Test to suspects hundreds of times. In 2000, Brown plead guilty to perjury charges for lying about earning an advanced degree from Howard University's School of Pharmacy.
During his sentencing, Brown submitted several letters to the sentencing judge, Henry H. Kennedy Jr., in a bid for a more lenient sentence. Letters submitted were from Walter E. Fauntroy (a former D.C. delegate to Congress), Robert Werner (spokesperson for the Office of National Drug Control Policy), William Lucy (a leader of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), and Johnette Wilson (coordinator of Washington Hospital's youth mentoring program).
After giving Brown a favorable sentence, Kennedy contacted each of the letter-writers to thank them for interest in Brown's case. However, it was learned that Brown had counterfeited each of the letters and the supposed writers were "stunned" to learn of the forgeries. Brown was then charged with contempt of court and ordered to stand trial for the forgeries.
Brown's conviction triggered the retrial of many convicted drug offenders in the D.C. area.


Doc Strong

Harley de Witt "Doc" Strong (November 10, 1916 – July 4, 1952) was an American wrestler. He competed in the men's freestyle lightweight at the 1936 Summer Olympics. In 1952, he was arrested for being drunk in public, and hanged himself in his cell.


Other People (film)

Other People is a 2016 American comedy-drama film written and directed by Chris Kelly in his feature directorial debut. The film stars Jesse Plemons, Molly Shannon, Bradley Whitford, Maude Apatow, Madisen Beaty, John Early, Zach Woods, Josie Totah, and June Squibb. It is a semi-autobiographical look at Kelly's family.
The film had its world premiere at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival on January 21, 2016. The film was released on September 9, 2016, by Vertical Entertainment.
Plot.
David, a 29-year-old gay man, moves home to Sacramento to take care of his mother, Joanne, who's in the advanced stages of leiomyosarcoma. Being home is further complicated by his father's refusal to accept his sexuality, ten years after he came out. As Joanne struggles through chemo, decides to quit treatment, and begins to decline, each of the family members deal with the inevitable loss in their own way.
Production.
The film is loosely based on Kelly's own mother's death in 2009. Kelly chose to deliberately start the film by showing Molly Shannon's character dying "because I didn’t want the movie to be about, 'Well, does she or doesn’t she?'" also noting that it sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Shannon was an early choice for Kelly although his managers expressed doubt about this happening from an early stage. Kelly noted that Shannon in the film resembles his own mother: "I don’t look at the movie and see my dad as that, or myself, or my sisters, but I do see my mom, and it was kind of accidental," adding that he had felt weird directing her due to the similarities. Sissy Spacek was originally attached to play Joanne.
Release.
The film had its world premiere at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival on January 21. It was the opening night film at the San Diego International Film Festival and the closing night film at OUTFEST. It also played at film festivals in Dallas, Sarasota, Seattle, Nantucket, Sundance London Prague and Brno.
In February 2016, Netflix acquired worldwide streaming rights to the film. At the same time, Vertical Entertainment picked up the North American theatrical rights for the film and plans on releasing the film in the fall for a campaign targeted at the 2017 Oscars. The film was released on September 9, 2016.
Critical reception.
"Other People" received positive reviews from critics. It holds an 85% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 59 reviews, with an average rating of 7.1/10. The site's critical consensus reads, ""Other People" resists easy melodrama, rewarding viewers with a smart, subtle look at family dynamics with a talented cast and a finely calibrated blend of funny and serious moments." On Metacritic, the film holds a rating of 68 out of 100, based on 23 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
In its review of the film, "The Hollywood Reporter" stated, "Ably playing the loving son, a comedy writer quietly worrying that his life is falling apart even without having Mom's cancer in the picture, Jesse Plemons delivers on the promise he has shown in so many supporting roles since his Friday Night Lights breakthrough." "New York" magazine praised Shannon's performance and the supporting performance of Totah, describing his performance as follows: "The child actor is only featured in two of "Other People"'s scenes—he plays the flamboyant younger brother of Plemons’s best friend—but he makes the goddamn most of them: Totah waltzes into his first scene casually hitting on the far-older Plemons, then spends his second scene in drag, staging an over-the-top, twerk-filled performance for his bemused family."
Awards.
Molly Shannon won Best Supporting Female at the 2017 Film Independent Spirit Awards while Jesse Plemons was nominated for Best Male Lead; Chris Kelly for Best First Screenplay; and Chris Kelly, Sam Bisbee, Adam Scott, and Naomi Scott for Best First Feature. The film won the Audience Award for Best Narrative Film at the Nantucket Film Festival.


