An undignified farce (now with video)
Update: video below
Astute, long time readers will have noticed two things: 1) the death penalty trial of Steven Hayes, defendant in the brutal murders of 3 people in idyllic Cheshire, CT has wrapped up its first week; and 2) that I haven’t blogged about it yet.
I’ve resisted adding to the 5-ring circus, but what I’ve seen and read over the last week in the press have driven me to the point of breaking my silence.
A trial of a man implicated in the most horrendous of crimes in recent memory, the most inhuman acts, if one believes in such things, has also robbed all of us of our humanity and sense of dignity.
I’m assuming you all know the basics, so I won’t rehash them here. This is the stuff that millions are made out of; enough fodder to keep the presses printing and the airwaves buzzing for months and months to come. Judging by the coverage of this trial on Twitter and the press, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the entire State had come to a standstill. It’s a good thing nothing else newsworthy is happening anywhere in Connecticut presently.
As the tweets start every morning at 6am and continue with alarming regularity well past 5pm, I cannot escape the mental image of a horde of vultures circling a sad, deteriorating carcass, pecking away at it, tearing off pieces of flesh, bit by bit and then those vultures morphing into hyenas, cackling wildly.
Sure, the crime is offensive. Sure the crime is heinous. I’ll accept whatever adjective you choose to throw at me. But there is an unmistakable stench of race and class politics emanating from that courthouse in New Haven. Out of curiosity, I called a source who is familiar with the goings on in that courthouse. “Are there any other trials going on currently?”, I asked. Sure enough, there is one other, just a floor below the Cheshire spectacle: State v. Brandon Bellamy.
By the information provided at that link, Mr. Bellamy is accused of two murders. That’s two victims, two families devastated, multiple lives ruined. Mr. Bellamy is also black. Perhaps his alleged victims are too, I don’t know. “How many reporters there?”, I followed up.
None.
Not a single one. While the Cheshire trial needs a horde of media vans lining the streets and every able-bodied reporter in the State to cover it, just 20 feet below is a possible capital felony trial that no one gives a shit about.
The Cheshire case is often called “the Petit case”, after the last name of the victims. Can anyone here tell me the first or last names of the victims in the Bellamy case? Had you even heard of Bellamy? I sure hadn’t.
A Google News search for Brandon Bellamy turns up abso-fucking-lutely nothing. Why? Because no one gives a damn. Black man accused of two murders? Pshh. Inner-city business as usual. Three white women murdered? Every news outlet must abide.
The Cheshire case is every white person’s nightmare. The Bellamy case is every city-dwelling black person’s reality.
The blame, of course, lies with the reporters and the news media. “Hayes leans over to lawyer and talks”. “Petit looks at screen”, “Hayes scratches his nose”. Okay, I made that last one up. But these are the tweets being sent out at a furious pace to thousands of followers (myself included).
As trials go, the Hayes trial is a boring one. It is a tedious one. He admitted guilt during the opening statement of his lawyer. There’s really no question that he had a hand in this brutal massacre. The question – the only question – in this trial is whether he’ll get life without the possibility of release or will he be murdered by the State.
I blame the reporters for something else: I blame them for turning our justice system into American Idol, for turning the murder of 3 women and the anticipated murder of another man into a spectator sport, for not having any sense of journalistic integrity to put things in context and for not taking their responsibility to inform the public seriously. Anyone can be a reporter – all you have to do is report the facts. It takes more skill to actually convey some meaning and emotion and context by using the facts.
I avoid the websites of the leading newspapers in Connecticut like the plague. The Hartford Courant, the New Haven Register and others of their ilk have become the cesspools of the angry and ignorant. And the authors of the articles in whose comment sections unmitigated rage is spewed and spread don’t seem to care. Take a look, if you can, at the comments to today’s story in the various papers. The big news of the day wasn’t the fact that firefighters testified about the evidence of arson in the home or the pictures of the home burning, but rather it was that the defendant had suffered a seizure last night (or “seizure-like symptoms”) and despite sitting through the morning’s proceedings, apparently deteriorated during the lunch hour to the point that his health became a concern and the rest of the day’s proceedings were suspended. Here’s a sampling of the reaction:
” So the freak had a “seizure” and wee-wee’d on himself? Tough s**t. Why does he get this kind of consideration? A pox on him and the s**mbag [New Haven's chief public defender] Ullman who stands up for the freak’s “rights.” “
I wonder what Randall Beach, the author of the piece to which those comments are posted, thinks about that. Is that the level of discussion he hopes to foster when he writes? Is that who he’s writing for? Here’s one from the Courant:
notsocurrent you are absolutely right!! This sorry excuse for a human being was man enough to rape and pillage, but not man enough to face the music? Did anyone actualey see this seizure? I’ll bet not.
