ReportWire

Tag: killing

  • Tijuana assassination mystery deepens as Mexico arrests suspect in 1994 Colosio case

    A breakthrough in the decades-long investigation of a political assassination that convulsed the nation?

    Or a political stunt meant to distract from more pressing issues?

    Those are the questions that emerged in Mexico after the arrest last weekend of an alleged “second shooter” in the 1994 assassination of presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio, who was gunned down at a rally in the border city of Tijuana.

    His slaying is widely regarded as one of the most consequential — and contentious— events of recent Mexican history.

    Doubts and conspiracy theories have long swirled over Colosio’s killing, long blamed on a “lone gunman” who was captured at the scene. Many have compared the lingering uncertainty about Colosio’s demise to the never-ending debate in the United States surrounding the 1963 killing of President John F. Kennedy, an assassination also blamed on a lone gunman with ill-defined motives.

    Many in Mexico have disputed the prevalent theory: That an apparently nonpolitical factory worker, Mario Aburto, shot the candidate twice at point-blank range as Colosio mingled with citizens during the campaign event.

    “I looked up and saw the gun right in front of me,” Maria Vidal, who was walking with Colosio at the scene, told the Times in 1994. “Then I saw him fall to the ground. Blood was coming out of his head.”

    Colosio was shot once in the head and once in the abdomen, feeding speculation that a second gunman was involved.

    People place flowers on March 23, 2004, in tribute to Luis Donaldo Colosio during a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of his assasination in Tijuana.

    (David Maung / Associated Press)

    Aburto, who says he was tortured into confessing, continues to serve a 45-year prison sentence.

    The Colosio case generated tens of thousands of pages of testimony from hundreds of witnesses, along with books, documentaries, and a TV miniseries on Netflix, all examining the question: What actually happened in Tijuana on March 23, 1994?

    Speculation has fingered everyone from political insiders to drug traffickers as the ones behind Colosio’s assassination, which contributed to a sense of upheaval in Mexico. The year 1994 opened with a Zapatista rebellion in the south, soon followed by Colosio’s stunning murder, and culminated with a December collapse of the peso, triggering an economic crisis.

    More than a quarter-century after the killing, Mexican writer Cuauhtémoc Ruiz captured the ubiquitous sense of ambiguity in his 2020 book, “Colosio: Sospechosos y Encubridores” — roughly, “Colosio: Suspects and Cover-ups,”

    The Colosio case even spawned its own version of the Zapruder film, the storied home-movie sequence of JFK’s assassination in Dallas. Video clips from the fateful 1994 rally show Colosio, his curly black hair flecked with confetti, shaking hands and signing autographs as he winds his way through a gleeful political crowd.

    Suddenly, the image of a hand grasping a pistol emerges from the scrum. The gun fires directly into the right side of the candidate’s head. Chaos ensues.

    On Saturday ,according to reports here, federal prosecutors in Tijuana arrested a former intelligence agent, Jorge Antonio Sánchez Ortega, who had been wanted since last year in connection with Colosio’s killing.

    Sánchez Ortega, authorities say, was part of federal protection team assigned to Colosio’s rally in Tijuana’s Lomas Taurinas neighborhood, near the city airport. The agent was arrested shortly after the killing, but prosecutors now say he was freed and whisked away as part of a cover-up. The agent’s clothing was stained with the victim’s blood, and ballistic evidence indicated he had fired a weapon, authorities say.

    His new arrest stems from a bombshell about-face last year by the office of Mexico’s attorney general, which abruptly retreated from the lone-gunman allegation. Instead, prosecutors endorsed the hypothesis of a second shooter and named as a suspect “Jorge Antonio S.,” now identified as Sánchez Ortega.

    But the former agent’s arrest has left more questions than answers. Prosecutors have provided no overarching theory on why Colosio was targeted, and who was behind his slaying.

    Neither the ex-agent or his lawyer have commented since his arrest.

    Jesús González Schmal, attorney for Aburto, the convicted assassin, hailed the arrest as a step toward clarifying what really happened to Colosio.

    “This will open a horizon of knowledge about what occurred 31 years ago,” the lawyer said in a television interview.

    But some labeled the arrest a thinly disguised attempt to distract people from more pressing current issues of crime and corruption.

    The government of President Claudia Sheinbaum is using the memory of Colosio “to cover up its ineptitude,” Alejandro Moreno Cárdenas, president of the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, declared on X. The president, he said, “has no shame and no idea of how to govern.”

    At the time of his slaying, Colosio was the presidential candidate of the PRI, which governed Mexico in authoritarian fashion for most of the 20th century. He was on track to be elected Mexico’s next president a few months later.

    Colosio, 44, was seen widely viewed as a charismatic and progressive voice inside the rigid hierarchy of the PRI. He vowed to institute reforms and clean up deeply entrenched corruption and cronyism. Some have speculated that hard-liners within the ruling party were behind his killing — a theory long rejected by the PRI leadership.

    After Colosio’s slaying, the PRI named Ernesto Zedillo, who had been Colosio’s campaign manager, as its candidate. Zedillo, a party loyalist and lackluster technocrat, won in a landslide and served a six-year term.

    But, these days, the PRI is a weakened minority player in opposition to the government of Sheinbaum, elected under the banner of the now-dominant Morena party.

    The arrest of an alleged accomplice in the Colosio killing comes days after another high-profile political assassination, this time of Mayor Carlos Manzo of the western city of Uruapan. He was gunned down at a Day of the Dead festival this month in what some call Mexico’s most sensational political assassination since Colosio’s slaying.

    The killing of Manzo — who assailed Sheinbaum’s government for not doing more to combat cartels — sparked massive protests in his home state of Michoacán, a cartel battleground. Many criticized Sheinbaum’s government for what they called its lax attitude toward organized crime, an allegation denied by the president.

    A generation after his assassination, Colosio’s slaying remains an epochal event that continues to cast a shadow over Mexican politics.

    Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal in Mexico City contributed to this report.

    Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • Slaying of Mexican mayor sparks national outcry over cartel power

    Carlos Manzo blazed a maverick path as he battled both cartels and what he called skimpy federal support for his crusade against organized crime in his hometown of Uruapan, in western Mexico.

    The “man with a hat,” after his signature white sombrero, was an annoyance to the power structure in Mexico City, but beloved among many constituents for his uncompromising stance against the ruthless mobs that hold sway in much of the country.

    “They can kill me, they can abduct me, they can intimidate or threaten me,” the outspoken Manzo declared on social media in June. “But the people who are sick of extortion, of homicides, of car thefts — they will demand justice.”

    He added, “There is an enraged tiger out there — the people of Uruapan.”

    That rage was on dramatic display last week, as tens of thousands marched through the streets of Uruapan and elsewhere in violence-plagued Michoacán state to denounce the slaying of Manzo, 40. He was gunned down Nov. 1 amid a crowd of revelers, including his family, at a Day of the Dead celebration, in a killing that reverberated nationwide and beyond.

    The assassinations of other public figures in recent years have also triggered outrage and dismay in the country, but Manzo’s death has unleashed something else: A divisive aftermath that has seen many questioning Mexico’s very ability to confront the rampaging cartels in places like Michoacán, where organized crime has a forceful grip on government, the economy and people’s daily lives.

    “This structural control of organized crime is deeply worrying for the entire country,” said Erubiel Tirado, a security expert at the Iberoamerican University in Mexico City. “It speaks of a crisis of legitimacy in terms of the government’s ability to function.”

    Legislators from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) placed hats painted like blood on their seats in condemnation of the murder of Uruapan Mayor Carlos Manzo during a session in the Chamber of Deputies on Nov. 4, 2025, in Mexico City.

    (Luis Barron / Sipa USA via Associated Press )

    Mexico, wrote columnist Mariana Campos in El Universal newspaper, “is fractured into zones where criminals set the rules, administer justice, charge taxes and decide who can be the mayor, who can be a businessman.”

    Less than two weeks before Manzo’s killing, police in Michoacán found the battered body of Bernardo Bravo, a renowned leader of regional lime growers who had pushed back against cartel extortion demands. Bravo was shot in the head and his corpse showed signs of torture, authorities said.

    For months, the government of President Claudia Sheinbaum has rolled out statistics showing nationwide reductions in homicides and other offenses, along with the arrests of hundreds of organized crime figures — among them dozens expelled to face justice in the United States.

    Yet polls consistently show many Mexicans remain unconvinced. The death of Manzo — who cut a national reputation by insisting that officials coddled criminals — only heightened a pervasive sense of vulnerability, especially in places like Michoacán.

    The picturesque region of verdant hillsides, pine-studded mountains and wild Pacific coastline has long been a hub of cartel violence. In 2006, then-President Felipe Calderón chose Michoacán as the place to declare Mexico’s ill-fated “War on Drugs.”

    That came a few months after an especially macabre incident in Uruapan: Cartel gunmen tossed five severed heads onto a nightclub dance floor.

    During the War on Drugs, the military was deployed to combat cartels, but the strategy backfired, significantly escalating violence nationwide and raising concerns about the militarization of the country and the trampling of human rights.

    Relatives pull the coffin of Mexican journalist Mauricio Cruz Solis during his wake

    Relatives pull the coffin of Mexican journalist Mauricio Cruz Solis during his wake in Uruapan, Michoacan state, on Oct. 30, 2024. Cruz was shot dead Oct. 29 in western Mexico, a local prosecutor’s office said, in a part of the country hit hard by organized crime.

    (Enrique Castro / AFP via Getty Images)

    According to many in Uruapan and across the country, things have only gotten worse since then.

    “Broadcast it to the entire world: In Mexico the narco-traffickers govern,” said Arturo Martínez, 61, who runs a handicraft shop in Uruapan, a city of more than 300,000 at the heart of Mexico’s multibillion-dollar avocado industry. “What can any average person expect if they kill the mayor in front of his family, in front of thousands of people? We are completely at the mercy of the criminals.”

    It is a frequently voiced viewpoint that meshes with President Trump’s comments that cartels exercise “total control” in Mexico — a charge denied by Sheinbaum, though others say the breakdown in Michoacán exemplifies a broader lack of control.

    Uruapan “has become a mirror of the country, a microcosm where the ability to govern goes off the tracks, [and] fear substitutes for the state,” Denise Dresser, a political analyst, told Aristegui Noticias news outlet.

    Manzo, an independent, broke with Sheinbaum’s ruling Morena party more than a year ago and charged that the central government had ignored his pleas for additional police firepower and security funding to confront organized crime.

    Following the mayor’s slaying, Sheinbaum ruled out a return to the militaristic War on Drugs, which cost tens of thousands of lives and, according to Sheinbaum and other critics, did little to halt drug trafficking.

