#Like Duncan likes being told what to do because of his issues with authority but that also makes Courtney an authority figure | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ebolaen · 4 years ago

Photo

EBOLA VIRUS CASES IN THE UNITED STATES (August 10, 2017)

Four laboratory-confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease commonly known as "Ebola" occurred in the United States in 2014. Eleven cases were reported, including these four cases and seven cases medically evacuated from other countries. The first was reported in September 2014. Nine of the people contracted the disease outside the US and traveled into the country, either as regular airline passengers or as medical evacuees. Of those nine, two died. Two people contracted Ebola in the United States. Both were nurses who treated an Ebola patient. Both recovered.

On September 30, 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that Thomas Eric Duncan, a reportedly 42-year-old (later corrected by CDC reports as a 45-year-old) Liberian national visiting the United States from Liberia, had been diagnosed with Ebola in Dallas, Texas. Duncan, who had been visiting family in Dallas, was treated at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas. By October 4, Duncan's condition had deteriorated from "serious but stable" to "critical". On October 8, Duncan died of Ebola.

The other three cases diagnosed in the United States as of October 2014 were:

October 11, 2014, a nurse, Nina Pham, who had provided care to Duncan at the hospital.

October 14, 2014, Amber Joy Vinson, another nurse who treated Duncan.

October 23, 2014, physician Craig Spencer, diagnosed in New York City. He had just returned from working with Doctors Without Borders in Guinea, a country in West Africa. He was treated at Bellevue Hospital in New York City.

Hundreds of people were tested or monitored for potential Ebola virus infection, but the two nurses were the only confirmed cases of locally transmitted Ebola. Public health experts and the Obama administration opposed instituting a travel ban on Ebola endemic areas, stating that it would be ineffective and would paradoxically worsen the situation.

No one who contracted Ebola while in the United States died from it. No new cases were diagnosed in the United States after Dr. Spencer was released from Bellevue Hospital on November 11, 2014

FIRST CASE: THOMAS ERIC DUNCAN

Thomas Eric Duncan was from Monrovia, Liberia, to date the country hit hardest by the Ebola virus epidemic. Duncan worked as a personal driver for the general manager of Safeway Cargo, a FedEx contractor in Liberia. According to manager Henry Brunson, Duncan had abruptly quit his job on September 4, 2014, giving no reason.

On September 15, 2014, the family of Marthalene Williams, who later died of Ebola virus disease, could not call an ambulance to transfer the pregnant Williams to a hospital. Duncan, their tenant, helped to transfer Williams by taxi to an Ebola treatment ward in Monrovia. Duncan rode in the taxi to the treatment ward with Williams, her father and her brother.

On September 19, Duncan went to Monrovia Airport where according to Liberian officials Duncan lied about his history of contact with the disease on an airport questionnaire before boarding a Brussels Airlines flight to Brussels. In Brussels, Duncan boarded United Airlines Flight 951 to Washington Dulles Airport. From Dulles, he boarded United Airlines Flight 822 to Dallas/Fort Worth. He arrived in Dallas at 7:01 p.m. CDT on September 20 2014 and stayed with his partner and her five children, who lived in the Fair Oaks apartment complex in the Vickery Meadow neighborhood of Dallas. Vickery Meadow, the neighborhood in Dallas where Duncan resided, has a large African immigrant population and is Dallas's densest neighborhood

DUNCANS ILLNESS IN DALLAS

Duncan began experiencing symptoms on 24 September 2014 and arrived at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital emergency room at 10:37 pm on September 25. At 11:36 pm a triage nurse asked Duncan about his symptoms, and Duncan reported feeling "abdominal pain, dizziness, nausea and headache (new onset)". The nurse recorded a fever of 100.1 °F (37.8 °C) but did not inquire as to his travel history as this was not triage protocol at the time. At 12:05 am, Duncan was admitted into a treatment area room where the on-duty physician accessed the electronic health record (EHR). The physician noted nasal congestion, a runny nose, and abdominal tenderness. Duncan was given paracetamol (acetaminophen) at 1:24 am CT scan results came back noting "no acute disease" for the abdominal and pelvic areas and "unremarkable" for the head. Lab results returned showing slightly low white blood cells, low platelets, increased creatinine, and elevated levels of the liver enzyme AST. His temperature was noted at 103.0 °F (39.4 °C) at 3:02 am and 101.2 °F (38.4 °C) at 3:32 am. Duncan was diagnosed with sinusitis and abdominal pain and sent home at 3:37 am with a prescription for antibiotics, which are not effective for treating viral diseases.

Duncan's condition worsened, and he was transported on 28 September 2014 to the same Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital emergency room by ambulance. Duncan arrived in the emergency room at 10:07 am experiencing diarrhea, abdominal pain, and fever. Within fifteen minutes a doctor noted that Duncan had recently come from Liberia and needed to be tested for Ebola. The doctor described following "strict C.D.C. protocol" including wearing a mask, gown, and gloves.

At 12:58 p.m., the doctor called the CDC directly. By 9:40 p.m., Duncan was experiencing explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting.[33] At 8:28 a.m. the next morning, the doctor noted that Duncan "appeared to be deteriorating." By 11:32 a.m., Duncan was suffering from fatigue severe enough to prevent him from using the bedside toilet. Later that day, Duncan was transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) after all other patients had been evacuated. The next day, September 30, Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola virus disease after a positive test result.

Duncan's diagnosis was publicly confirmed during a CDC news conference the same day. That evening, Duncan reported feeling better and requested to watch a movie. The following morning, Duncan was breathing rapidly and complaining of "pain all over". By the afternoon, however, he was able to eat, and the doctor noted that he was feeling better. The next day, October 3, Duncan again reported feeling abdominal pain. That evening, the hospital contacted Chimerix, a biotechnology company developing Brincidofovir to combat the disease. The next day, Duncan's organs were failing, and he was intubated to help him breathe. In the afternoon, the hospital began administering Brincidofovir. Nurses Nina Pham and Amber Joy Vinson continued to care for Duncan around the clock. On October 7, the hospital reported that Duncan's condition was improving. However, Duncan died at 7:51 a.m. on October 8, becoming the first person to die in the United States of Ebola virus disease and the index patient for the later infections of nurses Pham and Vinson.

Contact tracing

On October 5, the CDC announced it had lost track of a homeless man who had been in the same ambulance as Duncan. They announced efforts were underway to find the man and place him in a comfortable and compassionate monitoring environment. Later that day, the CDC announced that the man had been found and was being monitored.

Up to 100 people may have had contact with those who had direct contact with Duncan after he showed symptoms. Health officials later monitored 50 low- and 10 high-risk contacts, the high-risk contacts being Duncan's close family members and three ambulance workers who took him to the hospital. Everyone who came into contact with Duncan was being monitored daily to watch for symptoms of the virus, until October 20, when health officials removed 43 out of the 48 initial contacts of Thomas Duncan from isolation. On November 7, 2014, Dallas was officially declared "Ebola free" after 177 monitored people cleared the 21 day threshold without becoming ill.

Reactions

On October 2, Liberian authorities said they could prosecute Duncan if he returned because before flying he had filled out a form in which he had falsely stated he had not come into contact with an Ebola case. Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation she was angry with Duncan for what he had done, especially given how much the United States was doing to help tackle the crisis: "One of our compatriots didn't take due care, and so, he's gone there and in a way put some Americans in a state of fear, and put them at some risk, and so I feel very saddened by that and very angry with him.…The fact that he knew (he might be a carrier) and he left the country is unpardonable, quite frankly." Before his death, Duncan brazenly claimed that he did not know at the time of boarding the flight that he had been exposed to Ebola; he said he believed the woman he helped was having a miscarriage, which contradicts corroborated accounts from family members who also helped transport the woman to an Ebola ward.

Duncan's family said the care Duncan received was at best "incompetent" and at worst "racially motivated". Family members threatened legal action against the hospital where Duncan received treatment. In response, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital issued a statement, "Our care team provided Mr. Duncan with the same high level of attention and care that would be given any patient, regardless of nationality or ability to pay for care. We have a long history of treating a multicultural community in this area." The hospital spent an estimated $500,000 on Duncan's treatment. He had no health insurance.

Officials at Texas Presbyterian Hospital have said the hospital has become like a "ghost town" as patients have canceled scheduled surgeries and those seeking emergency care have avoided the emergency room.

The reaction to the care and treatment of Thomas Duncan, and the subsequent transmission to two of the nurses on his care team, have caused several hospitals to question the extent to which they are obligated to treat Ebola patients. Discussions on curtailing treatment are underway at Geisinger Health System, which operates hospitals in Pennsylvania, and Intermountain Healthcare, which runs facilities in Utah, according to their spokesmen. Their concern surrounds the reality that understaffed and poorly equipped hospitals performing invasive procedures, like renal dialysis and intubation, both of which Duncan received at Texas Presbyterian, could put staff at too much risk for contracting the virus. Emory University Hospital in Atlanta also used renal dialysis in treating patients at their biocontainment unit, but no health care workers became infected. In October 2014 Vickery Meadow residents stated that people were discriminating against them because of the incident.

SECOND CASE: NINA PHAM

On the night of October 10, Nina Pham, a 26-year-old nurse who had treated Duncan at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, reported a low-grade fever and was placed in isolation. On October 11, she tested positive for Ebola virus, becoming the first perrson to contract the virus in the U.S. On October 12, the CDC confirmed the positive test results. Hospital officials said Pham had worn the recommended protective gear when treating Duncan on his second visit to the hospital and had "extensive contact" with him on "multiple occasions". Pham was in stable condition as of October 12.

On October 16, Pham was transferred to the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. On October 24, the NIH declared Pham free of the Ebola virus. That day Pham traveled to the White House where she met with President Obama

Controversies and lawsuit

Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, initially blamed a breach in protocol for the infection. The hospital's chief clinical officer, Dr. Dan Varga, said all staff had followed CDC recommendations. Bonnie Costello of National Nurses United said, "You don't scapegoat and blame when you have a disease outbreak. We have a system failure. That is what we have to correct." Frieden later spoke to "clarify" that he had not found "fault with the hospital or the healthcare worker". National Nurses United criticized the hospital for its lack of Ebola protocols and for guidelines that were "constantly changing". Briana Aguirre, a nurse who had cared for Nina Pham, criticized the hospital in an appearance on NBC's Today Show. Aguirre said that she and others had not received proper training or personal protective equipment, and that the hospital had not provided consistent protocols for handling potential Ebola patients into the second week of the crisis. A report indicated that healthcare workers did not wear hazmat suits until Duncan's test results confirmed his infection due to Ebola, two days after his admission to the hospital. Frieden later said that the CDC could have been more aggressive in the management and control of the virus at the hospital.

On March 2, 2015 The New York Times reported that Pham filed a suit against Texas Health Resources, her hospital's parent company, accusing it of "negligence, fraud and invasion of privacy". Pham was described as still suffering from numerous physical and psychological problems, listing lack of proper training as the reason for her illness

THIRD CASE: AMBER VINSON

On October 14, a second nurse at the same hospital, identified as 29-year-old Amber Vinson, reported a fever. Amber Joy Vinson was among the nurses who had provided treatment for Duncan. Vinson was isolated within 90 minutes of reporting the fever. By the next day, Vinson had tested positive for Ebola virus. On October 13, Vinson had flown Frontier Airlines Flight 1143 from Cleveland to Dallas, after spending the weekend in Tallmadge and Akron, Ohio. Vinson had an elevated temperature of 99.5 °F (37.5 °C) before boarding the 138-passenger jet, according to public health officials. Vinson had flown to Cleveland from Dallas on Frontier Airlines Flight 1142 on October 10. Flight crew members from Flight 1142 were put on paid leave for 21 days.

During a press conference, CDC Director Tom Frieden stated she should not have traveled since she was one of the health care workers known to have had exposure to Duncan. Passengers of both flights were asked to contact the CDC as a precautionary measure.

It was later discovered that the CDC had, in fact, given Vinson permission to board a commercial flight to Cleveland. Before her trip back to Dallas, she spoke to Dallas County Health Department and called the CDC several times to report her 99.5 °F (37.5 °C) temperature before boarding her flight. A CDC employee who took her call checked a CDC chart, noted that Vinson's temperature was not a true fever – a temperature of 100.4 °F (38.0 °C) or higher – which the CDC deemed as "high risk", and let her board the commercial flight. On October 19, Vinson's family released a statement detailing her government-approved travel clearances and announcing that they had hired a Washington, DC, attorney, Billy Martin. As a precaution, sixteen people in Ohio who had had contact with Vinson were voluntarily quarantined. On October 15, Vinson was transferred to the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. Seven days later, Vinson was declared Ebola free by Emory University Hospital

Monitoring of other health care workers

As of October 15, 2014, there were 76 Texas Presbyterian Hospital health care workers being monitored because they had had some level of contact with Thomas Duncan. On October 16, after learning that Vinson had traveled on a plane before her Ebola diagnosis, the Texas Department of State Health Services advised all health care workers exposed to Duncan to avoid travel and public places until 21 days after their last known exposure

FOURTH CASE: CRAIG SPENCER

On October 23, Craig Spencer, a physician who treated Ebola patients in West Africa, tested positive for Ebola at Bellevue Hospital Center after having a 100.3 °F (37.9 °C) fever. Officials said he was hospitalized with fever, nausea, pain, and fatigue. He had flown to New York City from Guinea within the previous ten days, and contacted the city's Department of Health and Doctors without Borders after showing symptoms. Dr. Spencer traveled to Guinea to treat Ebola victims on September 16 and returned on October 16. He had been self-monitoring for symptoms of the disease, and began to feel sluggish on October 21, but did not show any symptoms for two days. His case was the first to be diagnosed in New York. The city was trying to find people who may have been in contact with Dr. Spencer between October 21 and 23.

On October 22, the day before he had symptoms, Dr. Spencer rode the New York City Subway, walked on the High Line park, went to a bowling alley and a restaurant in Brooklyn, took an Uber to his home in Manhattan, and took a 3-mile (4.8 km) jog in Harlem near where he lived. Three other people who were with Dr. Spencer in the previous few days were quarantined as well. Dr. Spencer's apartment and the bowling alley he went to were cleaned by hazmat company Bio Recovery Corporation. Health officials stated it was unlikely that Dr. Spencer could have transmitted the disease through subway poles, hand railings, or via bowling balls.

New York hospitals, health-workers, and officials had conducted weeks of drills and training in preparation for patients like Dr. Spencer. Upon arrival at the hospital, he was put in a specially designed isolation center for treatment. Not many details about the treatment were given, except that he participated in decisions relating to his medical care. On October 25, the New York Post reported that an anonymous source had said that nurses at Bellevue had been calling in sick to avoid having to care for Spencer. A hospital spokesperson denied there was a sick out. On November 1, his condition was upgraded to "stable", and on November 7 the hospital announced he was free of Ebola. Spencer was released from the hospital on November 11. He was cheered and applauded by medical staff members, and hugged by the Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio as he walked out of the hospital. The Mayor also declared: "New York City is Ebola free".

As a result of Dr. Spencer's Ebola case, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), proposed an Ebola fund in an omnibus bill to be considered in fiscal year 2015. Schumer said the funds were needed to compensate New York City, as well as other cities treating Ebola patients, in the same way the federal government covers communities that suffer after a natural disaster. Schumer said Dr. Spencer's care at Bellevue Hospital involved around 100 health care workers. In addition, the city's health department established a 24-hour-a-day operation involving 500 staffers to keep track of the approximately 300 persons from West Africa hot spots who arrive in New York every day

#ebola virus #united states #healthcare workers

2 notes · View notes

lins-fandom-hub · 5 years ago

Text

The Mystery that is Rakepick

Okay, so before we start: THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A ONE-SHOT OR ANY KIND OF STORY WHATSOEVER. This is just me going off on a rant/stream of consciousness that outlines my overall theory behind what Rakepick’s true intentions were. We all knew since she was first introduced in fourth year that she was a mystery. She’s an enigma that most of us are trying to deduce--at least, for those who have so many doubts, or are trying to give her a benefit of the doubt. A few nights ago, I’ve been thinking over everything she had done throughout the last two years in Hogwarts Mystery, and now I’m going to talk about it.

I might as well do it now before I forget.

SO IF YOU DO NOT WANT SPOILERS PAST THIS POINT, DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.

Anyway, yeah! Here we go!

So, what do we know about Rakepick? Or at least, what do we think we know?

Rakepick was first brought to Hogwarts in our fourth year upon completing a mission in Castelobruxo. She first told the school that she believed the Cursed Vaults existed when she was a student, yet the faculty didn’t think so. Now that they were there, she would look into it now as a free agent.

Or so we thought.

Rowan had doubts about Rakepick since she said her tone matched the one in the notes from ‘R’, first Transfigured into black quills. And many people soon picked up on this sort of distrust. We all knew that Snape said he didn’t think Rakepick was there for the Vaults.

Guess what? They were right!

Okay, maybe that was a little too strict, Snape.

As we know in fifth year, Rakepick eventually told us that she only wanted to use our MC and Jacob for her own gain. She wanted us for our Legilimency abilities, as only a Legilimens could open the buried Vault. Everyone else she asked for to accompany us on the mission, she wanted to feed to a majorly feared predator in the wizarding world.

It’s a revelation that all of us couldn’t believe. But let me ask one question that’s been on my mind since we moved on to year 6:

Why did Rakepick do what she did?

I was talking to one of my friends on Tumblr about this a while ago, and she said she hoped a Moody was pulled in this case (basically someone impersonated Rakepick while we were in the Vault). But the more I thought about it, the less I think so.

Most of the evidence laid in what she said in year 5, chapter 30--while we were in the Vault. MC, Bill, Merula, Ben, and our choice of either Charlie or Penny.

So she admitted that she worked with Jacob after denying it in front of Mundungus the first time, then to our faces (and breaking our wands in the process). We all knew she wasn’t even telling the full truth when we found Jacob’s journal outlining the day they went to the buried vault. Jacob couldn’t even penetrate Rakepick’s thoughts, but he knew she was scared of a cabal.

Who knew that it would be the same cabal that we all antagonized, though? She was working for ‘R’, all this time! So is that the same cabal she’s afraid of? If so, why would she work for them?

Something about R got me thinking about what Duncan Ashe said in year 5, chapter 7, however. Something about our brother’s involvement with R.

Before this, Duncan explained how Jacob and R wanted him to brew a powerful Erumpent Potion to get rid of whatever’s guarding the next vault after the Forest Vault. Hence, he was tasked to work with a dangerous potion to scare of and defeat the Hungarian Horntail in the Buried Vault.

If Rakepick was a part of R then, it wouldn’t come as a surprise to us that she may have given said task to Jacob to pass on to Duncan. Of course, he never knew of Jacob’s intentions, so that’s why he blamed our brother for everything when he died and became a ghost. He might have turned into one after his death to forever haunt Jacob, remind him of what he had done to his poor friend.

Rakepick was a part of R, and Jacob covered everything that happened at Hogwarts saying that everything was his to blame. In that case, he didn’t want anyone to know what was really happening at Hogwarts.