Stop and identify statutes

"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in these states.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause. In "Terry v. Ohio" (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court established that it is constitutional for police to temporarily detain a person based on an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and then to conduct a patdown for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. Then in "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada" (2004), the Supreme Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid "Terry" stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
However, some "stop and identify" statutes that are unclear about how people must identify themselves violate suspects' due process through the void for vagueness doctrine. For instance, in Kolender v. Lawson (1983), the Court invalidated a California law requiring "credible and reliable" identification as overly vague. The court also held that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to give his name if he has a reasonable belief that giving his name could be incriminating.
The Nevada "stop-and-identify" law at issue in "Hiibel" allows police officers to detain any person they encounter under circumstances which reasonably indicate that "the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime"; the person may be detained only to "ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad." In turn, the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement, and that the person detained "identify himself", but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted "identify" under the state's law to mean merely stating one's name.
As of April 2008, 23 other states have similar laws. Additional states (including Texas and Oregon) have such laws just for motorists.
Encounters between law enforcement and the general public.
In the United States, interactions between police and others fall into three general categories: consensual ("contact" or "conversation"), detention (often called a "Terry" stop, after "Terry v. Ohio", ), or arrest. "Stop and identify" laws pertain to detentions.
Different obligations apply to drivers of motor vehicles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver's license to police upon request.
Consensual.
At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"
that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or herself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.
Police are not required to tell a person that he or she is free to decline to answer questions and go about their business;
however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"
Reasonable suspicion.
A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority. In "Terry v. Ohio", the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a "frisk") if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.
Note that while the police officer must have reasonable suspicion to detain a person, they have no obligation to inform the person what that suspicion was. The only time the officer would have to articulate the suspicion is if the person was arrested, and challenged the validity of the stop in court.
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.
However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of "Terry" to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.
Before "Hiibel", it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to disclose his name. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,
and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.
In " Hiibel", the Court opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some "stop and identify" laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.
, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name; however, some states, such as Arizona, have specifically codified that a detained person is not required to provide any information aside from their full name.
Arrest.
A detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest.
But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings, and his or her immediate surroundings.
Whether an arrested person must identify himself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question him, they are required to inform the person of his Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, "Miranda" does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.
It is not clear whether a "stop and identify" law could compel giving one's name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give his name and other biographical information,
and some state courts
have held that refusal to give one's name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give his name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.
Obligation to identify.
States not listed do not have a requirement to show Identification to law enforcement officers. Some states listed have "Stop and ID" laws which may or may not require someone to identify themselves during an investigative detention.
While Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state. "Henes v. Morrissey", 194 Wis.2d 338, 353-54 (1995). Annotations for Wisconsin §968.24, however, state "The principles of "Terry" permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a "Terry" stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so", citing "Hiibel" as authority.
Hiibel held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Henes v. Morrissey that "A crime is made up of two parts: proscribed conduct and a prescribed penalty. "The former without the latter is no crime. ... In this case no statute penalizes a refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer, and no penalty is set forth in the statute for refusing to identify oneself. This statute is part of Chapter 968 entitled "Commencement of Criminal Proceedings. By its very terms sec. 968.24 empowers a law enforcement officer to stop and question "in the vicinity where the person was stopped." The statute does not authorize a law enforcement officer to make an arrest."(These quotes comes from the dissenting opinion but is in line with the majority opinion.) Additionally Henes v. Morrissey held that a detained person not providing their name isn't on its own a violation of 946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer as the act of not identifying one's self
isn't a false statement with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty.