    Police officers stand guard as protesters demonstrate against the assassination of Uruapan's mayor

    Police officers stand guard as protesters demonstrate against the assassination of Uruapan’s mayor at the Government Palace in Morelia, Mexico, on Nov. 3. The Mexican government reported Nov. 2 that the mayor of Uruapan, Carlos Manzo, who was killed the previous night during a public event in the western state of Michoacan, had been under official protection since December.

    (Jordi Lebrija / AFP via Getty Images)

    Manzo was the latest of scores of Mexican mayors and local officials assassinated in recent years, as cartels seek to control turf, trafficking routes, police departments and municipal budgets, while also bolstering extortion schemes and other rackets. Manzo’s death stood out because of his provocative media presence, as he demanded that authorities beat criminals into submission — or kill them.

    “In many places criminal groups control the police chiefs, the local treasuries, the mayors,” noted Víctor Manuel Sánchez, a professor at the Autonomous University of Coahuila. “Then there are mayors like Carlos Manzo who seek to break this circle — and they end up dead.”

    Sheinbaum assailed opposition critics who have blamed what they call her lax policies for the killing. She condemned the “vile” and “cowardly” attack on Manzo, and vowed to bring the killers to justice.

    The 17-year-old gunman who fatally shot Manzo was killed at the scene, according to police, who say two other suspects were arrested. Authorities call the operation a well-planned cartel hit, though there has been no official confirmation of which of the many mobs operating in the area was responsible. Also still unclear is the motive.

    In the wake of the mayor’s killing, the president is unveiling a “Plan Michoacán” in a bid to improve security. Many are skeptical.

    “It’s the latest of many such plans,” noted Tirado of the Iberoamerican University. “None have worked.”

    Taking over as mayor of Uruapan was Grecia Quiroz, the widow of Manzo, who vowed to continue her husband’s fight against cartels. As Quiroz lifted her right hand last week to take the oath of office, she cradled her husband’s trademark white hat in her left arm.

    “This hat,” declared the new mayor, “has an unstoppable force.”

    White hats have been a common sight at demonstrations denouncing his death, and a white hat graced Manzo’s coffin at his funeral.

    His widow’s well-choreographed swearing-in amid extra-tight security did little to alter the predominant mood of anguish and gloom in Uruapan. Hope is a commodity in short supply for the town’s despondent and fearful residents.

    “It’s the narcos who run things here, not the mayor, not the president,” said Martínez, the shop owner. “Carlos Manzo only wanted to protect his people. And look what happened to him.”

    Times staff writer Kate Linthicum and special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal in Mexico City contributed to this report.

    Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • President Trump threatens possible military action in Nigeria

    President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he is directing the Pentagon to prepare for possible military action in Nigeria, as he accused the country’s government of failing to stop the killing of Christians. “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” Trump wrote on social media. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom the Trump administration is now referring to as the Secretary of War, responded soon after with his own post, saying, “Yes sir.” “The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria — and anywhere — must end immediately,” Hegseth wrote.On Friday, Trump also said he would designate Nigeria “a country of particular concern” for allegedly failing to rein in the persecution of Christians. Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu responded on social media Saturday, saying his administration is open to deepening cooperation with the United States and the international community to protect people of all faiths. He also acknowledged the country’s security challenges but rejected Trump’s framing of his government’s response. “The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians,” Tinubu said. More from the Washington Bureau:

    President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he is directing the Pentagon to prepare for possible military action in Nigeria, as he accused the country’s government of failing to stop the killing of Christians.

    “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” Trump wrote on social media.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom the Trump administration is now referring to as the Secretary of War, responded soon after with his own post, saying, “Yes sir.”

    “The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria — and anywhere — must end immediately,” Hegseth wrote.

    On Friday, Trump also said he would designate Nigeria “a country of particular concern” for allegedly failing to rein in the persecution of Christians.

    Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu responded on social media Saturday, saying his administration is open to deepening cooperation with the United States and the international community to protect people of all faiths. He also acknowledged the country’s security challenges but rejected Trump’s framing of his government’s response.

    “The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians,” Tinubu said.

    More from the Washington Bureau:

    Source link

  • Even with police there, a man killed another outside Coyote Joe’s in Charlotte

    Coyote Joe's on Wilkinson Boulevard brings live music to Charlotte.

    Coyote Joe’s on Wilkinson Boulevard brings live music to Charlotte.

    A man shot and killed another man over the weekend at the popular Coyote Joe’s nightclub in west Charlotte.

    The shooting took place about 1:25 a.m. Sunday in the parking lot of the bar, located at 4621 Wilkinson Blvd., according to a CMPD news release. Off-duty officers working for the nightclub heard the gunfire.

    Jason Lamar Neal, 41, was killed, according to police.

    Andre Tyrell Walker, 44, of the Lake Norman area, was charged with murder. No bond was allowed, according to court records. He was also charged Sunday with trafficking in cocaine.

    According to witnesses, including Neal’s girlfriend, the shooting stemmed from a dispute. Before three shots were fired, a witness overheard a man say, “Youngblood you started some problems you didn’t want to deal with but now you have to,” according to a police affidavit filed in court.

    The club could not be reached for comment; a phone number listed on its Facebook page did not allow voicemail.

    The shooting followed three homicides in Charlotte on Saturday, all of which were unrelated.

    Last year, a Charlotte police officer shot and killed an impaired an erratic man at Coyote Joe’s.

    Related Stories from Charlotte Observer

    Source link

  • Vista man suspected of killing mother arrested

    A San Diego County Sheriff’s deputy’s patch. (File photo courtesy of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office)

    A 55-year-old Vista man suspected of killing his mother has been arrested, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office announced Thursday.

    Tad Christopher Johnson, 55, was arrested at a home in the 2100 block of Riviera Drive in Vista on Tuesday afternoon after deputies found 80-year-old Linda Johnson of Arizona gravely injured there while investigating a reported assault, according to Lt. Juan Marquez.

    Paramedics took the woman to a hospital, where she died the following day, Marquez said. The exact cause of her death is under investigation, as are “the motivation and circumstances of the crime,” Marquez said.

    Also remaining unclear on Thursday was who lives in the home where the alleged homicide occurred, though detectives believe the residence might belong to a member of the mother and son’s family, according to Marquez.

    The suspect was being held without bail at Vista Detention Facility pending arraignment, scheduled for Friday afternoon.

    –City News Service


    Source link

  • ‘Wannabe gangsters’ described killing two women. Why did convicting them take a decade?

    The two bodies discovered on a brush-covered slope in the Montecito Hills were not easily identified.

    The victims were “faceless” after being shot and bludgeoned beyond recognition, according to Los Angeles County prosecutor Stephen Lonseth.

    But there were clues: A tattoo with a family name. Fingernails painted aqua blue, a teenage girl’s beauty routine.

    One had the word “hoe” written on her stomach in blood. The autopsy showed she was around seven weeks pregnant.

    Flowers that were left for Gabriella Calzada and Brianna Gallegos at an entrance to Ernest E. Debs Regional Park in November 2015 near where they were found dead.

    (Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times)

    Investigators found the remains in a ditch in Ernest E. Debs Regional Park on Oct. 28, 2015. Using tattoos and dental records, police identified the victims as Gabriella Calzada, 19, and Brianna Gallegos, 17, who was carrying the baby.

    Police interviewed a prime suspect within the first week: Jose Echeverria, 18, whose name Gallegos had tattooed on her chest. Four months later, detectives seemingly caught him confessing on a jailhouse recording that he and Dallas Pineda, 17, had brought the young women to the park and killed them.

    But what seemed like an open-and-shut case dragged on for nearly a decade. Until Monday, when a jury convicted Echeverria and Pineda of first-degree murder.

    Even by the glacial standards of L.A. County — where proceedings are known to crawl along due to frequent delays and a pandemic-fueled backlog — the path to justice was painfully slow.

    Jose Echeverria listens to closing arguments in his murder trial at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center.

    Jose Echeverria listens to closing arguments in his murder trial at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    The recent trial dredged up old memories, with some evidence suggesting gang loyalties pushed Echeverria and Pineda to commit the grisly crime — while prosecutor David Ayvazian alleged a more sinister motive.

    “They didn’t kill these girls because they were rivals, they used that as an excuse. They liked it,” Ayvazian said. “They set up this murder. They beat these girls to a bloody pulp.”

    When prosecutors displayed gruesome crime scene photos that showed how Calzada and Gallegos looked when they were found, some members of the jury recoiled. One woman covered her mouth in shock. Someone in the courtroom whispered: “Jesus.”

    Adam Garcia, who discovered the bodies while walking his dogs, testified that so much time had passed he could recall only “flashes” of what he saw. Judging by the amount of blood, he assumed a coyote had killed something.

    “I can’t hold the image too well,” he said. “It was shocking, I guess, for me to see that.”

    Police questioned Echeverria in his home a week after the killings. He said he had been in a relationship with Gallegos, but it was winding down because she got out of hand when she drank. They socialized with Pineda and Calzada, who were a couple.

    In a photo displayed in court, the four smile and pose holding beer cans, arms slung over each other’s shoulders.

    Prosecuting attorney David Ayvazian makes his closing arguments at the murder trial.

    Prosecutor David Ayvazian makes his closing arguments at the murder trial of Jose Echeverria and Dallas Pineda, with photos of victims Gabriella Calzada, left, and Brianna Gallegos displayed.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    “I remember making bad choices as a kid,” prosecutor Ayvazian said during closing arguments, referencing the girls’ decision to hang out with Echeverria and Pineda. He called them “wannabe gangsters.”

    Detectives noted that Echeverria had scratch marks on his arms, as if he’d been in a struggle. He went by the nicknames “Klepto” and “Diablo,” and had recently been jumped into 18th Street, a large street gang.

    But investigators had no weapon or links that connected him to the crime scene.

    Trial evidence showed Echeverria used the Facebook messaging app to plan a meet-up with Gallegos and Calzada in Debs Park.

    Valeria Maldonado, now 29, was living with Calzada and her parents when she went missing. Maldonado said the last time they spoke was by phone, when Calzada and Gallegos were headed by bus to Echeverria’s neighborhood.

    The next day, after Calzada didn’t come home, Maldonado reached out to Echeverria, who said the girls never showed up for their planned meeting.

    “Man she was the girl” Echeverria wrote.

    Prosecutors noted that his use of past tense was suspicious. Although the bodies had been discovered in the park that morning, they had not yet been identified. All anyone knew was that Calzada and Gallegos were missing.

    Maldonado answered with a question mark.

    “She the home girl thas what I meant , have mas love for her” Echeverria wrote.

    Four months after the young women turned up dead, Echeverria was arrested as a suspect in a drive-by gang shooting. Detectives put him in a cell with an undercover informant, who posed as a fellow 18th Street member. Still new to the gang, Echeverria fell for the ruse.

    The informant asked Echeverria how the women he called his friends ended up in the park, according to a translation of the conversation in Spanish played in court.

    “Well, we took them up there,” Echeverria said, recounting how they first shot at the women with a .22 rifle.

