Police Response, Pursuit of Death Penalty Questioned in Haunting, Emotional Documentary “Cheshire Murders”
On the sixth anniversary of the horrific Cheshire home invasion murders, a new HBO documentary on the case as well as a report on police communications that morning are sure to raise new questions about the Cheshire Police Department’s response. It is also likely to reignite the debate over the death penalty in the state.
“Cheshire Murders” aired last night and contained some pointed criticism of the police response from the family of Jennifer Hawke-Petit who, along with her two daughters Hayley and Michaela, was murdered that day, their house set afire. Dr. William Petit, the father and husband, was badly beaten but survived.
Throughout the heart-breaking, two-hour documentary, Hawke-Petit’s sister Cindy Hawke-Renn, and her parents, the Rev. Richard and Marybelle Hawke, expressed the belief the police could have saved the three victims. Evidence was presented that police were on the scene much earlier than previously stated and chose to set up a perimeter for a possible drawn-out hostage situation instead of entering the house.
There is some serious uncertainty about the police department’s actions and suspicion about why to this day it won’t answer requests from the Hawke-Petit family for information on what happened and when. A Hartford Courant report Monday shed some new light on police actions through recorded communications of that morning. It’s troubling.
Every documentary, even those attempting to be objective, has a point of view. In this case, filmmakers Kate Davis and David Heilbroner clearly question the wisdom of the state pursuing the death penalty for Joshua Komisarjevsky and Stephen Hayes instead of accepting an offer of pleading guilty to all charges in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Dr. Petit was a driving force in seeking death for the pair and in at least temporarily stalling a move to abolish capital punishment in Connecticut. Davis and Heilbroner seemed to be of the opinion that putting the family, friends and indeed the state through a trial wasn’t worth it.
Two Sides in Waterbury Hospital Bill Veto Entrench Deeper
Depending on who you believe, the process that led to Gov. Malloy vetoing a bill affecting Waterbury Hospital was either a complete betrayal and breaking of an agreement that will have dire consequences for future negotiations or a case of a bill with many moving parts that failed to acceptably come together in the last days of the legislative session.
The veto of the bill that would have paved the way for a for-profit company to take over Waterbury Hospital is a classic case of a legislative backroom deal falling apart when other forces intervened. The Shad saw that happen many times in my years on staff in the General Assembly. I wasn’t in the room for this one so it’s hard to say definitively whose version is more accurate.
State Rep. Sean Williams, a popular Watertown Republican, says all sides—Republicans, Democrats and the Malloy administration—had agreed upon a deal for legislation that would allow the healthcare company Vanguard to take over the hospital. Efforts to save the financially struggling hospital have been going on for years. Williams says this time, a solution was in place. Both the Democratically controlled Senate and House passed the bill with strong majorities. Then the governor vetoed it. Williams was apoplectic. “At no time did the administration tell us the bill we all agreed upon would be vetoed,” Williams said. “If they had concerns, we would have addressed them.”
Williams says the governor’s people can no longer be trusted to negotiate with the legislature. “I’ve seen deals broken before and I never trusted the person who broke the deal again; I’ve never trusted the person who went behind my back and broke the deal. This [veto] has neutered their ability to negotiate in good faith.” Williams has said this was the biggest betrayal he has seen in his ten years in Hartford.
Mark Ojakian, Governor Malloy’s chief of staff, was in the room for the negotiations and tells a different story. “It was the last days of the session and there were many moving parts [in the bill]. I signaled my willingness to be helpful with the bill. Was there an agreement? Was there a handshake? No. I did not sign off on the bill.”
Ojakian clearly takes Williams’ charges personally. He notes that the effort to fix the Waterbury Hospital situation has a long history and Williams was late to the game. “I’ve never talked to Rep. Williams about this in the last two years [prior to the last days of the session]. He was not part of any of the discussions,” Ojakian said. When I spoke to Ojakian last week, he was still upset. “This strikes at my basic integrity. I’m involved with policy, not politics as Rep. Williams is now.” He described Williams’ charges as “disingenuous” and even “foolish.”