Neither is Illinois, since the Illinois Second District Appellate Court Decision in "People v. Fernandez", 2011 IL App (2d) 100473, which specifically states that section 107-14 is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, not the Criminal Code of 1961, and governs the conduct of police officers. The fact remains that there is no corresponding duty in the Criminal Code of 1961 for a suspect to identify himself
or herself.
, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a "Terry" stop, but "Hiibel" held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement, and 24 states have done so. The opinion in "Hiibel" implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves, and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.
The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:
Variations in "stop and identify" laws.
, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interaction with other laws.
In states whose "stop and identify laws" do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer".
For example, the Nevada "stop and identify" law challenged in "Hiibel" did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel's refusal to identify himself
constituted a violation of Nevada "obstructing" law.
A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws was reached in "Oliver v. Woods" (10th Cir. 2000).
Interpretation by courts.
"Stop and identify" laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording
similar to the Nevada law upheld in "Hiibel", but a California appellate court, in "People v. Solomon" (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in "Kolender v. Lawson", .
Some courts have recognized a distinction authorizing police to demand identifying information and specifically imposing an obligation of a suspect to respond.
Other courts have apparently interpreted "demand" to impose an obligation on the detainee to comply.
Wording and interpretation by state courts of "obstructing" laws also varies; for example, New York "obstructing" law
apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction;
likewise, a violation of the Colorado "obstructing" law appears to require use or threat of use of physical force. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held in "Dempsey v. People", No. 04SC362 (2005) (PDF) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the "totality of the circumstances" that could constitute obstructing an officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.
Utah "obstructing" law does not require a physical act, but merely a failure to follow a "lawful order . . . necessary to effect the . . . detention";
a divided court in "Oliver v. Woods" concluded that failure to present identification constituted a violation of that law.
It is not universally agreed that, absent a "stop and identify law", there is no obligation for a detainee to identify himself. For example, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in "Hiibel", California "stop and identify" statute was voided in "Kolender v. Lawson". But in "People v. Long",
decided four years after "Kolender", a California appellate court found no constitutional impropriety in a police officer's demand for written identification from a detainee whom they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime. The issue before the "Long" court was a request for suppression of evidence uncovered in a search of the defendant's wallet, so the issue of refusal to present identification was not directly addressed; however, the author of the "Long" opinion had apparently concluded in a 1980 case that failure to identify oneself did not provide a basis for arrest.
Nonetheless, some cite "Long" in maintaining that refusal to present written identification constitutes obstructing an officer.
Others disagree, and maintain that persons detained by police in California cannot be compelled to identify themselves.
Some courts, e.g., "State v. Flynn" (Wis. 1979)
and "People v. Loudermilk" (Calif. 1987),
have held that police may perform a search for written identification if a suspect refuses to provide it;
a later California decision, "People v. Garcia" (2006), strongly disagreed.
In the case of "Utah v. Strieff" (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an officer's stop of Edward Strieff and his demand for identification from Strieff was unlawful under Utah state law, but that the evidence collected pursuant to the stop was admissible due to the determination that Strieff was subject to a pre-existing arrest warrant. Therefore, the pre-existing warrant "attenuated" the unlawful stop-and-identify.
In North Carolina, State v. White interpreted North Carolina's "Resisting officers" statute to apply to suspects who fail to identify themselves to police officers. Conversely, West Virginia's courts decided that their resisting arrest statute did not include individuals who refused to identify themselves.
Recommendations of legal-aid organizations.
Some legal organizations, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California,
recommend to either remain silent or to identify oneself whether or not a jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" law:
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should:
Other countries.
Many countries allow police to demand identification and arrest people who do not carry any (or refuse to produce so). Normally these countries provide all residents with national identity cards, which have the identity information the police would want to know, including citizenship. Foreign visitors need to have their passport available to show at all times. In some cases national identity cards from certain other countries are accepted.
For example, in Portugal it is compulsory to carry the state ID card at all times. This card named Cartão de Cidadão - Citizen Card is an electronic card which includes biometric information, id number, social security number, fiscal information etc. Police can only ask for the ID card in public or a place open to public and only if there is a reasonable suspicion the person committed a crime. A certified copy of the ID card can be presented in such situations. If a citizen does not carry the ID card or its certified copy, the police will escort the person to the police department to remain detained until clear identification can be obtained.
In other countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, police generally have no power to demand identification unless they have a statutory power to do so. For example, these countries have laws that require those driving to produce their licence (or state their name, address, etc.) when stopped by police. Police may also require people to identify themselves if they have reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed a crime.


