Obama Should Remain Firm With Israel

"US, Israel still at odds over Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem"

When I just read that headline on an April 8th A.P. story, I was more glad than upset.

Why? Because it indicates the Obama Administration, so far, is standing its ground in its position against Israel's plans to build new housing in East Jerusalem. That's refreshing because most U.S. presidents, after an episode such as this, give in to Israeli pressure and take the safe, easy way out. History suggests Obama, too, will, eventually, find his own way to be overly accommodating to Israel in the days ahead.

Yet, for the past several weeks, Obama has maintained his position - which appears justified, well-timed and one that sends an appropriate signal to Israel.

It was nearly a month ago that shortly after Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans to build 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Biden condemned Israel's announcement. Other Obama officials ripped Israel's move, thus kicking off a rift between the United States and Israel in recent weeks.

The Obama Administration has tried to persuade Netanyahu to halt new settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem in an effort to lay the groundwork for peace negoatiations with the Palestinians, who view these occupied territories - along with the Gaza Strip - as the site of their future state. Netanyahu disregarded the US wishes pertaining to the West Bank by restraining, but not fully freezing, new settlements, and, in recent weeks, has signaled no change in Israel's plans in East Jerusalem.

There are many reasons why Netanyahu's position is a troubling obstacle to peace. The largest, indisputable reason is that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory that Israel annexed after the 1967 war and that no other country has recognized it as part of Israel.

According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN Charter and UN Resolution 252, Israel's planned construction in East Jerusalem would be, in fact, illegal, because of East Jerusalem's "occupied" status. The reason many people aren't aware of that is that the mainstream media incorporates a regular bias in its coverage that is slanted toward Israel. Thus, in many references, articles have referred to Netanyahu's claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital or defenders of Israel have tried to argue, lamely, that the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed by the US Congress, essentially states that Jerusalem shall be undivided.

The only problem is that while the US Congress approved the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, that Act is not the foreign policy of the US. It has never been implemented by Presidents Clinton, Bush or Obama - and - as stated previously, it's not the policy of other countries across the world to recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel.

So, Netanyahu's stubborn stance to build 1600 new units there is obstructionist - period. How can Netanyahu be regarded as interested in peace while he's openly, repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Palestinians, who see East Jerusalem as the potential capital of their new state? He's thumbing his nose at the Obama Administration, which has said, clearly, that Israel must halt its settlement policy as a precondition to peace talks. Further, Netanyahu, is, arrogantly, disregarding international law and policy that applies to East Jerusalem.

What's disturbing is that if one reviews media coverage, you'd never know that the UN and the Fourth Geneva Convention do not recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel. Those who follow the Middle East know this, but, most people read about Netanyahu's claims and they don't understand how outrageously false and unfair they are. Journalists for many years seem to follow a ridiculous, ill-conceived practice of including "both sides" in their stories - even when there are not two sides. This story of planned new housing in East Jerusalem is a good example of this. Israel is out of line here. Israel has no good defense for its actions - besides dampening any hopes for a peace process. I don't think Netanyahu wants a serious peace process, anyway, do you?

What has troubled me is to witness the extent of criticism of President Obama's stance toward Israel on this housing issue. Apologists have said Obama went "way too far" in his response to Israel. The President met with Netanyahu in at the White House in March, and, reportedly left the discussions to be with his family while Netanyahu conferred with his staff on the lower level of the White House. Later, the two men met only briefly before Netanyahu left, and, apparently, reached no resolution of their dispute.

Good for Obama. Perhaps he can be firmer with Israel than his predecessors. I think he's chosen a good moment to stand up to Netanyahu, who has acted badly and provocatively.

In order to stand his ground, Obama will have to ignore the many irrational, pro-Israeli critics, who whine about every little slight or mistreatment they can identify. It's hard to understand why so many critics of Obama's team have chosen to defend Israel in light of Netanyahu's recent actions.

Some observers say the rift between the US and Israel is one of the worst in many years, but, I'd argue that it's critical for the US to maintain its position -- to send a signal to Israel and the rest of the world that it's trying a new approach in the Middle East.

Politicians and people must end the longstanding habit of remaining silent when Israel does something wrong. If Israel wants peace, it should reverse its housing plans in East Jerusalem.

I hope Obama keeps pushing for that because, while the standoff may delay progress, in the end, the only way genuine peace talks can happen is for Israel to get off its high horse, acknowledge realities on the ground and make a few concessions of its own.

