Mystery Abounds in the Amy Bishop Case

I do not follow 99 out of 100 murder stories, but I'm now following every single development in the bizarre, "Hitchcock-type" case of Amy Bishop. This true tale is as gripping as it is disturbing.

Bishop, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is charged with killing three of her colleagues and seriously injuring three others after opening fire at a Feb. 12th faculty meeting. This shocking event feels even more tragic when one learns more about Amy Bishop's past, and, gets a real impression that her life might have unfolded very differently if people - particularly certain police officers - had treated her differently many years ago.

I'm referring mainly to the alarmingly inept and mysterious response of the Braintree, MA. police (and the state police detective involved) back in 1986, after Bishop had shot and killed her teenage brother, Seth, at their home in Braintree. The Braintree police made an irresponsibly quick determination that it was an "accidental" death without completing a thorough investigation. They released Bishop a few hours after the shooting even though she had left the scene and pulled her shotgun on two citizens and a Braintreee police officer before, finally, surrendering to police.

On Feb. 25th, Norfolk County district attorney William Keating, thankfully, requested that an inquest be conducted into the death of Seth Bishop and said it's possible the process might lead to a homicide charge against Amy. Hopefully, the inquest will help explain large, inexcusable gaps in the police's public accounting - so far- of their treatment of Amy Biship.
Meanwhile, when I read a few of the public police reports done after Seth Bishop's death in 1986, I was amazed to learn how many puzzling, troubling pieces of the story exist beyond the parts of the story that have become known.

The following are just ten points - among many - about this 1986 incident and the police response to it - that I think are noteworthy, and, have been overlooked in news stories:

1. Amy Bishop, in an interview with Braintree police, said that immediately after shooting her brother, she left her home without knowing she had shot and killed him. According to the March 30, 1987 report written by State Trooper Brian Howe, Amy Biship "thought she had ruined the kitchen, but was not aware of the fact that she had struck her brother with the shotgun discharge."

Huh? I guess Amy could've been traumatized and blotted that out, but, it seems beyond belief that even a mentally ill or shocked human being could be unaware whether her gunshot had hit her brother who was in close proximity.

2. Just prior to killing her brother, Amy apparently fired one shot from the same shotgun while in her room upstairs and later, police found a bullet hole in the wall. In an interview Dec. 17, 1986, Amy's mother, Judy, was asked if she'd heard any shots from the upstairs prior to Amy shooting her brother, and she said no, "but, she believed that the house was relatively well sound-proofed and that such a discharge would not necessarily be heard on another floor of the house."

What? How could anyone NOT hear a shotgun blast from upstairs? And, then choose that moment to assert how "soundproof" the house is?

3. Amy Bishop, immediately after shooting her brother, went to an auto dealership not far away and pointed her gun at two employees and demanded a car. Shortly after that, two Braintree police officers apprehended her near a local store. A police report stated that while one cop tried to reason with Amy and asked her to drop her rifle, the other police officer drew his revolver and "yelled three times for her to 'Drop the rifle' and after the third time, she did." In a Feb. 24th Boston Herald column, one of those two officers recounted how Bishop had pointed her shotgun at him.

4. The police took Amy back to the Braintree police station and were in the process of interviewing her about the shooting of her brother when suddenly their interview was cut short. There are at least two different versions as to exactly how it was stopped.
In one version, one of the cops, Lt. John Sullivan, wrote a report stating that he asked Amy questions, and, then, his report stated: "I asked her if she shot her brother on purpose and she said no." At that point, her mother came into the booking room with Sgt. Brady and mother said she didn't want her to make any further statement or be asked any more questions.." Amy agreed and Lt. Sullivan left to consult with other police. It was determined no charges would be brought against Amy.
In the other version, current Braintree Chief Paul Frazier said he was told recently that the then-lieutenant reponsible for booking Bishop received a phone call from Chief John Polio, or, someone calling on his behalf, requesting the booking to stop. Then, Amy was released to her mother and they left.

This outcome was unacceptable. The police put the Bishops' wishes ahead of their investigation.

5. State Police Trooper Howe, in his March, 1987 report, said that due to the "highly emotional state" of Amy Bishop after she was brought to the police station, it had been impossible to question her; hence, she was released to her mother. Howe, continuing in his report, stated that it was decided to arrange interviews at a later time, "allowing witnesses a sufficient time to stabilize their emotions."