Lets skip the trial and get right to the penalty phase!
I’m sure that’s exactly the reaction that Alaine Griffin, who penned the Courant piece, wanted to provoke. In my years of reading these articles and the comments that follow, I’ve seen maybe 5 sensible comments that show any humanity or even a basic understanding of the criminal process. I’ve long complained that reporters and journalists themselves don’t understand the process, the rights and the importance of the application of those rights in even the most extreme cases, so how can one expect them to convey that to their readers. But that’s just a damn cop out. They know exactly what brings eyeballs to the website and that’s sensationalism.
One of Hayes’ attorneys, Thomas J. Ullmann, said at the start of today’s session that Hayes had a seizure last night and urinated all over himself. However, he said at the time that he thought Hayes was well enough to be in court.
But after the lunch break, he said he did not think Hayes could continue because of his medical condition.
Judge Jon C. Blue agreed to halt proceedings until Monday. Friday had already been scheduled as a day off.
Would it have been so difficult to include that the State didn’t object to the continuance? The high irony of this is that the one entity that wants to – and can – kill Mr. Hayes is the only one that seems to want to proceed with dignity. The rest just want a show.
Is it that difficult to understand that we have become the very monster we are condemning when we forsake the basic human values of dignity and compassion? That we are undermining the foundations of our system of justice when we want to “skip the trial and hang ‘em already”? Have we devolved to the point that intelligent discourse is left to fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants networks like Twitter? Oh wait.
Mr. Hayes will be found guilty of several crimes and then 12 people will have the task of deciding whether to let him rot in jail for as long as he lives or to spill blood on all our hands. Some are licking their lips at that prospect. I don’t see the difference between them and Hayes.
Maybe it hasn’t occurred to all who are riveted to the trial, but what they’re witnessing is the slow murder of one man. All the reporting, the jeering, the condemning is nothing but spectatorship of the slow build up to the execution of a human being. Talk about macabre.
Murder is a terrible thing. It is not to be relished, enjoyed or anticipated. Let us not make a mockery of justice and of the value and dignity of all human lives.
Rant over. I thought I’d feel better, but really, I still feel sick to my stomach.
[And, of course, I must reiterate that these are my personal views only.]
How apropos is this video from the Daily Show:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rally to Restore Sanity | ||||
|
||||
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on September 16, 2010 at 8:41 pm, and is filed under cheshire. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |


about 1 year ago
The only stories people care about are the ones that affect them. And the only crimes people pay attention to are the ones where what happened could happen to them. When I read about a murder the oldest part of my brain dedicated to survival desperately tries to find a reason why the crime could never happen to me. For example, I would never go into the inner city at night. If the guy didn’t walk down the street drunk he wouldn’t have been attacked. If the Petits had a dog this would not be a story. We say to ourselves, “No wonder that woman was killed. She should have been carrying Mace. What makes the Cheshire home invasion so addictive is our old brain can’t escape the fact that the victims didn’t do anything foolish to bring this on themselves.That scares the hell out of us.
about 1 year ago
They had an alarm system that wasn’t activated. Does that count?
The point I’m trying to make is that different crimes can happen to different people. Everyone can get mugged in the middle of the night, everyone’s car can get broken into, everyone can get kidnapped while walking the streets, everyone can get caught in a gang fight and die in crossfire.