    Community members lead a vigil for Gabriella Calzada and Brianna Gallegos in November 2015 at Ernst E. Debs Regional Park.

    Community members lead a vigil in memory of Gabriella Calzada and Brianna Gallegos in November 2015 at Ernst E. Debs Regional Park.

    (Los Angeles Times)

    “Okay, so after you guys shot them, they didn’t completely die?” the informant asked.

    “No,” Echeverria said.

    “So what did you do?”

    “Ah … con una piedra.” Echeverria said. “Uh … with a rock.”

    They didn’t plan the killing ahead of time, Echeverria told the informant, but were provoked when one of them said, “F— 18th Street.”

    Echeverria faked an alibi by taking Calzada’s phone and using her Facebook account to call himself after the killings, he told the informant.

    Afterward, Echeverria said he took the phone, smashed it with a hammer until it leaked battery acid, put it in a sock and tossed it on top of Huntington Elementary School.

    LAPD Det. Frank Carrillo testified that when he and his partner climbed on top of the school, they found a smashed phone inside a black sock.

    Echeverria’s younger friend Pineda was also in police custody, and authorities decided to pull the same move on him. Locked up in juvenile hall, Pineda unburdened himself to an informant whom investigators arranged to be his cellmate.

    According to a recording of the conversation played in court, Pineda said he feared older members of 18th Street would “greenlight” him because they had killed two young women without permission.

    The gun they used had been given to someone else to get rid of, he said, and Echeverria went back to the scene with his brother to pick up the shell casings before the bodies were found. Pineda took the “big ass rock” they used to beat the girls and threw it in a nearby dumpster.

    The gun, rock and casings were never found by police.

    “We picked up afterwards,” Pineda told the informant.

    Although both men admitted to aspects of the murder, defense attorney for Pineda, Mia Yamamoto, argued that the evidence did not show that he participated in the violence at all; instead, she painted him as an innocent bystander paralyzed by fear and implicated by a burst of violence from Echeverria.

    Pineda allegedly missed three or four times with the rifle before Echeverria pulled the gun from him and shot Gallegos.

    “How can you miss unless you’ve intended to miss?” Yamamoto asked.

    Despite the recordings that made it seem like an open-and-shut case, the prosecutions of Echeverria and Pineda stretched on for years, winding through the L.A. County courts.

    “This case took nearly 10 years to resolve due to a series of legal and procedural requirements beyond the control of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office,” the office said in a statement to The Times.

    Initially filed as a death penalty case and subjected to a lengthy review, the process of seeking to try Pineda as an adult further prolonged the proceedings.

    Both defendants had other cases pending that needed to be resolved before the trial began, furthering the delays, according to the D.A.’s office.

    Then the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the state — and by extension, the court system. It aged the case by at least three years, said Ayvazian, the prosecutor.

    Even as Echeverria and Pineda’s fate went to the jury last week, delays continued. Jurors told the court one person was holding out because they believed the jailhouse tapes should not have been permitted as evidence.

    On Monday afternoon, the foreperson finally read out the verdict, finding Echeverria and Pineda guilty on two counts of murder in the first degree. The convictions, combined with charging enhancements added for the crime of “lying in wait” and committing multiple killings, will ensure life terms when when they are sentenced in December.

    Families of the two victims did not respond to interview requests.

    After the verdict Monday, Calzada’s mother was seen tearfully thanking the jury in Spanish. The long wait for justice was finally over.

    “Thank you. God bless you,” she said.

    Sandra McDonald

    Source link

  • Klamath County Men Arrested In Death Of Washington Man – KXL

    SPRAGUE RIVER, OR – As part of a homicide investigation, Oregon State Police say officers with their SWAT team arrested two men on Thursday near the community of Sprague River in Klamath County.

    30-year-old Russell Dwayne Carroway and 31-year-old Devin Tyler Pellerin, both of Sprague River, are suspected in the killing of 47-year old Robert T. Hein of Bellingham, Washington.

    Tuesday, Hein’s body was found by a hunter near the Sprague River. The exact cause of death was not made public.

    The investigation is ongoing, and OSP is asking anyone with information about this case to contact the OSP Southern Command Center dispatch at 800-442-2068 or by calling *OSP (*677) from a mobile phone.  You are asked to reference case number SP25-414701.

    More about:


    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Bonta demands FCC chair ‘stop his campaign of censorship’ following Kimmel suspension

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on Monday accused Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr of unlawfully intimidating television broadcasters into toeing a conservative line in favor of President Trump, and urged him to reverse course.

    In a letter to Carr, Bonta specifically cited ABC’s decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air after Kimmel made comments about the killing of close Trump ally Charlie Kirk, and Carr demanded ABC’s parent company Disney “take action” against the late-night host.

    Bonta wrote that California “is home to a great many artists, entertainers, and other individuals who every day exercise their right to free speech and free expression,” and that Carr’s demands of Disney threatened their 1st Amendment rights.

    “As the Supreme Court held over sixty years ago and unanimously reaffirmed just last year, ‘the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,’” Bonta wrote.

    Carr and Trump have both denied playing a role in Kimmel’s suspension, alleging instead that it was due to his show having poor ratings.

    After Disney announced Monday that Kimmel’s show would be returning to ABC, Bonta said he was “pleased to hear ABC is reversing course on its capitulation to the FCC’s unlawful threats,” but that his “concerns stand.”

    He rejected Trump and Carr’s denials of involvement, and accused the administration of “waging a dangerous attack on those who dare to speak out against it.”

    “Censoring and silencing critics because you don’t like what they say — be it a comedian, a lawyer, or a peaceful protester — is fundamentally un-American,” while such censorship by the U.S. government is “absolutely chilling,” Bonta said.

    Bonta called on Carr to “stop his campaign of censorship” and commit to defending the right to free speech in the U.S., which he said would require “an express disavowal” of his previous threats and “an unambiguous pledge” that he will not use the FCC “to retaliate against private parties” for speech he disagrees with moving forward.

    “News outlets have reported today that ABC will be returning Mr. Kimmel’s show to its broadcast tomorrow night. While it is heartening to see the exercise of free speech ultimately prevail, this does not erase your threats and the resultant suppression of free speech from this past week or the prospect that your threats will chill free speech in the future,” Bonta wrote.

    After Kirk’s killing, Kimmel said during a monologue that the U.S. had “hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

    Carr responded on a conservative podcast, saying, “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    Two major owners of ABC affiliates dropped the show, after which ABC said it would be “preempted indefinitely.”

    Both Kirk’s killing and Kimmel’s suspension — which followed the cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” by CBS — kicked off a tense debate about freedom of speech in the U.S. Both Kimmel and Colbert are critics of Trump, while Kirk was an ardent supporter.

    Constitutional scholars and other 1st amendment advocates said the administration and Carr have clearly been exerting inappropriate pressure on media companies.

    Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Carr’s actions were part of a broad assault on free speech by the administration, which “is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st amendment.”

    Summer Lopez, the interim co-chief executive of PEN America, said this is “a dangerous moment for free speech” in the U.S. because of a host of Trump administration actions that are “pretty clear violations of the 1st Amendment” — including Carr’s threats but also statements about “hate speech” by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and new Pentagon restrictions on journalists reporting on the U.S. military.

    She said Kimmel’s return to ABC showed that “public outrage does make a difference,” but that “it’s important that we generate that level of public outrage when the targeting is of people who don’t have that same prominence.”

    Carr has also drawn criticism from conservative corners, including from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. He recently said on his podcast that he found it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

    Cruz said he works closely with Carr, whom he likes, but that what Carr said was “dangerous as hell” and could be used down the line “to silence every conservative in America.”

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Those closest to Tyler Robinson made horrifying discoveries in hours after Charlie Kirk killing, authorities say

    In the frantic hours after political activist Charlie Kirk was killed by a sniper at a Utah university, those closest to the alleged shooter began making wrenching discoveries, authorities said.

    In charging Tyler Robinson, 22, authorities revealed new details about the hours after the shooting and how they led to the arrest. Robinson was charged with seven counts, including one count of aggravated murder and two counts of obstruction of justice, for allegedly hiding the rifle used in the killing and disposing of his clothes, said Utah County Atty. Jeffrey Gray. He is also facing two counts of witness tampering after he allegedly instructed his roommate to delete incriminating texts, and asking them not to talk to investigators if they were questioned by authorities.

    Kirk, 31, was an influential figure in conservative and right-wing circles, winning praise for his views on heated topics, including abortion, immigration and gender identity. His death by a single gunshot during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University last week shocked the nation and has led to vigorous debate over the motivations of his accused killer.

    Text exchanges

    Gray also provided details of a text exchange between Robinson and his roommate, a person transitioning to female with whom he was romantically involved, in which Robinson apparently confessed to the killing.

    According to the exchange detailed in charging documents, Robinson’s partner appeared to have no knowledge that Robinson had taken a rifle and had planned the shooting for about a week.

    After the shooting, authorities say, Robinson allegedly texted the partner to say: “Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard.” The roommate found a message that read: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.”

    “What??????????????” the roommate responded to Robinson in a text message. “You’re joking, right????”

    Robinson appears to confess to the killing in the text messages, and describes details of the shooting as he allegedly tried to evade authorities.

    “You weren’t the one who did it, right?” the roommate texted Robinson after the shooting, according to Gray.

    “I am, I’m sorry,” Robinson responded, according to court filings.

    While local and federal officials searched for the gunman, Gray said, Robinson allegedly texted his partner, explaining his decision to kill Kirk.

    “Why?” his partner, who was not identified by Gray, texted Robinson.

    “Why did I do it?” Robinson responded.

    “Yeah,” the roommate replied, according to Gray.

    “I had enough of his hatred,” Robinson allegedly replied. “Some hate can’t be negotiated.”

    Parents’ suspicions

    It took nearly a day before officials released grainy photos of the suspect.

    Gray said authorities were led to Robinson by his parents, including his mother who first recognized him from pictures that were released to the public of the suspected shooter. She then showed the images to her husband, who agreed the person looked like their son, according to Gray.

    Robinson’s mother told investigators that in the last year, her son had “become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented,” Gray said.

    Robinson had also spoken to his parents about Kirk visiting the Utah campus, and had accused Kirk of “spreading hate,” Gray said.

    When his parents confronted him, Robinson admitted to the killing and said he was thinking of killing himself, Gray said.

    “Robinson implied he was the shooter and didn’t want to go to jail,” Gray said. “When asked why he did it, Robinson explained, ‘There’s too much evil, and the guy,’ referring to Kirk, ‘spreads too much hate.’”

    Discord chat

    The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Robinson appear to confess to members of a Discord chat group two hours before he was arrested.

    Citing a source, the Post quoted the message this way: “Hey guys, I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. im sorry for all of this.”

    The Post said he was arrested soon after.

    Agents are also interviewing people who interacted with the suspect online, FBI Director Kash Patel said.