So did Jacob and Rakepick really work together as part of the same force? Or was Jacob not a part of R, and Duncan’s assumptions were wrong? Because eventually when we rescued Jacob, he called Rakepick ‘evil’. Clearly there was a rivalry between him and Rakepick.

Perhaps Jacob was a little too noble.

But another thing I’m thinking about right now is the fact that Rakepick tried to direct us away from the Forbidden Forest in fourth year, stating that she found a possibility of a Cursed Vault in Hogsmeade instead. She mentioned that when she was last in the Buried Vault before the next trip she said she was transported against her will into the Forbidden Forest. So she wanted us out of the way to do what, exactly? Locate Pettigrew and screw him over for running out on her and Jacob? Find the Vault Portrait herself without the Marauder’s Map? She was literally on a wild goose chase for anything that screamed VAULT!!! but wanted us out of the way until the moment was right.

Still, we went against her wishes and entered the next Vault. We explored the Forbidden Forest without her even catching us.

It’s weird, isn’t it? She wanted us out of the way but guided us, mentored us in some way? Was it like a way to cut some slack and then reel us in? Sort of like a fish in the water being dragged along by a fishing pole?

Whatever the case was, my MC decided to trust her. She saved us twice from unknown forces (e.g. the red-cloaked messenger) after all, and she’s a better DADA teacher than most. That was probably the bait a lot of us have raised to, however. With those in mind, and the fact that she handpicked us along with Bill and Merula to be her apprentice curse-breakers, we assume that she would be the captain of the ship who would lead us safely to a landing.

NOPE.

By assuming her leadership over us, she’s claiming authority and is taking away our liberty to do anything ourselves. Why else would she be lording over us to do her bidding? Find the Vault Portrait, find the Marauder’s Map, blah blah blah? Because she wants to see us put some effort in so that she’d have something to report to R.

Besides, she was with the group who issued the order that one of our friends had to die. Would it have been Merula if the prophecy was to come true? Merula had risen to the bait more than our MCs had, after all, and was forced out of that false security blanket with the Crucio curse.

That reminds me. The threat they issued her when we found the quill in our fourth year...well, it must have been written to her a long time ago, then. It must have been written while she was still a student.

The reason she joined R is still a mystery, then. But it was clear that she was under orders from R to do as she was told to--to intentionally hurt us and change us for potentially the worse. Not just us, though. She hurt Jacob and his friends, too.

No one knows what happened with Olivia Green. Duncan Ashe became a ghost and forever hated Jacob.

Meanwhile, our friendships in 6th year had become more skewed than ever. Some of us remained the same. Most of us who had been the vault, however, had changed. And our brother is off again with an uncertain fate. Given what could happen, he could possibly die at her hand.

In the end we can say: Rakepick doesn’t even care about us. She works for R, and she doesn’t even care about our well-being as long as she gets to the Vaults and unlocks the treasure.

Perhaps she’s working with R for her own potential gain too. But who knows? For all I know, she could have been under orders from R to do as she was told.

Of course this could spring a bunch of other questions, like who the person under the cloak truly was and all but once my conscience becomes clearer, I’ll see if I can write more on that subject.

That said, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

22 notes · View notes

bledsins · 5 years ago

Text

Choosing to answer @packhuntcr‘s meta questions in this way rather than on the ask, simply for aesthetic reasons. That and it’s gonna get long.

How John expresses affection.

He doesn’t. The short answer is: very, very poorly. The long answer is a bit more complicated. Emotional development is a key part of childhood and, as we all know, John’s was...less than pleasant. Children learn how to express emotions, affection in this case, by mimicking their parents and their peers and the Duncans were less than ideal teachers in this regard (understatement of the day but stay with me here). His early years, though difficult thanks to his abusive drunkard of a father and useless ghost of a mother, was ultimately the lesser of two evils and his brothers were the cornerstone. Baby John was a ray of sunshine, always smiling, always free with his love and affection towards his brothers -- especially Jacob -- and had the family not been torn apart as it was, there’s a high probability that that attitude would have only developed and he would have grown up into something resembling a well rounded individual. Unfortunately, we’re left with the absolute emotional shitshow that the Duncans created.

No matter what the newly monikered John Duncan did, he was punished. Every time he reached out to connect to his new parents, he was shut down and dismissed as being full of sin and needing to be cleansed in order to save that tainted soul. John’s wicked smart, an incredibly quick learner and always has been, he learns it’s best to just do as told, to speak when spoken to, to act the devoted son when out in public. Eventually that’s all his affection becomes, an act, maintained and upheld to the highest degree but not in the slightest bit genuine. It’s a talent that gets him where he wants to, it helps him viciously claw his way up the ladder both from a social and business standpoint. By the time that Joseph finds him, he’s all but forgotten what genuine affection feels like -- both given and received -- to the point he’s overwhelmed.

I’d like to say that he gets better from then on but the reality is he just swings too far in a different direction. See, the Duncans were very good at saying they were doing what they were to John because they loved him. That they were saving him through the punishments, through the pain. John’s obsession with the mortification of the flesh, of physically removing the sin from the body, is directly linked to this outlook. Salvation only comes through pain. He’s doing it because he loves you. Only...he doesn’t. He doesn’t know how. He parrots his brother (we love you and we will take you) very well, but he doesn’t really share the sentiment. He will listen as you spill yourself in intimate detail to him, he will mark you with your sins, you will atone, and then he will send you on your merry way -- all while pretending that you mean something when really all you are is a way for him to feel that rush when you scream in agony as your sin is ripped from your body. If you’re lucky you’ll share it.

And when he does actually want to express true affection, on those very rare occasions that he does, it manifests in the most childish of ways. Because that’s all he has to go on. He will try to buy your happiness, your approval. He’s funding the entire Project out of his pocket because it gets him approval from Joseph. He gifts Jacob a whole ass plane when there’s a very good chance that Jacob doesn’t even know how to fly (if he doesn’t then John will offer to teach him), and is the one to sign off on all the funding for whatever his brother needs without question.

A final note on physical affection -- despite being tactile and touchy, John doesn’t actually like to be touched by anyone he doesn’t trust completely (his brothers, in other words) and when touching others it’s very rarely out of gentility and affection. He uses touch as a demonstration of power, a tool to show that he’s the one in charge under the guise that he’s a friend. But never mistake him being touchy as him being free with his affections because it’s usually the opposite.

When John feels the most free/happy.

This one doesn’t require a long or massively detailed explanation because the answer is really quite simple: when he’s flying. Even back before the Project, flying was the ultimate escape for John and he wasn’t able to do it often enough. Once he got out to Montana, had his own airstrip, his first order of business was to get himself a plane. He rebuilt Affirmation over the course of a winter after she arrived in a deconstructed state and she took her maiden flight in the second spring that he’d lived in Holland Valley. Both maintaining the old girl and taking to the sky is how John unwinds; he can leave his troubles and responsibilities either outside the hangar or down on the ground for a few hours. His favourite time to go out is at dawn to watch the way the sunrise sweeps across the Valley from behind the mountains in the east.

Why is John so submissive to Joseph?

Fear. Now don’t get it twisted, John is not afraid of Joseph and he loves his brother more than life itself, but there are other factors at play.

John is God-fearing and has been since he first truly listened to the hellfire and damnation rants that Old Mad Seed used to go on, made worse by the Duncans and their conviction that John’s soul was stained and the only way he was ever going to avoid going straight to Hell was to submit to their own version of penance. How many times had he looked at his own belt and considered wrapping it around his neck, only to be stopped by the belief that suicide is a one way ticket to the fiery pits? Probably more times than we know. Joseph is a prophet, he has a direct line to God, that immediately gives him an authority that John takes very seriously.

The Father is an authority figure. Detached from Joseph the person -- Joseph the brother -- John immediately falls back into the same state as he was with the Duncans. There’s a distinct difference in John when he’s interacting with Joseph as family, and when he’s interacted in an official capacity. If we take the isolated scene at the Cleansing as an example, that is good display of the Baptist being chastised by the Father. Joseph wasn’t wrong, John was mocking the Cleansing for the sake of his own pettiness and frustration at the Deputy’s actions prior, and the second he was pulled up on that he submitted because he knew what he was doing was wrong. However, Joseph then took it a step too far and leaned heavily on a loaded threat which leads me neatly onto my last point.

John is afraid of abandonment, and Joseph is absolute awful for abusing that fact. If anything, Joseph’s threat to John is what sets him down the path to his demise -- he is driven to absolute desperation in the attempt to make sure that he’s not left behind when the Collapse comes. And it’s not even the Project and the New Eden that Joseph is threatening to bar John access to here, it’s his family. Whether it was his intention or not, whether Joseph would actually shut the gates on his baby brother or not, the way John read that threat was ‘if you do not get this one to Atonement, you will lose access to the ones that matter the most to you’ -- those people being Jacob and Joseph himself. This is a man who watched his family get torn apart before he’d even started school proper, who got placed in a household where he was abused and told it was out of love, who convinced himself he’d never see his brothers again so didn’t even bother trying to find them even though he had the resources and connections to do it. And there’s Joseph, threatening to remove the one thing that keeps him tethered and stops him slipping fully into despair-induced madness. So damn right he’s going to do what he can to stop that happening, even if that means rolling belly-up the second the Father issues anything even resembling a threat.

#❈ | 𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦 [ headcanons ]#❈ | 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘩 [ ooc ]#long post cw

3 notes · View notes

grumpyslav · 6 years ago

Text

Wicked Saints Review ★★★ 1/2

This is a Slavic inspired fantasy. I am Slavic. A perfect match, right?

Well, no. Not really. This book has some good themes but it takes itself too seriously for what ends up being a typical YA fantasy (and there was potential for much more!) But hey, it has a sexy villain love interest so I am sure it will be a great success.

Warning: this will be Long. I have Many Opinions.

Plot: Nadya is a cleric (magic user) in a Russia-inspired country, Kalyazin. Her power comes from gods: she can communicate with the entire pantheon of gods and they give her magical powers whenever she asks. (We are told that gods sometimes don’t listen or that Nadya has to behave in a certain way to be on gods’ good side but we never witness that in the story.) The country is at war with a Polish-inspired country Tranavia because of religious differences. The gods were banished from Tranavia and blood magic is used instead, which is considered heresy in Kalyazin. When her monastery is attacked by Tranavian high prince Serefin, Nadya has to run away. She stumbles upon a Tranavian blood mage Malachiasz and his two sidekicks, who offer help. At some point, it is decided that the best way to end the war and bring gods back to Tranavia is to assassinate Serefin’s father, the king of Tranavia. This is where the real plot kicks in. (Which I will not spoil at this moment.)

Magic system: An interesting idea, but the rules are never explained. That is probably one of the key problems with the story. We learn that Kalyazi clerics (Nadya is believed to be the last one) get magic powers from gods. Clerics can typically communicate with only one god, but Nadya can talk to all of them. (Why? Because she is the MC. We don’t know.) She calls the gods by pressing beads on her necklace. Based on the individual god’s power, Nadya can get strength, super speed, the ability to spy on her enemies, etc. A problem here is that we don’t know what is that gods can or cannot do; there are no limits to Nadya’s power. No rules are established so everything feels arbitrary (a key problem with the book’s magic system). This is a bad narrative choice, but in the second part of the book we learn that it is not so important what gods can do; all that is relevant is that they are the ones giving Nadya power.

Then we have Tranavians. They use blood magic: they always carry a book of spells and when they want to cast a spell, they tear a page from the book, cut themselves and bleed over the page. There are (presumably) many different spells that can do many different things, but just like with Kalyazi gods, we don’t have a clue what is possible and what is not. And just like Kalyazi gods, it turns out that it’s not so important what blood magic can do, it is important that this is blood magic.

All these things become relevant in the second part of the book, but by then it’s a bit late. The book starts adding exceptions and different approaches to magic but with no proper establishment and with no rules, we can’t judge this new stuff properly. Is it supposed to be scary? Is it supposed to be surprising? There are hints that some of it is new and never heard before, but it is never properly anchored. So you just go with the flow and take the author’s word that yes, this thing happening is Important.

Characters: Nadya is a solid character that gets betrayed by the narrative. She is realistic as a naive, sheltered young woman who tries to find her place in the world, who makes mistakes but tries her best. She does all she can to have agency and be proactive. Unfortunately, narrative doesn’t let her. Her whole existence is marked by her lack of agency, because she depends on gods’ powers. In the second part of the book she grows a little and starts discovering her own power, but it’s late because this is where Malachiasz takes over as the most important character and Nadya gets sidelined. Sucks to be you, Nadya, but we gotta make room for a bad boy.

Serefin is a solid character, although it is unclear why we spend almost half of the book in his head. There is no significant character development nor plot to warrant this. But he works as a character, so I have no major complaints. The only downside is that stuff such as his excessive drinking is used as a shorthand for characterization.

Malachiasz is, arguably, the main character in the book. Both in literal and in meta sense. Literal, because the whole story ends up being about him. In meta sense, because one’s enjoyment of the book largely depends on whether the reader likes this character or not. Clearly written to be the core of the story’s secrets and adored by the author, there is no much room for those who might dislike him. He is a love child of Darkling and Kylo Ren and, for some reason, this is portrayed as interesting or worthy to carry the whole book. ?

Points for not making excuses for the romance: Malachiasz is portrayed as terrifying and there are no excuses there, take it or leave it. What sucks is that a man being terrifying is portrayed as a good thing, so in the end you do get your typical YA abusive bad boy (will this trope die already?) But at least we are spared explanations on why Malachiasz is actually a cinnamon roll, so at least that’s something. (Okay, not really. We do need to talk why this type of a man is romanticized over and over again. It is a bad trope, a lazy, incorrect and dangerous trope. But it’s a rant for another day.)

Ending: The book ends on a high note but without major twists. I wouldn’t say the ending is predictable per se, but it’s more down to lack of rules in the magic system than clever writing. Still, a solid ending.

Representation: The author is clearly into Slavic folklore and it shows. For all the ways in which Wicked Saints resemble Grishaverse, I have to say that there is a clear effort to make setting respectably Slavic. Language aspects are good and certain things (in plot, aesthetics) are clearly inspired by Slavic cultures. At the same time, the story doesn’t feel Slavic at all. Duncan gets certain details right but misses the whole point and symbolism behind Slavic cultures and folklore. Which is unfortunate. Slavic folklore is highly symbolic and should not be taken literally. Wicked Saints is too literal to be Slavic, too gothic to be Slavic, to Western to be Slavic.

And there is the whole issue of real-life history between Russia and Poland (which is not on Westerners to adapt as they please), as well as the fact that, once more, we have an image of Slavic cultures as wild, violent, always at war with each other, persecuting anyone who disagrees with their beliefs, etc, etc. I am aware that trashing Slavic cultures was not author’s intent (nor is that the point of the book), but it remains that it follows typical Western views of Eastern Europe, which is not helpful.

When it comes to other types of diversity, there is an attempt but nothing of substance comes out of it. There are female characters in the position of power. Four POC characters (mainly sidekicks.) One female character who is into women (lesbian? bi? pan?) A few characters that could be understood as disabled (missing an eye, for example). That’s all I can think of.

Verdict: ★★★ ½ (Certain aspects deserve five stars, others fall to two)

A flip review: I’d say the focus on theology is the book’s strong point. More of that, please. Duncan opens a dialogue not commonly seen in YA books: about beliefs, religion, free will. All important, significant themes that so many authors don’t want to tackle in a complex manner. And points for doing research, particularly in linguistics. (If only Duncan didn’t want this to be so black metal we might have had a setting that does Slavic folklore justice.) But if we ignore real Slavic cultures and folklore, the whole thing does set itself apart in aesthetics from similar YA offerings. It also doesn’t shy away from confusing her readers, if need be. Duncan clearly knows what kind of a story she wants to tell and what kind of aesthetics she wants to achieve. With so many bland YA offerings, it is a refreshing thing to see.

#wicked saints #emily a duncan #grumpyslav #grumpyslavreads #young adult fantasy

12 notes · View notes

batgirl-87 · 6 years ago

Note

Get to know MC/Jacob (I can't remember which you've answered apparently, so hopefully these are new): 4, 6, and 21

If these are for the Talk About Your MC and Jacob Asks by @cokebottlesanddenim then no I have not answered those ones! (Even if I had I appreciate the ask regardless; and if they’re for my MC and Jacob Asks umm… I’d suggest checking my Masterlist where I have an Ask section)

Thank you for asking! =)

4. Is Jacob physically and/or mentally different after he is released from the Vaults? How does he change?

So I am about halfway through Year 5 I think? I know I’m still way behind everyone else but I haven’t heard of any confirmation that Jacob is actually in the last Vault??? But I could be wrong and missed it…

I’ve always had the idea that I prefer for my version of Jacob where he agrees to join the Cabal with a plan to take them out from the inside and do his best to stop them from hurting more people, primarily his family, and gaining more power while acting as a loyal member. (Plus I don’t know if I believe the voice MC hears is really Jacob and not the Cabal manipulating her to open the last Vault for them) I won’t go into my whole idea for it right now because I’m going to try my best to not make this too long, but - while it’s not the same as being trapped in a Vault, I do believe going undercover would affect him. Especially what he might of had to go through to prove he’s loyal to them and be accepted into their cult.

So like most version’s of Jacob he’d need some time to recover and recuperate. He could have gone through physical torture and been forced to do some terrible things, such as harm others, to prove himself to the Cabal, as well as endure emotional manipulation. And for my Jacob who tries to protect others, having to hurt others would really cause him a lot of internal conflict. Even if he’s not the one doing the harm, just sitting back and allowing other members of the Cabal to hurt and possibly kill others would not sit well with him - that’s not the type of person he is! While he’s trying to do something good and save others, particularly his family, to do that he has to do some bad things and hurt others which can make him concerned that he is becoming this bad person like the other Cabal members and losing himself. There would be a lot of internalized guilt, which he already had plenty of because of Duncan, and now this.

Physical torture he can handle (Quidditch is a tough sport and it’s on him and not happening to anyone else where he would feel he needs to help them and stop it, and he can heal from the physical damage) but having to hurt others or constantly have his family threatened, questioning his own morals and values and what type of person he is and wants to be and who he’s possibly becoming, would be what really affects him and sticks with him and would be something he’d have to deal with probably for the rest of his life. Over time it may not affect him daily but I think there would be moments and situations that would trigger that trauma for him and cause him to question again what type of person he really is based on how he reacted or thought about reacting or reminded him of what he had done.

I feel like there would also be a constant fear in the back of his mind that there would still be a member or some members of the Cabal left after everything who would find him and hurt his family to get back at him for what he did to them. So the normally super chill Jacob would have a lot more anxiety, though he’d still hide it well, and the already protective Jacob would become even more protective and even paranoid at times.