Frank Barnett

Frank Elliott Barnett (July 20, 1933 – July 15, 2016) was the 49th Governor of American Samoa from October 1, 1976, to May 27, 1977. Before becoming governor, he was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a Tennessee attorney. He served as the first Lieutenant Governor of American Samoa for two years prior to his governorship. While Governor, a number of Samoans signed a petition accusing him of abusing local officials; others signed a counter-petition supporting him, and the charges were eventually dropped. This arose from his firing of Mere Betham, a native who had been serving as Samoan Director of Education, an action he defended as necessary to improve education on the island, but others decried as racist; Barnett reinstated Betham one week after dismissing her.
Barnett graduated from Knoxville High School in Knoxville, Tennessee in 1950. He served in the United States Marine Corps. Barnett went to University of Tennessee and later received his law degree in 1959 from University of Tennessee College of Law. He practiced law in Knoxville, Tennessee and was involved with the Republican Party.


Jins Shamsuddin

Tan Sri Datuk Mohamed Zain "Jins" Shamsuddin (Jawi: محمد زين بن شمس الدين; born 5 November 1935 – 1 March 2017) was a Malaysian film actor, director, politician, writer and producer. He is one of the most legendary and talented film director and actor in Malaysia.
Early life and film career.
Mohamed Zain was born in Taiping, Perak on 5 November 1935. He went to SMK King Edward VII Taiping, Perak and he completed his Senior Cambridge exams in 1956, hoping to continue his studies at the University of Malaya in Singapore (currently the National University of Singapore). His hopes were dashed when the university's admission officer said that they would "keep his application in view". His great-uncle, who was a teacher at the prestigious Anderson School in Ipoh, however managed to apply for a place to study electrical engineering in England three months into the deadline. Zain would use this spare time to take nightly English courses while he stayed with a relative who was the director for Radio Malaysia's education wing.
Meanwhile, there were rehearsals of a play that were going on nearby, in which Zain would watch them daily. The lead actor of the play would later chose him as his stand-in, with the blessings of the cast and crew, when it was learnt that the lead's mother fell ill and the lead had to attend to her. When the lead actor's mother passed away and he could not resume his role, Zain's stand-in became permanent. The play would eventually open at the Victoria Memorial Hall in Singapore. This is where he would be discovered by a Shaw Brothers public relations officer, who approached him about wanting to act in a movie. He agreed, and thus made his screen debut in "Keadilan Illahi" in 1956. He went on to act in several films until eventually becoming a main star in 1957 through "Pancha Delima", a film directed by P Ramlee.
Rising popularity and other ventures.
From 1966 to 1968, Zain had starred in several action movies produced by Malay Film Production where he portrays Jefri Zain, a James Bond-like spy character.
He had pursued his studies in the London Film School from 1970 to 1972, obtaining his Diploma in Motion Picture Technology and graduated with first class honours.
In 1981, Zain collaborated with the Royal Malaysia Police to produce and direct ";" a film dramatizing the Bukit Kepong incident, which was a chaotic armed conflict between the Malayan police and Malayan Communist Party gunmen during the Malayan Emergency. The movie, which costed about RM1.3 million to make and collected RM1.7 million at the box-office, won eight awards in the 3rd Malaysia Film Festival the next year including the Best Film category. The film eventually went under a restoration project by KRU Studios in 2014.
For much of his life, Zain was interested in making a film about the events that led to the assassination of the British official J.W.W. Birch in Perak in 1875. A newspaper report indicated that he had begun work on such a film in 1992, but it was not completed. In 2004, Zain announced plans to make an epic English-language film entitled "The King of the River: Pasir Salak", though the project was ultimately never realized. Even five years later in 2009, Zain expressed his eagerness for the project that he considered his lifelong ambition, saying "I hope to complete my movie on the historical events that happened in Pasir Salak before I die."
Political career.
On 13 October 2004, he became the first actor-politician in Malaysia following his appointment as a member of the Dewan Negara in the 11th Parliament of Malaysia. He continued to be a Senator for two terms until 11 February 2011.
Personal life.
Zain was first married to actress in Singapore in 1961, from which their marriage bore a son named Jefri Jins. Their marriage however was short-lived, eventually divorcing in 1963. Ten years later in 1973, he married Halijah Abdullah. They had two children together, Putera Hang Jebat and Putera Hang Nadim.
Illness and death.
He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in February 2011, causing him to gradually unable to speak or recognise anybody else, even his own family. When asked who his wife was and where his sons were at one point, he would spontaneously reply: "I'm not married...I don't have any children".
Following several years of bad health, Jins died at 5:45 pm at a clinic in Taman Melawati after choking on cekodok on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 at the age of 81, as confirmed by his second son Putera Hang Nadim.


Amnesty International South Africa

Amnesty International South Africa (AI SA) is a South African organisation that works to end human rights abuses along with its affiliate organization Amnesty International.
Amnesty International South Africa was founded in 1990 and grew from modest beginnings to become a key player in South Africa's transition to democracy and an important part of Amnesty's international movement, hosting the Amnesty International ICM in 1997. Today Amnesty International South Africa continues to campaign on multiple fronts including human rights education, women's rights, arms control and Zimbabwe.
History.
Amnesty International did not have a group presence in South Africa up to the end of the 1980s because mixed race meeting were not allowed under the apartheid regime. However, there were individual members linked to London. It was only in 1990 when the local situation improved with a reduction in repression and the unbanning of the ANC and its allied organisations, that the International Secretariat allowed the formation of groups in the country.
In 1990-92, four groups started around the country - Port Elizabeth was the first group, followed by Durban, Pietermartizburg and Pretoria. Members from these groups met in 1993 to form a national coordinating committee (some representatives Piotr Nowosad and Linda Stiebel). By that time there were additional groups in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Grahamstown. A national office was opened in Cape Town in 1995 and this moved to Pretoria in 1998. By that time a Board had taken the place of the NCC. A director was appointed for the first time in 2001.
Amnesty South Africa's achievements in the 1990s included lobbying to abolish the death penalty; developing a national police human rights training programme focusing on children's rights; and lobbying to stop South African arms sales to states such as Turkey, Rwanda and Burundi, whose human rights records were questionable. In 1995 Pierre Sane, Amnesty International's secretary general, visited South Africa and met the deputy president Thabo Mbeki to discuss human rights abuses in South Africa, Nigeria and the African Great Lakes region. In 1997, Amnesty South Africa hosted the international movement's ICM meeting in Cape Town, also attended by nobel prizewinner Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
In 2006 the membership at the AGM voted for the Programme for Growth which allowed the International Mobilisation Fund, based at the International Secretariat, to take over governance and management of the organisation for a period of 2–3 years.
Campaigns today.
Amnesty International South Africa runs a national human rights education programme , campaigns strongly to stop violence against women and against human rights violations in Zimbabwe .
The Darfur conflict in Sudan is one of Amnesty International's top priorities, as a result of the large scale human rights abuses occurring. Amnesty has called for the introduction of a United Nations peacekeeping force to prevent conflict and stop further unnecessary suffering.