The Cowardly, Ugly Outlook of Republicans

I don't understand how anyone can be proud to be a Republican in this country today.

It's bad enough that the Republican Party stands for almost nothing good and constructive anymore. It has truly become "the Party of NO." Its leaders in the US House and Senate spend most of their time trying to undermine President Obama's agenda rather than offering proposals to help the country. Republicans are obsessed with attacking the federal government (that they were elected to serve and improve!). One of their only never-ending priorities is to propose cutting taxes -- which exemplifies their lack of leadership, initiative or backbone. Republicans show far too little compassion for people who need the most help.

Unfortunately, this pathetically empty agenda of Republicans is not even their worst feature.

No, their "low point" - on display the past two days - is allowing themselves to be associated with the ugly displays of hate, racism and division that some of their supporters have expressed in protests and demonstrations. Pockets of the Tea Party gathering, in Washington DC to protest the passage of health care reform, were in repulsive form the past few days as they carried signs with hateful messages, including one with President Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on his face. More than one Tea Party member called Rep. John Lewis, (D-Ga) the n-word. One or more other Tea Party protesters called US Rep. Barney Frank, (D-Ma.) the f-word. Protesters spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver on the Capitol steps.

Some Republicans, on this occasion - like others - when asked, gave their opinion that these actions were out of line, but no Republican leader stepped up to a microphone to give important, somber remarks that loudly, clearly condemned the ugly remarks of the protesters. No one seems willing to blast the Tea Party - even though some of the Tea Party members absolutely have deserved to be ripped repeatedly for their outrageous, reckless, ugly actions in some of these protest gatherings during the past year. A chunk of them seem to come just to protest President Obama - period, and, yes, a segment, however small - seems to have had racist inclinations. This repulsive segment of the Tea Party has gotten incredibly soft treatment from the mainstream media, who keep treating the party as if it has serious, noble intentions. The Tea Party can't even seem to even articulate its purpose. All its members seem to know is they show up to put down the federal government and Barack Obama and anything that appears to be " a government takeover" even if, in fact, it is NOT that. They display no intelligence or thoughtfulness whatsoever. Why have they been given so much time on the TV news?

Well, one can find common threads between the narrowminded motives of Tea Party members and the comments of several of the leading, right-wing television and radio commentators since the US House voted to pass health care reform.

"We need to defeat these bastards," said Rush Limbaugh. "We need to wipe them out. Defeat the Democrats, every one of them who voted for this bill."

Yet, you never hear one Republican just rip into Limbaugh and call him the irresponsible windbag that he is. They're afraid of Limbaugh. What a joke! It's also a disgrace because they're seriously afraid of Limbaugh because they fear, criticizing him might lose them votes. All they care about is protecting their jobs and towing the reactionary line.

Limbaugh ripped Bart Stupak, (D-Mich) for reaching an agreement at the 11th hour with the Obama team that led to Stupak and several other anti-abortion US Representatives to vote for the health care bill as the result of Obama agreeing to sign an executive order saying that no federal funds would fund abortions. Limbaugh compared Stupak's vote to Neville Chamberlain's false assurances about winning a peace treaty with Hitler in 1938. That's really accurate, Rush!

Glenn Beck spewed out some typically reckless rants. He remarked, to Democrats, "Our master is common sense and God. I don't think right now you have either one on your side." Then, Beck said, in the fall elections, the choice will be: "Are you an American or are you a mouse? Are you and American or a European?"

Beck, as usual, was filled with words to inspire us and unite as -- in mature fashion.

On the floor of the House, someone yelled out "Babykiller" when Stupak was addressing his colleagues from the podium.

The problem with the Republicans is that there is a thin line between the more wild, crazy hateful behavior outside and the rhetoric used by some Republican members of the House and Senate inside. So, for instance, some Tea Party protesters outside of the Capitol pointedly shouted "You Lie" as a "rallying cry" that honored US Representative Joe Wilson's outburst at President Obama during the State of the Union. They're rallying around a guy who showed gross disrespect for the President in an unprecedented way. What terrific taste, Tea Party members! How stupid you are! How repugnant you are!

Meanwhile, a hanfuld of Republican US congressional members could be seen in television news footage waving to the Tea Party protesters and "urging them on" from the top roof-level at the US Capitol.

So, where were the Republican leaders to condemn these outrageous actions on the periphery of their work in the Capitol? Like I said, they commented only if reporters found them. Meanwhile, Republican leaders were not exactly exhibiting good sportsmanship and class.