So, allowing Amy (or, perhaps her mother) to calm down was viewed, apparently, as more urgent than getting to the truth and/or, getting Amy an appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment. If the police were so struck by and concerned with Amy's emotional state, why would they not try to transport her to a facility where she could receive urgently-needed help, and, they'd be taking an appropriate step to further their investigation.

6. The Braintree police then, for unknown reasons, waited 11 days before interviewing Amy Bsihsop and her mother, the only witness to the shooting.

Was this because the cops simply & blatantly decided to accept Judy Bishop's explanation of Amy's "accidental" shooting without checking facts? Or, were other factors involved?

7. Braintree's chief of police in 1986, Ron Polio, has said recently he was unaware that Amy had pointed her gun toward two auto dealership employees or at his own police officers after she had shot her brother. Polio said he first learned about these actions by Amy when he first read the police reports within the past few weeks -- 23 years later. While Polio has recently spoken to reporters on a few occasions, he has failed to clearly explain how things got so messed up on his watch in Braintree.

How could his own cops - including two who put themselves in jeopardy to catch Amy at gunpoint - know about Amy's reckless actions without him knowing? Or, was he choosing to disregard Amy's behavior - perhaps for reasons not yet known?

8. It turns out Polio isn't the only law enforcement official who's claiming he never knew about Amy Bishop's pointing her gun at others after shooting her brother. The state trooper who wrote the March, 1987 report, Brian Howe, for still-unknown reasons, never included any information about this entire part of Amy Bishop's activities on Dec. 6, 1986.

Howe, now retired, has said virtually nothing in recent weeks. Delahunt said his office didn't know about Amy's other actions, but, this is hard to fathom given that Howe, who was Delahunt's office's liaison to Braintree, had worked with Braintree cops in investigating Seth Bishop's death. Interestingly, the Patriot Ledger, in its initial report of Seth's death, mentioned nothing about Amy's behavior after the shooting.

9) The police reports from the scene later were "missing" for 23 years; they turned up only in recent days in Braintree after Bishop's arrest for murder in Alabama.

10) In the newspaper reporting of recent weeks, there have been at least two references to the point that the decision to release Amy Bishop did not sit well with police in the department back in 1986.

Perhaps certain dissatisfied police officers wanted to talk to the press or public, but were "discouraged" from doing so? No one knows. No one has really opened up on all this.

................................................................................................................................................

There are many more unanwered questions about this 1986 shooting and I hope the inquest will cause more of the truth to surface. Right now, we know that the Braintree police failed to do their job properly. Maybe we'll learn more in the future about why and how that happened. Relatives and friends of the victims of Amy Bishop's Feb., 2010 killing of her colleagues at the University of Alabama in Huntsville might always wonder about what caused the apparent police negligence in Braintree.

Milbank Column On Emanuel Offers Rare Glimpse

Dana Milbank's February 21st Washington Post column defending White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel must have created a considerable stir among those in the President's inner circle and those who report on it.

Milbank not only makes a provocative argument that, despite his critics, Emanuel has been an invaluable influence on President Obama, who, Milbank says, has been hurt by not following more of Emanuels' advice, but Milbank goes further. Milbank includes a damaging characterization of Obama's other top advisors leaving readers to wonder just what is going on between Emanuel and his colleagues.

First, the column says:

"..Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters," wrote Milbank. "Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter."

Milbank's piece, titled Why Obama needs Rahm at the top, argues that one reason Emanuel helps Obama is that while Obama is "airy and idealistic," Emanuel is "earthy and calculating."

Milbank says that Obama should have followed Emanuel's advice against trying to close Guantanamo Bay prision within a year; taken Emanuel's advice opposing scheduling a trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, and, perhaps most significant, followed Emanuel's recommendatation to split the health care reform bill into smaller bills - which would've had a much better chance for passage - rather than combining all elements into a larger less popular bill.

However, the point that likely shook things up in the Obama White House was this Milbank line:

"Obama's problem is that his other confidants - particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod - are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn't dirty his hands in politics..."