Thomas Virgil Pittman

Thomas Virgil Pittman (March 28, 1916 – January 6, 2012) was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Early life and education.
Born in Enterprise, Alabama to the former Annie Lee Logan (1889-1982), the second wife of W.O. Pittman (1879-1965), Pittman had four older step-siblings and an older brother, Oscar L. Pittman. He picked cotton alongside both whites and blacks during the Great Depression. His ancestors had been among the white pioneers who settled Coffee County. While at the University of Alabama, Pittman joined the United States Army Reserve, serving from 1938 to 1942. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1939 and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Alabama School of Law in 1940.
Early career.
Pittman entered federal service as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1940 to 1944. He served in the United States Naval Reserve and was called to duty as a lieutenant near the end of World War II, serving from 1944 to 1946. Upon discharge, he entered private practice in Gadsden, Alabama from 1946 to 1951, practicing as the law firm of Pittman & Miller. Pittman became a Circuit Judge of the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Alabama from 1951 to 1953, and the circuit's Presiding Judge from 1953 to 1966. He also taught as a lecturer at the University of Alabama Center at Gadsden from 1948 to 1966.
Federal judicial service.
President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Judge Pittman on June 13, 1966, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, a new joint seat authorized by 80 Stat. 75. The United States Senate confirmed the nomination on June 29, 1966, and Pittman received his commission on June 29, 1966. For several years he traveled in a circuit of federal courthouses in Montgomery, Mobile, Selma, Dothan and Opelika. His service on the Middle District terminated on June 2, 1970, when he was reassigned to only the Southern District, as its Chief Judge Daniel Holcombe Thomas neared retirement. Pittman served as Chief Judge of the Southern District from 1971 to 1981. He became the first federal judge in Mobile to hire black and female law clerks. Judge Pittman assumed senior status on July 15, 1981, but continued with a reduced docket for decades. As of 2020, Pittman is the last judge appointed by a Democratic president to the Southern District of Alabama.
During the Civil Rights Era, Judge Pittman was assigned two complex cases brought by the NAACP involving at-large offices in Mobile County, Alabama. Former Chief Judge Thomas had handled the "Birdie Mae Davis" school desegregation case for decades, which ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court twice, but would be overshadowed by school desegregation cases from Virginia and North Carolina. After Judge Thomas' assumed senior status in 1971, Judge William Brevard Hand, would handle that case, which formally ended on March 27, 1997. Judge Pittman was assigned the election case with Wiley Bolden as lead plaintiff and which concerned at large election of Mobile County's three commissioners (each elected at-large and who governed the county, each being named Mobile's mayor during his rotating designation as president); Judge Hand had recused himself because his former firm represented the city. A similar case, also discussed below, involved the at-large election of the school board, and the lead plaintiff was Lila Brown. At the heart of both cases was the at-large election system begun following the 1911 revision of Alabama's constitution; no African Americans had thereafter won any county-wide office.
Other important or controversial cases which Judge Pittman handled involved the Choctaw County Schools (1968), Mobile police officers (1971), Mobile Sheriff Thomas Purvis (1977), Mobile police officers (1978), Choctaw County jail food (1980) and Mobile County jail overcrowding (1981).
The "Bolden" case.
The "Bolden" case went to trial on July 12, 1976; and on October 21, 1976, Judge Pittman issued a decision for the plaintiffs which led to considerable controversy. The "Constitutional Crisis Committee" asked for Pittman's impeachment, and Mobile commissioner and then-mayor Lambert C. Mims offered to sign the impeachment petition, but the city attorney advised against it. While 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated his decision, Judge Pittman postponed the 1977 city election, allowing the three committeemen elected in 1973 to remain in office, and the appellate court later affirmed Judge Pittman's decision.
Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and in Mobile v. Bolden reversed the appellate judgment and vacated Judge Pittman's decision. To comply, Judge Pittman held a second hearing beginning May 1981, although this time elections were not postponed. Meanwhile a "smoking gun" letter was discovered and admitted into evidence—written by Mobile lawyer and Congressman Frederick G. Bromberg to the Alabama legislature in 1909, it clearly indicated the purpose of the at-large system was to prevent blacks from holding office. Both Commissioners Mims and Greenough promised not to appeal the second "Bolden" decision if the city lost, although Commissioner Robert Doyle avoided the issue. Ultimately, Doyle won re-election immediately, and both Mims and Greenough won re-election in runoffs. However, before the second trial Michael Donald was found beaten, strangled and with his throat slashed. Four Ku Klux Klan members were convicted for the crime in state court, and his mother won a $7 million settlement that effectively ended the Klan's operations in Alabama.