Why does one get more coverage than the other? It’s because the suburban home invasion is more titillating for white folk than the murder at a nightclub in downtown New Haven.
about 1 year ago
It’s not a white folk phenomenon, it’s a middle class debate. If I die in a gang crossfire people at my funeral will say man what a tough break. If my family is wiped out people at my wife’s funeral will ask each other did the husband do all he could to protect his family. The Petits are not to blame for not setting their alarm, nor is Dr. Petit to blame for falling asleep in the sun room instead of with his wife which may have given him crucial seconds to hear someone downstairs. As the police chief said this crime doesn’t make sense to this day. It’s such an escalation in savagery for these 2 minimal criminals that you have to wonder what possessed them so violently? I want to rip their guts out but first I would like to be transported back 2 generations and sit down with Steven Hayes’ grandparents and find out how this branch of the family became malignant.
about 1 year ago
Obviously you do not know what murder means (guess you slept through crim law that day). Since you are a PD, I am not surprised. Here is some help for you.
Definition of MURDER
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (emphasis added)
You are welcome.
about 1 year ago
I’m assuming there’s a snarky comment in there somewhere, or perhaps a joke. I don’t get it, so maybe try again?
Despite my nagging feeling that you’re not entirely serious with that comment, I’ll tell you that in CT the definition of murder is simpler:
Simple.
about 1 year ago
Attacking the media for reporting on one of the most heinous crimes committed is misplaced. Yes, they should cover other trials, just like they should cover news other than fires, crimes and storms on the 11 p.m. newscasts. But budgets have been cut and they cover news that they think people are interested in. And of course the coverage is simplified, but that’s the case in every criminal action too.
Putting aside the race of the victims, you have to acknowledge the facts of the murder and the brutality of it separate it from the ordinary murder trial. A shooting on a street corner is morally wrong but the “story” isn’t as compelling.
At the end of the day, trials like this have been covered in the same fashion for generations: Think of Skakel, Menendez brothers, Hillside Stranglers, etc. Complaining about media coverage is an age old problem as well. So long as the Defendants get fair trials, then what the media reports is secondary.
If you’re truly offended, stop reading. I’ve turned off the Twitter feeds from those at trial and ignored it. I’ve long since made up my own mind about the case and I suspect you have as well.
about 1 year ago
That’s just taking the easy way out. There’s a value judgment being made here, that some lives are more interesting and more “newsworthy” than others. It makes a mockery of us all.
I’m not saying trials shouldn’t be covered, but the almost childlike glee with which this case has been thrust into the spotlight is a bit disconcerting.
about 1 year ago
Is that really the definition of murder? If so, the death penalty = murder. What about killing in self-defense?
about 1 year ago
It is.
Self-defense is a defense to murder. So, in a sense, you’re guilty of murder, but it’s not a crime because it’s justified.
about 1 year ago
Self-defense is defined in CT under General Statutes § 53a-18. It is an affirmative defense — if the defendant puts on some evidence of it, the State must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not all murders are eligible for the death penalty. It is by design intended only for the most serious of murders. § 53a-54b, the capital felony statute lists those murders which can lead to the death penalty. If the jury convicts of one or more counts of capital felony, then it goes on to a complicated weighing process to decide if the death penalty is appropriate in this case. See § 53a-46a.
There’s an explanation here:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0136.htm
One of the problems with the Cheshire coverage is that it is doing a terrible job of explaining the very complex and difficult decision faced by the jury in this case and in every other death penalty case.
about 1 year ago
I think Borden White made an excellent and salient comment. We do care about those things that might affect us. Things or situations that we can identify with. The Cheshire home invasion scares the people in the newspaper reading and news viewing demographic. Why? Because we are predominantly white, we are predominantly suburban and as previously noted, the Petit family did not indulge in any risky behavior to invite these attacks.
Blaming the media however, is a cop out. As a former journalist I am all too aware of how the feeding frenzy works, and how little the reporters and photographers participating enjoy it.
We as a people have brought the American Idol atmosphere to the news because these sensational stories are the ones we will pay to read. Newspapers have published what we need to know for decades, centuries, even, and we hate them for it. As a single example, the New york Times published a story about the president of the United States ordering secret, illegal wiretapping of American Citizens and people protested against the newspaper!
Every time there is a sensational trial or story like this one, people rail against how the media is to blame. Baloney. We are to blame. If people weren’t watching, the newspaper reporters, television vans, and bloggers would disappear like free food at happy hour. Why wasn’t there anyone at the State of CT V. Bellamy? Because no one will pay to read that story. Black people, Latino people, and poor people (statistically, as groups, yes I know that individual members of these minority groups do read/ watch the news) do not read newspapers, do not subscribe to news web sites, and do not purchase news magazines.
