|
April 19, 2007
A "could have been" hate crime?
Considering the stuff I've been reading lately, it must be the season for misinformation. Unless the police and the medical examiner are lying, yet another media report I relied on and discussed has turned out to be substantially untrue: DETROIT -- Andrew Anthos, the elderly gay man whose death was attributed to a vicious hate crime, did not die from a beating but from natural causes, Detroit police said Wednesday.Huh? This was supposed to be a particularly vicious and brutal hate crime, committed by a pipe-wielding assailant. Here's one of the original accounts: Andrew Anthos was on a city bus on his way home to the Windsor Tower apartments on Antietam in Detroit around 7 p.m. Feb. 13 when a man approached him and asked him if he was gay, Anthos' family said he told police before he slipped into a coma. The man, who continued to harass Anthos and called him derogatory names, followed Anthos off the bus at the stop in front of his building and attacked him with a metal pipe, striking him from behind, police said. The attacker left him on the snowy sidewalk.He died three days later, and his death became a cause celebre in a renewed push for "hate crimes" legislation. As to witnesses, it appears there weren't any. But the relatives and activists disagree: The autopsy's conclusion has angered Anthos' relatives.So what about the pipe? If the coroner could find no head inuries, and all we have is the cousin saying Anthos was hit, how did that become an attack with a pipe? And what about the police sketch? Apparently, someone saw a man who looked like that "leaving the area": During the investigation into Anthos' death, police released sketches of a man they wanted to question. Tate said the department released the sketch because it was a witness description of a man seen leaving the area where Anthos was found.No evidence of a fatal blow, and no one actually saw the attack. Just the hearsay of the victim's cousin, and a man seen leaving the area. Understandably, the activists don't want to back down: Anthos was a well-known figure among state lawmakers and local journalists because of his campaign to have the state Capitol dome lit up in red, white and blue to honor military veterans and police officers. His death made local and national headlines as a hate crime. .His own words? Not exactly. What he says his cousin said constitutes an allegation that they are his cousin's words. Amazing. I'm left wondering about the quality of investigation of the stories which manage to find their way into print. It seems to me that reports like this are driven by a strong emotional investment in the facts being a certain way. Once activists step in and manipulate these emotions, the situation is compounded, and the "facts" become indelible, regardless of what happened. Questioning them is then seen as taking on a political dimension. I think having an emotional and political investment in facts is not a good thing. It harms, rather than helps, any political cause involved, and it makes truth a casualty of politics. I was horrified by the accounts of the crime, and here's what I said: Whoever the attacker is, I hope they catch him, and I hope he gets the death penalty, which does not and should not require any special hate crimes statute.In the post, I devoted a good deal of time to the identity of the assailant. While there was a composite picture of a black man who was said to have beaten Mr. Anthos with a pipe, the NGLTF blamed white conservatives for the death. And now the official story is that there's no evidence an attack at all. And the main witness is another cousin who appears to be reciting not what she saw, but what she heard: ...the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office concluded that Anthos fell because he had an arthritic neck, and detectives were unable to find witnesses to a beating, police said.But Fedenis wasn't even there, and neither the guy in the wheelchair nor anyone else saw the alleged attack. Fedenis also appears to be backing away from the pipe story: "If you want to say he wasn't murdered, OK. But you can't say he wasn't attacked, that it wasn't a hate crime," Fedenis said.I'm sorry but "could have been" isn't enough to indict or arrest anyone. Nor is the statement that "Andrew didn't have any reason to make this up." What actually happened will never be known. (But try telling that to people with an emotional investment in the unknown!) posted by Eric on 04.19.07 at 09:32 AM |
|
April 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2007
March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Can anyone explain this?
Break the schools that break the necks Obama Is Silent Haditha Bombshell - Intel Evidence Indictment in Atlanta Bees and black boxes disappear, while Bush avoids the gallows! I Support Democracy In Iraq - Contest affirmative action for criminals but not victims? "hate the p-p-p-pork but love the p-p-p-pig" Gun grabbers get unexpected help from the "other side"
Links
Site Credits
|
|