Senator John McCain, the Republicans' unsuccessful presidential nominee in 2008, exuded leadership with this remark:

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during a radio interview Monday. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Gosh, that's great, Senator. At least you're being open and straightforward about your intentions to not try to get anything done now. His constituents should vote McCain out of office for such an irresponsible remark. (No, I'm not expecting that!)

How about Mitt Romney, another Republican presidential candidate in 2008? What did he have to say? Romney, in typical Republican understatement, called the health care reform bill "an unconscionable abuse of power." An abuse of power. No, Mitt, go back to your dictionary on this: The Watergate coverup was an abuse of power. Dick Cheney engaged in more than one "abuse of power," but, the Democrats' winning an open vote is what happens in a democracy.
A democracy that elected Barack Obama, who campaigned to fight for health care reform.

I could go on and on. I could mention the Tea Party signs calling Obama's reforms "Socialism"
Or, the never-ending attempts of Tea Party members and other right-wing nuts, including some racists, to create fear and anxiety around Obama. I wonder why this "new" group of white protesters has appeared out of the blue in the past 18 months to protest any initiative of President Obama's? Why do they have an anger - an inflamed, sour mood as they hold these protests? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that at least a few racists are able to have some influence. Otherwise, why would ugly signs show up? Why would ugly remarks get made?

Enough! I am sick of it. I wish the rest of us could start a movement to put these Tea Party protesters and their Republican "enablers" in their place.

It's time to put the reckless segment among these protesters in their place. The police need to be on alert and prevent any potential violence. And, it'd help if the network news stopped treating them as if they're serious. They have not earned the right to be treated seriously

Obama Seems a Pushover. That Needs to Change

I have not wanted to believe this about Barack Obama, but, it seems he doesn't know how to assert himself. He surely doesn't act assertive enough publicly for a President of the United States.

Hey, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors at the White House. Maybe Obama sends strong signals to his advisors and all the people he sees every day. I'm still in the first part of Game Change, so, perhaps I'll find get new glimpses of his personality by the time I finish it.

But, I've run out of patience waiting for Obama to show signs that he can tell people off. That he can say "No" - and mean it - to a constituency. That he can strongly disagree with someone or some group - and stick to his guns rather than waffle or backtrack.

When does Obama mean business? When does he show he's so strong in his convictions that he will not give in on principle?

When is there a consequence to someone publicly disregarding Obama, verbally attacking Obama or acting in ways to hurt Obama's presidency? I haven't seen such consequences initiated by Obama.

I'd like to learn, just once, that Obama's response to hearing some unfair, untrue, but damaging remark by a politician is to snap back and call that person on the carpet! Obama knows how to debate. Does he think it's "undignified" for him to defend himself and hold someone else accountable? Whatever his inhibitions are, he simply doesn't do it.

What's troubling is that we saw rather glaring signs of this Obama tendency during the 2008 presidential campaign. Time after time, one of his opponents would make reckless, deceitful remarks about Obama or his record, and Obama would wait.....and wait.....and wait until either several days or a week would pass, and, much damage had been done. If Obama had responded quickly and strongly to some of these attacks - including a regular barrage of misleading content spewed by Hillary Clinton's campaign - he'd have done better, I think. In fact, I'd argue he might have finished Clinton off a bit earlier in the primaries and slowed some of the shallow, unjustified media celebration of Sarah Palin supposedly "lifting" John McCain's campaign.

Obama, instead, plodded along and won a remarkable race - in his own way. He let a lot of the most reckless attacks go. (Remember all the harping about William Ayers, for example?)

But, now, Obama is President and his campaign persona is not serving him as well over time. He seems too soft, too "agreeable," too malleable, more diplomatic than Presidential.

Obama and his team don't "get it" -- yet. Obama has to act more in charge. He has to tell people what to do and what will happen rather than acting so passive - as if he's swept up in Washington forces beyond his control. Plus, he must act like he's unafraid to alienate and anger interest groups, institutions, powerful individuals and people he knows well. He can show that to us by not only being more decisive, but, when he encounters partisan bickering, whining responses or reckless remarks, he can speak up - with force - and say, "I disagree with you and here's why: Boom, boom, boom" If you want to debate it, I challenge you......I'm confident my approach will work and I intend to convince the Congress of that.....Meanwhile, I ask you to stop making unsubstantiated, thoughtless remarks. They help no one."