News organizations have been forced, by us, to act more and more like businesses and less and less like the watch dogs we need.
Car fire on the interstate, everyone slows to gawk. Budget cuts to the education budget, 30 out of ten thousand registered voters appear at the public hearing to debate the issue. Tell me I’m wrong, but if you do, next time you see an accident on the road, drive by the calamity without looking.
about 1 year ago
I think you make some very valid points – but it has to start somewhere. Has it become a vicious circle now? They feed us, we demand more, and on and on it goes?
or does someone take a stand and say “no more, we will report responsibly and with the dignity and respect that the proceeding which is to decide whether a man lives or dies deserves”.
Let’s be clear: I’m not railing against media coverage. Media coverage, when done right, is good and necessary. I’m complaining about the comparative coverage this trial has gotten – and the reasons why it has now become such a circus.
I’ve long written about the lack of accurate and knowledgeable media reporting in criminal cases and the problems that brings, especially its impact on the general public who might one day be called upon to serve as jurors in those very same types of cases.
If your argument is that the lowest common denominator has dropped even lower and therefore the newspapers have no choice but to lower themselves to meet that standard, I say bullshit. Look at the New Haven Independent. They do remarkable reporting and the level of discourse on their site is much higher than that elsewhere.
As a side note: why doesn’t the Courant simply close comments on stories such as these? Are they proud to see their websites cluttered with blatantly racist and hateful remarks?
about 1 year ago
Amen
about 1 year ago
There is a debate in media about whether to moderate comments or not.
NHR has decided not to moderate but will yank down comments if libel gets out of control. They do this all the time, recent example were the comments on a story about a cop who was arrested.
Moderating cleans up comments but the opposing argument is valid too.
Allowing anonymous, unmoderated comments sometimes results in tidbits of important information disclosed that someone would otherwise be fearful to put forward. It happens far more often than you might think.
Unmoderated comments also result in a mirror put up to recessed, secretive racism, hatred and ignorance that otherwise would remain hidden. It is repulsive, I agree with you, but I am rather glad to know it exists. On the New Haven Register, for instance, intelligent commenters have tried till blue in the face to explain to the crude blood thirsty commenters that, no, Dearington and Ullman are not out for money or fame, no you can’t kill people without a trial, etc.
Frankly, it may be the first time these ignorant people ever threw their views out there and ever had them answered by people who know better. I hope it does some good. There is nowhere left in our television watching, nuclear family oriented, isolated society where people throw their views around for debate. These unmoderated boards are the only place left and I hope they educate. It is rare that the horrendous mob like posts go unanswered by someone else who is intelligent, so, I guess I think it is a good thing.
As for court reporters. News outlets have done nothing but cut. The crisis in newsrooms is nationwide and predates the economic downturn and has gotten nothing but worse since.
As to court reporters: None of the papers have dedicated court reporters anymore. That was an assigned beat traditionally, with one person becoming expert at his or her beat.
Randall Beach was and still is a columnist. The court reporter, Michelle Tucitto was pulled off to be a bureau chief. The Courant has thrown one guy on the courts mostly and he isn’t covering this trial. What he does cover is anemic anyway. Lynne Tuohy at the Courant is long gone. Mark Pazniokas is now at the Connecticut Mirror covering politics mostly. The Mirror does not focus on courts.
Plenty of them have gotten more court experience since the shakeups, but the most experienced court reporters are gone, period. The only exception are the reporters at the Connecticut Law Tribune.
As for fighting for the kind of access that would allow reporters to do more meaningful in depth reporting on the courts, well, the media/court committees have put the vast majority of their energies into negotiating access by audio and video/cameras in the courtroom which frankly is not going to add to more indepth and meaningful reporting at all. It is going on something like seven years since their agenda has dominated the work of the media/court committee.
Meanwhile, reporters can’t without spending an absolute mint on transcripts, get access to past hearings in cases, neither the audio court monitors’ recordings or transcripts.
If you care about that, get in line in support of it. Only one reporter has been calling for it and she has been ostracized by her peers.