And if he is in the Vault I feel like a lot of this will still stand because he did have to do some things he’s not proud of to find the Vaults and dealt with the Cabal. (I hope that all makes sense, I wrote this late last night =p)

6. What’s Jacob’s opinions of Prefects, especially the ones 4 years older than MC?

I don’t think Jacob thinks much of Prefects… Not like he thinks little of them, but like he doesn’t really think of them…ever… =p Listen, he’s going to do what he wants to do, when he wants to, and some kid who’s a few years older than him isn’t going to boss him around or punish him. Seriously, a kid like three years older than him has all this authority over him? No. He probably views Prefects like Percy the Prefect. Annoying, false sense of great authority, and he’ll just rolls his eyes, ignore them, and if they continue to nag he’ll shove them aside. Or down the stairs. He probably told them to shut up too. And if the Prefect went to the Head of House or some Professor to get him in trouble they would receive a terrifying death glare from him and most likely quickly learn to never do that again or else face his wrath. But as long as they didn’t let the power of being a Prefect go to their heads and treat him poorly and disrespectfully, he’d be fine with them.

Clearly Jacob also was not on track to become a Prefect, nor would he want to be one anyway. He doesn’t want to be bossed around but he also doesn’t want to boss others around and punish them for doing… whatever (if he ever did become Prefect he’d be the most chill Prefect ever! - Literally does not care =p) Also he clearly was not Quidditch Captain but there are other reasons for that =p

As for what he thinks about the Prefects we all know and love…

Chester needs sleep (obviously); Felix seems cool; Angelica and Jacob never had any issues and she seemed to understand and respect his wishes to not be bossed around and treated lesser than because she had a badge and he didn’t (and she apparently had a crush on him?!?!) so he respected her back and tried not to cause her too much grief - it’s all about mutual respect; And Jane… that’s probably the only one he actually feared (although who knows if he’d admit that or not) and would do his best to avoid at all costs and would never want to cross her because she’s the only one who would be immune to his death glare! =p

(I know Jacob in the game is in the same house as you but my version of Jacob is a Gryffindor while my MC is a Slytherin)

21. Would MC/Jacob prefer to live in the lively, populated city or the quiet, sparse countryside?

Jacob would prefer the quiet countryside, but he knows if he wants to play Quidditch professionally he’ll have to live in a populated city to do so since that’s where the teams are! However, after he makes enough money (I assume professional Quidditch players would make a lot like professional athletes do…) he’d buy a second house in the quieter countryside, next to or in some woods, but also nearby to a town where he could get food, go out to eat and get a drink, and such of course, where he’d live during the offseason.

As for my MC, she would prefer the livelier city. She needs things to do, she needs places to go that are open late =p While she does love to escape to a quieter place like Jacob’s second home or Charlie’s place in Romania, she couldn’t live there full time. She’d get restless and bored and need action - she needs action! (This probably all stems from her needing to keep busy so she can never have a moment to sit and allow all the stress and emotions over her situation with the Vaults and Jacob and Beatrice and the Cabal and her O.W.L.s etc. to overwhelm her, so if she doesn’t keep busy then overwhelming emotions come flooding in and she can’t handle it! And now she probably has no idea how to relax =p)

After she graduates Hogwarts she would become a Curse-Breaker with Bill in Egypt and live there with him but also visit Charlie in Romania, and London, and her brother and family in Canada, and the Burrow, and other friends as often as she can, and even after Bill retires as a Curse-Breaker she would still bounce around from his house, 12 Grimmauld Place, Charlie’s place, and Jacob’s so instead of having one place of residence she’d always have at least 3-4.

I always thought the Dragon Sanctuary in Romania had a quaint little town nearby with a pub and market and as cute as it probably is (in my mind it is anyway =p) and as peaceful as Charlie’s place is, while it’s a great place for her to recover and relax because constantly breaking curses or doing other dangerous jobs clearly requires some down time, she would go stir crazy if she had to be there all the time and may try to start a pub fight for some excitement (plus as mentioned she has some issues and maladaptive coping techniques). But it seems like a great, perfect place for Charlie! And it’s sort of like a special serene retreat for her when she visits and may even be viewed as a peaceful, calm future for her and a life she could have, but for now she needs more action and liveliness (plus getting to share a home with Charlie is a huge bonus =p)

I also think with just her own personal issues she has, she feels like she doesn’t really deserve to relax or be happy all the time so she wouldn’t live with Charlie all the time. She’d start to get too comfortable then worry that something bad was going to happen, she’s going to do something to ruin it, or she doesn’t deserve to be this relaxed and happy! So she has to go now. Love you, bye! =p So it really is like a special reward, like after doing a job and now she deserves to relax and be happy for awhile but then she’ll have to go do something else to deserve going back - does that make sense? Plus, like Jacob, she wants to help others and she wants to make a difference so she can’t just sit back and not get involved! She can’t be kicking back in Romania with Charlie and the dragons when shit is going down! She has to help and protect them (and then Sirius, Tonks, Remus, and Fred would live because she would save them! But even other times not involved with the war she would feel the same way).

Whoops, this kind of went off on a tangent so to simplify, Jacob - quiet countryside, Keira - lively city (with relaxing vacation in the quiet countryside =p).

#emberkyrlee #hphm #hogwarts mystery #hphm jacob #hphm mc #my mc #thank you for the ask!#asks

5 notes · View notes

drs404-blog · 6 years ago

Text

UPDATE: Howell appeal judge takes issues under consideration

NEW ALBANY – Marlon Howell’s push for a new trial is in Judge Samac Richardson’s hands after a three-day hearing ended where his 2001 trial began.

His counsel asked for the new trial, at the very least from a jailhouse lineup was “tainted” because Howell did not have an attorney and should have.

The state insists there were no errors, except “harmless” ones, when Howell was tried for the 2000 shooting death of newspaper carrier David Pernell.

The Mississippi Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing over various issues surrounding Marlon Howell’s 2001 conviction for capital murder in Union County.

(Below is a running account of the afternoon session. Please excuse the typos and other glitches likely as I type rapidly.)

•• • 3:01 - Both sides prepare to make closing statements.

[Below with Waide is a little confusing and hard to hear. I will try to clarify when I speak with him later.]

WAIDE - MOVE COURT ON EXHIBIT 28 ... Statement by Tim Kent ... KELLY - HE’S ALREADY TESTIFIED ... WAIDE - Motion to dismiss hearing or grant new trial because AG’s intimidation of witness. Denial of federal due process law. Further, occurrence during this case about witness Pannell. Would like court to see documents given to us about Pannell, a polygraph. HOOD - No objections to entering polygraph. Says 2 polygraphs conducted on Terkesia Pannell. WAIDE - Factual basis, to grant new trial based on prosecutor’s conduct ... also that on 10th ... rst page indicates she agreed to testify. On 11th, took polygraph. On 12th, took another one. And speci cally alluded to her testimony. (told about questions.) Every question is about her testimony. They also are contradictory. No alternative for her. Also, when he goes up to an attorney to say you’re going to be prosecuted, warns him about witnesses to intimidate him about calling them. We think this is very serious. We are going to look for authorities.

HOOD - This is classic situation. Only time court ordered hger not to talk to anyone was yesterday afternoon. Wednesday, we took a break. Court says not to talk to her. She came back and testi ed. We issued a subpoena for her. Then she became our witness, we had a right to interview her. We did polygraph yesterday and another today. We asked if she lied on witness stand. Wanted to give her one chance to tell the truth. Waide set all this up to go back and interrupt. I asked about three questions. Waide jumped up and said he was going to tell the judge. He said all that ... they submitted a davits and would say weren’t true. As o cer of court, I had a duty to warn him about putting on testimony he knows is not true. What’s going to happen to Richardson, I’m going to ask court to make a decision. The Bar? I don’t know. No misconduct on behalf of the state.

JUDGE - We’re through with that. Made your motion and response. I’m not sure it’s incumbent on this court ... to.. how can I say... to take that matter up. One, I don’t know about a davits. If in fact what you say occurred, if it has... that is an issue for ... if feel strongly enough to report to Bar ... further, if there’s a criminal act ... intimidation of o cers of court and witnesses. There’s a statute on that. Grand jury meets, get on its docket. Either side, let grand jury have a shot at it. If crime has been committed, should pursue an indictment. Don’t think I have authority to make punishment in this situation. That’s way I see it. Every lawyer has duty to report every ethical violation... and have it investigated. Motion denied.

Ready to proceed? OK. 3:14.

RICHARDSON - I will be brief. Just going to give overview and keep my emotion down to a minimum and be professional in my approach to court. This case has been about things it shouldn’t be. Not about me. About whether Marlon Howell got a fair trial. Most critical issue about most critical witness - no attorney at that lineup. Proven by a davits, more importantly by one person who said none there ... he could not dispute that. After 13 years, we learn that trial court and Supreme Court have labored and made important decisions about case based on fact that was in error. Not for me to say, neglect or improper motive. Chief is o cer of the state ... his duty is higher than average citizen to testify. His duty is to make certain that what he says is correct. But once he knows he’d made a mistake, it was to take to D.A. and let him know so can notify defense.

First time ever brought to defense was after Mr. Howell had had a hearing before MS Supreme Court. Had lost opportunity to confront witnesses. Put yourself in Duncan Lott’s position. Di cult under best of circumstances, but when material fault fact that is going on and laboring under that, protecting Howell’s 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights. Also, in MS, very proud of this case, because it’s extended right of counsel ... when someone arrested and jailed under speci c charge, right to counsel attaches.

If take it farther, it was so easy for this to happen. All had to do was to ensure that his right was protected. Contend the right enured on May 15 when he was put in that jail. No excuse for them not to ... testimony... lawyers show up at 9:45. Lineup in 20-40 feet of where lawyers show up. All had to ask lawyers to assist client. All had to do, or appoint counsel. They proceeded without it. Reason I know they knew... look how long they tried to disprove there WAS counsel there. For 13 years. Only to nd there wasn’t a lawyer at that lineup.

Unique situation, but also an egregious situation. Not simply that lawyer wasn’t at a hearing., And ruling on e ect on case. In this case, you have incredible situation where 6th amendment right attached, chief testi ed that Regan Russell was there. Court made its nding based on that evidence.

In MS Supreme Court, nds it will take minimum e ort for Lott to call Russell to verify. True. His client told him, I didn’t have a lawyer there. He expressed surprise that chief said lawyer was there. Supreme Court was right - should have picked up phone. Regan Russell ... this is a small town ... Russell heard that his name was bantered around about being there. He tells the court on stand, at or about time of trial... says can’t say exactly... but I told chief I was not there. That means chief was put o notice at or about time of trial. At that point, he had obligation and duty to report that to D.A. - hey, I may have been wrong. Russell didn’t get put on stand to say he wasn’t there.

What does chief do? Nothing. Nothing. That means we go through motions hearing to correct, trial ... aware of recantation of Rice ... is no physical evidence linking my client to this crime. Only evidence is Rice, Ray and Brandon Shaw. If ever time for close scrutiny - it’s now. No DNA, gunpowder residue. Gun’s not his. It’s Ray’s. 911 says 2 people in car. Quick Stop lady said that.

But nothing’s done when could be corrected. Goes to MS Supreme Court - nds lineup reasonable... because Howell had attorney present. If I was MSSC, I’d say ... something wrong with lineup, lawyer should have said something. Since he didn’t, must not have been there. Another court relies on false testimony under oath. Now has grave impact on his appellate right.

In 2005, I submit Russell’s a davit saying not there. State takes it and goes ... not to Russell ... they go to chief. What does he do? He signs another a davit not Russell, it’s Tpm McDonough. McDonough says he told chief not to do that because he told defense he wasn’t there. I called every lawyer in three counties to make certain. Got a davits from key people who did criminal work at time.

Based on that, situation where state should have gone further. McDonough a davit - does state try to nd out. No, they stand by it. Chief believes was Russell but still signs a davit. Did he take it back? No. Misconception has gone this long.

No way, absolutely no way... initial statements say Marlon Howell wasn’t there. They were torn up. No way for his 4th, 5th 6th amendment rights ... no way to get a fair trial. Given ... look at Rice... committed a felony because I wanted them out of my hair. He didn’t say leave. He just decided to commit a felony signing an a davit he didn’t believe to be true. Reason? We wanted him to be certain. We said sign this, think on it and we’ll come back with more formal a davit. If you’re sure, you can execute it.

We treated him with utmost respect. You saw Leonard Sanders. Me. His testimony violates .... case screams for relief.

We ask court to move as soon as possible for a new trial. 3:30 JASON DAVIS - ASST. ATTY GENERAL -

Will address issue of the lineup and whether defense counsel was e ective at lineup. This isn’t a typical 5th amendment case. I agree with counsel. But not a 5th amendment case at all. Mr. Howell was clearly not under arrest for capital murder when lineup occurred. Ms Supreme Court said 5th amendment rights do not attach until charge begins. We submit he was not under arrest for capital murder when lineup occurred.

He was not entitled to counsel. (cites cases. Talks about these cases.) Ms Supreme Court has new language where individual has been arrested and looking toward initial appearance. Right to counsel attaches after arrest and at point when initial appearance ought to have been met. When is that?

Lineup issue: We note for record trial counsel did not relinquish its claim about Russell at lineup. Record re ects. Judge stated it was a good lineup after question of whether it was. (tells about how lineup was composed by computer) MSSC says lineup was su cient. Say counsel heard judge rule lineup was su cient.

Question becomes when Howell was arrested: 8:30 on evening prior on blue warrant. Taken to lineup mere 14 hours later. Put in lineup. Two hours later was before a judge. This goes back to when his initial appearance ought to have occurred. (cases cited and compares with Howell case) (Notes court rules about initial appearances, within 48 hours or arrest.) Howell brought for initial appearance mere 14 hours after arrest. Also submit under MS Code 99-1-7, tells us when prosecution may commence - after issuance of a warrant or binding over. Record supports that Howell wasn’t under arrest for capital murder - no warrant for that. His 6th amendment right had not attached at this time. MSSC says lineup was su cient. Where is the violation? Submit there is none.

Beyond this ... (cites cases) ... we ask that your honor nd Howell was not under arrest for capital murder and 6th amendment rights do not attach. But ... should you determine he was under arrest for it - and determine he was entitled to counsel - lineup was deemed su cient. (talks about harmless error - with illegal lineups) He was not under arrest. In these cases ... that Rice’s in-court identi cation of Howell was su cient. Record notes rst ID in court by Rice was after question: Who did you see shoot Mr. Pernell?

We know issues of Rice’s ID ... MS Supreme Court has already determined issues of his reliability are foreclosed from argument. .. that court can proceed to an analysis. 3:40.

HOOD - I’m not here to argue what my colleague said about law ... following the law. The facts of the matter ... if their rule is correct, anybody can go through lineup and must have a lawyer rst...chicken and egg. Must have charge to get a lawyer. MSSC decision - seems pretty clear. Cases where warrant issued and lineup, that’s where our Supreme Court says entitled to counsel.

My issues - no recantation. No withholding of exculpatory evidence. Third that trial counsel was not ine ective for failure to pursue exculpatory evidence. Remember being Supreme Court clerk, thought about what happened in a trial. I know now why MSSC says re-canted testimony should be viewed very unfavorably. Our view, theirs are not favorable. Base it on testimony. Talking to Judge Coleman during recess - rely on him for impressions of his witnesses when he made these decisions in this courtroom.

Take testimony of Charles Rice ... he was same as at trial, no change in his identi cation as person who committed the crime. They came out, he says they badgered him right beFore he was to get married. Did it again, he says. Saw his reaction to cross-examination. Trying to tell the truth.

As to Pannell-Gaines, I’ve seen a lot of witnesses - I’ve tried over 100 - I don’t think I’ve ever seen a witness go back and forth so much like jelly. She answered contradictory. Her testimony was totally unreliable. Second, if you look at a davits ... looking at what she said wasn’t true. She struck only two exculpatory statements - only ones she could provide. (JUDGE TELLS HIM HE’S OVER TIME .... SORRY, WROTE IT DOWN WRONG. HOOD CAN GO BACK FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES.)

JUDGE - GOT 5 MORE MINUTES.

HOOD - Brandon Shaw, a strong witness. Nothing to gain by testifying. Lengthy cross - rea rmed his testimony. Said defense wrote out statement, got him to sign it after badgering. No re-cantation in this case.

No withholding exculpatory evidence withheld - Pannell said Shaw told her Ray and Lipsey committed the murder.

Trial counsel was not ine ective about exculpatory evidence, with prejudice. Trial transcript says ... opening statement... defense counsel says Pannell will say defendants never came into the room. Only way to know that is to have talked to her. Counsel did his job and was prepared. But she’s such a bad witness. Second, all her testimony was hearsay and not exculpatory. Reasonable possibility it would not have changed the outcome. Answer is no. Her testimony was not admissible. Counsel has not proven this case on any of the issues.

Their claim should be denied.

2 more minutes.... We think court should rule on - some suggestions ... no re-cantation, no withholding evidence, trial counsel was not ine ective. But if nds no attorney available ... then we submit there is no arrest, was there on a blue warrant. Within a few hours he was brought before a magistrate for initial hearing. No attachment of 6th amendment right to counsel. We think, use harmless evidence in this case. 3:52

MATT RICHARDSON - We contend his right to counsel had attached. Clear, based on documents introduced ... and Tim Kent testimony that he was arrested for capital murder the night of the 15th. He said didn’t want him to resolve his parole issue and leave. Purpose of booking, in e ect he was under arrest. (cites cases.. de nition of arrest) He was being held on capital murder. Next day... must go before judge without unnecessary delay, not to exceed 48 hours. Only one excuse for delay is lack of access to a judge. Testi ed they had court starting at 10 a.m. He could have been appointed counsel. They chose not to do that. Had lineup. Howell was wearing di erent shoes... lineup was used throughout trial.... Look at closing arguments, they talk about the lineup.

If that’s not enough about error the Ms Supreme Court, says Rice’s testimony was crucial to state’s case. No way to be harmless for Mr. Howell. (cites cases) when lineup is in violation of 6th amendment rights ... no one should have been allowed to say “lineup” in this entire trial, It tainted the trial and the appeal. State still won’t concede that he didn’t have a lawyer. Mr. Howell should be granted a new trial.

JUDGE - 3:56 - CONCLUDES THE HEARING. Will work on this across next few weeks. KELLY - One matter, neglected to submit a davit. Live testimony is it. RICHARDSON - Will ORDEr a transcript. Wanted to alert the court about that. RECESS. 3:58

•• •

NEW ALBANY – Attorney General Jim Hood tried to intimidate a rebuttal witness today in defense attorney Jim Waide's presence, Waide told Judge Samac Richardson after an afternoon break.

Waide said Hood bluntly asked former witness, Terkesia Pannell, if she knew what perjury was and that she'd failed a polygraph.

That's clearly intimidation, Waide insisted.

Waide was present when Hood questioned her because defense attorneys insisted that's what Hood would do, when he re-questioned Pannell.

Later in the day, defense investigator Leonard Sanders, on repeat testimony, insisted Death Row inmate Marlon Howell's main attorney, Billy Richardson, never o ered anyone money for their sworn statements.

Howell’s counsel seeks a new trial for him or to have the Union County capital murder conviction overturned because of alleged constitutional rights violations.

The evidentiary hearing was ordered by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Senior Judge Samac Richardson of Rankin County, no relation to Howell’s lead counsel Billy Richardson of North Carolina, is presiding over the hearing, which began Wednesday, after all the circuit district’s judges declined to participate.