OK...I'm fantasizing a bit here, but, Obama doesn't seem to realize that if he creates an appearance that other people can push him around, there are damaging ramifications to that image. People like to think their President will stand up for himself, and, refuse to take too much crap from others. Remember Ronald Reagan? Like him or not, the Gipper created an aura that he knew how to say NO and did it his way.

I ask you: During the completely out-of-control health care debate, did Obama display leadership, particularly a capacity to stand up for himself and his beliefs? He was awful in that regard! People, organizations, the right-wing attacked him relentlessly for months - especially last summer, when the Tea Party crowd got intense and ugly. Obama must have thought he'd benefit by taking the "high road" again. He said far too little -- and the health care bill essentially got taken over by others.

Even with simple things, Obama lets himself look weak. Recently, he made a big deal of anouuncing a deadline for the US Senate to take their big vote on the health care bill. Shortly afterward, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated she didn't agree on the deadline and that more time may be necessary. For several days, this difference lingered publicly. Doesn't the Obama team realize that Pelosi undercuts him by doing that? Why don't they tell her to stop doing that?

I realize Obama's team cannot control everyone and everything, but this sort of disagreement on the timing of health care votes has happened before - and hurt Obama. If Obama does not know how to run a tight ship, then he should bring in some seasoned Washington veterans to help him do it. It's silly to see Pelosi or Reid, who are supposed be "allies," undercut the President's cause.

Obama's failure to assert himself has shown up in virtually every setting and context. First, Obama has not let us see him acting decisively in his own White House. Second, he has come off as a weak pushover in his relationship with the US House and Senate. Obama has allowed a perception to build - probably accurate - that he fails to lead the Congress, that Representatives and Senators often do not take him seriously. They seem to lack respect for him and their loyalty to him seems limited - even in such a short time. Members of Congress seem to feel they can do and say whatever they want - without consequences or fallout from the Obama Administration. They do not fear President Obama.

I'm not advocating government by fear. I just sense that Obama should be concerned about his authority and clout appearing this diminished this early in his first term.

Look at other examples.

• Have we heard of anecdotes about the President taking firm positions and holding people accountable with regard to his own Cabinet secretaries or members of his staff? Can somebody tell me when that has happened, in a significant way, during his first 15 months as President?
• How can so many stories appear recently that raised questions about Rahm Emanuel and his role as chief of staff without anyone from the Obama team weighing in? Some views associated with Emanuel in these articles made Obama look bad, but, again, there was silence. I think Obama would've benefited by saying something assertive.
• I'm not focusing just on his staff. In the debate on financial regulation, has Obama warned banking executives or CEOs of the consequences of they're repeating reckless, selfish activities such as giving themselves bonsues,etc? It seems all I've read about is corporate executives ignoring the Administration and Congress and doing whatever they please - even after the economy was on the verge of collapse last year. And why isn't Obama more vocal in insisting that financial regulation legislation stay strong rather than get watered down and weakened by Congressional committees? Where is Obama's backbone here?
• On Afghanistan: I liked Obama's careful deliberations before his decision to send 30,000 additional troops - which I totally opposed, but, what's striking is that Obama - again - didn't let us see how he led on this matter. What we saw was General McCrystal irresponsibly make public remarks about why the Administration had to send troops. Then we heard Obama met with McCrystal, but, Obama team chose to keep that private. Then, Obama made his decision, which pleased McCrystal. Then, within days of Obama's big speech on Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made public remarks about how - in actuality, the troops probably would not come home as soon as the President said. Obama, meanwhile, said nothing. He appeared much weaker than he realized. It seemed Gates and Clinton were speaking with more authority than Obama. How could the President and his team not "get" that?
• With Iran, Obama advocated engagement. Then, he talked tough when he learned Iran was proceeding with development of its nuclear capacity, but, in recent months, what has Obama said or done to send a clear, forceful signal of the US position on Iran? Yes, I know Clinton and others have made public remarks, but too long a period has passed, when, again, Obama has created an impression of passivity. Iran, meanwhile, has gotten itself in the news constantly in recent days. The image is that Iran is doing what it wants with no consequence whatsoever.
• Obama has allowed this massive anti-government sentiment (in the US) to mushroom partly because he and his team have spent way too little time asserting how and why much of their proposed "government intervention" was necessary and is not a "government takeover." Similarly, the Administration has not asserted or demonstrated sufficiently how it will reduce the incredible debt it is contributing to through its programs.
• Obama has been so wishy-washy on the Middle East that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken advantage of him. Netanyahu has ignored US wishes by continuing to allow Israeli settlements to be established in occupied territories. When Israel announced recently that 1600 new homes were to be constructed in east Jerusalem at the same time Vice President Joe Biden arrived for a visit, it showed how unafraid Netanyahu is of Obama. Biden and Clinton have voiced appropriate criticisms of Israel's actions, but, now, with Israel whining that the response was too severe, already, there are signs of the Obama Administration capitulating. When is Obama going to put a stake in the ground and leave it there - even when it angers or disappoints someone like Netanyahu?

