Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
At this point, to be honest, all of the back and forth regarding “evidence” in the Zimmerman Case that has occurred here over a number of threads has been mere speculation that misses the salient issues raised by this case. The real (admissible) evidence will be presented at the trial and a hopefully an unbiased jury will make its decisions. The issues that we need to discuss from my perspective are:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence?
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly?
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many Stand Your Ground venues, had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested?
4. What are the purposes of a business oriented lobbying group, like ALEC, in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed?
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial?
The George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin has been marked by the typical aspects of what we have come to know as a media circus in American justice. Since this country began, when it comes to criminal justice, our free Press (Media) has found that sensationalism sells. Consequently, when a particular criminal case raises widespread public interest, the Press (Media) fans that interest beyond even the initial public interest. The process of leaking “new evidence” as the case plays out brings with it angry public debate over the significance of the leaked “evidence” and the guilt or innocence of the protagonist.
This creates an uneven public relations battle between the prosecution and the defense. I say uneven because in almost all instances the prosecution has the advantage in terms of media access and also the public’s presumption that the police/prosecution are their protectors. We have seen this occur in this particular case and quite frankly, save for the basic facts that are indisputable; none of us really know what evidence are public relations ploys to sway opinions and what facts will actually be admissible as evidence at trial. What makes this case somewhat different than others is that in this instance the original prosecutor and the Sanford P.D. actively were trying to justify their actions in releasing Zimmerman and not continuing to prosecute him. Their leaks were perhaps attempts to justify their actions. Now that the public uproar has brought in new prosecutors and investigators the leaks to the press may take on a different tone. What we don’t know, as the latest photo of the back of Zimmerman’s head illustrates, is whether the current prosecution is seeking true justice, or continuing to participate in a potential whitewash.
I would like to mention four cases that have occurred in my lifetime that show the problems encountered when sensational cases become prosecuted in the press. The first is the case of Dr. Sam Shepard, a Cleveland physician accused of murdering his wife in 1954, convicted he spent a decade in prison, only to be exonerated at a second trial:
Sheppard was brought to trial in the autumn of 1954. The case is notable for its extensive publicity and what the U.S. Supreme Court called a “carnival atmosphere.” Many have compared the O.J. Simpson trial to it, in terms of the often lurid press coverage it generated.
Some newspapers and other media in Ohio were accused of bias against Sheppard and inflammatory coverage of the case, and were criticized for immediately labeling Sheppard as the only viable suspect. Some believe that a specific headline from the Cleveland Press, “Why Isn’t Sam Sheppard in Jail?,” clearly indicated the bias of the media against Sheppard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard
The second case I’d like to mention is that of Caryl Chessman. Chessman was executed in 1960, having been convicted in a storm of lurid publicity. The issue wasn’t Chessman’s guilt per se, but whether California’s “Little Lindbergh” law should have been applied in a case where there was no murder. The publicity and antipathy towards Chessman, who was no doubt a low life criminal, obscure the fact that he hadn’t committed murder. In fact many proponents of his death lost sight of the fact that this was not a murder case:
“Born in St. Joseph, Michigan, Caryl Chessman was a criminal with a long record who spent most of his adult life behind bars. He had been paroled a short time from prison in California when he was arrested near Los Angeles and charged with being the notorious “Red Light Bandit.” The “Bandit” would follow people in their cars to secluded areas and flash a red light that tricked them into thinking he was a police officer. When they opened their windows or exited the vehicle, he would rob and, in the case of several young women, rape them. In July 1948, Chessman was convicted on 17 counts of robbery, kidnapping, and rape, and was condemned to death.