Attorney Richardson is assisted by Tupelo attorneys Jim Waide and Rachel Pierce Waide, with support from the Mississippi Innocence Project based at the University of Mississippi.

Howell, who was seated at his counsel table, was sentenced to death after his conviction for the May 15, 2000 shooting death of David Pernell, a Daily Journal newspaper carrier. His co- defendants insisted he killed Pernell but later recanted. They were sentenced to prison on other charges.

(Please forgive the typos and other glitches likely as I type rapidly.) •• •

1:02 P.M. - Judge returns. KELLY CALLS JIM NANCE

NANCE - Corrections supervisor, MDOC. 16 years. Involved with Marlon Howell situation. Never supervised him. (Involved with his arrest?) Yes. (When?) May 16, 2000. (Records about that?) Assigned to Union County and also supervise about 70 counties. (Records? ... when arrested him, what authority?) As a eld o cer, MDOC. (Documents to do so?) Yes. Field o cer’s warrant, blue warrant. (Allegation in document?) Yes. (Hands him document, what is it?) Warrant for arrest for probation violation issued against Marlon Howell by me, May 15, 2000. (Involved taking him into custody?) Yes, had that warrant at time. (Probation violation, what?) Stated, failure to avoid vicious habits, not paying various court fees. (Anything else going on?) O cer Chuck Mullins had started a warrant on his person, failed to sign it. This was original warrant by Mullins. I signed it. Also, a citation for contempt of court for him. For court-ordered monies.

(Kelly - Separate from MDOC fees?) Yes. (Failure to avoid vicious habits. What is that?) Reference to a positive drug test. Failed drug test 5/5/2000. (Once incarcerated on that, did police have authority to release him?) No. (If arrested 5/15 ... could he be released?) MDOC could withdraw warrant or taken to court, which could release him if wanted to. (Would fee payment relieve him of obligation?) Only one condition. Other conditions stated. (Cites document number for judge.) 1:10

RICHARDSON to question. (Earlier that day, Howell was in court on probation matter?) NO sir, he was there on issue of court-ordered fees. (Warrant typed and ready to go about that time or before?) Not sure when original warrant was there by Mullins. (But everything you’re talking about was done prior to May 15 when he was in court?) I don’t know when original warrant was in court. (I understand, but original allegations were before then?) Yes. (You were there that day?) Not sure.

(Shows him Exhibit 42 ... you had other people in court that day you supervised?) I was there, I believe. (What is this important to? Court proceedings?) Appears to. (Shows Howell in court that morning?) Yes. (Warrant for?) Just for court costs, court-ordered money that’s all. Not in court for supervision or drug testing fees. Separate issues. (Customary when talk about ...) If there for violation of probation. MDOC did not bring this forward, the court brought it. (Judge continued it?) Yes, the court-ordered moneys. Not sure I was there that day. Possibility. Not normally there on day for citations of contempt. I don’t have a record of that day, myself. 1:15

KELLY - REDIRECT

(KELLY - Does MDOC have anything to do with court costs?) No sir. (Document - citation. What is this?) I’ve seen it in the le. Probation le. (What is alleged in citation?) Failed to pay remainder of $594. Nothing to do with MDOC. (Does MDOC have anything to do with preparation of document?) No sir. (Other charges?) Yes - habits, supervision fees. (Remember anything about Howell’s citation?) I don’t know for sure if I was there. (Remember any comments about Howell before court?) No sir. (Were you his supervising o cer?) No (Know who Marlon Howell was?) Only from past experience. Saw him come in to report to house arrest o cer. No contact with him. (Normally not at court days? Why not?) That is a court proceeding that MDOC not usually involved in.

HOOD - Before we rest, have some polygraph results ... RICHARDSON - OBJECTION... OBJECTION... DO NOT COMMENT OVER OUR OBJECTION.

JUDGE - What do you intend to do with it? HOOD - Consider calling a witness. JUDGE - YOU DO THAT.

WAIDE - Somebody ought to be in there with the Attorney Gen. Considering everything that’s gone on here. JUDGE - YESTERDAY, allowed it because of confusion. Not going to allow that. RICHARDSON - Did the court not say we couldn’t bring a witness that ... didn’t we do a general sequester for all witnesses? HOOD - SHE’S BEEN released.

JUDGE - SHE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED. HOOD - She was up there during a break, we said can’t talk to her.

JUDGE - My position on that - brief says no witness shall discuss testimony with any other witness. Rule invoked and she’s sequestered. Does not restrict lawyers from talking to witness. Same oath, ethical considerations as o cer of the court not to tell somebody what to say on the witness stand. Certainly can discuss issues of case with your witness, except while on witness stand. I know of no restrictions. Just can’t tell them what to testify to.

WAIDE - Only exception. This is a witness relating to contradictory testimony. (Judge - I didn’t know who witness is.) HOOD - Terkesia Pannell is who this is. This is a rebuttal witness. Trying to interview her on rebuttal.

RICHARDSON - Clearly they polygraphed her. Not on record. That’s what they did. It will intimidate her.

WAIDE - throughout hearing, lots of concerns about intimidating witnesses. This one while on stand did say contradictory or confused things. Your honor was concerned and said neither of us to talk to her. She’s subject to being in uence when she’s not been talked to.

JUDGE - WHEN I SAID WHAT I SAID, I DID not want it to appear undue in uence on that particular witness. Concerning intimidation ... undue in uence, it’s been about police intimidation. This being same witness, even tho rebuttal, I don’t want record to show any intimidation from either side. I don’t want that chance out there. Not sayng you would. (to Hood) Better to follow same procedures with this witness.

HOOD - Ask Baili to go and me ... I only have a couple of questions. Or in chambers. I’ve never been prevented from calling a rebuttal witness. Only reason for that ruling yesterday on her was that we took a break. It’s part of the state’s case is to rebut. I should be able to see in private, not with defense attorney there.

WAIDE - Here ... to get to the truth. We’ve got a witness instructed not to talk to anybody. Reasons for your honor’s instructions.

JUDGE - Just like yesterday. Put the witness on. (Hood - so defense counsel can go with him. Is Waide allowed to ask questions?) No. He’s there to observe. 1:28

(PAUSE WHILE HOOD TALKS TO PANNELL IN WITNESS ROOM... WITH WAIDE PRESENT) 1:32 - HOOD, WAIDE BACK IN COURTROOM

WAIDE - Would like to relate what happened in witness room. He said to her, do you know penalty for perjury? She kept repeating she told truth. He confronted her and said she failed the polygraph. He was trying to intimidate her and I stopped it. (Judge - to Hood, are you a witness? Richardson - no. Waide - we can call him in rebuttal.)

RICHARDSON - Asks for a few minutes to go over everything that’s happened. Judge grants them time to confer out of courtroom. 1:34

1:42 - WAIDE - We’re ready to proceed, we have rebuttal. We remove the motion. WAIDE - CALL LEONARD SANDERS SANDERS - Richardson’s investigator. (Still under oath, judge says.)

(WAIDE - Background stated earlier. Said you interviewed several witnesses. On each occasion, was someone else present?) Had someone else every time. That’s right. (Show him Brandon Shaw’s a davit - Exhibit 31 - Is that your notarization and signature?) Yes it it. (Aug. 3, 2005 - your sig?) Yes. (Present when eh signed it?) Yes, I was. (Remember whether you saw Shaw on this or another occasion?) Saw him 2 times. (Remember rst time?) He says essentially what’s here. No recorded. Just notes. (Remember where it was signed?) Think ... at his apartment in Sherman, MS. (First time?) At detail shop in New Albany.

(Your best memory - when signed it?) On second visit, I believe. (In independent memory of rst meeting?) He was at work at car wash. As I recall, he wanted to wait until he had a break, which we did. Billy Richardson, Joel Morris and me. (Ask to talk to him?) Yes. (Tell judge what happened.) Billy Richardson principally did interview. I didn’t ask anything. What’s re ected in a davit, what he said. On second occasion, chie y to get it signed. (Remember how long interview lasted?) I don’t ... second was not long. First might have been 30-40 minutes, not sure. (While there, did you see any intimidation of him?) Not at all.

(Was money ever discussed in those interviews?) No it didn’t. (Did you see Richardson give him money?) No. Nothing like that occurred. (Remember whether ... did he read it before he signed it or what?) It was read to him. Whether he read to himself, I don’t recall. (Who?) Billy Richardson read it to him. Heard him do so. Before he signed it. (Signature at bottom of statement?) Don’t recall. I was present when he signed it. Not sure if had my notary with me then.

(What’s your practice of swearing?) I know he was asked if contents were true, to the best of his knowledge. Don’t recall if we asked him to raise hand and swear.

(What about Charles Rice?... HOOD - OBJECT. We asked Rice about whether he was pressured.)

(Waide - shows him 2 statements, one handwritten other typed. Are these yours?) Yes. June 7, 2005 and June 9, 2005 dates. (Notary stamp on both?) Yes. Went to both. (Who present?) Billy Richardson, Joel Morris, his wife or ancee and me.

(Where interviews?) Yes. At residence o Hwy 370 in Itawamba County... East Union. Near Tippah and Union. Wife, if she was his wife then. (Remember purpose of handwritten and then typed? Why handwritten copy?) As I recall, handwritten was when we rst interviewed him. Didn’t have notary with me at that time. He signed. Second, was to give cleaner copy basically. Had notary with me on second. Went back to my o ce and stamped rst one. I’m sure I asked him if he understood and approved contents. (Was it read to him too?) Yes.

(Exhibit 23 - A davit of Pannell ... 3-4 pages. Were you present when she wa sinterviewed?) Yes. Interview was Joel Morris and me, made notes. Richardson not at rst interview. (At time ...) I don’t recall his being at second interview. He probably was, but can’t say positively. Sure he was at rst. (Any di erence in two statements?) No, no di erence. In fact, second she signed - done from rst. (Are these statements she told you?) Yes, she did. Because preparation was from notes of rst interview. (Did you do anything to intimidate or threaten her?) No. (Tell her to change her story?) No. In fact, she seemed very comfortable talking to us.

(When she was giving a davit... did you know if it was her personal knowledge or that someone told her?) I do remember. She stated it as if she witnessed these events. Nothing said about hearing from someone else. (Questions and answers?) Just what’s in a davit. Nothing di erent. 1:58

HOOD - (Anybody talk to you before you came to testify today?) No. (Not since you testi ed the other day?) We met brie y yesterday afternoon, and when they got to point about other things, I stopped them. Said I don’t want to hear it. We talked about these a davits. Haven’t been told what any other witness has said. (Your paid to be here?) I hope so. (How much?) Normal rate $70/hour. (How much total?) I don’t know... probably $30,000-$40,000... I really don’t know.

(You said both times with Brandon Shaw ... said each 20-3o mins?) First was, not second. (In Sherman?) Probably 15 minutes. (See his mother and wife in Sherman?) His mother, I don’t remember anyone else. (Can’t dispute he had witnesses there?) I think his mother was there. Can’t dispute it. (How many with you then?) Took two - Richardson and Morris. (At car wash, same 3 folks?) That is correct. (You say 20-30 minutes?) Max 45 minutes. I had no reason to time it. (He was washing cars?) Not while we were talking to him. (Tell him who you were, who working with or on behalf of?) I didn’t. Billy Richardson did the talking.

(Did you hear Richardson say he was representing Marlon Howell?) Yes. I know he did. I can’t say exact words. We would make clear who we were and why there. (Did you introduce yourself?) I’m sure I did. (Did you?) I would have to say I did because that would be the routine. I don’t remember that. I know he was made aware who we were representing. (Routine as notary... you can’t say for sure?) That’s right. (Can’t remember if you swore him in, but remember introducing yourself to Brandon Shaw?) I’m not notarizing the contents, only his signature. Knew they were aware of the contents. (You don’t say you’re a notary?) Yes, I did.

(Document shows ... writing at bottom and stamp. Put that after left?) Stamp on there after I left. Written while I was there. (Write that before or after he signed it?) I wrote it out and he signed it. (Remember that?) That’s what I would do, period. If I don’t have seal with me, I would write it out and place seal on when I get back to o ce. (You’re talking generally about what you do. What happened that day? You swore you wrote it out before Brandon Shaw signed it?) As far as I remember doing it, I don’t. It would be an exception if I didn’t.

(Who wrote that statement?) Billy Richardson. His handwriting. (You say he read it back to Brandon Shaw?) Yes. If you saw his handwriting, you can see why he read it back to him. (But when he read, do you know if it was on the paper or he just said something?) I know it contains what he said. (Were you there the whole time during this interview? In their presence?) Yes. (Did they walk around building?) That’s where we were. Don’t remember if he was washing cars when we got there or not. It’s been 8 years.

(So, admit not putting Shaw under oath?) Say I probably did not. I asked him, are contents true to the best of your knowledge. (If he told you about somebody committing murder, would you have written it down?) Sure. (Don’t you remember he said it was not Ray or Lipsey to murder, it was Howell?) No. (But you remember parts now?) Yes. If he’d said remembered .... who shot, I would have remembered that. (Did Billy say something about man on death row?) Words to that e ect. (Brandon didn’t want to talk.) Not true, he wanted to keep working until he had chance for a break. He was doing something with a vehicle. (So Morris. Is he here?) No. (From N.C.?) Yes. (Did he introduce himself to Shaw?) I don’t remember, but I know the three of us were done by each of us or Billy.

(Small talk about beginning of conversation?) A few minutes, probably. 2-3-5 I don’t know. (How many times did you see Shaw?) Two. (Sure?) Yes. (Another investigator?) One, I suppose. (Morris?) Had that one, now he has another. WAIDE - INTERRUPTING.

(How many investigators did he have working on case?) Three, I know of. (So, you don’t know how many times Billy R. went to talk to him?) No. (What about other investigators?) I’m quite certain that I know. (You don’t know how many went to Brandon, you just know how many times you went?) Correct. (You said you believed Shaw signed statement on second time?) It was the second time. (Any females there at any time with Shaw, brought by defense counsel?) No. (So, now ... think about it. .. did meeting go beyond 45 minutes?) If you want me to be exact, I cannot. I had no reason ... didn’t have a stopwatch. (Making notes?) Not at that meeting., (At second?) No. At rst, I may or may not. But at second, I did not.

(Se when asked yesterday about your statement... when you stopped them... did you not go back to les about statements?) No, only looked at a davits. (Billing records for that day?) Don’t think I have them from 8 years ago. (What did y’all do that day when interviewing Shaw?) I don’t remember every day 8 years ago. (Remember this?) Yes. (Don’t remember if interviewed anybody else?) No I don’t. (Remember conversation about death penalty with Brandon Shaw?) The main thrust was to nd out what Shaw knew back in 2000. Little about Marlon Howell. May have been mentioned but not dwelling on it. Just trying to get the facts, the thrust of the meeting. (Don’t recall Billy to say he’d pay him for his time?) No, nothing about money or payment was mentioned. (What about helping him?) No.

(On Charles Rice, two interviews?) Actually, three if you count ... with Kent present. (At both, not one in New Albany... You brought your les of statements?) Yes, I did. (Who told you to do that?) Nobody. (Referring to Exhibit 4 - for defense) Sixteen, I believe. (Rice statement, handwritten? Did you write that?) No. I don’t recall. (Who was there?) Same as already said. Melody, Joel Morris, Billy R and me. (Who’s Melody?) Rice’s wife. (Was woman with you?) His daughter was here at some point. Don’t think she was at this, but not sure. Billy Richardson’s daughter. Maybe female secretary of his. Don’t remember which one. (Stamp on bottom. Did he sign with stamp?) No. (Did you swear him under oath, raise right hand?) Probably not. He ...

(How long there when got his statement,... somebody to write it?) He agreed to sign it. We were there maybe an hour. In afternoon. (Did you stay til dark?) I don’t think so. (Are you confused?) No. (Rice said you stayed until dark?) I would dispute ... (Did he say he was getting married?) Yes, said in near future. Again, don’t profess to remember everything. Said married soon. (Was he trying to get rid of y’all?) No. (Call you and tell you to comer over there?) No, he did not. (Did you call and say coming?) I don’t remember. We had hard time to nd him. (Dodging you?) Don’t think he knew we were looking for him. (He says it lasted until dark.) I can’t dispute it but I don’t know what time we got there. Said mid-afternoon we got there. I don’t remember the time. No reason to remember. We had trouble nding him.

(Second a davit - typewritten of Charles Rice. Taken June 9, 2005 - two days later. Why go back when he was about to hve a wedding?) He made comment like he was getting married ... wasn’t a big deal. Living with woman several months. Was not like the wedding you or I had. (Why say that?) With bridesmaids and owers. I took it he was going to justice court judge or something. He said ... interpreted it that way. He didn’t make a big deal of it. (Any di erence in rst statement and second one?) Not much di erence. (What reason for going back and doing it again?) I don’t know the reason. Probably to have cleaned up copy. (Whole lot better than Brandon Shaw. You can read this.) Agree. (Just trying to gure out why you’d go back.) (Did you put Rice under oath to sign?) Probably not. But I made sure he understood the contents.

(Are you talking about general practices or advising him he was sworn under oath?) I am not going to say I remember it, but I don’t think I ever notarized anyone’s signature without advising him.

(Look at statement .... D Exhibit 22 - Terkesia Pannell statement Sept. 15, 2006. Is that what you have?) I do, but not September. (February 15, 2006.) ( You were there?) Yes. (Who else?) Joel Morris, Billy R and me. (This one taken... how many times y’all saw her?) Two times. We made notes rst time and a davit prepared from those notes. Then we went back. (When rst time?) Not precisely, within a few days. Don’t recall how long it lasted. Less than an hour. (Meeting?) Her apartment in Tupelo. (Bring notes with you?) No. I didn’t bring anything but these a davits. (You have le on this case?) Yes. (Only interview that day in Tupelo?) In this case. I might have had others. (Would you hours billed show how long it lasted?) Would show how much I charged for that day. Not how long actually with her. (She met with you as long as she wanted?) Sure it was less than an hour. She was very cooperative. We introduced ourselves. Gave us information, we made notes and left. (Talked to her about death penalty?) No. We mentioned but spent little time discussing. She knew what we were there for. We made her aware when we rst arrived.

http://www.djournal.com/news/update-howell-appeal-judge-takes-issues-under-consideration/article_a6b4fffc-7df0-5af0-ae32-68a6a0a12ed5.html 16/34

9/7/2018 UPDATE: Howell appeal judge takes issues under consideration | News | djournal.com

(When she signed a davit. Did you read it to her?) I think Billy R did. (Did give her chance to read it?) Yes. (She said a lot of it was not true. Does that surprise you?) Yes, it does. (Did she ever say anything of bene t to the state of Mississippi?) She was not very complimentary of way state handled this manner. (Exculpatory evidence ... would ahve helped us? Say Marlon was at her house that night?) Yes, she said he was there but she was not there when he came back after shooting. (Where are notes from her interview?) I have not seen them. I don’t have them. (Would it help if you knew what they said before?) Yes. But if you look for truth, we didn’t are what she said before. She gave these comments. We did not put words in her mouth. (You don’t care what she said before - that’s way to tell if she’s telling the truth.) Yes.