    That includes a Discord chat that seems to have involved more than 20 people after the shooting.

    “We’re running them all down,” Patel said.

    The weapon

    The rifle, Gray said, had apparently been given to Robinson by his father as a gift. According to text exchanges with his roommate, the rifle had belonged to his grandfather at one point, and Robinson seemed concerned he would be unable to retrieve it.

    “I’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back grandpas rifle,” Robinson texted. “How the f— will I explain losing it to my old man…”

    Suspicious that his son was involved in the shooting, his father asked Robinson to send a picture of the rifle, but his son didn’t reply, according to Gray.

    Richard Winton, Salvador Hernandez

    Source link

  • White supremacists, death threats and ‘disgust’: Charlie Kirk’s killing roils Huntington Beach

    People mourning the killing of Charlie Kirk carried candles and American flags in a solemn memorial last week at the Huntington Beach Pier, long a destination for conservative gatherings ranging from protests over pandemic-era lockdowns to rallies in support of President Trump.

    But on this night, things took a dark turn when dozens of men joined the crowd, chanting, “White men fight back.”

    Then on Saturday, a white nationalist organization, identified by experts as Patriot Front, showed up at another beachside memorial for Kirk. The men, wearing khakis, navy blue shirts and white gaiters concealing their faces, marched down Main Street toward the beach holding a picture of Kirk. “Say his name!” they yelled. “Take back our world! Take back our land!”

    By Sunday, key political leaders in the conservative Orange County city known as a hotbed for the MAGA movement were fighting to contain the situation, issuing a statement denouncing violence. Kirk’s assassination, City Hall said, “serves as a stark reminder of the devastating outcomes that can result from vitriol and violent rhetoric.”

    “I despise them,” Councilman Butch Twining said of the white nationalists who disrupted the vigil. “There is no place for them here, and they disgust me.”

    Huntington Beach is one of many communities grappling with the aftermath of the shooting of Kirk, a beloved activist in the conservative movement and close ally of President Trump.

    Since his killing, conservatives have demanded the firing of people who posted online comments about Kirk they considered offensive. There have been debates over whether to lower flags to half-staff. One U.S. congressman is asking his colleagues to force social media platforms to kick off users who celebrated the killing. Vice President J.D. Vance encouraged people to take it a step further: “Call them out, and hell, call their employer.”

    Huntington Beach is in a unique position because of its history of fringe white supremacist activity that goes back decades.

    In the 1980s and 1990s, skinheads converged on Main Street throwing Nazi salutes and intimidating people of color. In 1995, a pair of white supremacists fatally shot a Black man after confronting him outside a McDonald’s restaurant on Beach Boulevard.

    Huntington Beach leaders have fought to rid the city of that image and tried to make clear that hate is not welcome in Surf City. But events of the last week have made these efforts more difficult.

    “Typically, when there’s an opportunity like this, white supremacists and far-right folks more generally are very good about inserting themselves and seeing it as an opportunity to pull things in their direction and shift the narrative,” said Pete Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University in Orange County who studies extremist groups.

    This is happening as Huntington Beach has emerged as a West Coast beacon for Trump and MAGA. The city has made headlines in recent years for removing the Pride flag from city properties, rewriting a decades-old human dignity resolution — deleting any mention of intolerance of hate crimes — and wading into fights with state officials over issues like transgender student privacy.

    Brian Levin, the founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and professor emeritus at Cal State San Bernardino, said the U.S. is witnessing not just polarization between left and right, but a splintering within both the left and right. And that polarization, he said, is being exploited by extremist groups seeking to advance a certain message.

    “The notion that these camps are unified teams just simply isn’t true,” Levin said. “I think what’s happening is we’re seeing the exploitation of civic discourse by people who are trying to outdo each other as being more authentic and how they do that is by being more eliminationist and more aggressive. Aggression and being an edgelord is considered currency.”

    Barbara Richardson, who has lived in the city since the early 1970s, criticized city leaders for extending the mourning period for Kirk, flying flags half-staff through sundown on Sept. 21 — the day of his memorial service — saying that it will only contribute to rising tensions in the city.

    Over the weekend, Richardson watched the videos of the white supremacists chanting downtown in horror. The moment was an unwelcome reminder of what residents grappled with decades ago.

    “It’s disheartening,” Richardson said. “I think what happened at the Charlie Kirk rallies was a real black eye for Huntington Beach and it hurts tourism. It made me not want to go downtown. I remember the city in the 1980s and it was scary. I didn’t want to be around skinheads then and I still don’t.”

    Last week’s memorials were for Kirk as well as Iryna Zarustka, the woman killed while riding a train in Charlotte, N.C., in a brutal attack captured on video.

    Twining attended the event on Wednesday and was disturbed at what he heard from the white supremacists. He said he left quickly after they arrived and started chanting.

    “They ruined a perfectly nice vigil where we recognized two people — Iryna [Zarustka] and Charlie—and prayed for them and sang Amazing Grace and had our own conversations about how much they meant to us,” he said.

    He and others have stressed the vast majority of those who attended the vigils were there simply to mourn.

    Twining said he and his wife have been accosted in a restaurant and at the grocery store over his presence at the vigil and the incorrect assumption that he’s supportive of white nationalists. There have been calls for him to resign and he’s even received death threats that have warranted police protection, he said.

    “I reject the presence of hate groups loudly and unequivocally,” Twining said. “Their attempts to corrupt our democratic spaces will not succeed. As a leader in this community, I will not allow my voice to be twisted for extremism. I remain committed to preserving inclusive, respectful, and peaceful spaces where dialogue and remembrance can flourish untainted by hate.”

    Videos of Saturday’s gathering show some attendees waving flags associated with Patriot Front, a white nationalist organization founded in 2017 by Thomas Rousseau after the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.

    “They were intentionally generated to try and distance themselves from that violence and present themselves as pro-American,” Simi said. However, Simi noted, the group has also been accused of racial violence. In 2022, the Patriot Front was sued for a racist attack on a black musician in Boston and ordered to pay $2.75 million in damages.

    On Saturday in Huntington Beach, resident Jerry Geyer was riding his bicycle in downtown watching as the group marched toward the pier chanting and decided to push back. He positioned his bicycle on the sidewalk in front of them in an effort to block their path. He rode next to them, shouting expletives.

    “I cannot allow that to run through the streets of Huntington Beach,” he said in an interview with KCAL News. “That’s not what we are. That’s not who Huntington Beach is.”

    Hannah Fry, Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Suspect In Kirk Killing Charged With Aggravated Murder As Prosecutor Says DNA Found On Gun Trigger – KXL

    PROVO, Utah (AP) — Prosecutors brought a murder charge Tuesday against the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk and outlined evidence, including a text message confession to his partner and a note left beforehand saying he had the opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices “and I’m going to take it.”

    DNA on the trigger of the rifle that killed Kirk also matched that of Tyler Robinson, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said while outlining the evidence and announcing charges that could result in the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.

    The prosecutor said Robinson, 22, wrote in one text that he spent more than a week planning the attack on Kirk, a prominent force in politics credited with energizing the Republican youth movement and helping Donald Trump win back the White House in 2024.

    “The murder of Charlie Kirk is an American tragedy,” Gray said.

    Kirk was gunned down Sept. 10 while speaking with students at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors allege Robinson shot Kirk in the neck with a bolt-action rifle from the roof of a nearby building on the campus in Orem, about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south of Salt Lake City.

    Robinson was scheduled to appear on camera for a virtual court hearing Tuesday afternoon. There was no attorney listed in the Utah online court docket for Robinson, even after charges were filed, and his family has declined to comment to The Associated Press.

    Was Charlie Kirk targeted over anti-transgender views?
    Authorities have not revealed a clear motive in the shooting, but Gray said that Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

    Robinson also left a note for his partner hidden under a keyboard that said, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,” according to Gray.

    The prosecutor declined to answer whether Robinson targeted Kirk for his anti-transgender views. Kirk was shot while taking a question that touched on mass shootings, gun violence and transgender people.

    “That is for a jury to decide,” Gray said.

    Robinson was involved in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who investigators say was transgender, which hasn’t been confirmed. Gray said the partner has been cooperating with investigators.

    Robinson’s partner appeared shocked in the text exchange after the shooting, according to court documents, asking Robinson “why he did it and how long he’d been planning it.”

    Parents said their son became more political
    While authorities say Robinson hasn’t been cooperating with investigators, they say his family and friends have been talking.

    Robinson’s mother told investigators that their son had turned left politically in the last year and became more supportive of gay and transgender rights after dating someone who is transgender, Gray said.

    Those decisions prompted several conversations in the household, especially between Robinson and his father. They had different political views and Robinson told his partner in a text that his dad had become a “diehard MAGA” since Trump was elected.

    Robinson’s mother recognized him when authorities released a picture of the suspect and his parents confronted him, at which time Robinson said he wanted to kill himself, Gray said.

    The family persuaded him to meet with a family friend who is a retired sheriff’s deputy, who persuaded Robinson to turn himself in, the prosecutor said.

    Robinson was arrested late Thursday near St. George, the southern Utah community where he grew up, about 240 miles (390 kilometers) southwest of where the shooting happened.

    Robinson detailed movements after the shooting
    In a text exchange with his partner released by authorities, Robinson wrote: “I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.”

    Then he wrote: “Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.” After that, he sent: “I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it.”

    He also was worried about losing his grandfather’s rifle and mentioned several times in the texts that he wished he had picked it up, according to the texts shared in court documents, which did not have timestamps. It was unclear how long after the shooting Robinson was texting.

    “To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you,” Robinson wrote in another text to his partner.

    Prosecutor says Robinson told partner to delete texts
    Robinson discarded the rifle and clothing and asked his roommate to conceal evidence, Gray said.

    Robinson was charged with felony discharge of a firearm, punishable by up to life in prison, and obstructing justice, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

    He also was charged with witness tampering because he had directed his partner to delete their text messages and told his partner to stay silent if questioned by police, Gray said.

    Kash Patel says investigators will look at everyone
    FBI Director Kash Patel said Tuesday that agents are looking at “anyone and everyone” who was involved in a gaming chatroom on the social media platform Discord with Robinson. The chatroom involved “a lot more” than 20 people, he said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington.

    “We are investigating Charlie’s assassination fully and completely and running out every lead related to any allegation of broader violence,” Patel said in response to a question about whether the Kirk shooting was being treated as part of a broader trend of violence against religious groups.

    The charges filed Tuesday carry two enhancements, including committing several of the crimes in front of or close to children and carrying out violence based on the subject’s political beliefs.

    Gray declined to say whether Robinson’s partner could face charges or whether anyone else might face charges.

    Kirk, a dominant figure in conservative politics, became a confidant of President Donald Trump after founding Arizona-based Turning Point USA, one of the nation’s largest political organizations. He brought young, conservative evangelical Christians into politics.