So what happened? Why did the governor end up vetoing the bill? First, it’s important to point out that nothing is a “done deal” when it comes to legislation until the ink from the governor’s pen actually spells out his name on the bill. Many times, other forces intercede to change things. That no doubt happened here.
(UPDATE) Supreme Court Will Decide Vallas Case; Should Shut Down School Reform Obstructionists and Reinstate Bridgeport Superintendent of Schools
Education reform champion Paul Vallas was hired to turnaround the worst achieving schools in the state of Connecticut—Bridgeport. He had successfully run school systems in Chicago, New Orleans (after Hurricane Katrina) and Philadelphia. He was required by the state board of education to take a “school leadership” course. He did so according to the board and his instructor at UConn. So Vallas should be well on his way to improving the schools in the state’s largest city, right? Guess again.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis was persuaded by the opponents of school reform that the leadership course was basically a sham, that Vallas is not qualified and that he is to be removed from office. Fortunately, Supreme Court Justice Chase Rogers came down on the side of reason and ruled Tuesday that the highest court in the state will decide the case and review it in an expedited manner.
Given Vallas’ resume and track record, any contention that he is not qualified to run Bridgeport’s schools is laughable on its face and deeply troubling when one looks at the motivation of those opposing him.
The very core motivation of Vallas’ opponents is that he will put the kids first and to do that he will need to institute reform measures that are anathema to the teachers unions and their long-winded toadies on various blogs. One particular blog is so predictable and so sycophantic that anyone who reads one entry could write the next one (assuming the reader can get through it with its “War and Peace” length).
Then there is the question of the objectivity of Judge Bellis. Legitimate concerns have been raised in Bridgeport about her impartiality. She should have erred on the side of caution and recused herself.
Conn. Sens. Blumenthal, Murphy to Lead Effort to Require SCOTUS to Abide by Judicial Conduct Code
Several weeks ago, US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “pursed his lips, rolled his eyes to the ceiling, and shook his head ‘no’” when fellow Justice Ruth Ginsburg read a dissent in two cases. Such boorish and disrespectful behavior has brought new focus to a pledge made by Connecticut’s two US senators to require Supreme Court justices to abide by the same code of conduct that applies to lower court judges.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Christopher Murphy along with US Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York) in a letter to the New York Times last month publicly announced they would introduce legislation to bind Supreme Court justices to the code of conduct. What’s good for the lower courts should be good for the highest court in the land.
Justice Alito’s demeanor makes the initiative of the lawmakers that much more important. According to The Atlantic’s Garrett Epps, “Alito pursed his lips, rolled his eyes to the ceiling, and shook his head ‘no.’ He looked for all the world like Sean Penn as Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, signaling to the homies his contempt for Ray Walston as the bothersome history teacher, Mr. Hand.” Epps added, “I found it as jarring as seeing a Justice blow bubblegum during oral argument.” Wow.
Blumenthal, Murphy and Slaughter seemed to have a crystal ball when they wrote on June 13, “As the court prepares to issue landmark decisions on gay marriage, affirmative action and voting rights that will directly affect broad swaths of the American public, we cannot afford to risk a further erosion of trust in this esteemed body’s commitment to the rule of law.” Then, Justice Alito proved them right.
NBC’s Todd, O’Brien; WashPo; Politico: Lieberman on Shortlist for Homeland Security Secretary
As Washington digests the surprising news that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is stepping down to take the helm of the University of California system, pundits are wasting no time bandying about names for her replacement. At least two political reporters are floating former Connecticut US Senator Joe Lieberman for the job.
NBC’s Chuck Todd and Michael O’Brien both mention Lieberman as a possible replacement for Napolitano. Hearst Newspapers’ Neil Vigdor also flagged the story. Lieberman is considered something of a foreign policy expert and he was instrumental in the creation of the entire department of homeland security and chaired the Senate committee overseeing it.
However, Lieberman is not a sure thing by any stretch. He has been a hawk on foreign policy, supporting the Iraq war and recently writing a tough opinion piece on Iran. He may be too much of a hawk for President Obama’s tastes but he would certainly win confirmation.
