Arkansas Blog

If there was some kind of "conspiracy," the suspect the police now has in custody does not look like the type of individual who could be trusted to keep his mouth shut. And, if a victim was pregnant, an autopsy would certainly confirm such a fact. The magnitude of this rumor has "urban myth" written all over it.

MAX, YOUR VIDEO OF THE PRESSLY's DOES NOT WORK. Time 10:30 AM

The video is on eLwood.

.

"Some women I've spoken with believe there's a public safety issue in this and the public would be better served by knowing a rapist was on the loose."

There is ALWAYS a rapist on the loose somewhere. Only the naïve or those in denial would think otherwise. The LRPD need not spill its guts in the Pressly case (or any other case) for women and the general public to be aware of this fact.

Durango, you said exactly what I was going to say. Most women I know operate on the assumption that there is a rapist on the loose 24/7, and that he's hiding in our bushes or behind the car parked next to us. Better safe than sorry.

I don't think men can ever fully understand what it's like to live in a constant, albeit sometimes subconscious, state of fear. For women, actions as simple as loading the car trunk with groceries, taking an evening walk or leaving a window open to enjoy the breeze can be potentially fatal ones.

We don't need a press conference to know the world is a dangerous place for women.

Lt. Terry Hastings states, "If we thought there was an issue there of public safety we would have released information relating to that. I'd say that's not a valid argument."

Since when is the murder of a woman whom someone attempts to rape NOT a public safety issue?

I'd say it IS a valid argument, when folks call for such information to be made public.

The LR Police Department is in real danger of depicting itself here as callous about rape, and as cavalier about the murder of women in attempted rapes. We suffer a tremendous amount as a city and a state by the lack of flow of information.

Time to let the sunshine in, everywhere we can shine it.

"The LR Police Department is in real danger of depicting itself here as callous about rape, and as cavalier about the murder of women in attempted rapes."

I believe Patti and Guy Cannady (Anne's parents) would debate you all the way into the Great Hereafter on that one, MT.

From the day women are born, until the day we die, we know that we can be raped at any time and by anyone. We live in a rape culture, where rape is instituionalized. If you have a notion of equality where there is the existence of rape, you are wrong. Rape is neither inevitable nor natural.

You know what women want? We aren't some strange enigma that is impossible to figure out. It's frighteningly simple what we want. We want a twenty four truce during which there is no rape. Only men can stop rape. Stop it for one day. For one hour. I dare you. Until that day occurs, there can be no true freedom for men or for women.

Examples of rape culture, from Arkansas Times' blogs (NOT from the comments):

"This is the moment where you decide what you're made of. I say- be a man. March up to that salad bar and make it your bitch." http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/redvelvetlounge/2008/11/the_best_food_scam_in_town.aspx

"Instead, Barbara Walters proceeded to make him her bitch..." http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/09/god_bwess_baba_wawa.aspx

From comments, giving us a more direct in-context use:
"I'm sure he will make an cell block very happy being the bitch" http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2006/04/noble_out_at_kthv.aspx

If that phrase doesn't mean being forced to submit to sex, aka rape, what does it mean?
And yet it is used casually and daily by supposedly thoughtful people.
Don't think it comes from men in prison. Women have known what it means to "be someone's bitch" for centuries. Male "bitches" in prison are just a substitute for the real thing. The phrase encourages people to think of women as animals who must be trained to submit to their owners.

2008. My, how far we've come.

Durango, I didn't say that the LR Police weren't proactive about finding Anne Pressly's attacker.

Nor did I say that they were not helpful to Anne Pressly's parents.

I said that they are in danger of being depicted as callous about rape and cavalier about women who are murdered when assaulted.

And I stand by that judgment.

I said they are in danger of being depicted as callous and cavalier because they did not release information about a sexual assault that turned into murder when they had this information.

I am for full public disclosure of such information. The community has a right to know when a suspected rapist who has killed someone is on the loose.

Or are you disagreeing with that conclusion?

MT, I'm simply stating my belief that the Cannadys would debate you or anybody else who depicts the LRPD as being callous about rape and cavalier about the murder of women in attempted rapes. As a rule, I would agree with you that the community has a right to know when a suspected rapist who has killed someone is on the loose. However, there may at times be extenuating circumstances that preclude the police immediately making public everything they know. Such may have been the case with the Pressly murder. I'm for letting professional law enforcement officers approach these matters in the way they think best.