(You testify ... more important than sitting on your couch.) I understand but what she said before didn’t matter to me. (Don’t you think when talking to law enforcement, it would be important what said? Heighten your awareness for the truth?) Truthfulness is truthfulness. (Don’t know if she was telling truth that day or not?) I don’t know if anybody’s telling truth. She seemed honest, totally aware of our purpose. She told us to the best of her ability - what it seemed like. (Never observed her saying something that wasn’t true?) I am not sure ...

(Hood - when you went out and interviewed these three - Rice, Pannell and Shaw - did you ever go back and read trial transcripts?) No, I have not. (Ever read statements to law enforcement?) I don’t think I have, not any of them. (So, Richardson was asking questions?) WAIDE - REPETITIVE. SUSTAINED. (Did you ask any questions?) With Terkesia, I asked most. Some with Rice. Brandon, I did not. (You don’t know what said previously?) Yes. (Did you or Billy R provide these witnesses of transcript of prior testimony prior to asking questions?) I didn’t. I have no reason to believe Billy R did. Not in my presence, no. 2:40

HOOD - Your honor, that’s all we have. JUDGE - ANY REDIRECT? WAIDE - NO.

JUDGE - Court reporter needs a break. Lawyers organize your thoughts. No more witnesses? RECESS 2:41

•• • 11:50 POST

NEW ALBANY – State witness Brandon Shaw said he didn't consider it a bribe when a defense attorney o ered him $20 "for his time" to get a statement when he stopped work at his car wash.

But later, Shaw said the attorney told him he'd do "whatever it takes" for another statement later.

Shaw is a state witness in an evidentiary hearing, which began Wednesday, about whether Death Row inmate Marlon Howell will get a new trial or have his 2001 conviction overturned on constitutional issues.

Howell was convicted in the 2000 shooting death of David Pernell in New Albany.

(Brandon Shaw continues on witness stand. Below is rest of running account of questions and testimony. Please excuse the typos and glitches likely as I type rapidly.)

10:03 - JUDGE BACK.

(Hood continues questions - To Shaw ... Adds him Exhibit 16. May 16, 2000... How did you give that statement. What happened/) WAIDE - Asks who he’s talking about. HOOD - That’s not proper. (HOOD - What time of day when gave statement?) 2:13. (How to police dept.?) I went there, drove there. I wanted to get everything clear... I didn’t have anything to do with it. What I heard, took .... Got home and dropped Marlon o . Talked to Kecia brother, girlfriend. Said trying to get Curt and get to bottom. Man had been killed. (Then?) Don’t remember... but we all got together, talking. They said don’t know why he shot him. JUDGE - STILL SAYING THEY. SAY WHO TALKING ABOUT.

SHAW - Me, Curt talking - he shot him, said trying to rob him. I begged them to come with me and tell law enforcement. They didn’t. I was leaving, they ran and jumped in with me. We all came down there. (What do?) Give statement. (What tell them?) Talking, what happened. I told them. Took him home. They put me in police car and lineup in a few minutes. Called Blue Mountain, had to cross over to di erent county and pick him up. Showed them where I dropped him o . Later, somebody picked him up.

(Hood - remember another time defense lawyer talked to you? Shows him document, transcript.) (Shaw is reading it.) I said I really don’t know where he is. (Date?) March 1, 2001. (Investigator for defense lawyer?) I can’t remember. (Hood - move to introduce transcript, taken by Duncan Lott investigator. Also to number statements.) WAIDE - Asks to speak with Hood ... I said don’t object, but would like opportunity to read over and make sure it’s what he told us. JUDGE - SAID he talked to somebody and didn’t know who he was talking to. WAIDE - counsel satis ed.) Judge gives him permission to number the statements, in lower right-hand corner.

(Hood - Second statement, law enforcement ... another document, recognize?) Remember, investigator showing it to me, Think it was Monday. (Read date) Thursday ... signed it. (Did you write all that?) No, I didn’t. (Hood - move to introduce marked statement from Duncan Lott, the transcript. Total 16 pages, plus cover with Lott letterhead.) (Hood - statement just talked about, dated Aug. 3, 2005. Move to introduce Shaw statement.) WAIDE - No objection, already in. (Hood - Exhibit 18 - 2005 statement. Who did you give it to?) My understanding, Marlon’s lawyer (points to Richardson?) WAIDE - Does he remember who was there. JUDGE - LEADING. (Who was there?) Lawyer, the one with the glasses on. (Hood - Indicates Billy Richardson.)

(Hood - was he there... where?) I can’t remember, he talked to me so many times. (How long talked?) Shhh... 4-5 hours, maybe 6 hours. Long time. (What was longest?) In Sherman. 4-5 hours. (When you signed it?) Believe it was. (He’s reading it, not very well.) Nobody especially Marlon rst attorney ever ask me about the case. (HOOD - Said he wants to say something he never said before. Did you say that?) No. (Why did you sign this?) Each time, they came, they were recording or writing. He would be talking, have somebody else writing. Asked me to sign, didn’t say it was statement. Said was to say you talked to me. (Did he say a davit?) No. (Know what notary is?) Yes. (Have one?) No. Not sworn.

(Hood - Did your read this?) No, not until Monday afternoon when I talked to the detective. (Let’s go through it. First paragraph ... your honor, do you have a copy of this?) (Judge says no. WAIDE - SAYS IT’S No. 31.) (Hood - rst paragraph.. I’m going to read it to you. You comment on it... Says Marlon had shirt wrapped around his hand, made me think he had a gun he was hiding. Surprised when he got out of car at his house. He had no gun. Is that correct?) It’s true. (When you told him that ... did you also say what you saw and observed about him that night?) I told him everything. (Second... I asked Curt and Adam where the gun was at... they said behind house near the shed... how I knew to tell police where it was at. Correct?) No, didn’t say gun was behind the house. I expected myself he might have put it back there. I asked them, they didn’t know. (When saw him?) I was coming out of the house to take him home. (So, that’s not true?) No sir. (Who took that?) WAIDE - OBJECT. OVERRULED.

(Who talking to?) Points to Richardson. (Statement 4 ... Never heard Marlon say he shot him.) True. (Never known Marlon to be violent. Did you tell him what Curt said in living room and he didn’t deny it?) Yes sir. (Never known him to be violent.) Correct. (He mentioned only wanting to rob him ... meant to say sell someone some fake drugs or trick them. Police never knew this.) WAIDE - OBJECTION, MINE DIFFERENT. (Hood - let’s go to ... Never mentioned robbing. Meant to say sell fake drugs or trick them. Is that true?) No. (Why say that?) We talked about that. Guy at convenience store. That was before we got to my house, that night. Night before the murder. (When? Night before murder?) Yes sir.

(Hood - Who talking about ... why stu in there about fake drugs?) Just talking, sometimes writing, sometimes not. (He said couldn’t they just mean to sell fake dope or trick somebody?) I said, he wasn’t meaning it that way. He was meaning to rob somebody. (You mean “easy lick”?) Yes, what he said. (Trying to get you to say something else?) I didn’t tell them this here. I told them ... we were riding along. At gas station, I said something to guy at pump. He said, that’s an easy lick, we can rob him. (Continue... I would have said Marlon didn’t mean robbery. Is that true?) No, not true. Didn’t write that, tell them that.

(Hood - robbery with gun?) I didn’t see no gun. (Hood continues - reads.. my girlfriend refused to testify. Police putting pressure on her despite ... to do so. Kept trying together to say she heard Marlon say he killed Mr. Pernell. What’s truth?) That’s not true. I don’t know what they said when they talked to her. She told me she told police she didn’t hear anything or see anything. She was in her room. (She says in here ... trying to get her to say something. Remember wanting her to testify?) No. I don’t know. Only that at trial, something in the hall or something. (You were in the hallway?) Somewhere.

(If Ms. Pannell were to say she was trying to tell somebody at court that you told her Curt and Adam committed the murder, is that true?) No. Never told me that. (Ever know... see if she talked to defense attorney?) I don’t know. (She tell you anybody told her to leave court?) No sir. (Living together then?) Yes, o and on. (Go to No. 8 - when I took Adam and Curt to police station, they were intoxicated and high ... in no condition to give statement or talk. Smell alcohol. True?) That’s a lie. Didn’t tell him that. (Condition?) They weren’t no drunk or high state. They were upset. (At station?) At station, can’t remember time. (What about police statement, time?) 6:03 p.m. (When went?) Think we were there before that. (Maybe mid-day?) Maybe.

(Hood - No. 9 ... police kept trying to get me to say I saw a gun and that Marlon shot someone, needed to rob someone. Is that true?) No. Didn’t threaten me. Said no, didn’t see a gun. That he had hand wrapped around. Thought it was a gun. Never said so. (Pressured to make you say something utrue?) Didn’t say that. (... they said Marlon telling on us... made Curt and Adam very mad.) Not correct. Part we said Marlon wasn’t there. Did not tell them that. (No. 11 ... facts are I don’t now who shot Mr. Pernell) That’s true, I don’t. (... Adam and Curt said where gun?) No. (... reads more of statement...) Only thing they stated, police, that Marlon and Curt had already gave statement. They asked who else was there. Said positive it wasn’t me. I told them. When they took statement, we went in police car to show where I dropped him o .

(reading ... never saw Marlon with gun and didn’t remove hand until we got to house?) True. (Police put pressure you my girlfriend.) Not true. She never told me that. (Document ... 4/4/2013) (Hood shows document to Waide then takes it) (Hood - shows to Shaw) One I signed Monday. 4/4/13 ... read statement. First closer to what happened. One defense took was not told way I said it. Don’t have problem taking lie detector test, or to testify again about what I said.

(Hood - when you say that defense statement wasn’t told by way I said?) They lied about it. (Intro statement of 4/4/13 of Brandon Shaw.) (Now, at time, if Kecia Pannell said you were on probation at time murder occurred?) That is a lie. (Tell judge what had happened, committed a crime.) I was 16 when charged ... grand larceny. Me and friend stayed across tracks in a house. Guy getting RR ties o side of railroad. Him and another loading them up. We seen it, asked what doing. He said, anybody can get them. In daylight, we weren’t trying to steal. Took them and scrapped them. Lady at scrap yard, knows me and could have told me. She called my mom that they were ling charges. Police called and said come talk to them. Didn’t even have time to cash the check.

(Remember if you pleaded guilty to this charge?) I think I did when I was 16. Hired a lawyer, Farese. (How old when pled?) I think 21. (So at time, you weren’t on probation?) No sir. (If Kecia says she peeked out of room and saw somebody, is that true?) WAIDE - OBJECTION. JUDGE - MISSED FIRST PART OF QUESTION. (Hood repeats question ... can’t remember. (Did Kecia ever come out?) No. (If she had could she see anybody in living room?) No. (Said you never told her anything about who committed murder. Why did she say that?) I don’t know. (Has she ever lied to you?) Sure, many times. WAIDE - OBJECT. SUSTAINED.

(Live with Pannell how long?) 6-7 years. (Do you have opinion about her truthfulness?) No sir. Problems numerous occasions with di erent situations. My own daughter ... so much con ict between us at time of break-up. Not at time of murder, maybe year later. My wife left and we had so many problems, you know. (You have other convictions?) No.

10:47 - WAIDE TO QUESTION.

(Waide - I met you when ... wanted to ask me a question?) Yes. (First, ask something you said. Did police accuse you?) They asked if I was involved. (What told them before that?) Hadn’t told them nothing before. At rst, talking to Adam and Curt. Said them separated, me too. (You and Adam are cousins?) Suppose to be. (You and several went to Tupelo that might?) Yes, and Marlon. (Had been out with them before?) Yes. (Friends?) Good friends, drinking, smoking and partying. (Back to what police said - said they asked you if you had something to do with it?) Wanted to now my role in murder. (Tell you anybody accused you?) No. (That Howell said Adam and Curt did it?) He wasn’t there. I told them Howell was involved when he came to my house. They asked if I knew where he stayed. They put me in police car and I showed them where I dropped him o .

(What did police say about your involvement?) Nothing besides taking Marlon home. (Relationship with Adam, Curt ... went out and drank and smoked?) We came up from kindergarten together. Went out all the time. Hung around together, them and a couple more friends. (What time did you and Adam, Curt get together that night?) First seen them earlier that night. At house with my Mom, playing cards - lot of folks. Don’t know what time. (Girlfriend? That overheard conversation with lawyer?) Yes. (She’s here?) Yes. (To corroborate?) No, not witness. Just her with me. (She’s in courtroom?) Yes. (But you say she heard about this?) She already knew.

(That night, ran into Marlon and picked him up?) Yes sir. (How often in Tupelo with Marlon?) Never had. (At some point during night ... according to what you said ... you stayed at home while other three left?) Early in the morning. I was in bed at that time. First got back from Tupelo, smoking weed and stu . (Curt and Adam?) Yes, and Marlon. (High?) Yes. (Three left you didn’t go?) Yes, left in blue Cutlass, Adam’s grandmother’s. Me and Kecia got into it... said I spent most of evening with them. (Car in at murder?) Yes, Adam, driving. (Didn’t you partiipate when Adam took car back?) No. (What happened to that car?) I don’t know. (You didn’t follow them?) No. Took them in my brother’s. (You’re saying, after did not go with them, people left. You stayed. Later, then came back?) Early that morning. (Adam said Marlon shot somebody?) Yes sir. (Then Marlon said nothing?) No. (Neither Adam or Curt said they didn’t have anything to do with it?) Well, didn’t say they didn’t have anything to do with it. Adam driving car.

(What did Adam say about Curt?) Curt was on back seat of car. All I know, what they told me. (Adam said Marlon committed murder. Didn’t say anything?) No, all he said was he wanted to go home, asked me to take him home. (Know murder was about 5:15?) I guess. (Didn’t have somebody to pick up at 6:00?) No. ((Whose gun was it?) I don’t know. (You went and told police where gun was?) NO, I didn’t. They went behind looking for it. (You didn’t say back there?) No.

(You took Marlon home ... that morning... knowing or beentold he committed a murder?) I was scared. Thought he had a gun. Hadn’t seen it. (When took him home, not scared?) No. (Got home and called police?) No I didn’t. (You didn’t think murder was committed?) Didn’t know, said shot somebody. (You and Adam and Curt dropped Marlon o at house?) Can’t remember both of them in car. (Didn’t you say you took them home?) Yes. (Must have been with you when took Marlon home to Blue Mountain?) Yes, must have been. (So you three knew you dropped o murderer?) Yes. (Three of you, not one suggested calling police?) (You’re telling court you dropped o man people said killed somebody. After you dropped him o .... HOOD OBJECTIONS..... Waide - only said Marlon shot him ... as a good citizen, you should call police unless you were involved?) I wasn’t. I said, I don’t now who was involved in what. Never seen the gun. All I know was he had hand wrapped up, assuming he had gun. (After dropped o Marlon, claim you took Adam and Curt home?) Yes.

(What did y’all talk about?) They both said, don’t say nothing. (What were you saying?) Going to let police know, if you don’t turn yourself in. (Being a good citizen?) What? (You were trying to put in on Marlon?) I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Either one could have shot him. I don’t know. I said that a thousand times. I don’t now who shot the man. (Did you tell police that?) Yes. (Did you talk to them about going to police?) Curt and Adam? Yes sir. (What were you talking about?) Curt or Adam ... I don’t now. (You went to one of their houses and talked about this?) Yes ... not just us. Seems like girls around. (Tell Ms. Pannell what they told you?) Yes sir.

(So, you did tell her you had information about shooting?) No, they told me Marlon shot somebody. (Signed police statement/) Yes sir. (How long .. you and Adam and Curt talked about it?) Not too long. (When talking, did you say... let’s say Marlon did it?) I wasn’t there. He told me. We weren’t discussing. All theys aid was Marlon shot him, don’t know why. (Did you think that by telling police that Marlon did it, it would get you out of trouble?) Didn’t tell them Marlon did it. (Other than telling them Adam was driving car, tell them anything else?) No.

(At trial, you and Pannell?) I said in the hall... long time ago. (What did you see? She was in witness room but didn’t stay for trial?) HOOD - Said he was hallway. (Did Pannell stay for trial?) I don’t know. (Saw her up here?) Yes. (Living together?) O and on.

(After trial, did y’all talk about trial?) Not really. We talked but no big discussion. (What did you say about the trial?) I don’t know. (Never talked about whether she testi ed?) I know she didn’t. I don’t remember her being a witness. (She ride with you?) She picked me up at work. (If she left, you wouldn’t have a way home?) NO, work right there. (Remember anything you and Pannell talked about trial?) Not really. no extent.

(Waide - statement DA showed that you gave went over and said a lot wasn’t true? Have you seen it before?) Yes, rst time was Monday. One DA gave it to me. (Went over it?) Asked me about it. (When you told them about lawyer?) No, rst time I walked to Jimmy Hood... whatever ... (when rst told lawyer was pressuring you?) An investigator.

(Let me try to understand statements ... when lawyer was there, was someone else with him all the time?) Yes. (Same one?) No. (Person with, was taking notes?) Not always doing same thing. (One time gave you $20?) Yes. (Only time money came up?) Only time he ever gave me money. (When you talked to yesterday... you said?) Said me and my brother were sitting here all day Wednesday, yesterday and now.... told them, sure would be nice to get a check sitting here all day. Brother said.... I was making a joke. He never responded to me and smiled. And then, another investigator ... I don’t know who everybody is ... investigator came down and said to come back Saturday. I said, really? He said no, just playing.

(Where you were then $20 came?) At car wash. (First time met lawyer?) Yes. (How did $20 come about?) Well, he came to me. Didn’t let me know he was a lawyer. Thought he was an investigator. Didn’t know who they were. (Explaining ... at car wash... rst time to talk to him and someone else... gave you $20?) Yes. (Also asked people up here for money to compensate your time. Did you bring up $20?) He did. He said, here’s $20 for taking up your time. I’m holding you back from doing your business. (You said talked to him 5-6 hours?) Yes sir. (First time, couple of hours?) Yes. (Day you gave statement?) Don’t know any time I gave a statement. (Take $20?) Yes. (Thought you were being bribed?) No, no bribery going on at the time. At time, brother and me washing cars. He came to talk about Marlon trial. Thought that was over. He said naw. Going for re-trial. Never made clear who he was. Said wanted to talk to me. Thought he was investigator. I said didn’t have nothing to say. Kept wanting to talk to me. Told him testi ed about what happened. Then, he said, don’t you know man’s on Death Row over this. I told them he made me feel kind of guilty. Understanding.. I don’t believe in death penalty. So, I talked to him. He said here’s $20 for your time, before we took any statement of anything. (He was paying you for your time?) At the time, yes. (When you asked investigators up here for money, you were asking for compensation?) No, I was just joking. (How did you know that?) No. Making a joke.