Part of the controversy surrounding the Chessman case stems from how the death penalty was applied. At the time, under California‘s version of the “Little Lindbergh Law”, any crime that involved kidnapping with bodily harm could be considered a capital offense. Two of the counts against Chessman alleged that he dragged a 17-year-old girl named Mary Alice Meza a short distance from her car demanding oral sex from her. Despite the short distance[citation needed] the woman was moved, the court considered it sufficient to qualify as kidnapping, thus making Chessman eligible for the death penalty.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
The last two cases I want to mention are much more familiar to everyone so I’ll just include the links to each one. O.J. Simpson’s murder trial was perhaps the most publicly viewed trial in our Nation’s history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_trial . Let me first say that I never liked Simpson, either as a football player, actor or celebrity. I thought he was an overrated runner and his public persona always seemed to me to be that of a complete phony and media whore. It was surprising to me then, when the case broke that I began to develop sympathy for someone I see as a loathsome man. What bothered me about this case was that from the beginning the prosecution waged a public relations war to convince the public of O.J.’s guilt, through strategic leaking and via officials making definitive statements about his guilt to the media, prior to even his arraignment.
I watched the entire arraignment and trial on TV at work because the City Agency I worked for was being split up and for literally months I had nothing to do but sit in my large office watching the trial on TV. At night my wife and I would watch the recaps at home. Based on what I saw I feel the verdict acquitting Simpson was the correct one because a credible case for “reasonable doubt” was made. He may well have been guilty, but to me the inept prosecution had botched their case. The reader may feel differently, but I think must admit that there was a firestorm of publicity on the case that made a serious trial into a circus.
Finally, last July prior to the verdict I wrote about “Should We Care About Casey Anthony” as a guest blog: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/02/should-we-care-about-casey-anthony/#more-36728 . Afterwards, being retired, I watched the entire trial and truly believe that the correct verdict was also reached based on the evidence and the over charging of the case. The reader again may disagree with my judgment here, but also must admit that the media sensationalism that characterized this trial was way over the top.
In the latter two cases I think that there is some comfort to be take by the fact that the juries in each seemed to actually perform their duty and look at the evidence presented without bias. In the Sheppard Case the defendant was convicted due to the improper publicity and it took a Supreme Court verdict to help set him free. He left prison a broken ma and both his and his son’s lives were destroyed in their attempt to exonerate his name. This is somewhat less comforting. Caryl Chessman, bad human being that he was, should not have been convicted of kidnapping in the sense of the “Little Lindbergh” law, but deserved a possible life sentence for rape. The pre and post trial publicity made it impossible for California politicians to try to prevent execution.
The Zimmerman case has again raised the wrath of anger and injustice on all sides. Zimmerman has been demonized and his victim Trayvon Martin has also been demonized. Zimmerman’s trial, should he not take a plea, will be a circus raising hackles everywhere. Whatever decision that comes from it will be questioned by people whose minds have been made up via the information leaking out. In the end we will all be victims of yet another diminishment of our legal system via a process we must be very loath to rein in. Democracy and freedom cannot flourish without widespread information on public happenings. There is no one we can honestly give the power to make a decisions as to where the media crosses the line, because invariably all human decisions are ultimately self-serving.
At the outset I posed what I see to be the six salient issues to be drawn from this case, whatever the outcome at trial. I’ve avoided taking sides on these issues, though truthful disclosure by me would say that at this point I believe Zimmerman is probably guilty of some form of aggravated manslaughter, but truly what do I know more than anyone else?
As for the five questions I posed here are my own answers/opinions:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence? Yes. To me the Police should not ever make the decision as to whether “standing one’s ground” is a viable defense. They need to collect all the evidence and present it to the prosecution. The prosecution must then present it to the court. SYG is for the court/jury to decide.
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly? I believe that Zimmerman’s father played a role in trying to avoid charges against his son and that influence was used to try to make the case go away.
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many SYG venues had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested? My belief is that if the shooter had been a person of color and/or what is considered a foreign ethnicity, they would have been arrested in any of those venues with a reversed situation. The only caveat is that if they were someone of wealth or connections, then they might not have been arrested.
4. What is the purpose of a business oriented lobbying group like ALEC in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed? I think that ALEC has been pushing these particular laws because many large corporations employ security forces that are armed. With these laws many actions by these armed security forces would be held to be justified, thus blameless.