In this particular case, I think we can agree on the fact that the Little Rock Police Department, the Marianna Police Department and the Arkansas State Crime Lab did a good job in identifying, finding and arresting the suspect. Judge Lee Munson then made a good decision in keeping him off the streets. All of that does not make us any more safe. There are still a lot of violent people in the world.

Once again, Durango, I did not say that the LRPD were callous or cavalier in how they handled the Pressly case.

I said that they have placed themselves in danger of being PERCEIVED that way by the public, because they did not release information about an attempted rape that ended in murder.

I appreciate your responding to my question about where you stand re: the obligation of the LRPD to make information like that public as soon as they have it. You say, "I'm for letting professional law enforcement officers approach these matters in the way they think best."

And, again, I disagree. I'm for sunshine. I do not wish to give the benefit of the doubt to authority figures when information like this is at stake--when someone is killed in an attempted rape. I believe that it benefits the entire community to make such information public.

I also believe that giving the benefit of the doubt to authority figures and to privileged groups that control the open flow of information harms societies in which there is such control of information flow.

Why do you think long-haired males were so physically abused in the sixties? Why do think the "fresh meat" in prison is so popular with both inmates and guards. Why do you think sexual assault figures so prominently in hazing? Where do you think fear of homosexuals comes from? Why do you think rape and threat of rape was encouraged as an interrogation technique?

If you are afraid you can thank your tax dollars at work. Our government would fall were it not for fear, think of how the terrorists have been marketed. It's going to get worse because they aren't interested in it getting better.

Say hello to the third world where gangs of males (some barely pubescent) perform for your family in the first act. The second and third acts are worse.

This is the world we would have our children live in.

"We have rudiments of reverence for the human body, but we consider as nothing the rape of the human mind."
Eric Hoffer

While for public safety concerns it might have been good for the police to inform the public that a rapist was on the loose, we already knew enough that, until Wednesday night, a murderer was on the loose.

holy smokes, 96.5 just went on-air with the conspiracy theory no one should go on air with. that's horrible.

"[W]e already knew enough that, until Wednesday night, a murderer was on the loose."

Posted by: jimmyboy.

Except for one specific: we--the public--did not know that a rapist who had murdered was on the loose.

We did know this officially. As always in Arkansas, the gossip network was active (it's always active where information is controlled and hoarded, causing confusion and fear).

But no one was told officially what was going on.

Rape, particularly rape attended by horrendous physical assault, is a serious issue of concern to the public at large--and especially to women. All of our community, but particularly women, had a right to know what was going on--beyond the rumor network.

Sunshine is valuable. We don't see well without it. And it disinfects.

Correction to previous posting:

"We did know this officially" should read, "We did NOT know this officially."

"If we thought there was an issue there of public safety we would have released informtion relating to that," Hastings said. But he added, "I'd say that's not a valid argument."

What a stupid ass comment.

MT, take a breath. The public officially knew that someone had committed a horrendously violent murder of an attractive young woman. Confirming the public's suspicions about the sexual assault couldn't have made any woman more aware of her own danger. Not confirming it allowed the perpetrator to be unsure as to whether there was DNA evidence at the crime scene. I'm not a detective, but I'm willing to trust those that are to release relevant information and to withhold what is necessary for the successful apprehension of the killer.

You're right that we should, as a rule, be skeptical about secrecy in government, but we also have to trust those with expertise to do their jobs. What a tragedy it would be if either this killer was not apprehended or if the system failed to get a conviction. I already think that the first motion filed by the defense will be for change of venue. Our community is surely eager for a conviction in this case, myself included. We need to let the prosecutors do their jobs.

I don't agree, Perplexed. Rapes are commonly under-reported. They are also too often treated without sufficient concern by authority figures, especially male ones.

There are two aspects to this story, and both deserved public notice--for the sake of those who might be exposed to harm without the information that was withheld from the public.