Sooner or later, I hope Obama realizes he must become more assertive. If not, I fear he'll lose his effectiveness and be voted out of office after only one term. I realize that Barack Obama may just not have the constitutional make-up to be more of a "street-fighter." But, I think he's trying to succeed in a way that may be impossible. He insists on putting out a publicly "harmonious" image even when there is often disharmony all around him. He keeps insisting on staying "in the middle" on issues and trying to split differences even when one side is more "right" than the other. He keeps talking about bipartisanship when the Republican Party only takes action after action to disrupt and destroy his presidency.

It's time for Obama to make large adjustments. If he doesn't have the personality to take on more of his adversaries, then he should bring in some new allies who can do if for him.

I think that's the way Obama should go -- to hire a new top advisor (or two or three) to help him manage his vast agenda so that he can address "the big picture." Obama is so multi-talented that - like Bill Clinton - he can involve himself in the micro and macro aspects of his job; however, Obama has shown his greatest talents are in handling the "big picture" aspects of leadership. When Obama gave his big speech in Cairo, for example. He is outstanding when he paints in his broadest strokes and looks at how countries and peoples and purpose are all interwoven.

Obama has said he admired how Reagan influenced public attitudes and effected change - even though he differed with him politically. Well, Reagan had some top staff around him that knew how to manage the White House.

I think Obama needs new help in his inner circle. Hell, he needs help in simply learning how to assert himself.

Why didn't Braintree Police tell the rest of the story?

Two cops who worked for the Braintree police department back on Dec. 6, 1986 have completely different versions of what happened that day, when Amy Bishop was brought in for questioning after she shot and killed her younger, teenage brother, Seth.

One of the cops was involved in capturing Bishop after she fled from her home, the scene of the shooting. His name is Ron Solimini. His version seems believable.

The other cop was the Chief of the Braintree police at the time. His name is John Polio. His version, which has included a few variations in recent news reports, seems very hard to believe.

The extent to which these two cops' stories differ illustrates how large and disturbing a gap remains at the core of the accounts of how the Braintree police responded in 1986. Indeed, it helps explain why Norfolk District Attorney William Keating recently requested that Quincy District Court Judge Mark Coven conduct an inquest into Seth Bishop's death.

Ron Solimini is a Braintree cop who, with fellow cop Timothy Murphy, apprehended and handcuffed Amy Bishop soon after she had shot and killed her younger brother, Seth on Dec. 6, 1986. Minutes earlier, Bishiop had pointed her shotgun at two employees of a nearby auto dealership's auto body shop and demanded a getaway car. Solimini wrote a police report that described how he and Murphy captured Bishop. After Solimini returned to the police station, his lawyer told reporters recently, he recalled that Braintree police Lt. James Sullivan, who was questioning Bishop, had received a phone call and was told by the police chief, or, a commanding officer, to release Bishop without any charges. It appeared that police higher-ups had concluded that Seth Bishop's death was "accidental."

John Polio, now 87, is the former police chief who was in charge that day. He says he didn't know anything about Bishop's wild, gun-wielding actions that followed her killing her brother. In fact, Polio says he knew nothing about that disturbing sequence of events until just recently - in 2010, when he read the police reports for the first time. So, he's claiming, for the past 23 years, he knew nothing about what Bishop did after fleeing from her home. Polio has also denied that he halted the questioning of Bishop back on Dec. 6, 1986 or that he released her. In one account, he said Capt. Theodore Buker released Bishop. Yet, Solimini recalled Amy's mother, Judy, arriving at the station and asking to speak to Polio minutes before Bishop was ordered released.

How could Polio have been unaware of Solimini's account of what happened? It makes no sense.

Polio is suggesting that Solimini and Murphy's catching of Bishop was never communicated to him in any way - either by the two cops themselves or anyone else in his police department. How could, he, the chief, not be updated on the pursuit of Bishop? How could he not be told that Bishop pointed a loaded shotgun at two of his own cops?