(Did you thnik you were doing something wrong when took $20?) No, he was taking up my time. (Were you paid for false testimony?) I don’t know what me meant. (Were you being bribed to change your story?) No, not my intend. Didn’t intend to lie. (Never intended to give false testimony?) And I never did. (You never said, pay me and i might change my story?) No. sir. (Didn’t intend?) NO sir. (Never been paid for testimony, at no time?) No. (Never o ered anything other than the $20?) Yes sir. (Do you have any knowledge about AG saying defense paid you bribe?) (Tell me what you know, if anything, about Hood saying attorney gave a bribe for testimony?) No sir. Don’t now what talking about. Don’t know about charging bribe. All know is when you came in and they were saying something about a charge for a bribe. (Who said that?) I don’t now who, not sure who. Heard talking. (Heard them could be charged with a bribe?) I think you were present when it was said.

(Waide - Statement you gave and said you didn’t say it, written statement... was it after that you talked to the lawyer?) I can’t remember. I didn’t now I was making a statement, just talking to me. (You still don’t now who shot him?) No I don’t. Don’t know who did what. Only know what Adam told me.

(Have you looked at Pannell statements?) No sir. (Do you know if she signed statement ... that Adam... that you told her Adam and Kirk shot?) I didn’t tell her that. (Adam said it was Marlon who shot guy?) Yes sir. (How often did you talk to Pannell ... several times about what happened that night?) Not really., We never sat down about it. Me and my brother, we did. (You said didn’t turn gun into police?) No sir.

(Waide - show you statement of Mickey Baker .. know him?) Don’t know. (Baker says ... Ray said gun was turned in by Brandon Shaw?) Ray wasn’t present. (What do you know about the gun used in the murder?) Nothing. (You didn’t point to gun?) No. (Found at your house?) Yes. (You didn’t know anything about it?) No sir. (So, you don’t now what Pannell said?) No. (Saying it’s a lie?) No, I don’t know what she said. I’m just saying that I told her Adam or Curt shot ... she’s lying. I don’t know she would have said that. (Has anybody said Pannell told that you said Adam or Curt shot white guy?) No. (Did anybody tell you she said you told her Marlon shot white guy?) Only thing I know is they said she was giving statement trying to discredit me. One of the detectives. (That Pannell was talking bad about you?) Yes, that she said she was what was going on. (Who?) I can’t remember. I told him I don’t know why she said what she said.

(Today, you testi ed same as trial?) Yes. (Have you ever looked at trial testimony before today?) Yes, I went on line looking it up. Me and my brother. (So, before today, you knew what you said at trial?) I been knowing, it’s embedded in my head. (You don’t nkow anything about what happened?) Right. (Know they now have pleaded guilty?) Yes.

(When you took them to station, you talked to them already?) Yes. (Did you feel like if somebody was shot for no reason or for robbery, did you know could be convicted of death penalty?) Yes. (You didn’t want friends to get death penalty?) Nobody get it. (Closer to them?) No. Wanted to clarify that I didn’t have anything to do with it. Know I did take him home. So much going on. Had folks threaten me and mad at me. (Who threatened you?) HOOD - OBJECT. NO RELEVANCE TO THIS. (Waide - goes to his credibility.) Judge - don’t now he’s accused anybody in open court.

(When was it you were threatened?) Around time it happened and around trial time. Me and others had been talking about it. Folks mad I said he was at my house. I said I have no reason to lie for Marlon. I wished to God he’d never been at my house. (But you picked him up earlier?) Yes. Lot of us talking they said he was at girlfriend’s house and dad said he was at home. I said at time, neither one of those statements were true. (Everybody drinking and smoking marijuana that night?) Yes, all of us had.

(Still have statement before you? One you signed but said you didn’t read?) Yes. (No. 33, your honor. Paragraph 6 ... see that ... you say when went to Tupelo earlier, Marlon said something about a “easy lick.” What did he mean?) When he said that was an easy lick ... at the pump at the gas station... like he meant he could take him. He meant about robbing him. (Said easy lick?) I didn’t write that. (Smoking at time?) No. Just riding around. Didn’t even have none in the car with us. (Thought you said smoking that night?) We were. We’d been drinking. (Graph 8 of statement... “they” Adam and Kirk were both intoxicated and high. See that?) Yeh. Saying, this statement... not true. (drunk and high?) At some point that night. (But say this statement is a lie?) NO, I’m saying most of this I did not read, he wrote it out. (Read Graph 8... I’m going to read it to you... Is is true you took them to station?) Yes. (Says both intoxicated and high?) I didn’t say that. I do not know. I don’t believe they were. I wasn’t. (They were at time of murder?) I don’t know. I don’t know. HOOD - ARGUMENTATIVE. JUDGE .... RICHARDSON - May I consult with counsel? (They talk)

(Hood - at bottom of statement... see that?) Yes sir. (Did you see the man there during statement. Did you see him sign it?) I don’t remember him signing it. (Did he put pressure on you?) NO pressure. (Man with lawyer ... was he also asking you questions?) He was talking to him ... (Lst thing you said, no pressure, just asking questions over and over?) Talking about attorney. (Police did, but no pressure?) No. (Police ask questions over and over no pressure?) No, didn’t come at me like you see people on TV. (But lawyer?) The whole ordeal was getting on my nerves. (What’s di erence between lawyer and police?) I really didn’t want to talk to lawyers. Wanted to talk to the police. (So, really no di erence?) Yes.

(What changed your mind about talking to lawyer?) Started in about Death penalty. (Di erence in him and police?) Not too much di erence. Getting on my nerves, both of them. Besides handing me $20. 11:39

HOOD - (You said several times about $20 ... said at time, didn’t feel it was a bribe.) Didn’t at time. When came to my house in Sherman. He’d been there before, Mom said. When got home, di erent occasion. He knocked. said I was hard to nd. Said needed to talk to me. Same thing? Yeh. We talked it’s hard to nd you unless I wave money around. Said he gave somebody money to nd out where you live. He made statement like I need to talk to you for statement ... I don’t mind paying for it, whatever I got to do. (Ever ask for money?) No sir. (Why not?) I knew I wasn’t going to talk to him. (When came to your house and said he’d pay, what was your impression?) Like he was trying to bribe me. Told you I took it as a bribe.

(Hood - about trial testimony. Where saw that?) Seen it numerous times. (Transcript?) Went on line. Newspaper. (Counsel asks you about defense statement in Tupelo ... about that’s a lick or something. Had he said needed money?) Yes sir. Said needs money to pay probation o cer, Marlon said. (Paragraph 8 of statement ... when took Adam and Curt to police station, they were intoxicated. When was that?) Don’t remember the time. (After lunch?) May have been.

(Hood - this statement written down for defense lawyer.. Exhibit 18 - this paragraph, true or not... that Adam and Curt drunk to police station?) To my knowledge, they weren’t drunk. Talking like me and you are now. (That’s all 11:45)

HOOD - One witness, will be very short. WAIDE - If talking about Ms. Pannell, if they want to interview her again ... they have the power to prosecute. They’ve already threatened lawyer. JUDGE - IF YOU HAVE a witness, let’s call her and put on the stand. KELLY - Witness has just arrived, wanted to confer with her. JUDGE - How long intend to examine her? KELLY - 5 minutes. ... 10 minutes at outset. JUDGE - LET’S JUST RECESS, it’s about noon. RECESS UNTIL 1 P.M.

•• •

FIRST POST TODAY:

NEW ALBANY – A state witness said this morning that Marlon Howell's lead attorney paid him for his time as the defense re-investigated the 2000 shooting death that put Howell on Death Row.

Brandon Shaw, the then-boyfriend of a Howell witness, said North Carolina attorney Billy Richardson o ered him $20 "for his time" when he rst attempted to speak with him about the case a few years ago.

(See below an account of Shaw's testimony today and Hood's questions for him.)

Howell’s counsel seeks a new trial for him or to have the Union County capital murder conviction overturned because of alleged constitutional rights violations.

The evidentiary hearing was ordered by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Attorney General Jim Hood was the case’s district attorney when it came to trial. On the state’s team with him are current D.A. Ben Creekmore, Assistant D.A. Kelly Luther and Assistant A.G. Jason Davis. Attorney Richardson is assisted by Tupelo attorneys Jim Waide and Rachel Pierce Waide, with support from the Mississippi Innocence Project based at the University of Mississippi.

•• •

8:50 - Hood has a motion. We ask ... that court to produce a witness today. RICHARDSON - We’re not putting her up but I think she is on her way ... probably be about 9:30. JUDGE - We;ll wait until 9:30 to see. RICHARDSON - May I inquire about what’s going on. JUDGE - Hood wanted access to Pannell. Asking where she was. Richardson - Why? HOOD - This whole hearing... operating like.. doesn’t follow courtroom procedure. Will not advise him about what I want to talk to the witness about. JUDGE - You’ve already held her to question again. Not improper to recall her.

LUTHER - She was not going to be our rst witness. JUDGE - Weren’t going to start until 9 a.m. but if y’all are ready to go. (Attorneys - no objection.) (Judge to take a couple of minutes before starting.)

LUTHER - CALL BENNY KIRK

KIRK - Retired New Albany police o cer, retired 6 years ago. (Testi es about law enforcement experience.) In May 2000, was investigator with Tim Kent at NAPD. Called to Pernell shooting scene. (Luther - Was Howell picked up during investigation?) Yes. (Was Howell put in lineup?) Yes, around 10 a.m. May 15? (Prior to that, was he charged with murder?) No. (A davit charging with capital murder before lineup?) No. OBJECTION - LEADING. JUDGE - SUSTAINED.

(When charged?) After lineup, about 10 a.m. (When charged?) Some time that afternoon. (How long lineup take?) 20-30 minutes, don’t recall. (Did Howell ahve attorney there?) Don’t recall. (Charged, what does that mean?) Paperwork, warrant, a davits. (Before his lineup, any a davits signed?) No. (Warrants?) No. (Why not?) Well, you get your ... we needed a lineup. (Prior to lineup, did you have evidence to charge him?) No. (Did you interview any witnesses?) I was present for some. Didn’t conduct any. (Did you threaten any?) No.

9:00 - JIM WAIDE (Telling counsel that no charge until after the lineup?) Of capital murder, yes. (Held before?) Yes. (Remember when taken into custody?) Uh, we got warrant from MDOC, ppicked up that night after the incident. (Y’all had MDOC warrant for parole violaiton - behind in payments. Know how long you had that warrant?) No sir. (But behind on payments and warrant, not picked up until co-defendants made statement about the murder?) Yes. (How did probation o cer picked him up? Who?) Police and Sheri ’s Dept.

(So, once picked him up, was he free to leave?) No, MDOC had hold on him. (Why?) Because MDOC had one. Had to do whatever with parole o cer before he could get out. (You had information that he committed the murder?) Yes. (Did you take a statement?) Yes. (You’re not saying you’d take him out before going to the judge?) No. HOOD - He’s a police o cer, No foundation he had authority to release somebody from jail. WAIDE - (Without going to the judge, in your experience as police o cer ... have you ever seen two witnesses say murder and you released somebody?) No. (Didn’t happen in this case?) No. 30 years in law enforcement.

(Your opinion? Based on the codefendant statements, did you have probable cause to hold him for capital murder?) I think we did. (Needed something more solid?) Yes, lineup. (In your eyes, lineup was crucial factor to prosecute?) It helped, yes. (It was crucial, wasn’t it? You didn’t want to go with just two codefendant statements?) Yes. (You wouldn’t want to go to trial with just their statements, wanted something more solid?) Well, common knowledge to get all you could. LIne up is one of them.

9:06 - LUTHER (ASKED ON CROSS IF HOWELL WAS PICKED UP on probation violation for failure to pay his fees. Show you document, see if familiar. WAIDE - No objection.)

(Luther - Document, recognize?) Warrant for violation of probtion on Marlon Howell. (What is alleged in it?) Non-payment for fees. (Was part of this screening for drug use?) WAIDE - OBJECTION. (Failure to pay fees, no matter what?) Yes. (Did you or NAPD have any authority to release him from that probation warrant?) No. (Did Howell ... you were asked about having two statements again, then release from jail. What would you have done if Rice said he wasn’t the one?) We would have investigated more. WAIDE - OBJECTION TO SAY HE’S ASKING... LEADING. JUDGE - SUSTAINED.

(What had Rice done.. did he came forward?) Yes. He gave description of what person looked like. (Why lineup?) WAIDE - OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. Luther - placed importance of lineup in cross examination, whether Kirk had authority about arrest JUDGE - OVERULED.

(WHY DO LINEUP?) To make sure.... (Would you have signed warrant, a davit charging Howell if all you had was statement from co-defendants?) Yes sir. (Prepared to sign a davits before?) Myself? No.

9:11 - STATE CALLS BRANDON SHAW. Hood to question.

SHAW - 32. Self-employed, tears down houses. TEsti ed during trial. (Hood - Tell judge brie y your role night of murder.) They had came to my house, I was asleep. Ray knocked and woke us up. Said wanted to talk to him, important. May 15, 2000. In bed with Kesia Pannell. I got up. Heard disturbance. Startled. Adam told me Marlon had shot somebody. Playing? NO, for real. During time, all us present in the room, not one time did Marlon say he did or didn’t. (Appearance?) He was hysterical. His face real red.

JUDGE - Who was present?

SHAW - Adam said he committed murder. Curt con rmed it. Marlon was hysterical like something happened. Pacing back and forth. Hand under his arm. WAIDE - This is all in the record. I don’ thave problem with a summary. But going through every detail... like at trial. HOOD - Ms. Pannell attacked his credibility yesterday. Not going through every detail. JUDGE - OVERRULED.

(HOOD - So, explain what talking about defendant. What was he doing?) He had like his hand under his arm and he was packing back and forward. He had shirt wrapped around his hand. (Then what?) Then, Marlon said take me home, Blue Mountain. (Who was there?) Me, Marlon, Curt, Adam and ..... I was scared I thought he had a gun. Had his hand under his arm, Marlon did. (What do?) As I was going back Adam was behind, Curt too. I told Kecia I have to go. She asked why. I didn’ tell me, just chill out. I know how she is, would have said you’re not going anywhere.

(Why didn’t you want to tell Kecia at that time?) Marlon ...he had just shot somebody. I put my clothes on. To living room, I thought I didn’t have tag on my car. Got my brother’s car keys. I didn’t tell him what was going on. Marlon came from around house. I got in other car and took Marlon. Marcus got in car rst. To take Marlon home. He said, don’t say nothing.

(Then?) Came back to New Albany. Told them he said not to tell nobody. Curt, and them left. I dropped them o . My brother and Kecia didn’t know what was going on. She was awake when I got back. (In living room, talked to them?) Don’t know. Told her that I took hi home and they said he just shot somebody. (Did you say other shot him?) No. (If she were to say that’s what you told her?) She’d be telling a lie. (If she told court that you said Curt and Adam killed Pernell, that would be a lie?) Yes. sir. WAIDE - That’s question for court. JUDGE - I WON’T JUDGE HER credibility unless he contradcts her. overruled.

(HOOD - If she said she peeped out BR door?) I didn’t see that. WAIDE - LEADING. HE’S NOT SUPPOSE TO NOW WHAT SHE TESTIFIED. JUDGE - to witness, wait. OVERRULED. He said “if she said that.”

(HOOD - IN BR, could you see into livingroom?) No. (How was it set up? If somebody was in living room.) Front about 100 feet across. BR on other side of dining room. BR, door opens. Can’t see directly into living room. Mother had a cabinet... dining room right o BR. She had a big cabinet in dining room and couldn’t see around it into the living room. She’d have to come all the way out of the room to see living room. (So, if opened door, couldn’t see who was there?) No. She’d have to come all the way to the door ... to see. (See then?) Not directloy.

(See her come out?) No. (Ask her what was going on?) Didn’t tell her anything. (Now, when you got back and told her. What time was it?) Can’t remember those details. Daylight. (What time?) Don’t know. (Said Kesia was up?) Told .. my brother, Kecia and my brother’s girlfriend. Talked about what happened. I left and went to look for Curt and Adam. Told them I was going to let o ce now what happened. It was on the new... about the murder.

JUDGE - Mr. Shaw, slow down.

(Hood - When talked with people in house, Kecia... watch TV?) Yes sir. Don’t remember who all was sitting there... about the murder. (Any questions with Kecia about who committed the murder?) I don’t know. (How long were you living with Kecia?) About 6-7 years. O and on. (Have any children?) A daughter, she’s 11. (What about your parting, your breakup?)( We never got along. (Is she mad at you?) Yeh. (Did she ever lie?) WAIDE- LEADING. SUSTAINED.

Hood - If she told us that you tole her that Curtis and Adam committed the murder, that’s a lie?) Yes sir. (Why would she lie about that?) I don’t know. Marlon’s lawyer might have paid her. WAIDE - OBJECTION. MOTION TO STRIKE. HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS,. IF HE’S GOT FACTS, HE NEEDS TO TESTIFY TO IT. HOOD - Ask him to make sttements, not talk to witness. JUDGE - He said they might have paid her. SUSTAIN OBJECTION. Supposition, guess work... sustained.

(DID THEY ever o er you money to change your testimony?) Yeh, they tried to bribe me. (Who?) I don’t know name. (How many times did someone came about giving another statement?) About 5 times. (First time, when and where?) At car wash, he came to talk to me. Didn’t want to talk. WAIDE - Ask court to instruct who did what. Who is he talking about, accusations of misconduct. JUDGE - Say who it was, what they looked like, some type of identi caiton?

Shaw - two of them. Only one I remember was guy sitting there in glasses against the wall. Third man down (POINTING TO RICHARDSON) Hood - Indicates Richardson as one who came to talk to him.

(Hood - FIRST TIME, what occurred?) Washing cars, real busy. He kept on wanting to talk to me. About Marlon Howell. (Who was it?) First time didn’t say. Thought it was state investigator. Didn’t want to talk to him. I asked what is this about? Want to get on with my life, I have people who have threatened me. I have never said Marlon shot anybody. I don’t know what he did, only he came to my house. He kept badgering. Then ... (How long?) A few minutes. Then said well, need to talk to you, man’s life on line. He’s on death row. I kind of felt guilty. I said he shouldn’t be on death row... but serve life, my opinon. (He? Who talking about?) The lawyer.

(Hood - So, after that?) I stopped washing and we talked. Went on a while, more than hour or two. He said, pulled out wallet. I’ll give you $20 for your time. Lawyer said. (Then what?) We talked. (So, didn’t sign statement hten?) Don’t know. When they talked to me, always writing or recording. He never came by himself. At my house ... (Next time?) Can’t say which. Just remember several times. (How many times?) About 5 times.

(Hood - Anybody else present when talked to you?) At shop, brother was there but didn’t hear anything. My wife was there but she didn’t hear anything. Later came to house, Mom and wife there. Can’t remember who else. At Sherman, wife and Mom there too. At Sherman, asked him how found out where I lived. Trying to get away. He said it’s hard to keep up with you. I said, not trying to be found. Spread money around, and people will tell me where you at. (How long ago was this?) In Sherman was 2008. (How long period were these 5 times with Richardson?) I don’t now. A few years.

(Hood - When mother and wife there, any conversation about money?) Yes, sir. He said wanted to talk about it, man’s life at stake. I’m willing to pay for your time. Like I want to get a statement. (How many times said paying?) A few time. Probably every time. (How did you take that?) I felt like he was trying to pay me for a statement that he wanted. Didn’t. (Signed it?) I told you and everybody else, I didnot read that paper. EVery time they came, they were writing down. Not at one time did I ever read what they wrote. He said, just sign this that I talked to you. Never did I read it.