Finally, the idea that The New Haven Independent does superior court coverage just doesn’t pan out. It sound like you just like its comment section better. The NHI moderates comments, and not only according to its moderation policy. It sometimes yanks comments it simply doesn’t like, yet leaves readers with the impression it doesn’t.
For this trial, local lawyer Kate Rohner is writing a diary on the case. And one where she never once asks the question of why we are covering this trial with blanket coverage and not others. Other court coverage is being done by novice reporters who often miss the most important developments in a case.
For someone angry that coverage fails to ask why are we covering this case? Why are we giving blanket coverage and feeding a circus, you sure spare the New Haven Independent from your wrath, even though, they aren’t doing anything different from that.
You spare them and praise them as an exception when they are not exceptional in this regard at all.
about 1 year ago
On the topic of the New Haven Independent, see this.
about 1 year ago
Yeah, which he did because I shamed him into doing it. See this, scroll down to comment #2 by “anon” with a thank you posted on it by the editor: http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/_falling_into_place/
That was I.
There is a lot of what the NHI does that I like better, of course, but I am not uncritical and neither should any readers be.
I prefer its comment section for discussion. I prefer NHR’s for raw uncensored information.
Readers act blind because they give into this childlike myth that they can trust without watchdogging. You have to watchdog your newspapers as well. They are written and edited and directed by human beings with flaws, not demigods who should be uncritically praised and inaccurately praised.
about 1 year ago
A final thought too> as to an undignified farce. the public square is not a courtroom and shouldn’t be expected to hack away civil rights to observe some kind of decorum. It isn’t church, it isn’t court, it isn’t anything but the public realm and should remain that way.
Where your criticism is focused on the quality of court coverage and the choices of editors as to what should be covered, how much, how, and why, I am with you 110 percent, but as to shutting up ugly speaking members of the public, I am totally opposed.
A newspaper that simulates a free for all that meets the First Amendment and other laws has my support. We answer these dopes online, we don’t censor them.
Newspapers that moderate and those who do not are both taking valid positions and I support them absolutely.
about 1 year ago
The problem isn’t permitting “dopes” to have their space to say whatever the hell they want. The problem is that is cheapens the discourse. There is often no response to these “comments”, either in the comments section or in the articles and news stories themselves. It is nothing more than a forum for people to unreservedly say the most juvenile and racist things.
Does the newspaper not have any dignity? Would such “comments” be published if they were letters to the editor in the old days? I suspect not. Why not? Because there’s a standard for publication. Free speech or not, the newspaper is not required to publish any and all comments.
about 1 year ago
“Does the newspaper not have any dignity?” Are you kidding, our dear sweet public defender?
When Mark Twain was a newspaper reporter, he was run out of town at gunpoint for spiling his big fat American mouth onto the page of a newspaper. Would you have Paul Bass, Philosopher King, moderate him out and send him one of his hypocritical emails saying why?
Look at one of the newspaper cartoons that brought Boss Tweed down. That’s right, the most powerful man in NY was destroyed by a cartoonist. If anything, the press in America has become more ‘dignified,’ dignified with quotation marks, not less, regardless of how letters to the editor differ from online comments. Oh, let’s moderate out those cartoons to facilitate cordial, mannered debate.
The job of the press is not to be dignified, it’s job is to watchdog everything, and it is doing an incredibly crappy job of that these days, and that goes for crude blue collar papers like the NHR or snobbish rags that give you gout, like the NHI.
Along with the crappy watchdogging they are doing, they both have readers doing a crappy job of watchdogging them. so there, nuf said. You know you are arguing with people who are biased AND down a rabbit hole when they actually let Norm Pattis get away with a comment calling for more civility online!
Nice to know all I have to do is buy a pair of Birkenstocks and wave Yale credentials in your face to persuade you of the merit of something. That makes you a stick of butter, which, of course, is not particularly dignified, is it?
about 1 year ago
Norm sure is nervy to pray “amen” on your blog. I know few more foul mouthed lawyers than he.
He rails in his blog against people in a pretty crude manner: “snotty bitch,” people without balls is a big popular one of his, accusing people of being mental cases, of trying to piss on him, and doses of creative ridicule without end. Who needs a crude comment section when he is crude enough himself?
about 1 year ago
Gideon, you’ve totally lost it on this one.