Polio was quoted in a February, 2010 newspaper article as claiming he also knew nothing about Bishop pulling her shotgun on Thomas Pettigrew, one of two men at an auto dealership shortly after killing her brother. Pettigrew was interviewed a few weeks ago in Boston television news reports.

"All of this is new to me," Polio told the Patriot Ledger in a Feb. 16th article. "If it did happen, why didn't anyone come forward in 1986?"

Well, that's not only embarrassing, but, astounding given that his own cops "came forward" when they returned to the police department with Bishop in handcuffs. They wrote about what happened in their police report, including Bishop's pulling her gun on the auto shop employees.

Of course, Polio, mysteriously, says he never read the police reports - until just recently (in 2010), when they were found - after a search - by current Braintree cops. They had been "missing" for about 23 years.

Perhaps we'll get a better explanation after the inquest of this case is held. But the potential consequence of the Braintree police "overlooking" Amy Bishop's gun-wielding actions after she fled from her home are enormous. Keating said recently he would have charged Bishop for (her actions at the auto dealership) assault with a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a gun and illegal possession of ammunition. Maybe these charges would've impacted Bishop, and, somehow prevented the path that led her to kill her University of Alabama colleagues many years later.

Further, why would the Braintree police not consider what Bishop's post-shooting "rampage," said about her "state of mind" relative to shooting Seth? Maybe she was primarily "troubled mentally," but, then again, she was seeking a getaway car and threatening violence.

Bishop, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is now in jail after being charged with killing three of her colleagues and seriously injuring three others after opening fire at a Feb. 12th faculty meeting.

The puzzle of how and why the accounts of Solimini and Polio vary to such an extreme was on display when Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier, held a press conference a few days after Bishop's murder of her colleagues in Alabama.

"I don't want to use the word 'cover-up,' but I don't know what the thought process was of the police chief at the time," Frazier said.

Frazier, in unusually candid comments, said that members of the Braintree police back in 1986 were "not happy" with the decision to release Bishop on Dec. 6, 1986.

Solimini's lawyer, Frank MGee, recently went further when he said Solimini "just feels that looking back on it, even today, nobody would ever walk out of a station having shot and killed somebody without some further investigation."

Yet, under Polio's leadership, the police openly seemed to put the interests of Amy Bishop and her family ahead of seeking and sharing the truth about her shooting her brother. The police seemed in a rush to let Bishop walk away free on Dec. 6, 1986, and then, in no rush at all to continue their interview of Amy. The Braintree police allowed 11 days to pass before asking Amy and her family members more questions about Amy's killing her brother.

One of those participating in that interview was State Trooper Brian Howe, whose "jurisdiction" included being "on call" to assist the Braintree police on a case such as Seth Bishop's shooting. Howe's report, completed in late March, 1987, included no mention of any of Amy Bishop's actions that followed her killing Seth.

Howe said recently he knew nothing about Bishop pulling a gun on people after she shot Seth. He said that despite his requesting Braintree police reports, Braintree P.D. never provided him any. He wrote his report based on "the word" of the Braintree police and concluded Seth Bishop's death was "accidental".

Indeed, Howe's report fails to address many unanswered questions about the shooting and the police response to it. Howe's report, in fact, prompts additional questions. For example, Howe said that a Braintree police captain told him that Bishop was too emotional to answer questions after the shooting, but Keating said his recent probe revealed that Bishop was "calm, collected and answering questions," according to the Feb. 26th Patriot Ledger. Plus, Lt. James Sullivan, who was questioning Bishop, did not mention Bishop's emotional state then, the Ledger reported.

"I think it's a valid conclusion that they did not give me the reports for a reason," Howe told the Boston Globe, in an article published March 2nd.

Many have criticized Howe for not going to the scene of the shooting and for not reviewing the local police reports. Howe, apparently, didn't interview Solimini.

Likewise, the Norfolk District Attorney's office has been criticized for doing virtually nothing to probe the matter.

Frazier, at his February, 2010 press conference, admitted that the story he had just learned was "a far different story" than what was reported back then." (in 1986)

A reporter asked Frazier if one should conclude that the version given (to the press or public) back in 1986 was "fabricated."

"I would have to see the story," Frazier replied, "but, from what I'm hearing, it's not accurate."

That is, unfortunately, an understatement. The Braintree police didn't let the true, full story out back in 1986. Let's hope we get the accurate story someday.