Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets 5

Chapter 5

When does a person stop being a person? 

"For Tom Pellegrini, the 3-by-5 color shots no longer produce anything that remotely resembles an emotion. In fact, he concedes to himself, they never really did. In some strange way that only a homicide detective can understand, Pellegrini psychologically stepped away from his victim at the very outset." 

As the Latonya Wallace case sinks further into the past, it seems like she becomes less of a person, she's just an unsolved case. In chapter two, when her body is found, Simon says that even homicide detectives want to bring her in from the rain, but on page 243 Pellegrini refers to her as a "broad."  

He doesn't care about her, and it's attributed to a few reasons, the colour of her skin,  where they live, him being a desensitized homicide detective. 

It makes sense that detectives should harden themselves against the realities of their job, but I find the way he thinks about Wallace sad, like she's not real, and never was. 

It would be different if there was more of a perspective from the family, but I suppose the book isn't about them-it's about the unit. 

It just goes to show how a perspective from a person can change a story. 

There can be a cost for detectives to get emotionally involved in a case. There's a choice for them- they either become impartial, even joke about it, or let it get to them.  

"More than most homicides, the Kirk Avenue arson had an emotional cost; Steinhice, a detective with perhaps a thousand crimes behind him, suffered nightmares about a murder for the first time-graphic images of helplessness in which dead children were at the top of a rowhouse stairway crying, terrified," page 264. 

Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets 4

This chapter follows Richard Garvey while he investigates the murder of Lena Lucas and Purnell Booker. Simon also includes a lengthy description of the interrogation process, which is far more deceitful, though understandably, than I had thought. I wonder if interrogation is still like that in modern police work.

The Baltimore homicide unit gets back up staff  because their clearance rate (crimes closed by arrest) is too low. Essentially they've hit "rock bottom." 

Slanted statistics
The colonel decides to intervene in the homicide unit because their clearance rate is at 36 per cent. That's pretty bad, but there are factors that weren't taken into account. 

"There is no point in explaining that three fifths of D'Addario's homicides happen to be drug-related, just as seven of those solved by Stanton's shift are domestics or other arguments," page 194.  

Drug related murders are harder to solve, domestics have a clear suspect. 

This isn't reflected in that 36 per cent. 

"The homicide clearance rate is equally vulnerable to subtle forms of manipulation-all of which are permitted under the FBI's guidelines for uniform crime reporting," page 195. 

This manipulation means any time a suspect spends behind bars-whether it goes to a grand jury or not, counts as a solved case. A solved crime from the previous year can be carried over to the next, or vice versa. 

In journalism, research gives our work authority and credibility. Online, there is a ton of pie charts, percentages, and numbers laid out for easy consumption. 

BUT 

As shown, there's many factors that can come into play when a statistic is used to represent something, there can be a lot of variables. 

I think statistics are a good way to show a representation of what is happening, and no matter how many tactics the homicide unit uses, it's still clear they're in trouble. Hypothetically, I would use this statistic in one of my stories, but a number doesn't show everything.

Statistics should be used, but responsibly. Journalists should do research and be cautious about biased numbers or research. Numbers can provide a strong base to any story, it just should be a fair representation. 

Body language, or lack thereof 
"As he begins asking questions, Garvey touches the young woman's elbow lightly, as if to emphasize that only the truth should pass between them," page 180. 

Body language is so important, it conveys emotion, as shown above. In my journalism schooling, I've heard two perspectives from two different instructors on how reporters should act during interviews. They're both right, they're obviously both experienced so I think it's just a matter of choosing what's more comfortable. 

The first is visual engagement. Nodding, encouraging statements like "oh yeah," or mouthing the words because the camera and mic are on. This is the method tend to use without realizing it. When I'm interviewing someone I'm actively listening because I find their story interesting, and so I can think of follow up questions. 

Embarrassing story: I'm a video beat reporter, and I was interviewing someone on campus, and someone I know was watching. They took a video of me while I was interviewing. I was nodding like a bobble head for thirty seconds. I was humiliated when I saw the video because I didn't even realize I did that. 

While I look dumb, people tend to keep talking when I do that. I do think that this method depends on what the story is.

Another instructor said that a woman was the best reporter there is because she asks questions and then dead pans until she gets an answer. I  see the merit to this, and since I only heard it a few days ago, I have yet to try it. 

Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets 3

The first half of chapter three follows Terrence McLarney as he investigates the shooting of Gene Cassidy. 