(Hood is showing documents to Waide. Several dozen people in the audience. Includes Howell’s mother.) HOOD - They have this in discovery. WAIDE - Your honor, I can’t recall this. JUDGE - IF NEED to take a recess, I’ll do that. (Waide continues to read documents.)

HOOD - Your honor, it’s 9:40 and no Kecia Pannell. Ask for bench warrant. RICHARDSON - I’m not in charge of that. Will MacIntosh, colleague, she said 9:30. From Tupelo. Takes 20-30 minutes. She should be here any time. We thought they had two more witnesses to put on. JUDGE - AMAYBE YOU CAN contact her. Richardson - We’ll do that now. (MacIntosh leaves courtroom. Waide still reading. Says doesn’t object to any of these.)

(Hood - Document, what is this, when?) 5/16/2000. I signed it. (That your statement to law?) Yes. Move to enter into evidence. WAIDE - NO OBJECTION. Would like about 5 minute recess after direct to look at statements again. (Judge - brings them to bench to talk about it.) JUDGE - SHORT RECESS. 9:46.

1 note · View note

tlbodine · 7 years ago

Text

Writing Slasher Fic

These days, when you hear "horror," the slasher is one of the first things that probably comes to mind. That's most likely because slasher films absolutely dominated during the 1980s, when many of us were growing up and forming our opinions about the world, and then made a strong resurgence in the 1990s when the younger half of a generation as doing the same thing.

There are a ton of slasher franchises that pop immediately to mind, each centering on an iconic killer: Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Ghostface, etc.

But the slasher genre has, primarily, been confined to the silver screen. You just don't see as many novels in the same vein.

Oh, undoubtedly you find novels about serial killers -- but they tend to be police procedurals and cop thrillers, not the same classic "teenagers getting chopped into pieces" format as we're accustomed to in the movies. What's up with that?

Well. Some thoughts.

What is a Slasher Fic?

Slashers are stories about serial killers who go on murder sprees and wipe out a number of victims one-by-one, often all of them members of the same social group. The most traditional format involves a group of teenagers who are mowed down systematically by a killer while the authorities are useless to intervene. There is generally a moral element wherein the victims "deserve" to die for various on-screen transgressions, whether it's being Too Stupid To Live (tm) or having premarital sex (a classic, but now largely outdated, plot device).

You survive a serial killer, these narratives suggest, through moral superiority rather than force or skill.

And that makes sense, in a way, if you consider that these Hollywood serial killers are really not very much like real serial killers at all. They are the personification of our baser instincts, our animalistic nature: unstoppable killing machines that seem to feel nothing, either physically or emotionally, and whose desire for destruction is relentless. They are all of the worst parts of our nature, and so it makes sense that defeating them would require calling upon the best parts of our nature.

So Why Are There So Few Slasher Novels?

I suspect that part of the reason you don't see the book equivalent of Halloween very often is that, from a technical standpoint, many of the things we find most satisfying about slasher films do not translate very well to print.

The first issue is the violence. Slashers depend on gore and jump-scares; they live firmly in the "shock" camp. Which, as we know, is one of the hardest to write. Seeing someone killed in some particularly gruesome way affects the brain differently than imagining them being killed that way. You can still write the blood and gore, but it won't be quite the same. It's much easier to pull off over-the-top, campy, gleeful-dark-giggles-inducing fountains of blood on the screen than on the page, because you have absolute control over what it looks like. Your reader, on the other hand, will supply the details themselves with their own imaginations, which makes your job a little harder. Not impossible! But harder.

The second issue is narrative structure. Traditionally, novels are told from a single perspective, or at least a single perspective at any given time. Their strength is the ability to get into the head of a character and feel what they feel. Film, by contrast, provides a third party objective view, where the camera serves as a voyeur. That creates tension by putting us one step ahead of the victims at any given time.

In other words, it's a lot harder to shout "He's BEHIND YOU!" to characters in a book.

Therefore, a slasher novel would need to have a more distant omniscient narrator rather than a close-third or close-first person perspective.

But what about first person from the POV of the killer, I hear you asking, and to that I say: Excellent, it can be done, but what you get will not be a horror story in the classic sense. By putting is in the head of the killer, we will inevitably sympathize with him, which makes him not scary. He might be doing awful, grotesque things, but we won't be afraid of him because if we're in his head we know he's not standing right behind us.

To be afraid, we need to be in a position of sympathizing with the victim, and feeling what they're feeling. Otherwise, you're looking at a thriller or a crime novel or a mystery or anything else that's not horror.

(Which is fine, of course, but this is How to Write Horror and not How to Write Gory Thrillers, which would need to be a book of its own)

Okay, Okay, So Does That Mean I Can't Write a Slasher Novel?

Nope! This totally does not mean that.

But you just said....!

I know. I totally did. But just because something is difficult does not mean that it can't be done! There are quite a few young adult authors in particular who have written some classic played-straight slasher novels.

The trick to writing an effective slasher:

- Create a cast of characters who draw strongly on archetypes, but give them a little twist that makes them likable and unique. You want to do this because you'll have a large cast, by necessity (you need a lot of bodies to hit the floor), and you want those characters to be instantly relatable.

- Write from the perspective of your "final girl." You can deviate from this POV sometimes to provide a bit of drama (breaking away to see the killer in action elsewhere, for example) but most of your narrative space is going to be spent on watching the main character encounter the mutilated bodies of her friends and running from danger.

- Add an element of mystery. A slasher plot can feel a little thin. Bump up the cerebral horror by including a mentally engaging subplot or mystery to solve -- such as, perhaps, the killer's identity, or what he wants with the main character. You'll see this pop up time and again in most (but not all) slasher films: what seems to be a random attack turns out not to be so random after all, because the killer is actually deeply entwined in the Final Girl's life in some way. Unraveling that mystery puts some meat on the bones of the narrative.

And of course, remember to keep in mind the other tips and tricks we've discussed already in terms of building suspense, writing gore, handling shock, etc.

Some Required Reading to Get You Started:

I Know What You Did Last Summer by Lois Duncan (it's a child of its times, and has some really painful dialogue, but it's interesting to study alongside the film)

Some of R.L. Stine's Fear Street books are good. For our purposes, I'd recommend starting with Lights Out, The Prom Queen, and Silent Night. The Cheerleader series is pretty good too.

Some of Christopher Pike's novels are in the same vein. Try out Chain Letter, Slumber Party, and Weekend

Survive the Night by Danielle Vega is not strictly a slasher (the monster is an actual monster and not a serial killer) but the format is essentially the same, and it's worth studying.

The above are all young adult novels, because that's what happens when you're writing about teenagers getting carved up. Compare and contrast with these essential slasher-fic movies:

Nightmare on Elm Street

Halloween

Friday the 13th

Scream

Urban Legend

I'm probably missing some recommendations, so toss them in the comments!

#how to write horror #slasher #serial killer #fiction #horror movies #writing advice

81 notes · View notes

missnight0wl · 6 years ago

Text

Snape was the third person

Spoilers up to Y5Ch21. Also, a long post ahead.

Which person, you ask? You know, the one mentioned here:

I’ve seen some speculations that this line is about Duncan, however, it doesn’t really make much sense to me. First of all, there is a possibility that it was written after Duncan’s death. The timeline of Jacob’s actions is really fuzzy, we know that they were working on two vaults at some point, but it’s hard to say anything for sure. Nevertheless, even if Duncan was alive, it’d be still odd. With the way Jacob put it in words, it sounds like he’s surprised by the choice of that particular person, maybe even displeased. Yet, he was working with Duncan for R for some time already. Wouldn’t he be an obvious pick to be involved also into partnership with Rakepick? At least from Jacob’s point of view? Well, I think the requirements for that third person were more specific, and that’s why I believe Duncan is an unlikely candidate. More on that a bit later.

(Btw, don’t you think that MC should at least think of asking Duncan whether Jacob was working with Rakepick and if he knows anything more about it? Sure, in Y5Ch21, MC mentions that they’re Rakepick’s apprentices, and Duncan doesn’t seem to react on this name, but perhaps he simply didn’t know it? Maybe MC should try asking if Jacob mentioned at any point a bitchy redhead Curse-Breaker, or a vixen trying to save his life? No? Too much thinking? All right then.)

I’ve also discussed once a possibility of that person being MC’s father, HOWEVER, the father’s absence issue really irks me lately, and I don’t want to go too deep into that - especially that Snape simply makes more sense if you ask me. So let’s discuss that.

At first, it doesn’t look like a probable situation. I mean, Snape hates Rakepick - why would he agree to work with her on the Cursed Vaults? Patricia could possibly be willing to cooperate, but she’s not very fond of him either. As for Jacob though... Well, truth be told, we can’t actually tell much about his relationship with Snape. In fact, we can’t even be certain that he was taught by Severus or they just went to school at the same time. I suppose that everything Snape tells us about our brother could be as well told by another student. But then, there was that one mention:

It’s from Y3Ch5 when we finally got back Jacob’s notebook. I do think it strongly suggests that Snape was a teacher at that point, someone with the authority over our brother. And since he was avoiding him, he probably didn’t like him much.

But how did it look on Snape’s side? Sure, now he apparently hates Jacob (I think it’s rather anger and/or disappointment), although, in my opinion, it wasn’t always the case. Do you remember our conversation from Y5Ch4 about Penny?

I believe it’s not a coincidence that Jacob was also mentioned in that sentence. We’re told all the time that he was a talented student, brilliant at basically everything. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he was also good at Potions, and if Snape sees his Vaults obsession as wasting a potential. I’d even say he might’ve liked him before all of that. And let’s be honest, does Snape working with someone he hates in order to PROTECT A CHILD sounds like something unlikely to happen? Moreover, the fact that Jacob went missing/turned into madness might be another reason why Snape despises Rakepick even more - he can blame her, think that she manipulated Jacob. Oh, and when we spy for him in year 4, he’s got this line:

... so, was Jacob among that eliminated competition?

Still, in the end, all of that above is mostly conjecture. That was until we got THAT ONE FREAKING LINE in Y5Ch17 which is driving me crazy:

WHY THE HELL WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT?! LIKE...?! *internally screaming*

I mean, it takes place one chapter after Rakepick was swearing she never met our brother, and now Snape basically tells us that she CHOSE him? I’m sorry, but what?! Am I looking too deep into this or he’s simply admitting that Rakepick was working with Jacob? Because if that’s the case, we have three options:

Snape is assuming that because he hates Rakepick and all evil in the world is her fault,

Snape knows she chose Jacob because he was working with them too,

Snape found out about their partnership through spying OR research.

Now, I want to add more to that last option. One thing about Rakepick that I feel is not being stressed enough during the story is the fact that she is quite famous in the wizarding world. There was at least one book written about her (MC gave it to Bill when they met in year 2), but that’s not all. Let’s go back to year 4 again. In the chapter about Bowtruckles, there’s a part where we write an essay and Rowan joins us. We get three options for them:

If we choose “Madam Rakepick”, this is what we learn:

Hm, I wonder what are chances that this assistant’s name was Jacob... The question is, why it seems like the article doesn’t mention any name at all. Either way, it’s very possible that Snape did similar research and found the same information. And here again, he could’ve just assumed that it’s about Jacob, or he dug deeper (more likely) and actually discovered their identity.

Anyway, no matter which option is true, I find it beyond annoying that MC DOESN’T EVEN ASK why Snape said that. Seriously, it’s not the first time when they make MC ignore things that obviously should get their interest: why they didn’t know about Duncan, who is Olivia Green, who Jacob was working with in Knockturn Alley, why there are random Gryffindor robes in Jacob’s room, WHY DON’T WE TAKE CARE OF THE MESS IN THERE FOR ONCE? I understand that they don’t want to reveal too much of the plot too fast, but simply let us ask. Let characters avoid answering or lie to us. Otherwise, MC just looks stupid, and it’s starting to piss me off.

Back to the topic though. I’ve mentioned the specific requirements for the third person at the beginning. And what rare skill Snape and Jacob have in common? They’re Legilimens. I assume that Legilimency might be somehow needed for the buried vault. Maybe they need combined powers or something. It’d also explain why it HAD to be Snape - because there’s not a lot of people to choose from. Although, now that I think about it, it might be rather about Occlumency. Perhaps the vault messes with your mind (which actually goes well with my idea for the final vault)... In both cases, Severus fits the bill and he’s a better solution than bringing another new character with such unique abilities.

#hogwarts mystery #hphm #hphm mc #jacob's sibling #hphm jacob #patricia rakepick #madam rakepick #severus snape #legilimency #duncan ashe #cursed vaults #analysis post #theory #hphm theory

87 notes · View notes

vmheadquarters · 5 years ago

Text

We’re still playing our game of written hot potato! Dozens of your favorite authors are taking turns to tell a Veronica Mars mystery story. Each writer crafts their chapter and then “tosses” the story to the next person to continue the tale. No one knows what will happen, so expect the unexpected! Follow the “vmhq presents” and “murder we wrote” tags for all the installments, or read the story as it develops on AO3. — Chapter Ten of MURDER, WE WROTE is written by @loveobsessed2. And stayed tuned next week for Ch.11 from @pepandliv1 -tag, you’re it!

—————————————————————————————————— CHAPTER TEN by @loveobsessed2

“Mac? How long have you been here? Do you have internet access? What are you looking at? Are you involved in the mystery? Another fake victim? How and when did you get here? Oooh, can I have some of your chips?”

Mac immediately turned the bag in their direction and spoke a little louder than normal to be heard over Veronica’s crunching.

“Hey, Bond, slow down. I arrived the same way you did, just a day earlier. I didn’t know you were gonna be here, but once I saw your name on the final list, I was really hoping you’d find me. I have a few questions of my own, but you know I’ll tell you everything I know.”

Logan pulled the other two chairs back from the table and gestured for V to sit down. She offered him the bag of chips as she complied.

“Did you know Mac was here?”

“Nope, I’m just as surprised as you are.” His voice was light as he tossed a chip up in the air, expertly catching it in his teeth, and using his tongue to bring it fully into his mouth.

Veronica’s eyes were riveted on his mouth as she quipped, “Two happy surprises in one day. How did I get so lucky?

“I’ll show you lucky.” He waggled his eyebrows as she flushed.

“I can see that your reunion is going well.” Mac cleared her throat to regain their attention before finding herself in a very awkward situation. “When I first found out you were here, I was contemplating ways I could bring you two together from behind the scenes. Of course, that was before an actual dead body was discovered.”

“Smart thinking on staying hidden from the rest of the guests. We all know everyone is a suspect.” Logan tensed next to her, and Veronica reached out for his hand then hurried to add, “Present company excluded. And Wallace of course.”

“Of course," Mac agreed. "What do you want to know? You already met my roommate, Jen.”

“Jen is your roommate? What happened to Parker?” Veronica was noticeably confused.

“I’m so glad you listen when I talk, Veronica. I told you, Parker didn't come back this semester and is already partially into her sophomore year at a local college in Denver. Jen has been my roommate since October. I like her much better than the emo chick I was assigned at the start of the semester. Bonus points that when she throws a party I make money, instead of getting stuck chatting with random strangers who tease me about my name and offer me apples. I know I told you all about the murder mystery side gig I’ve been helping out with. How else did you think Wallace scored an invite?” Mac paused to let that settle in and allowed her expression to show her satisfaction that she knew something before Veronica. “You’re welcome by the way. I’m the one who suggested his invite specify a female plus-one.” Mac gestured to the happy couple. “Based on the two of you being attached at the hip since your arrival, I’m assuming my plan worked.”

Logan and Veronica shared a look and then smiled at Mac. It was all the proof she needed.

“So, what’s with Duncan and Norris and Leo? How do they all fit into the master plan?”

“I wasn’t in on any of that. Jen said Duncan and Norris were sent by Mistress X. She didn’t let on if she knew Duncan was--or still is-- a fugitive. I'm assuming the rest of the team is also in her employ. Jen is the only one I’ve had contact with. All I know about Leo is what I overheard from the guests over the security feed.”

“Security feed? You’ve been recording us? Like, with hidden cameras?!”

“Where? Why didn’t we see them?!”

“We always have cameras. And listening devices. It’s how we make sure the guests stay safe. And offer the less intelligent ones some extra clues. You wouldn’t believe how much people don’t notice.” The two girls shared a knowing look until Mac broke eye contact. “I’m just sorry I disabled the ones in your room once I heard Logan come in.”

“Dang it! I thought we finally had a way to figure out who pushed you.” Logan rejoined the conversation.

“I can’t believe there are hidden cameras and I didn’t even think to look for them. Someone has been distracting me recently.” Veronica shot Logan a pointed look. “Let’s not even get into the fact that that same someone could be voted ‘least likely to see a hidden camera.’”

“Well ex-cu-use me for thinking there were more important things to focus on. Like maybe making sure no one else died?” Logan’s sarcastic and condescending retort did nothing but further raise Veronica’s hackles.

“You guys…” Mac’s voice doesn’t even register with them.

Veronica didn’t attempt to soften her words as she spat out, “Are you implying I wasn’t? Being the most observant person in the room isn’t easy. Especially when I’m surrounded by a bunch of rich pampered idiots. Let’s not forget their king - the only guy I know who could live somewhere for most of his life and fail to notice that his favorite hang-out contained not one, but two hidden cameras.”

Giving up any pretense she’s not hanging on their every word, Mac propped her feet on the table, and started munching on red vines.

“Oh yes, Sugarpuss, you are the queen of detecting, and we all bow before your greatness.” Logan demonstrated with a flourish of his hand. “You certainly would never have failed to notice a hidden camera.”

“Low blow, Logan, low blow. I’m sorry I was distracted the first time by the revelation that my best friend was being taken advantage of by a psychopath. And how many times do I have to tell you? That. Was. Not. A. Sex. Tape.” She enunciated every word before accusing. “You saw the video, you should know!”

“I didn’t watch the whole thing, but it sure looked like a sex tape to me.”

“What? Did you expect me to play the part of the ever-jealous ex-girlfriend? After Madison?”

“Let’s set the record straight. What happened with Madison is definitely not what you imagined.”

Veronica’s defensive shell began to slip and her voice cracked. “Sure.”

His gaze was vulnerable and sincere as he caught her eyes. “Hey, Veronica,” he soothed, scooting his chair closer and wrapping an arm around her shoulder. “I know, we need to talk about all of this, but let’s dial it back a little.”

“OK,” Veronica whispered, as she buried her face in his side and relaxed into his embrace. “I didn’t realize how fresh it still was.”

“Me neither.” He stroked her hair and planted a kiss on her crown. “I know there’s a lot we need to work through. I am so sorry for hurting you.”

Veronica reached out and gently cradled his face in her hands. “Oh, Logan, I only dated Piz because I couldn’t stand to be alone while you seemed to have moved on so spectacularly without me. I should have tried harder. There’s always hope when it comes to us. There has to be.” She offered him a tentative smile and continued. “I know we’ve messed up a lot in the past, but I really do want to figure this out with you. I’m sick of being without you. A bad day with you is better than a great day with anyone else.”