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial? Absolutely, as I made clear above.
What then is your opinion on these issues, taking out the guilt, or innocence of George Zimmerman?
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Anon,
As for your opinion of Gene H., I strongly disagree.
“Here’s a pretty good rule of thumb: If you’re naming a piece of crime legislation after a crime victim, it’s probably a bad law. It means you’re legislating out of anger, or in reaction to public anger over a specific incident. That’s generally not how good policy is made.”
Anon,
I wanted to comment on how much I agreed with your first comment on this thread and from my own professional experience. My last six years of work before I became disabled were spent creating and running programs for those with the co-diagnoses of severe mental illness and drug addiction. There is a a NY State Law called “Kendra’s Law” that mandates treatment for those adjudged to have mental illness and could be a threat to themselves and/or the community. See below for a moderately accurate description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendra%27s_Law
It does supply a lot of treatment services and options that can be of benefit to the willing person. I ran afoul of it in that my programs were mandated to take certain cases where the person did not want our services at all. My programs became liable for anything the patient did, eve though they wanted nothing to do with us. The only avenue the law gave us to ensure cooperation was to threaten the patient and/or follow through with involuntary commitment. I didn’t work in my chosen career for all the years I did to become some sort of Administrative bully and yet my actions were overseen by people who enjoyed the Administrative bullying process. While I always stood my ground I was constantly being called on the carpet and having to justify my actions. Though the initial concept of the program was excellent and the benefits we were allowed to supply were very generous, this execution left much to be desired. There were also quite a few instances where someone without psychiatric/psychological background would force people into the program who didn’t belong there.
I relate all this to say that I agree totally with the quote from above and even see now that “Caycee’s Law” is being proposed in Florida for no purpose other that to make political hay.
anon,
“I think you might be right, but Mr. Leider IS a student in Law School with a Ph.D in philosophy.”
Mr. Leider is confused as to who has the burden of proof. While Mr. Zimmerman would have the burden of proof to show that his use of lethal force was justified, he has no burden to prove that he didn’t start the altercation that led to his alleged justified force. In a system based on one being considered until proven guilty of a crime (something not enjoyed in all parts of the world), a claim that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime that would result in his the loss of his right to defend himself would be a burden placed on the prosecution.
whoever told me never to listen to Gene Howington. I presume this is referring to Gene H. I DO listen to Gene H. I do not agree with him every time and I daresay he will say the same about me, and I do not adopt his attitude about everything (I am a fan of Idealist707 and he is not, for instance), but I listen CLOSELY to Gene H. He is obviously intelligent, has a rigorous scholarly background and wide body of knowledge, he shares, he is responsive and often helpful, VERY often helpful, and if I were in college and he were teaching a course I was taking, at the rates currently charged for higher education, it would cost me about $100/hour to sit there in his classroom and take notes! But he’s on-line here typing out notes for me to read for free! Bottom line: It is my First Amendment right to listen to Gene Howington.
quoted for lulz
anon,
“Regarding John McNeil, that he was charged at all is outrageous and bullshit.”
I thought the same thing when I first read about the case. The fact that McNeil was not charged until a year later is a pretty good indicator that the police department thought the same way too. (Although I think most here would have wanted to see McNeil locked up from the beginning.)
Then I started to think a little more about it. When McNeil shot Epp, Epp’s knife was in his pocket. Though Epp had allegedly had the knife in his hand while confronting McNeil’s son, the same was not the case when McNeil shot Epp. I think the prosecution (and the jury) took that into account when finding him guilty. The fact that McNeil was not there when his son was allegedly threatened, but chose to drive to the residence and get out of his vehicle, instead of waiting for the police to arrive, played a factor too. The police were on their way, and both McNeil and his son were not in any immediate danger had the son remained in the house and McNeil in his car.
I think you might be right, but Mr. Leider IS a student in Law School with a Ph.D in philosophy.
anon,
From the quoted article:
“And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor.”