    In the days since Kirk’s assassination, Americans have found themselves facing questions about rising political violence, the deep divisions that brought the nation here and whether anything can change.

    Despite calls for greater civility, some who opposed Kirk’s provocative statements about gender, race and politics criticized him after his death. Many Republicans have led the push to punish anyone they believe dishonored him, causing both public and private workers to lose their jobs or face other consequences at work.

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • Prosecutors will seek death penalty for suspect in killing of Charlie Kirk

    Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man accused of killing Charlie Kirk with a single shot at Utah Valley University, officials announced Tuesday.

    “I do not take this decision lightly,” Utah County Atty. Jeffrey Gray said during a news conference. “It’s a decision I made independently as county attorney.”

    Robinson has been charged with seven counts, Gray said, including one count of aggravated murder and two counts of obstruction of justice, for allegedly hiding the rifle used in the killing and disposing of his clothes.

    • Share via

    Robinson is also facing two counts of witness tampering after he allegedly instructed his roommate to delete incriminating texts, and asking them not to talk to investigators if they were questioned by authorities.

    Kirk, 31, was an influential figure in conservative and right-wing circles, winning praise for his views on heated topics, including abortion, immigration and gender identity.

    His death by a single gunshot during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University shocked the nation and has led to vigorous debate over the motivations of his accused killer.

    The FBI said it collected a screwdriver containing Robinson’s DNA on the rooftop of a building at Utah Valley University and a firearm wrapped in a towel that had been discarded in a nearby wooded area. The towel also had Robinson’s DNA on it, FBI Director Kash Patel said, adding that the firearm was still being processed for forensic evidence.

    As Robinson was set to appear in court for the first time, Patel appeared before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where he faced harsh questioning and criticism over his handling of the agency and the immediate investigation into Kirk’s killing.

    Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee, accused Patel of releasing incorrect information about the shooting in order to take credit for the arrest.

    “Director Patel again sparked mass confusion by incorrectly claiming on social media that the shooter was in custody — which he then had to walk back with another social media post,” Durbin said in his opening remarks. “Mr. Patel was so anxious to take credit for finding Mr. Kirk’s assassin that he violated one of the basics of effective law enforcement: at critical stages of an investigation, shut up and let the professionals do their job.”

    But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) defended Patel’s handling of the Kirk probe.

    “I’ve seen no reason for the armchair quarterbacks to be criticizing his performance,” Cornyn said. “I mean, it took roughly 33 hours to arrest the killer. And you know, there’s always a certain fog that goes along with emergency situations like this. So I know initially they thought they had their man, but turned out not.”

    During the hearing, Patel said investigators had interviewed numerous people tied to Robinson, including relatives, friends and his partner.

    Patel confirmed Robinson’s partner was transitioning from male to female.

    He added that the source and reasoning behind engravings on the shell casings is still under investigation.

    Officials are still examining whether “anyone was involved as an accomplice.”

    Agents are also interviewing people who interacted with the suspect online, Patel said.

    That includes a Discord chat that seems to have involved more than 20 people moments after the shooting.

    “We’re running them all down,” Patel said.

    The FBI, he said, is “going to be investigating anyone and everyone involved in that Discord chat.”

    Salvador Hernandez, Richard Winton

    Source link

  • Commentary: Empathy is the only way forward after Charlie Kirk’s death

    It wasn’t the greeting I was expecting from my dad when I stopped by for lunch Wednesday at his Anaheim home.

    ¿Quién es Charlie Kirk?”

    Papi still has a flip phone, so he hasn’t sunk into an endless stream of YouTube and podcasts like some of his friends. His sources of news are Univisión and the top-of-the-hour bulletins on Mexican oldies stations — far away from Kirk’s conservative supernova.

    “Some political activist,” I replied. “Why?”

    “The news said he got shot.”

    Papi kept watering his roses while I went on my laptop to learn more. My stomach churned and my heart sank as graphic videos of Kirk taking a bullet in the neck while speaking to students at Utah Valley University peppered my social media feeds. What made me even sicker was that everyone online already thought they knew who did it, even though law enforcement hadn’t identified a suspect.

    Conservatives blamed liberalism for demonizing one of their heroes and vowed vengeance. Some progressives argued that Kirk had it coming because of his long history of incendiary statements against issues including affirmative action, trans people and Islam. Both sides predicted an escalation in political violence in the wake of Kirk’s killing — fueled by the other side against innocents, of course.

    It was the internet at its worst, so I closed my laptop and checked on my dad. He had moved on to cleaning the pool.

    “So who was he?” Papi asked again. By then, Donald Trump had announced Kirk’s death. Text messages streamed in from my colleagues. I gave my dad a brief sketch of Kirk’s life, and he frowned when I said the commentator had supported Trump’s mass deportation dreams.

    Hate wasn’t on Papi’s mind, however.

    “It’s sad that he got killed,” Papi said. “May God bless him and his family.”

    “Are politics going to get worse now?” he added.

    It’s a question that friends and family have been asking me ever since Kirk’s assassination. I’m the political animal in their circles, the one who bores everyone at parties as I yap about Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom while they want to talk Dodgers and Raiders. They’re too focused on raising families and trying to prosper in these hard times to post a hot take on social media about political personalities they barely know.

    They’ve long been over this nation’s partisan divide, because they work and play just fine with people they don’t agree with. They’re tired of being told to loathe someone over ideological differences or blindly worship a person or a cause because it’s supposedly in their best interests. They might not have heard of Kirk before his assassination, but they now worry about what’s next — because a killing this prominent is usually a precursor of worse times ahead.

    I wasn’t naive enough to think that the killing of someone as divisive as Kirk would bring Americans together to denounce political terrorism and forge a kinder nation. I knew that each side would embarrass itself with terrible takes and that Trump wouldn’t even pretend to be a unifier.

    But the collective dumpster fire we got was worse than I had imagined.

    President Donald Trump shakes hands with moderator Charlie Kirk, during a Generation Next White House forum at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, Thursday, March 22, 2018.

    (Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

    Although conservatives brag that no riots have sparked, as happened after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, they’re largely staying silent as the loudest of Kirk’s supporters vow to crush the left once and for all. The Trump administration is already promising a crackdown against the left in Kirk’s name, and no GOP leaders are complaining. People are losing their jobs because of social media posts critical of Kirk, and his fans are cheering the cancel cavalcade.

    Meanwhile, progressives are flummoxed by the right, yet again. They can’t understand why vigils nationwide for someone they long cast as a white nationalist, a fascist and worse are drawing thousands. They’re dismissing those who attend as deluded cultists, hardening hearts on each side even more. They’re posting Kirk’s past statements on social media as proof that they’re correct about him — but that’s like holding up a sheet of paper to dam the Mississippi.

    I hadn’t paid close attention to Kirk, mostly because he didn’t have a direct connection to Southern California politics. I knew he had helped turn young voters toward Trump, and I loathed his noxious comments that occasionally caught my attention. I appreciated that he was willing to argue his views with critics, even if his style was more Cartman from “South Park” (which satirized Kirk’s college tours just weeks ago) than Ronald Reagan versus Walter Mondale.

    I understand why his fans are grieving and why opponents are sickened at his canonization by Trump, who seems to think that only conservatives are the victims of political violence and that liberals can only be perpetrators. I also know that a similar thing would happen if, heaven forbid, a progressive hero suffered Kirk’s tragic end — way too many people on the right would be dancing a jig and cracking inappropriate jokes, while the left would be whitewashing the sins of the deceased.

    We’re witnessing a partisan passion play, with the biggest losers our democracy and the silent majority of Americans like my father who just want to live life. Weep or critique — it’s your right to do either. But don’t drag the whole country into your culture war. Those who have navigated between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left for too long want to sail to calmer waters. Turning Kirk’s murder into a modern-day Ft. Sumter when we aren’t even certain of his suspected killer’s motives is a guarantee for chaos.

    I never answered my dad’s question about what’s next for us politically. In the days since, I keep rereading what Kirk said about empathy. He derided the concept on a 2022 episode of his eponymous show as “a made-up, new age term that … does a lot of damage.”

    Kirk was wrong about many things, but especially that. Empathy means we try to understand each other’s experiences — not agree, not embrace, but understand. Empathy connects us to others in the hope of creating something bigger and better.

    It’s what allows me to feel for Kirk’s loved ones and not wish his fate on anyone, no matter how much I dislike them or their views. It’s the only thing that ties me to Kirk — he loved this country as much as I do, even if our views about what makes it great were radically different.

    Preaching empathy might be a fool’s errand. But at a time when we’re entrenched deeper in our silos than ever, it’s the only way forward. We need to understand why wishing ill on the other side is wrong and why such talk poisons civic life and dooms everyone.

    Kirk was no saint, but if his assassination makes us take a collective deep breath and figure out how to fix this fractured nation together, he will have truly died a martyr’s death.

    Gustavo Arellano

    Source link

  • A new era of American political violence is upon us. How did we get here? How does it end?

    Two assassination attempts on President Trump. The assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and the wounding of others. The shooting death of a top healthcare executive. The killing of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington. The storming of the U.S. Capitol by a violent mob intent on forcing the nation’s political leaders to their will.

    And, on Wednesday, the fatal shooting of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative political activists — close Trump ally Charlie Kirk — as he spoke at a public event on a university campus.

    If it wasn’t already clear from all those other incidents, Kirk’s killing put it in sharp relief: The U.S. is in a new era of political violence, one that is starker and more visceral than any other in decades — perhaps, experts said, since the fraught days of 1968, when two of the most prominent figures in the civil rights movement, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, were both assassinated in a matter of months.

    “We’re very clearly in a moment where the temperature of our political discourse is extremely high,” said Ruth Braunstein, an associate professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University who has studied religion and the far right in modern politics. “Part of what we see when that happens are these outbursts of political violence — where people come to believe that violence is the only solution.”

    While the exact motives of the person who shot Kirk are still unknown, Braunstein and other experts on political violence said the factors shaping the current moment are clear — and similar to those that shaped past periods of political violence.

    Intense economic discomfort and inequity. Sharp divisions between political camps. Hyperbolic political rhetoric. Political leaders who lack civility and constantly work to demonize their opponents. A democratic system that many see as broken, and a hopelessness about where things are headed.

    “There are these moments of great democratic despair, and we don’t think the political system is sufficiently responsive, sufficiently legitimate, sufficiently attentive, and that’s certainly going on in this particular moment,” said Jon Michaels, a UCLA law professor who teaches about the separation of powers and co-authored “Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy.”

    “If we think there are no political solutions, there are no legal solutions, people are going to resort to forms of self help that are really, really deeply troubling.”

    Michaels said the country has been here before, but also that he worries such cycles of violence are occurring faster today and with shorter breaks in between — that while “we’ve been bitterly divided” for years, those divisions have now “completely left the arena of ideas and debate and contestation, and become much more kinetic.”