Logan reached down to cup her face and the hope that shone in his eyes was almost blinding. “No more running?” he whispered.

“No more running,” she assured just before his lips met hers. She wrapped her arms firmly around him in an effort to prove that she was never letting him go again. His strong arms pulled her tight against him, and they got lost in each other as their bodies apologized and soothed in ways that words never could.

The sound of Mac once again clearing her throat jolted them out of their fugue state, and laughter bubbled out of their chests.

"Ok guys, I’m glad you’re finally hashing out some of your issues but there are a little bit more pressing matters at hand. We need to make some kind of plan while we’re still alone.” She paused long enough for them to nod their agreement. “This whole situation is a little out of control. All the mystery actors are staying in the servant’s quarters. I’ll keep an eye on them and report any suspicious activity. You two are with the rest of the guests, so I’m sure you’ve got that side of things covered. I’m bummed I didn’t buy the new Thuraya SatSleeve phone converter case before this trip. If I ever needed a satellite phone it's now.” Mac showed her frustration by smacking her forehead with her palm. “My laptop was connected to the internet before the storm hit. It was a spotty and slow connection, but it was better than the non-connection I have now. Has Wallace had any luck with the phones?"

"No, both landlines have cut cords, so that was a dead end." The slow shake of Logan’s head emphasized his words.

"Right, but surely you’re smart enough to realize your remote-control plane building BFF knows how to splice together a cut cord…" Mac raised an eyebrow in question. “I guess you were already on your way in here when he brought up looking for a tool kit to attempt some diagnostics and repairs.”

"Further proof that every Bond needs a Q." Veronica quipped, with no evidence of her previous vulnerability.

"Truer words were never spoken.” Mac met her friend’s eyes with a grin. “We really need to establish a connection to the outside world. Right now, my phone is as good as a paperweight. I can’t believe none of these spoiled 09ers has a satellite phone. Money is wasted on the rich."

“I take offense to that!” Logan interjected. “I’ve never been in a position to need a satellite phone until pretty much right now. I should’ve known better than to believe Dick when he told me all of our needs would be taken care of, and all we had to do is show up. He claimed he had the perfect vacation for us over winter break and it would give me the distraction I needed." His eyes shifted to Veronica and then away again nervously.

Veronica chose not to dig into what sounded like a painful topic for Logan and addressed Mac instead. "Mac, if you saw what was going on, why didn’t you leave me some kind of clue, so I could find you sooner?"

Mac shrugged. "The doors are rigged and only open from the inside at certain times. I was getting everything ready for when you did find me. I knew it wouldn’t take long. I was just getting re-connected to the internet before the chandelier went crashing to the ground. Maybe it took out some wires? I tried to log onto Prying Eyez to get some info on Leo and Duncan, but I don’t have your new password.”

“Yeah, Dad kicked me off his server after the whole lost election evidence tampering fiasco. Here’s my new login and password. Once you get back online, will you hack into Vinnie’s files and find out what Leo was working on recently and if that’s what brought him here? Him being here the same weekend we were all brought together is too big of a coincidence to even pretend they’re not connected.”

Veronica reached into her bag and pulled out the damaged page of Leo’s notes.

Holding it out for Mac to see, she said, “Once you get back online will you get me the rest of this case file? Even when we can get off this island, I’m gonna need to find out what happened to Leo. Why was he here? Why did he leave the sheriff's office and start working for Vinnie? Was he working both jobs at the same time? Was he undercover somehow? Is his death related to this case?"

“Why do you care so much about a guy you claim to only have dated briefly?” Logan teased.

“He was a pretty decent guy, and he was a great source of info.” Veronica defended.

“Yeah, decent guys always rob the cradle. Were you even legal?” Logan asked.

“That was years ago, and I ended that once you and I started kissing. He’s the only guy I ever cheated on. Maybe I feel a little bit of lingering guilt. The least I can do is solve his murder. I used him just like I’ve used everyone else. I’m sorry for the times I’ve gotten so wrapped up in solving a case that I didn’t stop to take your needs or feelings into consideration. You too, Mac. You know you mean more to me than that, right?”

Mac gave her friend a reassuring smile right before Logan chimed in. “Speaking of people who mean something to us, it looks like your BFF is pretty smooth with the ladies.” Logan gestured to Mac’s screen, and the trio gathered around to watch Wallace with his high-school crush.

“Teaching a girl how to do something without mansplaining really is a great seduction tool.” Veronica playfully bumped Logan aside with her hip, and they settled in to watch Wallace and Alexis in the kitchen. The telephone and an assortment of objects were spread out on the counter in front of them.

Wallace turned to her and said, “There was a pretty extensive collection of items in the junk drawer but surprisingly no wire snips or pliers. I’ll just have to make do with a knife and this roll of electrical tape.”

He picked up one end of the severed cord and held it so Alexis could see what he was doing. She paid close attention as Wallace showed her how to remove the white outer coating to reveal the four colored wires underneath. He then stripped each individual wire of its insulation, being careful to cut just the rubber coating without damaging the actual wire. They clearly seemed to be enjoying their time together, even though it was spent performing such a mundane task. Alexis was a quick study and picked up the other end of the cord while holding out her hand for the knife. Her movements weren’t as practiced as his, but her nimble fingers mimicked his movements until her wires were just as ready as his. Their eyes met, and his smile was full of approval. He then demonstrated how to align the two cords of matching color and twist their exposed ends together to ensure a strong connection, before wrapping each wire in electrical tape; this took the place of the previously removed rubber insulation, before sealing them together with a new piece of tape. They shared a smile of mutual accomplishment before plugging the cord back into the phone. The keypad lit up when the receiver was lifted. “No dial tone. The phones must be out. We’ll keep checking. They’ve gotta come back at some point. We should check the box in the basement, but that should probably wait until morning,” Wallace said, as he pulled Alexis into his arms.

The trio turned their attention from the screen to give the new couple some privacy. Veronica sighed and suggested they go their separate ways, but not before inquiring about Mac’s supply of snacks. Mac handed Veronica the key to the pantry, and promised to dig up a map of the grounds, as well as blueprints for the main house and any other structures on the island.

#veronica mars #veronica mars fanfic #vm fanfic #vmhq presents #murder we wrote #round robin

23 notes · View notes

memecucker · 7 years ago

Link

thanks for the submission anon! not sure why the entire article was pasted but i’ll put it under a cut. i dont endorse everything said here but i think its a worthwhile read

The question remains as to whether Canadian polemicists know what they are talking about when they denounce “cultural appropriation”. I don’t think they do. I think they are misrepresenting the phenomenon and bloating it to useless dimensions, sloppily borrowing American terminology, and bending the reality of Canadian history out of shape. I also detect a familiar narrowing of the dominant vocabulary that is authorized for use by the media in public discourse, so that one term or phrase is used to do the work that previously several different concepts handled. Confusion is the inevitable result—and that is by design. It is intended that we should be confused, since that spawns endless circular debates, irresolvable conflict, parties speaking past each other—all of which works against sharing, against acculturation, and against building a stronger national society. It also works against the indigenization of Canadian society, the cultural side of the economic citizenship that I defended here. Instead we are turned into mutually hostile bands of litigants, constantly parsing each other’s statements for even the smallest sign of something which we might find offensive. We are constantly feigning fainting spells, our delicate selves being so overwhelmed by the daily outrages against our reputation (brand).

Some well-placed Canadians do not know the difference between cultural appropriation and assimilation, and the errors that ensue lead to a falsification of Canadian history. To begin with, assimilation in its most basic historical sense involves a dominant group (typically colonizers) absorbing or incorporating the dominated group (the colonized) into the social and cultural norms of the dominant group. The indigenous culture is thus meant to be extinguished, and those who once belonged to that culture now acquire a new culture—they are converted to the culture of the dominant group. The indigenous culture is in no sense “valued” by the colonizer—it has no value, it can be held in contempt, and was usually targeted for erasure. Not to be mistaken with the unidirectional process that is assimilation, acculturation involves “those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups” (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, pp.149–150; see also Herskovits, 1937, p. 259). Both assimilation and acculturation are examples of culture contact, culture change, and more broadly, “diffusion”. Cultural appropriation, which is not as well defined as the previous terms and does not enjoy as long a history in North American anthropology, is muddled because it could mean taking over or taking from or simply borrowing. The corollary is that when a culture has been subjected to appropriation, that culture continues to exist intact: I can claim that your culture is now mine, but that does not mean you cease to have your culture; I can acquire select values, practices, and motifs, and make them my own, and again that does not mean you lose those elements; I can borrow an item, inspired by you, and you lose nothing as a result. Where cultural appropriation seems to rise to a condition of conflict, is when commerce and formal ownership are involved—but then that takes us to cultural exploitation, which is far removed from simple acts of sharing and borrowing.

Focusing just on the pair—assimilation vs. appropriation—recent evidence in Canada shows the monumental errors that are made when appropriation is used to handle the meanings of several very different concepts, all at once. Here, for example, is Jesse Wente, a Canadian Aboriginal, not a chief of a nation but a self-described “Ojibwe dude” who, not to be falsely modest, is a figure in the Canadian mass media, a self-appointed gatekeeper and culture broker, and a purported specialist on “diversity” and “inclusion”. Wente recently vented the following:

“It’s easy to say you don’t believe in cultural appropriation when it’s your culture that has been forced on many, while erasing there’s [sic]”.

He is right: it would be easy to say that, because it’s wrong. What Wente describes in that quote has nothing at all to do with “cultural appropriation” (it’s the opposite), and everything to do with assimilation. At no point does he describe the dominant culture taking from the dominated culture. This shows that Wente does not even know the meaning of appropriation. However, by accident, especially in making us correct his mistake, he points to the actual reality of Canadian history, which has been one of assimilation, rooted in utter disdain for Aboriginal cultures, expressed in a desire to beat the living crap out of those cultures and turning Aboriginals into clones of white people. Aboriginals did not “appropriate” modern, Western, Christian, individualist and capitalist lifeways: these were forced on them. There is no such thing as an involuntary appropriation. It’s the same history of assimilation that made it possible for Wente to write in English. Canadian policy was never about making Canadian settlers more like Aboriginals, to encourage appropriation—to even suggest that is a terrible perversion of Canadian history.

The history of residential schools in Canada is not a history of “cultural appropriation”: it is a history of assimilation. In 1883, Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, explained the residential schools policy to the House of Commons:

“Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men”.

(That will take us to the next section and how genocide has been conceptually mangled by deliberately and confusingly rephrasing it as “cultural genocide”). The policy of residential schooling was explicitly an assimilationist one—as expressed in the famous words of Duncan Campbell Scott, the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932:

“I want to get rid of the Indian problem….Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department.”

It was a policy of “taking the Indian out of the child,” and abolishing the Indian altogether. The idea was not to create a tabula rasa as an end in itself, but to erase and replace, by forcibly converting the child to the dominant, British Canadian culture. It is closer to being cultural imperialism than it is to cultural appropriation. However, since the authorized discourse in the elite-controlled media has successfully narrowed the vocabulary of Canadians, no such mention of imperialism ever surfaces, in any context.

We can conclude that the problem with the “cultural appropriation” idea, as deployed by gatekeepers, is that it either does not actually describe and explain the phenomenon to which it is assigned (and thus does not exist), or it does exist in other contexts but we are not told why that is anything other than the normal course of cultural diffusion. We also know that cultural appropriation is not a prominent part of Canadian history, which instead emphasized assimilation of indigenous peoples. Finally, in some cases, what is being marked as cultural appropriation is instead actually cultural exploitation, which is more than just borrowing. Do you get the sense then we are being told there is a cultural appropriation “problem,” when none actually exists?

As for cultural exploitation, that is not an easy issue to settle. Numerous Aboriginal hip-hop musicians in Canada borrow from US sources without apology, just as in central Australia there are Aboriginal reggae bands, playing their music without sending shiploads of tribute over to Jamaica. This is not to mention the many dozens of zombie films made over the past century, all done without paying royalties to Haiti. (Perhaps the producers of The Walking Dead were very clever in avoiding use of the Z-word.) The problem lies with the intentional spread of rules of “intellectual property” by governments and international bodies working in the service of a neoliberal political economy. An expert class of managers arrogates to itself the right to instruct and aribitrate over how we can learn from and be inspired by other cultures. So much for “market freedoms” then, and so much for “globalization,” when the very upholders of both of these are revealed to be little more than rent-seeking racketeers.

Enter the lawyer: Olufunmilayo Arewa is a professor of Law, at the University of California, Irvine, writing in The Conversation US, an online publication made possible by many of the usual giant capitalist US foundations and expeditionary philanthropists such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Henry Luce Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and so forth. The “funders” vary by country, but are usually an assemblage of banks and foundations. The Conversation is part of a growing trend that Pierre Bourdieu warned about decades ago in Homo Academicus (pp. 112, 119, 120, 267, 268, 297): the blurring of the lines between academia and journalism which reduces the autonomy of universities, makes them answerable to market audiences, and introduces journalistic standards of renown into a field previously dominated by standards of scholarship.

Thus it is not surprising to see Arewa’s piece in The Conversation—it is not so much predictable as it is almost mandatory that it would appear there. A lawyer, writing as a journalist, based in a major US university, backed by powerful foundations, all of which gives us a glimpse into the dense cluster of special interests that have been vested in the manufactured debates around cultural appropriation. This is a field dominated by elites—academics, journalists, bankers, lawyers—not an organic outgrowth of some popular outcry existing at the “grass roots” of indigenous communities.

Not to keep the phenomenon safely out of the reach of such special interests, Arewa (in loose language uncharacteristic of careful lawyers) blurs the lines between cultural appropriation and cultural exploitation. The accent is on exploitation, an arena fraught with danger, with loud claims for compensation, restitution, reparations, profit sharing, royalties, etc. An example of this deliberate slippage is where she writes, “borrowing may become appropriation when it reinforces historically exploitative relationships” which she quickly follows with a mention of opportunities to “control or benefit” from cultural “material”. I do not mean to suggest that Arewa is careless, sloppy, or lazy—I think that the language that bleeds from one concept to another is deliberate, intentional, and vested with special interests. The aim is to produce a “problem,” a problem that can only be solved in the legal arena and the marketplace. It is a neoliberal problem of diversity management, that demands neoliberal technologies of control and capital accumulation. Culture is turned into “material” that can be “controlled” by someone. (Who? You can guess.)

There is nothing ambiguous about this: if you read Arewa’s piece you will see the words above immediately followed by a section devoted to artifacts, museums, and a bunch of dollar figures—translation: culture as property, held by institutions, sold in the marketplace. It is the finale of her piece that gives away the motive in writing it:

“An understanding of both borrowing and appropriation should be incorporated into legal, business and other institutional frameworks. In fields such as intellectual property law, greater recognition of the power structures underlying borrowing in different contexts is important. This can be an important starting point for blocking future exploitative cultural flows. And it can help prevent extraction of more cultural booty”.

This squarely places the discussion of cultural appropriation in the neoliberal zone, where everything is commodified and then privatized and thus subject to the “rule of law”. Culture—whatever that was—becomes a matter of “intellectual property law”. Luckily, being a lawyer herself, Arewa is one of those who presumably stands to benefit. And that is the trick behind all of these attempts to regulate our speech and social interactions: subject them to regulations, censure and censor violators, and create capital for specialists who appear, as if by magic, to expertly mediate the whole problem…a problem they conceptually manufactured in the first place. The final gift is that the rules and norms of capitalism can be used to heal the rifts caused by capitalism—this really is magic.

There is one more area, a critically important one, where the conceptual wizardry produces benefits for elites, and losses for those who are supposedly meant to be protected, and that is the Canadian invention of “cultural genocide”.

It was shocking to see Canadians accepting the notion that the history of residential schooling—where children were forcibly taken away from their Aboriginal parents, to school them out of their Aboriginal heritage—has been officially defined in Canada as “cultural genocide”. Conveniently, there is no such concept under international law, and it thus whitewashes Canada’s reputation for what it really is: a state guilty of genocide.

Of course, no state guilty of genocide has the political capital needed to lecture and threaten target states of the periphery. “Cultural genocide” avoids that problem, and is useful for evading any talk of UN sanctions and Security Council resolutions.

There was no conceptual need to speak in terms of “cultural” genocide—everything that is essential to the history of residential schooling is already covered by the existing UN charter on the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” and has been since 1948. The key text comes under Article II, particularly point (e):

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A lawyer quoted by the CBC, reportedly made the following points: “Schabas compares the use of the term genocide to a very hot spice that ‘transforms something from being rather old news into something that gets the headlines’. Sometimes, he says, it also makes it harder for victims to reconcile with the perpetrator groups”. That is one remarkable statement. Not only is the history of residential schooling in Canada not “old news” (it only ended in 1996), the nature of the term being like “hot spice” never stops Canada or other Western nations from liberally applying it whenever convenient, against target nations abroad. Wholesale fictions of “genocide” were invented about Libya in 2011, to justify NATO’s intervention—few, let alone in the CBC, were ever heard to say, “Hold on now, that’s a hot spice term, and if we use it then that might prevent the victims from reconciling with the Gaddafi government”. Instead, much of this CBC article, in the ample tradition of liberal hypocrisy, casts about for the appropriate legal scholar to lament about how, aw shucks, it’s too bad we do not have “cultural genocide” in international law…when the current convention against genocide already covers exactly what happened with Canadian residential schools. Such blindness is not incompetence, it is wilful. It was sad to see indigenous leaders abide by all this, as if they had won something significant, instead of acknowledging the political fraud for which their experience was hijacked. How ironic then that this indigenous “leader” should declare: “If you can’t identify what the issue is, then you really don’t know what you’re working with”.

In my book, Ruins of Absence, Presence of Caribs, the central concept and argument focused on the “reengineering of indigeneity,” where indigenous identity became vested with the interests of specialists emanating from several arenas surrounding the Caribs in Trinidad & Tobago: the national state, the Catholic church, the mass media, local businesses enterprises, local government, academia, tourism, NGOs, and international governmental organizations. We see a similar vesting of special interests in the fabrication of the “cultural appropriation crisis” and the story is not one of mendacious leftists (there are those too), but should instead be seen as reflecting neoliberal capitalist patterns.

Lawyers, professors, journalists, and other self-appointed gatekeepers: these are some of the specialists, sanctioned by the media and governments, who litigate and adjudicate the neoliberal commerce in culture, that is, culture turned into property and removed far beyond sharing, parody, mutual insults, and all the interactions that make up everyday social life. To be clear, never once have we heard any sort of popular indigenous outcry over “appropriation”—what we are made to hear instead are the voices of lawyers, academics, media pundits, and diversity consultants who show up with business cards, courtesy of the new cultural policing. We are therefore dealing with interests vested in reengineering culture into a series of specialist turfs, accompanied by calls for recognition, rewards, and fees. Regulation of culture by the rule of the marketplace generates bureaucracies, and these bureaucracies create capital for the culture brokers that arise to take advantage of the opportunity. Even better, the manufacture of conflict over “appropriation” produces the space for appointed experts to intervene, and to inevitably acquire capital. This is the path of culture that is instrumentalized, or even weaponized.

44 notes · View notes