Judge Pittman's second "Bolden" decision, issued on April 15, 1982 also favored the plaintiffs. On January 31, 1983, rather than appeal, all parties agreed to a settlement whereby the next election for city office would be based on districts rather than at-large. The Alabama legislature passed appropriate legislation, introduced by state representative Mary Zoghby, and 72% of state voters on May 15, 1985 approved switching to a mayor-council form of government. Three African Americans were elected among the 7 new districts, the first blacks to serve in Mobile's government since Reconstruction.
The "Lila Brown" case.
Lila G. Brown's case alleging that at-large elections of members of the Mobile County school board diluted the voting strength of African Americans in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments began in 1976. Thus it came more than a decade since the "Birdie Mae Davis" school desegregation case had begun, and after the November 1974 elections replaced long-time school board members Charles McNeil and William Crane with young local attorney Dan Alexander (who would become the school board's dominant force for decades, but after declining to run for election after resolution of the "Brown" legal case, would be convicted for extorting kickbacks from local architects as Mobile's schools finally began addressing infrastructure deficits in 1977) and Ruth Drago (a retired teacher and former president of the Mobile County Education Association and Alabama Education Association). In the 1976 election, Hiram Bosarge (a retired army veteran who would decades later be acquitted despite Alexander's conviction), replaced veteran school commissioner Robert Williams.
Judge Pittman had conducted a bench trial, and (before the November 1978 elections) had ordered five single-member school board districts, with Alexander made the non-voting board president, and the Fifth Circuit had affirmed. Retired air force officer Norman Cox and local dentist and NAACP president Robert Gilliard had been elected as the school board's first black members, each from a majority-black district. However, Alexander was dissatisfied by losing his vote, and the case was ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and held pending the decision in Mobile v. Bolden, then vacated in light of that decision. When Alexander tried to strip votes from Gilliard and Cox, Judge PIttman affirmed their offices, as well as single-member districts for the upcoming September election, and again denied Alexander a vote in school board meetings. Alexander called for Judge Pittman's removal, and rhetoric heated in 1980. The Fifth Circuit allowed Alexander to remain on the board pending the new trial scheduled for March 1981. In January 1982 the school board approved a plan to end the "Birdie Mae Davis" litigation handled by Judge Hand, which plan included a committee to design a plan to create a unified school system and appointment of two sociologists as a professional observation team.
However, Judge Pittman's orders from the "Bolden" and "Brown" cases proved controversial, and appeared to require a special school board election in 1983. When the new 11th Circuit affirmed his order and the Supreme Court denied the school board's' appeal, Alexander declined to seek election, as did long-time board member Berger, so their seats were won by Republican Howard (Chipper) Mathis III and Judy McCain (who soon was elected the board's president and promised like Mathis to direct money and energy toward school rooms rather than courtrooms).
Personal life.
Judge Pittman remained married to his first wife, Floy Lassater, for 56 years, even becoming her main caregiver when she was stricken with Alzheimer's disease. They raised a son (W. Lee Pittman) and a daughter Karen Pittman Gordy. Several years after her death, he remarried, at age 86, to Lily Vermeuille, who was also active in Mobile's First Baptist Church, herself had a son Walter Verneuille and a daughter Lea Verneuille, and ultimately survived him. Even while a federal judge, Pittman volunteered for a meals-on-wheels program, delivering meals to the elderly. He also was extremely scrupulous about court finances, going to a nearby pay phone rather than make personal phone calls on the line to his judicial chambers. He was also a life trustee of Samford University.
Death and legacy.
Judge Pittman fully retired in March 2006, aged 89. At the year's end, the Mobile and Baldwin County bar associations awarded him the 2007 Howell Heflin award for bringing honor to the legal profession. On January 6, 2012, when Judge Helflin died in Mobile, Alabama. Although once a pariah in Mobile such that a cross was burned on his lawn and he stopped going to church for six months lest his presence lead to an attack on the congregation, by his death Judge had become much admired, and Mobile's city council passed a resolution honoring him.
Several of his law clerks became judges, including U.S. Magistrate Judge Sonja Bivens, and Alabama Circuit Court Judge Craig Sorrell Pittman.