I would have to disagree. Mr. Zimmerman would not have to show anything other than that he was in reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily harm. The onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor (“aggressor” would be something more than watching or re-positioning to see where the suspicious person was going). I don’t even think that accosting (something Malisha has asserted, but never backed up with evidence or witness account) would likely not eliminate a viable self-defense claim.
@Malisha,
More whitespace please. Your posts are terribly hard to read. Walls of grey goo.
Regarding John McNeil, that he was charged at all is outrageous and bullshit. However, it might not be the Stand Your Ground case you think it is, regardless of what Salon dipshits have to say. Remember, Salon is not your friend. Except for Greenwald and Patrick Smith, Salon is as accurate with the truth as some of the lawyers here.
Stand Your Ground was passed in Georgia a year after McNeil shot Epps.
Radley Balko seems to do a good job of explaining both why the charging and conviction of McNeill is outrageous, and also how the two cases are comparable and how they are not.
The thing that must be considered here is not whether Zimmerman was in fear, but would a reasonable person have been in fear for their life or serious bodily harm. If the answer is yes, the use of lethal force is justified. If the answer is no, it is not.
Malisha,
California has had stand your ground for over a hundred years:
Many Western states have. And many states had stand your ground up until 30-40 years ago.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/14/BA2J1O3418.DTL
Or for more than 150 years
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577350010609562008.html
After Stand Your Ground, prosecutors have a more difficult case. Now, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. The police report contains some evidence to back Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. Mr. Zimmerman reportedly sustained a broken nose, cuts to the back of his head, and had grass stains on the back of his shirt. These facts could provide reasonable doubt on the self-defense question if jurors thought that Martin may have had Mr. Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating him. This inquiry is much more fact-intensive than relying on Mr. Zimmerman’s ability to leave the scene.
Nevertheless, even with Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman will have difficulty asserting a successful self-defense claim. Stand Your Ground laws do not affect most basic requirements of pleading self-defense. Individuals using lethal force in self-defense must reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury—in other words, an average person, given the facts as Mr. Zimmerman knew them, would have reached the same inferences about the danger Martin posed and the necessity of using deadly force to avoid it. Mr. Zimmerman’s mere honest beliefs will not suffice.
Nor does the Stand Your Ground law permit individuals to use disproportionate force in self-defense. Mr. Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably feared that Martin was going to kill him, cause great bodily injury (e.g., permanent disfigurement), or commit a forcible felony. A few cuts and a broken nose may not rise to this level. And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor.
There is no need to exaggerate the leniency of Florida law. Regardless of whether he should have walked away, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed Martin as a mortal threat.
Mr. Leider, a student at Yale Law School, holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University.
@ Otteray Scribe: I would also love to see an evaluation of Trayvon Martin, by a good team of forensic scientists, to weigh in on the likelihood of him “running” at first (as described by Zimmerman to the cops) and then turning around, once Zimmerman allegedly chose to return to his vehicle, and “jumping him” as he has alleged. Not that you can genuinely evaluate a person post mortem, just that you can bring some degree of scientific inquiry to the unknowns in light of these seemingly incredible allegations.