Anyone routinely exercises vigilance when a murder has taken place nearby. But when that murder was the result of attempted rape, we're dealing with a particular kind of violence that demands even more vigilance--especially on the part of women, who are often targeted in such crimes.

Where you would "trust those with expertise to do their jobs," I would like to see heightened public scrutiny of these "experts."

And I'm afraid I don't follow you at the end, when you say, "Our community is surely eager for a conviction in this case, myself included. We need to let the prosecutors do their jobs."

What does this discussion have to do with second-guessing prosecutors? It's about calling for accountability on the part of the police, when they have information about a murder-rapist and don't release it.

My concern is not merely with the conviction of a criminal. It's with assuring the safety of the public to prevent such crime in the future. Take a breath? When the safety of vulnerable folks is at stake? I don't think so.

P.S. This conversation is proving the validity of the point made by some of the women posting on this thread earlier in the day.

If men were the usual victims of rape, I think we'd hear squawking to high heaven when information about a murder-rapist is withheld from the public.

We aren't a very educated or enlightened community when it comes to the issue of rape, it appears. Even calling for open discussion of the issue seems to make some of us nervous, and angry at those who call for such discussion.

And with that anger go attempts to marginalize the messenger, with calls to trust the old boys' networks that perpetuate the problem. Sad. Not a blueprint for a bright future for a community, when this attitude dominates.

Let me try to make my point again. It seems to me that the withholding of some of the facts of this case had to do with the efforts of law enforcement to 1) catch the perpetrator and 2) convict him. I think you are patronizing women when you think that they couldn't figure out for themselves that they were at greater danger with this perpetrator on the loose. I have daughters and resent the implication that 1) I don't have the unique interests of women at heart and 2) I'm somehow a senseless and insensitive male. I suggested that you take a breath because you need to get down from your self-righteous female patronizing pedestal. I think you're generalizing unfairly here. I never implied any hesitation about free and open discussion of the issue of rape or the ultimate discussion of it in this particular case. My point is that timing is everything. This information would inevitably be released, but by waiting the police increased the possibility that the perpetrator would not know what evidence existed. Like I said earlier, I am not a detective or a prosecutor, but I believe that the authorities believed that withholding that information would enhance their chances to catch and convict this criminal. What other motivation would they have? It's not like everyone in town didn't already know that this was a heinous crime and likely included a sexual assault. Hastings may have spoken clumsily, but he's still right. It's up to the police and the prosecutors to decide what information releases will help them do their jobs.

I concede that I don't know what it's like to live in constant fear, but what makes women truly safer is the capture and conviction of this sick animal. If it took the temporary withholding of some of the facts of this case to do it, it's more than worth it.

Um I don't know? I can see both sides. But rationally speaking, whenever you hear of a rape and beating with subsequent murder they usually tell it all upfront. I wonder here is it her statue in the community that kept private details mum while she was still living with the possiblity of surviving. generally we were all on alert because a violent robber was on the loose. I do think that after her death and an appropriate mourning period, we should have been notified, especially since the perp hadn't been caught of the possibility that he was a rapist, robber and murderer. The DNA evidence arguement has holes in it. Just by being in her home he left DNA evidence. Just from being attacked and her fighting he left evidence. So I don't think that is why it was withheld, I think it is a sociall respect issue because she as so prominent.

What other motivation would they have? It's not like everyone in town didn't already know that this was a heinous crime and likely included a sexual assault.

Posted by: Perplexed.

Just like everyone in town knows that a celebrity was involved? Check out the thread on rumor-mongering and this case. This is what happens when information is withheld from the public.

What other motivation would they have? As Love my job says, it's usual to "tell it all upfront" in such cases. Love my job suggests that social stature of the victim may have played a role in this case.

In my view, the need of the public to know outweighs any considerations I've been offered by anyone up to now for withholding this information from the public. We will become a better society only when we begin to let the sunshine in.

You say, "I suggested that you take a breath because you need to get down from your self-righteous female patronizing pedestal." Yes, I understood what you were implying, Perplexed. I understand, even as a man, how women's valid concerns are dismissed as hyper-emotional, and I also understand how males who consider themselves alpha males try to invalidate the insights of males they want to put in subordinate positions by attributing "feminine" emotion to them.