The second half describes the ongoing investigation of the murder of  Latonya Wallace, which is still disappointingly unsuccessful. 

Before I get into what bothered me about this chapter, and the book thus far, I'd again like to point out how good Simon is at writing. 

He is able to express so much about Mclarney's personality, without saying 'he's a pretty good guy.' He does say "Yet McLarney was also one of the most intelligent, self-aware men in homicide," page 144.  But I think that he could have been left that out, and  continued with the descriptive details that he already had written.  

"McLarney, who as a sergeant spent a single day sharing an office with Landsman before deadpanning a confidential memo to D'Addario: 'Sgt. Landsman stares at me strangely. I am concerned he views me as a sex object.' McLarney, who after four beers spoke in football metaphors and would always offer his officers the same shred of advice: 'My men should go into the game with a plan. I don't want to know what it is, but they should have one.' Mclarney, who once drove home on a busy shift to rescue his wife and son by using his .38 to shoot a rampaging mouse in the bedroom closet," page 144.

The last part of this quote brings me into something that bothers me about this book, not that it's in any way Simon's fault-it's just indicative of the times. 

For the most part, women in this book are wives, girlfriends, 'whores', or victims. They're crying, scared, or stabbed. 

This book is non-fiction, so Simon can't change what happened to make it more fair.  But I'd really like to see a bad-ass female detective busting perps. 

Even when women are suspects, or committing a crime, it's still not a display of power in the same way as when men commit crimes. 

"And the is-this-a-great-city-or-what homicide that Fred Ceruti handles in a Cathedral Street apartment, where one prostitute plunges a knife into the chest of another for a $10 cap of heroin, then fires the drugs before the police arrive," page 171. 

This isn't a hard and fast rule, but it seems to me in this book, men are protectors, and women are in need of protection. 

"In McLarney's squad, detectives who caught a case with a female victim were routinely prodded and henpecked by their sergeant, a cop governed by the traditional, sentimental judgement that while men might violate the law by killing each other, the murder of a woman constituted real tragedy," page 145.  

Wait, what? Killing a woman is worse than killing a man? 

This  seems based off of the assumption that women are not able to fend for themselves. 

Though police work is still very much a male dominated profession, I had the opportunity to go to an IAWP (International Association of Women Police) conference a couple weeks ago. 

I got to speak with women from around the world who were strong and powerful and fighting for gender rights in their countries. I understand how hard it must be to work in a male dominated environment, but I'm glad that women do. 

Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets 2

Chapter two began with a graphic description of a body.

When Simon describes the spilled contents of her bag, her makeup, “exaggerated, girlish colours that suggest amusement more than allure.” It clicked. She was a murdered child.

Eleven-year-old Latonya Kim Wallace was killed and dumped in an alley. It soon becomes clear that she is one of the ‘murders that matter,’ and the search for her killer becomes the focus of most of the chapter.

To report, or not to report
“…a confession obtained from a suspect that includes details of the crime known only to the killer is inherently more believable in court. For these reasons, a detective returns from every crime scene with a mental list of essential details that he plans to withhold from newspaper and television reporters who will be calling the homicide office half an hour after the body hits the ground,” page 75.  

I learned in this chapter that reporters could ruin cases if they release certain information to the public. Police can use details and evidence to leverage cases.

I have an interest in journalism because I love the idea of spreading information. I want people to know what’s happening in the world around them. Awareness and education can be a catalyst for change. Information matters.

But after reading this, I realized spreading information could blow an investigation.

…My good intentions could be bad?

I wouldn’t want a criminal get away, or prevent police from doing their jobs, but at the same time, isn’t it my job to get information out to the public?

I think it’s a situation-by-situation deal. The best way to make right decisions in this case is by being knowledgeable about police work, and through honest communication with the police.

The cameraman who sees Garvey pick up a metal pipe doesn’t use his material, because Garvey says “You gotta do us a favor and keep that out of your film. It might be a piece of evidence, but if you put it on the tube, it could really fuck us up. Okay?”

Withholding information for a greater good is something that I thought about when I read about suicide in the Canadian Press Stylebook.

The Canadian Press has dictated that suicide cannot be ignored, because it can spark discussion and debate. I agree, it goes back to an informed population being a catalyst for change.

However, some other media outlets, and public health experts believe that reporting on suicide can be harmful to the public. This is because of suicide contagion, which is when coverage of a suicide increases the risk of others committing suicide. 

Is it wrong to report on something if it could possibly have negative effects? Does it outweigh people’s right to information?