Have you ever heard of “psychological autopsies” or “psychiatric autopsies”? My ex-husband’s father (while we were married and living together) hung himself in the basement of our home. He was 5’2″ tall and he hung himself in a space that was no taller than he was — he apparently did it by using the Russian Army technique of holding onto his own ankles until he lost consciousness, and then letting his deadweight finish the job of strangulation. HE REALLY MEANT TO DIE THAT NIGHT! Nobody tried to assess what had happened to him in the weeks and months before his suicide. My ex-husband (and this is one of the major reasons that I divorced him) blamed me for his father’s death because, he said, I had refused to say “good morning” to the elderly gentleman, causing him to go into a lethal depression. This led a child psychiatrist (hired by my ex-husband) to opine that my ex-husband had “demonized” me and that, thereafter, there was nothing I could do “to satisfy Mr. [name] or to make him stop hating her.” Meanwhile, I had begged my husband and his family to get into therapy and/or mediation with me to work out the problems that had arisen, but they all refused, with rage and horror that after killing this poor old man, I then wanted to manipulate all of THEM as well. I tell this story for two reasons: (a) Any kind of ridiculous thing can be attributed to a person who is already dead and cannot agree or disagree with the premise; and (b) there is such a thing as a “psychiatric autopsy” or “psychological autopsy.” I have forgotten which term was used. But back then, in the late seventies, I was able to locate a few professionals who said that they could actually do such a report, although it was not to be prepared for court, just for the family’s use. Of course, I couldn’t get it done because nobody in the family would participate. Ultimately I went to my own therapist who told me point blank: “You cannot change grossly distorted ideas with scholarly evaluations or facts, so it would not even be worth trying.” But she just meant I couldn’t have changed my ex-husband’s ideas or his family’s hostility — when it comes to facts that are going to be alleged and evidenced in court, I think that evaluations and data are important and help deciders of fact come to their decisions. At least we hope that the deciders of fact are likely to view things rationally, when presented with proper scientific evidence.
Zimmerman’s version of Martin first “running” and then turning around and attacking is not believable to me. And that part of the narration would have occurred before Zimmerman’s fear for his life had kicked in. So much to think about. Anyway, thanks for your expertise in this regard.
Malisha,
I good forensic psychologist, using standardized psychological assessment tools, can determine just how easily any given person if likely to have fear triggers. Some people are prone to fear responses much more than others. Some folks do not seem to have any brakes when it comes to fear and do not tend to have fear responses that would send others ducking for cover. It would be very interesting to look at a thorough forensic psychological profile of this man, with an especially keen eye toward looking at his fear response threshold.
@ Mike Spindell: I agree with you, and would like Sunshine Government and principles of fairness and justice to make it impossible for a mess like the Zimmerman case to develop, but we’re not there (oops, I almost wrote “yet”). I’m satisfied with the idea that the trial will be a challenge to the prosecution AND that the defense may win acquittal, but that doesn’t change my thinking or my public writing about the issues, which, since they are under discussion and well commented on by the likes of Fox News etc., must be addressed, the more the better, in my opinion. In fact, from my take on the McNeil/Epps case in Georgia, I would say at this point that if the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, they have a good chance to do that. All this is speculation, but it is not blind speculation; it is speculation that extrapolates from what is already demonstrated.
Any time one person kills another without any eye-witnesses to the actual killing itself, that person can presumably claim self-defense, because who, outside that person’s head, can say he was not afraid for his own life? I know people who have panic attacks and they are momentarily afraid that they are dying from heart attacks or drowning or the like. Nobody can prove that Zimmerman didn’t FEAR for his life at any moment in time, and even if there were eye-witnesses, they couldn’t say that. They could, however, say that Zimmerman followed and accosted Martin. We will see, under Florida law, whether that situation makes it legally impossible (or not) for Zimmerman to sustain a defense of self-defense. Many have said that whoever threw the first punch (or if there was no punch, whoever pushed the first shove or if there was no shove, whoever made the first gesture that might have appeared to the other to be an incipient act of aggression) was the aggressor, but that is not defined anywhere in the law. The position of Epp’s shoulders in the McNeil case, the expression on his face, were remarked by witnesses who saw him shot by McNeil. Not only can we never know all these details about the Zimmerman case, but they are ultimately irrelevant, based on the fact that Martin had the legal right to stand his ground when Zimmerman approached him.
So my position is and remains: If in Florida you can mark, follow and shoot someone without eye-witnesses, and then make out a successful case of self-defense even though they are unarmed and not committing a crime when you approach, and not on YOUR PROPERTY at all, then it is open season on people that folks like Zimmerman consider “assholes,” and this, in itself, amounts to a lawless society.