    Michaels said he is still shaken by all the “defenses or explanations or rationalizations” that swirled around the country after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City in December — which some people argued was somehow justified by their displeasure with UnitedHealthcare’s policies or frustration with the American healthcare system.

    That the suspect, Luigi Mangione, would attract almost cult-like adoration in some circles seemed like an alarming shift in an already polarized nation, Michaels said.

    “I understand it is not the beliefs of the typical person walking down the street, but it’s seeping into our culture slowly but surely,” he said — and in a way that makes him wonder, “Where are we going to be in four or five years?”

    People across America were asking similar questions about Wednesday’s shooting, wondering in which direction it might thrust the nation’s political discourse in the days ahead.

    How will Kirk’s many conservative fans — including legions of young people — respond? How will leaders, including Trump, react? Will there be a shared recognition that such violence does no good, or fresh attempts at retaliation and violence?

    Leaders from both parties seemed interested in averting the latter. One after another, they denounced political violence and defended Kirk’s right — everyone’s right — to speak on politics in safety, regardless of whether their message is uplifting or odious.

    Democrats were particularly effusive in their denunciations, with Gov. Gavin Newsom — a chief Trump antagonist — calling the shooting “disgusting, vile, and reprehensible.” Former President Obama also weighed in, writing, “We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy.”

    Many seemed dismissive of such messages. In the comments on Obama’s post, many blamed Obama and other Democrats for rhetoric demonizing Republicans — and Trump and his followers in particular — as Nazis or racists or fascists, suggesting that the violence against Kirk was a predictable outcome of such pitched condemnations.

    Trump echoed those thoughts himself Wednesday night, blaming the “radical left” for disparaging Kirk and other conservatives and bringing on such violence.

    Others seemed to celebrate Kirk’s killing or suggest it was justified in some way given his own hyperbolic remarks from the past. They dug up interviews where the conservative provocateur demonized those on the left, suggested liberal ideas constituted a threat to Western civilization, and even said that some gun violence in the country was “worth it” if it meant the freedom to bear arms.

    Experts said it is important to contextualize this moment within American history, but with an awareness of the modern factors shaping it in unique ways. It’s also important to understand that there are ways to combat such violence from spreading, they said.

    Peter Mancall, a history professor at USC, has delved into major moments of political violence in early American history, and said a lot of it stemmed from “some perception of grievance.”

    The same appears to be true today, he said. “There are moments when people do things that they know are violating their own sense of right or wrong, and something has pushed them to it, “ he said. “The trick is figuring out what it is that made them snap.”

    Braunstein said that the robust debate online Wednesday about the rhetoric of leaders was a legitimate one to have, because it has always been true that “the way our political leaders message about political violence — consistently, in public, to their followers and to those that don’t support them — really matters.”

    If Americans and American political leaders truly want to know how we got here, she said, “part of the answer is the intensification of violent political rhetoric — and political rhetoric that casts the moment in terms of an emergency or catastrophe that requires extreme measures to address it.”

    Democrats today are talking about the threats they believe Trump poses to democracy and the rule of law and to immigrants and LGBTQ+ people and others in extremely dire terms. Republicans — including Kirk — have used similarly charged rhetoric to suggest that Democrats and some of those same groups, especially immigrants, are a grave threat to average Americans.

    “Charlie Kirk was one of many political figures who used that kind of discourse to mobilize people,” Braunstein said. “He’s not the only one, but he regularly spoke about the fact that we were in a moment where it was possible that we were going to see the decline of Western civilization, the end of American society as we know it. He used very strong us-vs.-them language.”

    Particularly given the wave of recent violence, it will be important moving forward for politicians and other leaders to reanalyze how they speak about their political disagreements, Braunstein said.

    That’s especially true of Trump, she said, because “one of the most dangerous things that can happen in a moment like this is for a political leader to call for violence in response to an act of violence,” and Trump has appeared to stoke violence in the past, including on Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol and during racist marches through Charlottesville, Va., in 2017.

    Charlie Kirk speaks during a town hall meeting in March in Oconomowoc, Wis.

    (Jeffrey Phelps / Associated Press)

    Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis, agreed messaging is key — not just for responding to political violence, but for preventing it.

    Since 2022, Wintemute and his team have surveyed Americans on how they feel about political violence, including whether it is ever justified and, if so, whether they would personally get involved in it.

    Throughout that time frame, a strong majority of Americans — about two-thirds — have said it is not justified, with about a third saying it was or could be.

    An even smaller minority said they’d be willing to personally engage in such violence, Wintemute said. And many of those people said that they could be dissuaded from participating if their family members, friends, religious or political leaders urged them not to.

    Wintemute said the data give him “room for hope and optimism,” because they show that “the vast majority of Americans reject political violence altogether.”

    “So when somebody on a day like today asks, ‘Is this who we are?’ we know the answer,” he said. “The answer is, ‘No!’”

    The job of all Americans now is to reject political violence “out loud over and over and over again,” Wintemute said, and to realize that, if they are deeply opposed to political policies or the Trump administration and “looking for a model of how to resist,” it isn’t the American Revolution but the civil rights movement.

    “People did not paint over how terrible things were,” he said. “People said, ‘I will resist, but I will resist without violence. Violence may be done to me, I may die, but I will not use violence.’”

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • What horrifying videos tell us about the killing of Charlie Kirk

    Multiple videos from the scene show graphic details about the killing of conservative commentator and political organizer Charlie Kirk at a university in Utah on Wednesday.

    Authorities are now poring over the video as part of the investigation into Kirk’s killing. They are still looking for the gunman after briefly detaining and then freeing two people of interest.

    Charlie Kirk speaks before he is fatally shot during an event Wednesday at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

    (Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

    The shooting

    Kirk drew a large crowd to the event at Utah Valley University. He was gunned down at 12:20 p.m. while talking about mass shootings.

    “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?” an audience member asks.

    “Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk responds.

    Almost immediately, Kirk is shot in the neck. One video shows blood pouring from the wound as he falls over. As the crowd realizes what has taken place, people are heard screaming and running away.

    “This incident occurred with a large crowd around. There was one shot fired, one victim,” Beau Mason, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said on Wednesday afternoon. “While the suspect is at large, we believe this was a targeted attack toward one individual.”

    People run off on a lawn.

    Members of the crowd screamed and ran after a gunshot was heard and Kirk toppled from his chair.

    (Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

    The shooter is believed to have fired from the roof of a building at Kirk as he participated in the public event in the student courtyard, where around 3,000 people were gathered, according to the Department of Public Safety.

    A source familiar with the investigation told The Times that a bullet struck Kirk’s carotid artery.

    Moments later, many in the crowd begin running.

    Jeffrey Long, chief of the university’s Police Department, said six of the force’s officers, including some plainclothes officers embedded in the crowd, were working with members of Kirk’s personal security team to manage safety at the event.

    The shooter

    Several videos show a person who appears to be dressed in black moving on the roof of university’s Losee Center moments before the gunfire.

    Mason, of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said authorities were analyzing campus security video that showed a suspect in dark clothing who might have shot at Kirk from a roof.

    The gunman is believed to have killed Kirk from at least 200 yards away using some type of sniper rifle, law enforcement sources told The Times.

    A woman covers her mouth with one hand.

    Allison Hemingway-Witty cries after the shooting.

    (Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

    Some experts who have seen videos believe that the assailant probably had experience with firearms, given the precision with which the single shot was fired from a considerable distance.

    Witness Seth Teasdale told the Salt Lake Tribune that the gunshot was so loud it echoed across the pavilion where Kirk was speaking.

    Brynlee Holms told the Tribune the shot was “super loud,” which added to the panic in the crowd.

    “I just heard a clear shot, ‘Boom!’ And that was it,” another witness told KUTV.

    Police detained George Zinn and Zachariah Qureshi as suspects and later released them after determining they had no ties to the shooting, according to the Department of Public Safety. The manhunt for the shooter continues.

    What is not shown

    No videos have surfaced showing the gunman firing the shot or fleeing the scene.

    Mason said authorities were reviewing closed-circuit television video. “We’re analyzing it, but it is security camera footage, so you can kind of guess what the quality of that is,” Mason said. “We do know [the suspect was] dressed in all dark clothing. We don’t have a much better description.”

    Utah Gov. Stephen Cox called the attack “a political assassination” and said Wednesday was “a dark day for our state” and “a tragic day for our nation.”

    Law enforcement was working “multiple active crime scenes” including the area Kirk was shot as well as the locations where the suspect and victim traveled, according to the Public Safety Department. They did not provide any further information on the suspect.

    The FBI created a tip line to gather information that may lead to the shooter’s arrest.

    Clara Harter, Richard Winton, Ruben Vives

    Source link

  • Commentary: Charlie Kirk’s killing is horrific — and likely not the end of political violence

    Over the next few days, we are going to hear politicians, commentators and others remind us that political violence is never OK, and never the answer.

    That is true.

    There is no room in a healthy democracy, or a moral society, for killings based on vengeance or beliefs — political, religious, whatever.

    But the sad reality is that our democracy is not healthy, and violence is a symptom of that. Not the make-believe, cities-overrun violence that has led to the military in our streets, but real, targeted political violence that has crept into society with increasing frequency.

    Our decline did not begin with the horrific slaying Wednesday of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old father and conservative media superstar, and it will not end with it. We are in a moment of struggle, with two competing views for where our country should go and what it should be. Only one can win, and both sides believe it is a battle worth fighting.

    So be it. Fights in democracy are nothing new and nothing wrong.

    We can blame the heated political rhetoric of either side for violence, as many already are, but words are not bullets and strong democracies can withstand even the ugliest of speeches, the most hateful of positions.

    The painful and hard specter of more violence to come has less to do with far-right or far-left than extreme fringe in either political direction. Occasionally it’s ideological, but more often it isn’t MAGA, communist or socialist so much as confusion and rage cloaking itself in political convenience. Violence comes where trust in the system is decimated, and where hope is ground to dust.

    These are the places were we find the isolated, the disenfranchised, the red-pilled or the blue-pilled — however you see it — and anyone else, who pushed by the stress and anger of this moment, finds themselves believing violence or even murder is a solution, maybe the only solution.

    These are not mainstream people. Like all killers, they live outside the rules of society and likely would have found their way beyond our boundaries with or without politics. But politics found them, and provided what may have seemed like clarity in a maelstrom of anything but.

    In the past few years, we have seen people such as this make two attempts on Donald Trump’s life. One of those was a 20-year-old student, Michael Thomas Crooks, still almost a kid, whose motives will likely never be known.

    The American flag at the White House is lowered on Wednesday after the slaying of Charlie Kirk.

    (Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

    A few months ago, we saw a political massacre in Minnesota aimed at Democratic lawmakers. Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were killed by the same attacker who shot state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, and attempted to shoot their daughter Hope. Authorities found a hit list of 45 targets in his possession.

    Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home was firebombed this year. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer faced a somewhat bumbling kidnap plot in 2020. In 2017, a shooter hit four people at the congressional softball game, including then U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner.