Arthur Kellermann

Arthur L. Kellermann (born 1954) is an American physician, epidemiologist, professor of emergency medicine at VCU School of Medicine, and CEO of the VCU Health System. He was formerly professor and dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Kellerman served as director of the RAND Institute of Health and founded the department of emergency medicine at Emory University and the Center for Injury Control at Rollins School of Public Health. His writings include 200 publications on various aspects of emergency cardiac care, health services research, injury prevention and the role of emergency departments in providing health care to the poor. Kellermann is known for his research on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries and deaths, which he interpreted not as random, unavoidable acts but as preventable public-health priorities. Kellermann and his research have been strongly disputed by gun rights organizations, in particular by the National Rifle Association, although Kellermann's findings have been supported by a large body of peer-reviewed research finding that increasing gun ownership is associated with increased rates of homicide and violence.
Education.
Kellermann received a Bachelor of Science with distinction in biology from Rhodes College (1976), an M.D. from the Emory University School of Medicine (1980), and an M.P.H. from the University of Washington School of Public Health (1985).
Career.
Kellermann was a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory School of Medicine from 1999 to 2010. He co-chaired the institute's Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance, which produced six reports on "America's uninsured crisis: Consequences for health and health care" from 2001 to 2004. At Emory, Kellermann served as the associate dean for health policy (2007-2010), the first chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine (1999-2007), and the director of the Emory Center for Injury Control at the Rollins School of Public Health (1993-2006). In 2007, Kellermann received John G. Wiegenstein Leadership Award by the American College of Emergency Physicians.
From 2006 to 2007 he was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellow and joined the staff of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In 2007 he was presented with the John G. Wiegenstein Leadership Award by the American College of Emergency Physicians.
Kellermann was Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation (2010-2013) and vice president and director at RAND Health (2011-2012).
He co-chaired the Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, of which he is an elected member. Kellermann holds career achievement awards for excellence in science from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and the Injury Control and Emergency Health Services Section of the American Public Health Association. Kellermann is a fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians and an elected member of the US National Academy of Sciences in the Institute of Medicine.
In a recent article published in "Health Affairs", he advocated a number of changes to the military health system, including using medically-trained enlisted members such as medics and corpsmen as "primary care technicians" in the stateside care system. He argued that their skills are currently under-utilized while not deployed, and that increasing the number of primary care providers would improve health outcomes and reduce costs.
Research.
Kellermann's work includes more than 200 scientific and lay publications on various aspects of advanced cardiac life support, health services research, injury prevention and the role of emergency departments in providing health care to the poor. Kellermann is known for his research on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries and deaths in the US. In a 1995 interview, Kellermann said he saw firearm injuries not as random, unavoidable acts but as preventable public health priority. Kellermann's studies, which indicate an increased risk of mortality associated with gun ownership, have been disputed by gun rights organizations, in particular by the National Rifle Association; although Kellermann's findings have been supported by a large body of peer-reviewed research finding that increasing gun ownership is associated with increased rates of homicide and violence.
Kellermann published several high-profile studies on the topic of gun-related injuries. In 1986, he coauthored a study published in the "New England Journal of Medicine" finding that for every self-defense homicide via firearm, there were 43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths. He coauthored additional studies published in the "New England Journal of Medicine" identifying firearm ownership as a risk factor for both homicide and suicide in the home. Gary Kleck, in a controversial paper, argued that most of the homicides in the 1993 study were not committed with the same gun kept in the household the decedent lived in. Kellermann responded that the mechanism behind the observed effect needed not result from the same gun kept in the household, but by the decedents having used these guns in failed self-defense.
Kellermann has published extensively in the areas of emergency medicine and public health, including studies of emergency cardiac care, use of diagnostic technologies in the emergency department, and on the use of progesterone as a treatment for traumatic brain injury. He has also published research on the role of emergency departments in providing health care to the poor, the role of insurance, and the situation of the uninsured. In recent years, he has written about domestic preparedness to respond to different forms of terrorism. Kellermann was instrumental in the planning and implementation of the American Heart Association's "Racing the Clock to Restart Atlanta's Hearts" initiative. He also played a role in the Institute of Medicine’s three-volume report on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States.


Billie Carleton

Billie Carleton (4 September 1896 – 28 November 1918) was an English musical comedy actress during the First World War. She began her professional stage career at age 15 and was playing roles in the West End by age 18. She appeared in the hit musical "The Boy" (1917), which led to a starring role in "The Freedom of the Seas" in 1918. At the age of 22, she was found dead, apparently of a drug overdose.
Life and career.
Born Florence Leonora Stewart in Bloomsbury, London, daughter of a chorus singer named Margaret Stewart and an unknown father, Carleton was raised by her aunt, Catherine Joliffe. Carleton left home at 15 to work on the stage and received her first break when the impresario C.B. Cochran promoted her from the chorus to a role in his 1914 revue "Watch Your Step". According to Cochran, despite having a weak voice, Carleton had a good stage presence, and her delicate beauty charmed the audience. When he was informed during the run of the show that Carleton was attending opium parties, Cochran fired her. He gave her another chance in 1917, when she took over the leading role from Gertie Millar in his show "Houp La!" She made little impression in the part, which she took on only a week before the show closed.
Carleton soon appeared for André Charlot in another revue "Some More Samples!" Although the critics again noted her weak voice, she had better success in this, and was engaged for the part of Joy Chatterton, a flapper in the hit musical farce "The Boy" when it opened at the Adelphi Theatre in August 1917. In May 1918, she appeared in "Fair and Warmer", this time playing a maid to Fay Compton's flapper. Then in August, she took the starring role of Phyllis Harcourt in "The Freedom of the Seas" at the Haymarket Theatre, briefly becoming the youngest leading lady in the West End.
Death and scandal.
On 27 November 1918, she left the theatre after performing, and, wearing a daringly diaphanous outfit designed by her friend Reggie de Veulle, attended the Victory Ball at the Royal Albert Hall. It was one of many such events held to commemorate the recent end of the war, but being under the patronage of a large number of aristocratic ladies, it was a particularly long and splendid affair, lasting into the small hours. The next day Carleton's maid found her dead in bed in her Savoy Hotel suite, apparently killed by an overdose of cocaine.
A coroner's inquest found that Carleton had died of a cocaine overdose "supplied to her by Reginald de Veulle in a culpable and negligent manner". De Veulle was charged with manslaughter and conspiracy to supply a prohibited drug under Regulation 40b of the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, which had been passed in 1916 and made possession of both cocaine and opium illegal for the first time in Britain. The trial was held before Mr Justice Salter, with Sir Richard Muir for the prosecution. De Veulle was acquitted of the first charge but pleaded guilty to the second, and was sentenced to eight months in prison.
Reports of the trial exposed details of Carleton's private life and those of her friends, particularly de Veulle, who previously had been involved in a homosexual blackmail case and had dressed in women's clothes. Although the milieu in which she moved was stigmatised as immoral and sordid, and although she had been the kept mistress of a man twenty years her senior, Carleton was seen largely as an innocent victim.
Ada Song Ping You was a Scotswoman who had married a Chinese man (Song Ping You) from whom she learned to use opium. After Carleton's death, You was sentenced to five months in jail with hard labour for preparing opium for smoking and supplying it to Carleton. The author Marek Kohn, however, argues that Carleton did not die from cocaine but from legal depressants taken to deal with her cocaine hangover.
In art and literature.
Noël Coward, who had known both Carleton and de Veulle, acknowledged her story as a source for his first successful play, "The Vortex". In Sax Rohmer's novel "Dope", the character Rita Dresden is based on Carleton.