Actually, I am not hoping that this trial will help protect black kids in hoodies; I am hoping that this trial will help establish parameters we can live with, I can live with, adopting the international standard of “security of person” as something worth preserving in a democracy.
“Mike S: We have to measure, I think, the fact that the media circumpaths may have (and may still) contaminate the trial against the fact that absent the media circus, we would never have HAD a trial and what “we” would have had (not even KNOWING that we had it) was a quick, successful, neat, power-driven anti-people corrupt cover-up of the death of one forgettable American kid, on American soil, NOT in wartime. So I will take the “media circus” with all its negatives as the “least worst alternative.””
Malisha,
I don’t disagree with you, but my point is that in this case the overall circus has cut deeply both ways. Trayvon, the victim, has been besmirched as has his family. The pushback by those on Zimmerman’s side has been equally as viscious as anything said about Zimmerman. My ultimate point is that we ca’t afford to leash the press, but all citizens need to view what they see there with a jaundiced eye. As I’ve expressed before based on what I know from the media storm, my sympathies at present lay with Trayvon. However, I also understand that when the evidence is presented at trial, it may not favor that position. Most people in this country believe that O.J. and Caycee Anthony should have been convicted under the law and that the jurors should be ashamed of themselves. The ultimate guilt of O.J. and Caycee seems probable, but I don’t think that either trial met the legal standard of
beyond reasonable doubt. It is that standard that must be upheld, yet the nature of people is such that pre-trial publicity consistently turns speculation into immutable facts.
You are quite welcome……
AY:
Thanks for another” lens “
Eniobob,
Once most prosecutor’s get a hook in the bait, they reel them in slowly….. Didn’t this all come about because of a domestic abuse cases in which the cops were protecting their own, whom eventually committed murder….
@ Otteray Scribe: I don’t think I can properly appreciate — no, make that SHOW proper appreciation — for your recent post. These are some of the things that are bothering me but I haven’t done the careful analysis you have done. A horrible feeling is creeping up on me about this; it now seems possible that the police arrived on the scene and said, in essence, “Uh oh, what better we do to make this not look like what it looks like right now?” IN that case, what the feds are doing is much more important, and more vulnerable, than anything else.
@ Mike S: We have to measure, I think, the fact that the media circus may have (and may still) contaminate the trial against the fact that absent the media circus, we would never have HAD a trial and what “we” would have had (not even KNOWING that we had it) was a quick, successful, neat, power-driven anti-people corrupt cover-up of the death of one forgettable American kid, on American soil, NOT in wartime. So I will take the “media circus” with all its negatives as the “least worst alternative.” I believe that, given our law enforcement structure and habits, the “least worst alternative” is all we can ever hope for. That’s what disturbs me and makes me disturb Anon.
@ whoever told me never to listen to Gene Howington. I presume this is referring to Gene H. I DO listen to Gene H. I do not agree with him every time and I daresay he will say the same about me, and I do not adopt his attitude about everything (I am a fan of Idealist707 and he is not, for instance), but I listen CLOSELY to Gene H. He is obviously intelligent, has a rigorous scholarly background and wide body of knowledge, he shares, he is responsive and often helpful, VERY often helpful, and if I were in college and he were teaching a course I was taking, at the rates currently charged for higher education, it would cost me about $100/hour to sit there in his classroom and take notes! But he’s on-line here typing out notes for me to read for free! Bottom line: It is my First Amendment right to listen to Gene Howington.
LK:
“So here sits the 31-year-old mother, two years later, convicted and fighting to stay out of prison. Incidentally the State Prosecutor now on Trayvon Martin’s case, Angela Corey, also handled Marissa’s case. Even though her husband recanted and admitted he was the aggressor, the State still proceeded with the case”
I guess Ms Corey needs to be closely watched.
” Even though her husband recanted and admitted he was the aggressor, the State still proceeded with the case”
Mike,
I remember the Sheppard case.
Dr. Sam Sheppard Murder Case: His Son Seeks The Real Killer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV4zKeGM3fc
Sam Sheppard Trial by Newspaper