Starting with the news coverage: if you waste your time on the Courant and whatever twitter feeds you’re looking at you get the coverage you get. On day you posted this the Journal Inquirer’s front page was about a town fair opening and recommendations for schools to be closed in Enfield. (Petit case story was on page 13.)
In terms of comparing the cases, the Bellamy case involved payback for a fight earlier in the day and death by gunshot contrasted with home invasion, the trip to the bank, inability of police to stop murders despite being notified by bank manager, rape, being dowsed in gasoline and burnt alive. But by your thesis people are reacting different to the two cases because of racism.
about 1 year ago
Come on. Do I have to play this game with you? The reason I used the Bellamy case as an example is that it was in the same building, a floor below. There were two victims in that case too.
But do you think there are no home invasions where the residents are assaulted? No home invasions where the residents are raped? No murders which follow assaults or robberies or attempts at sexual assault?
Or are you saying that it’s only worth covering when there’s the perfect convergence of all those circumstances, that the ingredients are mix’d so finely that the press can stand up to the world and say, “THIS was a crime!”
about 1 year ago
Gideon, when you say that people who want Hayes executed are as bad as he is, you descend into the very muck you excoriate. It shows what a hypocrite you are. Get off your high horse. With all of the injustice in the world, it’s amazing that you spend even one second worrying about how people, seeing a vile guy piss himself, laugh.
And it’s funny that you are far more worked up about the possibility that this human filth gets the “Big Jab” than you are about the policies that led to these criminals being out on the street in the first place. I guess I’m too much of a trogolodyte to understand your exquisite morality.
about 1 year ago
Quick clarification. I remember reading a while ago when the legislature was voting on getting rid of the death penalty that the appeals process is so long in CT that nobody will be executed unless they sue to be executed like Michael Ross. So is this true? And if so isn’t this whole trial for naught? I mean why go through this process if he will, in reality, just be in jail for the rest of his life anyways?
about 1 year ago
The legislature actually abolished the death penalty, only to have that legislation vetoed by the Governor.
Make no mistake: he will get a death sentence at this end of this trial. One is just quicker than the other.
about 1 year ago
Well, yes, I know that he will get the death penalty at the end of the trial and that the legislation abolishing it in the state was vetoed. But isn’t it true that under CT’s current capital punishment laws, he will be able to just get his case stuck in the appeals process until he dies naturally due to old age?
about 1 year ago
I don’t blame the media, mostly because I’m kind of jaded when it comes to it, but also because I’ve been following the trial in the media, so it would feel a tad hypocritical. The comments indeed are disturbing, however. They reflect a readership that was clearly absent from school during civics classes, and an attitude toward justice that would have fit quite nicely with Saddam Hussein’s time in Iraq. Most of these people truly have no idea why this trial is even taking place.
The fact is that the state has chosen to prosecute this case as a death case, even though both defendants are prepared to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences, and as a result jurors are being scarred for life at having to look at what is no doubt horrifying evidence. And for what? The possibility that a death verdict might result in an execution in the next 20 years or so?
I want a justice system that keeps society safe. The death penalty does not do that. I want a justice system that brings peace. The death penalty does not do that. We do no honor to victims when we emulate their murderers.
about 1 year ago
The subset of the general population that posts comments, is, as you’ve indicated, uneducated. Why not focus on the legislature (many of whom have law degrees) who persists in keeping the death penalty on the books for easy “tough on crime” sound bites?
about 1 year ago
Oh come on now. You know damn well that the legislature actually voted to abolish the death penalty and it was the woman without a law degree who vetoed that bill.
about 1 year ago
My bad, had forgotten the veto.
about 1 year ago
“Or are you saying that it’s only worth covering when there’s the perfect convergence of all those circumstances, that the ingredients are mix’d so finely that the press can stand up to the world and say, “THIS was a crime!”
Skip the Shakespeare references. It’s one thing to memorize lines–quite another to be able to do the higher level thinking that separates those who think that people who anally rape and kill 11 year old girls should be executed and those who actually anally rape and kill 11 year old girls.
about 1 year ago
There is nothing enlightened about wanting to kill another human being.