So, what the hell is going on here? Well, first, some perspective is essential. It's important to note that, for whatever the reasons, there have been remarkably few penetrating articles - like this column - about President Obama's inner circle. I refer not to "puff pieces" or features on the individual players, but, rather, articles that attempt to report on the dynamics and interplay between the advisors. During most administrations, by the time the President's first year has passed, there have been many articles that attempt to analyze the President's decisionmaking process and who plays what critical role among his top advisors.

Astonishing as it is, no one, still, really knows how Obama and his team make their biggest decisions. How does Obama get advice? Who does he trust most - across the board? Who does he rely on for various p0licy areas or kinds of situations? How do his top advisors get along?

Further, how does Emanuel fit into all this? Usually, the chief of staff has enormous influence over who gets access to the President; hence, Emanuel's personal relationships with the other top advisors are likely to swing things.

Which brings us back to Milbank's column. Why, after a year of discipline to keep things private, why is Milbank suddenly writing a piece that appears could have been written by Emanuel himself? Milbank denies talking to Emanuel for the column, but, his piece seemed to suggest Milbank had some first-hand familiarity with the subject.

So, I wonder how President Obama reacted to the column. Is it possible that our ever-serene President actually took Rahm to the woodshed over this? I doubt it. I bet Emanuel gave his version to Obama, who listened cooly before making a remark or two indicating his dissatisfaction. But, who knows? I wish we had a sense of this side of Obama. How does he feel about the loyalty of Emanuel or his other top advisors>

Let's face it: If, by chance, Obama cannot handle or lead his top advisors - including Emanuel - effectively - it bodes very poorly for the rest of his Presidency. Let's hope that's not so.

Emanuel had a reputation from Day One; he had a big ego; he could be a jerk at times; he was a no-nonsense, direct talker; he was a sharp strategist who knew Congress extremely well. Some believed he'd be capable of bringing some control and clout to the White House staff.

Who knows how he's fared? The extent to which he agrees of disagrees with Obama day-to-day or week-to week on policy, on approach, on strategy, on which people to work with or not

I've read many stories that suggested Emanuel has played a substantial role in trying to carry Obama's message or signals during the battle over health care reform to his former colleagues in the US House of Representatives or the US Senate. Emanuel has been described as the US Congress' key liaison to the White House, but, each time I've read these references, they've caused me concern. How can Emanuel be a good liaison to Congress while managing his duties as chief of staff? My own answer is: He couldn't do both well, really......and, while I know the White House has had other people performing that liaison function, all the focus has been on Emanuel.

It seems, at times, Emanuel alienates some members of Congress along the way. Should he even be in this role of spending time on Congressional matters? Well, my answer is conditional: He should be doing it only if the President and he have really been on the same page and communicating well about all matters relating to health care. I doubt that has been true.

This brings me my response to Milbank's other major point: That Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod have an inflated view of Obama and that this colors their entire treatment of him. My impression of the Obama White House, at this point, is that, yes, in fact, not enough of his advisors are speaking the truth to him about how he comes across and other matters. You get a sense that Obama desparately needs some plain, blunt talk from his advisors, best friends and family. Someone should tell him he's overexposed, for instance. Someone should tell him that when he makes a typical public appearance, he talks too long - period. Someone should tell him to stop making so many appearances across the country and to stop doing media interviews, but, when he does, they should add, he should stop coming across like he's "lecturing" or explaining his positions. He has to loosen up and describe his outlook more - to humanize his image.

I hope there are many more articles and columns like Dana Milbank's in the weeks aheaad. We all should know a bit more about how Obama makes decisions with his inner circle. The less it's a secret, the more it'll let people feel they know Obama a bit better, and he, needs to be better understood right now.

I'll go further by saying I hope Obama and his team leak exchanges from occasional meetings they participate in. Why? To give us examples of how Obama leads and how he runs meetings. People, after one year, still feel they don't know this young President. His irrational, irresponsible right-wing critics have painted a distorted portrait of him.

It's time for Obama and his closest staff to open up more. I give Dana Milbank credit for writing one column that shares his insight and opinions about how things have worked out with Emanuel and Obama. It might inspire more pieces like it - and we'd all benefit from it.

If a bit more reporting on the inner circle happens, I think it'd help the White House. If Obama's team keeps avoiding that coverage, one would have to ask: What are they trying to hide?