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home was broken into in 2022 and her husband, Paul, was attacked by a hammer-wielding assailant with a unicorn costume in his backpack.

    Despite the fact that these instances of violence have been aimed at both Democrats and Republicans, we live under a Republican government at the moment, one that holds unprecedented power.

    Already, that power structure is calling not for calm or justice, but retribution.

    “We’ve got trans shooters. You’ve got riots in L.A. They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. They are at war with us,” said Fox News commentator Jesse Watters shortly after Kirk was shot. “What are we going to do about it? How much political violence are we going to tolerate? And that’s the question we’re just going to have to ask ourselves.”

    On that last bit, I agree with Watters. We do need to ask ourselves how much political violence we are going to tolerate.

    The internet is buzzing with a quote from Kirk on gun violence: “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

    Like Kirk, I think some things are worth ugly prices. I don’t think guns are one of them, but I do think democracy is.

    We can’t allow political violence to be the reason we curb democracy. Even if that violence continues, we must find ways to fight it that preserve the constitutional values that make America exceptional.

    “It is extremely important to caution U.S. policymakers in this heated environment to act responsibly and not use the specter of political violence as an excuse to suppress nonviolent movements, curb freedoms of assembly and expression, encourage retaliation, or otherwise close civic spaces,” a trio of Brookings Institution researchers wrote as part of their “Monitoring the pillars of democracy” series. “Weaponizing calls for stability and peace in response to political violence is a real threat in democratic and nondemocratic countries globally.”

    The slaying of Charlie Kirk is reprehensible, and his family and friends have suffered a loss I can’t imagine. Condolences don’t cover it.

    But the legacy of his death, and of political violence, can’t be crackdowns — because if we do that, we forever damage the country we all claim to love.

    If we take anything away from this tragic day, let it be a commitment to democracy, and America, in all her chaotic and flawed glory.

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Lyle Menendez denied parole, will remain in prison along with younger brother Erik

    A day after his younger brother was denied release, Lyle Menendez also saw California parole officials reject his bid for freedom, ruling he will remain behind bars for now for the 1989 shotgun murders of his parents.

    The parole board grilled Menendez, 57, over his efforts to get witnesses to lie during his trials, the lavish shopping sprees he and his brother Erik, 54, took after their parents’ killings, and whether he felt relief after the murders.

    “I felt this shameful period of those six months of having to lie to relatives who were grieving,” Menendez told the board. “I felt the need to suffer. That it was no relief.”

    As the elder brother, Menendez said he at times felt like the protector of Erik, but that he soon realized the murders were not the right way out of sexual abuse they were allegedly suffering at the hands of their parents.

    “I sort of started to feel like I had not rescued my brother,” he said. “I destroyed his life. I’d rescued nobody.”

    The closely watched hearing for Lyle Menendez, one of the most well-known inmates currently in the state’s prison system, was thrown into disarray Friday afternoon after audio of his brother’s parole hearing on Thursday was publicly released.

    The audio, published by ABC 7, sparked anger and frustration from the brothers’ relatives and their attorney, who accused the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of leaking the audio and tainting Lyle’s hearing.

    A CDCR spokesperson confirmed the audio was “erroneously” issued in response to a records request, but did not elaborate or immediately respond to additional questions from The Times.

    “I have protected myself, I have stayed out of this, I have not had a relationship with two human beings because I was afraid, and I came here today and I came here yesterday and I trusted that this would only be released in a transcript,” said Tiffani Lucero-Pastor, a relative of the brothers. “You’ve misled the family.”

    Heidi Rummel, Lyle Menendez’s parole attorney, also criticized CDCR, accusing the agency of turning the hearing into a “spectacle.”

    “I don’t think you can possibly understand the emotion of what this family is experiencing,” she said. “They have spent so much time trying to protect their privacy and dignity.”

    After the audio was published, Rummel said family members who planned to testify decided not to speak after all, and said she would be looking to seal the transcripts of Friday’s hearing.

    Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said regulations allowed for audio to be released under the California Public Records Act. Transcripts of parole hearings typically become public within 30 days of a grant or denial, under state law.

    During his first-ever appeal to the state parole board, Lyle Menendez was questioned over his credibility.

    Garland referred to Menendez’s appeal to get witnesses to lie, plans to escape, and lies to relatives about the killings as a “sophistication of the web of lies and manipulation you demonstrated.”

    Menendez said he had no plan at the time, there was just “a lot of flailing in what was happening.”

    “Even though you fooled your entire family about you being a murderer, and you recruited all these people to help you … you don’t think that’s being a good liar?” Garland asked.

    Menendez said the remorse he felt after the crimes perhaps helped create a “strong belief” he didn’t have anything to do with the killings.

    Dmitry Gorin, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor, said the board’s decision denying parole was consistent with past decisions involving violent crimes.

    “Although this is a high-profile case, the parole board rejecting the release demonstrates that it seeks to keep violent offenders locked up because they still pose a risk to society,” Gorin said. “Historically, the parole board does not release people convicted of murder, and this case is no different.

    He called the decision a win for Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who has opposed the brothers’ release.

    The brothers were initially sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the killings of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez, but after qualifying for resentencing they gained a chance at freedom.

    Many family members have supported their cause, but the gruesome crime and the brothers’ conduct behind bars led to pushback against their release.

    The killings occurred after the brothers purchased shotguns in San Diego with a false identification and shot their parents in the family living room.

    The bloody crime scene was compared by investigators to a gangland execution, where Jose Menendez was shot five times, including once in the back of the head. Evidence showed their mother had crawled, wounded, on the floor before the brothers reloaded and fired a final, fatal blast.

    The brothers reported the killings to 911, according to court records. Soon afterward, prosecutors during the trial noted, the two siblings began to spend large sums of money, including buying a Porsche and a restaurant, which was purchased by Lyle. Erik bought a Jeep and hired a private tennis instructor.

    Prosecutors argued it was access to their multimillion-dollar inheritance that prompted the killing after Jose Menendez shared that he planned to disinherit the brothers.

    But during the trials, the Menendez brothers and relatives testified that the two siblings had undergone years of sexual and physical abuse at the hands of their father.

    In contrast to their frenzy around their trial, Thursday and Friday’s parole hearings were quiet — yet occasionally contentious — affairs.

    A Times journalist was the only member of the public allowed to view the hearing on a projector screen in a room inside the agency’s headquarters outside of Sacramento.

    During the Friday hearing, the parole board quickly dived into the allegations that the brothers were sexually assaulted by their father, which Lyle Menendez said confused and “caused a lot of shame in me.”

    “That pretty much characterized my relationship with my father,” he said, adding that the fear of being abused left him in a state of “hyper vigilance,” even after the abuse stopped and his father began to abuse Erik.

    “It took me a while to realize that it stopped,” Menendez said. “I think I was still worried about it for a long time.”

    Growing up, he said, taking care of his younger brother gave him purpose, and helped to protect him from “drowning in the spiral of my own life.”

    Menendez alleged his mother also sexually abused him, but said he did not share it during his comprehensive risk assessment because he “didn’t see it as abuse really.”

    “Today, I see it as sexual abuse,” he said. “When I was 13, I felt like I was consenting and my mother was dealing with a lot and I just felt like maybe it wasn’t.”

    Board members also questioned Lyle Menendez on why he didn’t mention the possibility they were removed from their parents’ will in their submissions to the board, but Menendez contended their inheritance was not a motive in the killings.

    Instead, he said, it became “a problem afterward” as they worried they would have no money after their parents’ deaths.

    “I believe there was a will that disinherited us somewhere,” he said.

    The result of Thursday’s hearing means Erik can’t seek parole again for three years, a decision that left some relatives and supporters of the younger brother stunned.

    “How is my dad a threat to society,” Talia Menendez, his stepdaughter, wrote on Instagram shortly after the decision was made. “This has been torture to our family. How much longer???”

    In a statement issued Thursday, relatives said they were disappointed by the decision and noted that going through Lyle’s hearing Friday would be “undoubtedly difficult,” although they remained “cautiously optimistic and hopeful.”

    Friends, relatives and former cellmates have touted the brothers’ lives behind bars, pointing to programs they’ve spearheaded for inmates, including classes for anger management, meditation, and helping inmates in hospice care.

    But members of the board questioned both siblings about their violation of rules, zeroing in at times about repeated use of contraband cellphones.

    During the hearing Friday, Lyle said he sometimes used cellphones to keep in touch with family outside the prison. But Deputy Parole Commissioner Patrick Reardon questioned this explanation, and asked why Menendez needed a cellphone if he could make legitimate calls from a prison-issued tablet.

    The rule violation, board members pointed out, had resulted in Menendez being barred from family visits for three years.

    Reardon pointed out that Menendez pleaded guilty to two cellphone violations in November 2024 and in March 2025. Menendez was also linked to three other violations, although another cellmate of his took responsibility for those violations.

    Menendez said the violations occurred when he lived in a dorm with five other inmates, and admitted the use of cellphones was a “gang-like activity.” The group, he said, probably went through at least five cellphones.

    Heidi Rummel, Menendez’s parole attorney, argued in her closing that despite the cellphone issues, Menendez had no violent incidents on his prison record.

    “This board is going to say you’re dangerous because you used your cellphones,” she said. “But there is zero evidence that he used it for criminality, that he used it for violence. He didn’t even lie about it.”

    But members of the board repeatedly focused on what seemed to be issues of credibility. Reardon said at times it felt like Menendez was “two different incarcerated people.”

    “You seem to be different things at different times,” Reardon said during the hearing. “I don’t think what I see is that you used a cellphone from time to time. There seems to be a mechanism in place that you always had a cellphone.”

    Garland asked Menendez about whether he used his position on the Men’s Advisory Council — a group meant to be a liaison on issues between inmates and prison administrators — to manipulate others and gain unfair benefits.

    Menendez said the position gave him access to wall phones, and used the position to help him barter or gain favors.

    Garland also pointed to an assessment that found Menendez exhibited antisocial traits, entitlement, deception, manipulation and a resistance to accept consequences.

    Menendez said he had discussed those issues, but that he didn’t agree he showed narcissistic traits.

    “They’re not the type of people like me self-referring to mental health,” he said, adding that he felt his father displayed narcissistic tendencies and lack of self-reflection. “I just felt like that wasn’t me.”

    Menendez pointed to his work to help inmates in prison who are bullied or mocked.

    “I would never call myself a model incarcerated person,” he said. “I would say that I’m a good person, that I spent my time helping people. That I’m very open and accepting.”

    The parole board applauded Menendez’s work and educational history while in prison, noting he was working on a master’s degree.

    Despite the violations, Menendez argued he felt he had done good work in prison.

    “My life has been defined by extreme violence,” he said, tears visible on his face. “I wanted to be defined by something else.”