Fascinating that you assumed I'm female, when I have said numerous times on these threads that I'm a male.

"Once again, Durango, I did not say that the LRPD were callous or cavalier in how they handled the Pressly case."

And I never said you did, MT. Go back and look at my first post in response to your first post. What I was trying to say (and apparently you misread it) was that Pressly's parents would debate you on the notion that "The LR Police Department is in real danger of depicting itself here as callous about rape . . ."

You state that you disagree with me when I say "I'm for letting professional law enforcement officers approach these matters in the way they think best." Fine, I have no problem with that. But be advised that you're also disagreeing with Anne Pressly's parents and with prosecutors. Here are three excerpts from recent Arkansas Democrat-Gazette articles.

(1) Canady said officers were "incredibly dedicated" to the case. "We understand why it was important that they not release information on the case."

(2) "It was a huge relief for us to know that this guy had been captured, not only because of what he had done to Anne, but also the threat he posed to the public." The police have done an excellent job, he said, keeping him and his wife updated daily. The police were also guarded in what they said, he added. "In my opinion, their approach to this was extremely sound, and it bore out the results that we all wanted."

(3) Details of why Vance is a suspect won't come out until the trial, Hastings said. "On the advice of prosecutors and others, we are going to be very tightlipped," he added.

I'm with Perplexed on all this.

Never once after this brutal crime did I think to myself "Oh well, he only beat the ever-lovin' s#@t out of her in such a horrible fashion that it led to her death. At least he didn't rape her before doing so. Glad I can rest easy tonight."

Said or unsaid, I think I always assumed there was sexual assault involved. But maybe I just watch too much Law & Order: SVU. Then again, I think almost every crime against a woman contains some aspect of sexual assault. If a victim is chosen simply because she is female, and therefore low-hanging fruit, then that's sexual.

The job of the LRPD here was not to let women know that there was a sick, violent rapist on the loose. All those ABC After School Specials and film strips in health class taught us that there were sexual assaulters everywhere, well before we got to high school and college and learned about date rape all up close and personal. Nope, the job of the LRPD was to catch this perpetrator and hopefully present airtight evidence to aid in his prosecution. And if they had to keep a couple of secrets along the way to do that, so be it.

Said or unsaid, I think I always assumed there was sexual assault involved.

Posted by: Mean Girl.

And people are assuming that a celebrity was involved. And WRONGLY assuming this.

This is why we shoot ourselves in the foot as a society when we don't disclose important information necessary to dispel rumors and protect the safety of citizens.

MT, I'm more than willing to agree to disagree. We're really arguing over very little here and I'm not willing to fight all night.

But when I used the words "female patronizing pedestal," I was accusing you of being male and patronizing females. I've never assumed you were female. On this post or any other. I simply think that you are unwilling to admit that there are times when data must be withheld. One size fits all in this kind of work doesn't always lead to a successful prosecution.

(If this goes through, I'm finished for tonight. I've been trying over and over to post this!)

You're right, Perplexed. You must believe what you wish to believe about these issues of public disclosure of information that affects the public.

For my part, I can't agree at all that "we're really arguing over very little here."

In my view, information exchange in a democratic society is not "very little at all": it's an issue that touches on the very heart of what a democratic society is all about. And when withholding information exposes the public to danger, the need for authorities that hold that information in their hands to share it becomes all the more imperative.

It would take very weighty considerations to outweigh the need to protect innocent people. I haven't heard any considerations nearly weighty enough in this discussion to warrant non-disclosure of information about the presence of a rapist-murderer in a community.

The "trust authority figures" seems not only weak in a democratic society that wants to function well. It's an appalling argument.

Everyone claimes there is a DNA Identity match, but no one seems to have the forensic report, or they are refusing ot share it.

DNA Identification certainly is not being critiqued objectively:
Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review
http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/04/local/me-dna4
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/263070
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-trainum24-2008oct24,0,7918545.story

THESE DNA MATCHES ALONE HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED:

In Maryland see MD v. Earl Whittley Davis (CT 05-0024X).
In particular, Judge Platt's 12/06 ruling on the database issue.
In Illinois see IL v Juan Luna, aka the Brown's Chicken Massacre. #2 CR 15430