Pepetua Serero

Pepetua Serero (died June 14 1989) was a Bougainvillean activist.
Serero was raised in Guava village on Bougainville, and attended Catholic mission schools run by the Marist Order. She later worked as a broadcast officer for the Bougainville radio station of the Australian colonial administration. In August 1987, along with her cousin Francis Ona, she held a meeting of landowners surrounding the Panguna mine and formed a new, younger and more radical executive of the Panguna Landowners Association, with Serero as chairperson (chairlady) and Ona as general secretary. She was an outspoken advocate for the rights of local landowners and against the environmental damage caused by the mine.
Serero had been ill from the beginning of the crisis that was to become the Bougainville Civil War, and died from an asthma attack in June 1989, only months after the conflict over the mine had turned into a fight over Bougainvillean secession. Her cousin and colleague in the Panguna Landowners' Association leadership, Ona, would go on to lead the Bougainville Revolutionary Army in the war.


Ulf Olsson

Ulf Olsson (19 December 1951 – 10 January 2010), also known as Helénmannen ("the Helén man") was a Swedish murderer. He was convicted for the murders of 10-year-old Helén Nilsson and 26-year-old Jannica Ekblad in 1989. Found after a DNA test in 2004 (a test series including 28 other men), Olsson was convicted and sentenced to psychiatric care in 2005. Although he was first brought to the attention of the police in 2002, he had been in contact with two different police officers through anonymous letters and phone calls since only a couple of months after the murders.
The investigation is the second-largest in Swedish history, only surpassed by the investigation of the 1986 assassination of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme.
In 2020, Ulf Olsson was profiled on the sox-part Sveriges Television series "Jakten på en mördare", a series about the murders of Helén Nilsson and Jannica Ekblad. Actor Magnus Schmitz played Olsson.
Murders.
Helén Nilsson.
Helén Nilsson was abducted on the night of 20 March 1989, and she was found murdered six days later. She had been alive for several days after the abduction and had been raped and assaulted. A number of leads were followed over the years but Olsson was not a person of interest to the police until 2002. A police investigator involved with a re-opening of the case was informed of a man (Olsson) who had been suspected by the locals around the time of the murder. The police were informed and in 2004 he was one of 29 men who were asked for a voluntary DNA sample. The test result indicated that Olsson was the murderer with an error probability of one in 43 million.
Jannica Ekblad.
Jannica Ekblad was a prostitute in Malmö. She was found murdured on 4 August 1989, and since Olsson, who was convicted of killing her, claimed he never met her, details about her last hours in life are scarce. She talked to a female prostitute friend through her house phone, attempting to have her follow Ekblad and a man to a location outside of Malmö, but the friend was unable to do so. No names were used, but it is believed that the man was Olsson. Ekblad also visited a male friend of hers, who would occasionally provide her with heroin. Ekblad made a short visit and appeared worried. She was seen leaving together with a man and she was not seen again. In 2004, large amounts of Ekblad's blood were found in the summer cottage that belonged to Olsson at the time of the murder. This and other evidence, including identification of his sperm in her vagina, led to his conviction for her murder.
Connection between the murders.
A police technician investigating the two murders was in an early stage convinced that the same killer was responsible for both murders. Although there were clear differences in the two victims (a young girl and a prostitute), other parameters such as the type of location in which the bodies were discovered, the combination of strangulation and massive force against their heads as well as the presence of dog hairs on both bodies, made the investigators suspect there was a connection. Before the evidence against Olsson had been collected in 2004, however, there was no established connection between the murders.
Time in psychiatric care.
Death.
At 5:00 am CET on 10 January 2010, Ulf Olsson published a post on his blog where he stated "the best thing for me is simply to be allowed to die, rather than to sit here as a living dead" (Swedish: "det bästa för mig är helt enkelt att bara få dö, än att sitta här som en levande död"). At approximately 6:15 am CET the same morning, Ulf Olsson was found dead by staff of the psychiatric clinic where he was situated. Officials of the psychiatric clinic confirmed that he had committed suicide by hanging. He left behind one son born after the murders.