Stay tuned on this one.
The Shad’s Letter to the Editor
Attacking Toni Harp on Keno Won’t Work in New Haven Mayor’s Race
To the Editor:
New Haven mayoral candidate Henry Fernandez is desperate to tie the newly legalized gambling game keno directly to rival Toni Harp — the operative word being “desperate.” Fernandez is grasping at straws to smear Harp and the only thing he has come up with is the “keno strategy.”
His attempt to lay keno at Harp’s doorstep shows a dangerous ignorance of the state legislative process. Knowledge about the system is essential to being mayor of a big city like New Haven and Fernandez clearly doesn’t have it.
The real story is that a gaping hole appeared in the state budget when grassroots opposition sunk Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposal for an energy auction when the spending plan was being finalized. There were several options to fill the shortfall: Raise taxes (cigarettes, income and others), cut vital services to the most vulnerable citizens of the state or legalize a gambling game that already exists in all Connecticut’s bordering states and the Native American Indian casinos in the state. Legislative leaders chose the gambling solution given that the state already has a robust gaming industry.
Here’s what Fernandez doesn’t understand — it’s the senate president, speaker of the house and governor who have the final say on the budget and what is in or out. Leaders chose the best of the bad options available. Yes, Senator Harp too sided with the gaming option because she didn’t think cutting important services to the people of the state was a viable option and the governor was dead-set against burdening taxpayers with another tax increase after absorbing the largest tax increase in state history in 2010.
Fernandez is quick to criticize the decision to go with keno but he doesn’t say how he would have plugged the budget hole. Would he have cut social services? Does he think he has the juice to convince the governor to raise taxes? Fernandez is right that keno is not a great thing in and of itself and will bring about some problems. But nothing compared to the problems that cutting crucial services would bring.
Being a leader, whether it’s in the state legislature or the mayor’s office, is about making tough choices. Senator Harp has shown she has what it takes to make those difficult choices. Fernandez has been relegated to naively sniping from the sidelines.
Patrick Scully
Cambridge, Mass.
Patrick Scully is a former director of communications for the Senate Democrats and is now a communications consultant.
Fernandez’s “Keno Strategy” Against Harp Won’t Work
New Haven mayoral candidate Henry Fernandez is desperate to tie the newly legalized gambling game keno directly to rival Toni Harp—the operative word being “desperate.” Both Democrats are vying to succeed outgoing Mayor John DeStefano who is retiring. In a nutshell, state Sen. Harp is an experienced, bright, hard-working, New Haven-loving candidate who is the obvious choice to lead the city. Fernandez is grasping at straws to smear Harp and the only thing he has come up with is the “keno strategy.” New Haven voters are smarter than to be duped by Fernandez.
Fernandez’s attempt to lay keno at Harp’s doorstep shows a dangerous ignorance of the state legislative process. Knowledge about the system is essential to being mayor of a big city like New Haven and Fernandez clearly doesn’t have it.
The real story is that a gaping hole appeared in the state budget when grassroots opposition sunk Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposal for an energy auction when the spending plan was being finalized. There were several options to fill the shortfall: Raise taxes (cigarettes, income, sales and others), cut vital services to most vulnerable citizens of the state or legalize a gambling game that already exists in all Connecticut’s bordering states and the Native American Indian casinos in the state. Legislative leaders chose the gambling solution given that the state already has a robust gaming industry.
Here’s what Fernandez doesn’t understand—it’s the senate president, speaker of the house and governor who have the final say on the budget and what is in or out. Leaders chose the best of the bad options available. Yes, Sen. Harp was in the room and has some influence in such matters as the chairman of the legislature’s appropriations committee but she doesn’t have the final say. In any event, she too sided with the gaming option because she didn’t think cutting important services to the people of the state was a viable option and the governor was dead-set against burdening taxpayers with another tax increase after absorbing the largest tax increase in state history in 2010.
Fernandez is quick to criticize the decision to go with keno but he doesn’t say how he would have plugged the budget hole. Would he have cut social services? Does he think he has the juice to convince the governor to raise taxes?