    James Queally, Salvador Hernandez, Richard Winton

    Source link

  • Erik Menendez to remain in prison after decision by California Parole Board

    Erik Menendez will not be released, the California Parole Board decided in a highly anticipated and lengthy hearing Thursday, curtailing for now the contentious push by he and his older sibling to be freed after the 1989 killing of their parents in their Beverly Hills home.

    The hearing came after years of legal efforts by Menendez and his brother to be set free despite being convicted of life without the possibility of parole in 1995. Their jury trial, and accounts of an abusive upbringing in the upscale Beverly Hills home, inspired several documentaries and television series that drew renewed attention to their case and allegations of sexual abuse against their father.

    The hearing — the first time Erik Menendez, 54, has faced the Parole Board — offered a never-before-seen glimpse into his life behind bars over more than three decades. A separate hearing for Lyle, 57, is set for Friday.

    The hearing, Erik Menendez noted, was 36 years and a day after his family realized his parents were dead. The killing occurred on Aug. 20, 1989.

    “Today is the day all of my victims learned my parents were dead,” he said. “So today is the anniversary of their trauma journey.”

    After a nearly 10-hour hearing, the board decided to deny parole to Menendez for three years. He could petition for an earlier hearing.

    “This is a tragic case,” Parole Commissioner Robert Barton said after issuing the decision. “I agree that not only two but four people were lost in this family.”

    Relatives, friends and advocates have described the Menendez brothers as “model inmates,” but during the hearing Thursday members of the Parole Board raised concerns about drug and alcohol use, fights with other inmates, instances in which Erik Menendez was found with a contraband cellphone, and allegations that he helped a prison gang in a tax fraud scam in 2013.

    More than a dozen relatives testified in favor of release for Menendez, with many of them saying they had forgiven him and his brother for the killing. Although amazed by the family’s support, Barton said Menendez should not be released on parole.

    “Two things can be true,” Barton said. “They can love and forgive you, and you can still be found unsuitable for parole.”

    In a statement, a spokesperson for relatives of the two siblings said they were disappointed.

    “Our belief in Erik remains unwavering and we know he will take the Board’s recommendation in stride,” the family said in a statement. “His remorse, growth, and the positive impact he’s had on others speak for themselves. We will continue to stand by him and hold to the hope he is able to return home soon.”

    They said they remained “cautiously optimistic” for Lyle Menendez, whose hearing was set for Friday.

    Erik Menendez testified he obtained cellphones despite risking discipline because he didn’t believe there was a chance of him ever being released. He took the gamble, he said, because the “connection with the outside world was far greater than the consequences of me getting caught with the phone.”

    He associated with a gang, he said, for protection.

    That all changed in 2024, he said, when he realized there was a chance of parole at some point.

    “In November of 2024, now the consequences mattered,” he told the board. “Now the consequences meant I was destroying my life.”

    The crime that put Menendez and his brother in prison began when the siblings drove to San Diego, bought shotguns with cash using someone else’s identification, then returned home and opened fire in the family living room while their parents were watching television.

    Investigators have said the gruesome crime scene looked like the site of a gangland execution. Jose Menendez was shot five times, including once in the back of the head, and evidence showed Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor, wounded, before the brothers reloaded and fired a final, fatal blast.

    The brothers called 911, with Lyle screaming that “someone killed my parents,” according to court records. But while they appeared as grieving orphans, Erik and Lyle also began spending large sums of money in the months after the killings. Lyle bought a Porsche and a restaurant while Erik purchased a Jeep and retained a private tennis instructor with the intentions of turning pro. The two were infamously seen sitting courtside at an NBA game between the murders and their capture.

    Prosecutors argued the brothers killed their parents out of greed to get access to their multimillion-dollar inheritance. Jose was planning to disinherit the brothers because he considered them failures, according to court filings. The brutality of the crimes and the juxtaposition of such violence against the family’s Beverly Hills image turned the case into an international media circus, only rivaled at the time by the O.J. Simpson trial.

    Although mobs of reporters also circled the brothers’ resentencing hearings in Van Nuys this year, Thursday’s parole hearing was a much more solemn and quiet affair. With the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tightly controlling media access, a Times journalist was the only member of the public allowed to view the hearing on a projector screen in a room inside the agency’s headquarters just outside Sacramento.

    The parole hearing is not meant to relitigate details of the case or the brothers’ roles in the killings, but members of the board questioned Erik Menendez on Thursday on details of the grisly murders, which the brothers and supporters in their family said were committed because they had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their father.

    “In my mind, leaving meant death,” Menendez told the board when asked why he didn’t leave the house or go to the police. “My absolute belief that I could not get away. Maybe it sounds completely irrational and unreasonable today.”

    Menendez said he and his brother purchased the shotguns because they believed that their parents might try to kill them, or that his father would go to his room to rape him.

    “That was going to happen,” he said. “One way or another. If he was alive, that was going to happen.”

    Asked why the two killed their mother as well, Menendez said that the decision was made after learning she was aware of the abuse, and that the siblings saw no daylight between the two.

    “Step by step, my mom had shown she was united with my dad,” he said at the hearing. “On that night I saw them as one person. Had she not been in the room, maybe it would have been different.”

    He said the moment he found out his mother was aware of the alleged abuse was “devastating.”

    “When mom told me … that she had known all of those years. It was the most devastating moment in my entire life,” he said. “It changed everything for me. I had been protecting her by not telling her.”

    Asked whether he believed his mother was also a victim of his father’s abuse, Menendez said, “Definitely.”

    “He was beating her because I failed,” he said.

    After denying parole, Barton pointed to their decision to kill their mother, calling it “devoid of human compassion.”

    “The killing of your mother especially showed a lack of empathy and reason,” Barton said. “I can’t put myself in your place. I don’t know that I’ve ever had rage to that level, ever. But that is still concerning, especially since it seems she was also a victim herself of domestic violence.”

    Menendez was visibly overcome with emotion when discussing details of the murders, although he did not appear to cry.

    After the murders, Menendez said, the spending sprees between he and his brother, including buying a Rolex, were an “incredibly callous act.”

    “I was torn between hatred of myself over what I did and wishing that I could undo it and trying to live out my life, making teenager decisions,” he said.

    Menendez eventually confessed to the killings in discussions with a therapist, and L.A. County sheriff’s deputies found a letter in Lyle Menendez’s jail cell admitting to the murders. After jurors hung in their first trial, Erik and Lyle Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder in 1996.

    L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Habib Balian opposed parole for Erik Menendez during the hearing, arguing he lied to the Parole Board and had minimized his role in the killings during the hearing.

    “When one continues to diminish their responsibility for a crime and continues to make the same false excuses that they’ve made for 30-plus years, one is still that same dangerous person that they were when they shotgunned their parents,” Balian said. “Is he truly reformed, or is he just saying what wants to be heard?”

    Menendez, Balian argued to the board, was still a risk to society and should not be released.

    Interest in the brothers’ case was revived in recent years following a popular Netflix series, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story.” The show aired after a Peacock docuseries, “Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed,” uncovered additional evidence of Jose Menendez’s alleged sexual abuse of his children and others, including Roy Rosselló, a member of the boy band Menudo.

    The new evidence was part of the brothers’ most recent legal appeal in the case. More than 20 of the brothers’ relatives formed a coalition pushing for their freedom, arguing they had spent enough time imprisoned for a pair of killings that were motivated by years of horrific abuse.

    Last year, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón petitioned a judge to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez to 50 years to life in prison, making them eligible for parole. After he defeated Gascón in the November election, new Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman quickly moved to oppose the resentencing petition, going as far as to transfer the prosecutors who authored it and asking a judge to disregard Gascón’s filing.

    L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied that request. After finding prosecutors failed to prove the brothers were a danger to the public, Jesic granted the resentencing petition in May, clearing the path for Thursday’s parole hearing.

    Fellow inmates and rehabilitation officials have described the two as “mentors,” spearheading programs and projects for inmates.

    The two have created programs to deal with anger management, meditation and assisting inmates in hospice care and to improve conditions inside prison.

    Lyle Menendez spearheaded a Rehabilitation Through Beautification project at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility to work on upgrades and create green space in the prison, along with painting a 1,000-foot mural. Erik Menendez has worked with other inmates to do the artwork for the project.

    But members of the board questioned Erik Menendez on various incidents, including a fight in 1997.

    Menendez said another inmate hit him first, but admitted that he “acted aggressively” as well. In another fight, Menendez said, he “fought back” in self-defense.

    Members of the board also questioned Menendez on multiple incidents in which he was found with contraband, including art supplies, candles, spray cans, and cellphones that Menendez said he would pay about $1,000 to obtain.

    He used some of the art supplies to decorate his cell, he said.

    Menendez said he also gave other inmates access to the phone, because “if it was someone that I trusted or someone that I knew had a phone, I didn’t want to tell him no.”

    He said he used the phones to speak with his wife, watch YouTube videos and pornography.

    “I really became addicted to the phones,” he said.

    During the hearing, Barton said he was concerned about the number of support letters that refer to Menendez as a model inmate, saying it could minimize the impact of cellphones in the prison.

    Menendez said it wasn’t until later that he realized the larger impact that cellphones could have, despite how prevalent they could be in prison.

    “I knew of 50, 60 people that had phones,” he said. “I just justified it by saying if I don’t buy it someone else is going to buy it. The phones were going to be sold, and I longed for that connection.”

    But in January, he said, he had an in-depth talk with a lieutenant and took a criminal thinking class that made him reassess.

    “The damage of using a phone is as corrosive to a prison environment as drugs are,” he said. “In the sense that someone must bring them in, they must be paid for, it corrupts staff … phones can be used to elicit more criminal activity.”

    Members of the board spent a significant amount of time questioning Menendez on the use of contraband phones, and pointed to them as part of their reasoning in denying parole.

    “Your institutional misconduct showed a lack of self-awareness,” Barton said. “You’ve got a great support network. But you didn’t go to them before you committed these murders. And you didn’t go to them, before you used the cellphone.”

    Dmitry Gorin, a former prosecutor, said Menendez’s decision to break the rules while in prison affected his chances at winning release, even though he was young when he was convicted.

    “If you’re not going to comply with the rules in prison, you’re not going to comply out in society — that’s what they’re saying here,” Gorin said. “The big picture here is without serious medical issues or being elderly, I don’t know anyone who killed two people who has been paroled.”

    Nancy Tetreault, an attorney for former Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, said that despite public support for parole, Menendez was considered moderate risk in the comprehensive risk assessment. To have a better chance at release, he would have to be considered low risk, she said.

    “That’s very hard to overcome,” she said.

    The two brothers were involved in classes, but also would need to be more involved in rehabilitative programs for a favorable decision, Tetreault said.

    “Yes, they have a lot of classes and things like that that I was reading the classes they’ve put together, like meditation, for insight, that they’re leaving it, but they need to, they need to start programming,” she said.

    Menendez admitted to drinking alcohol and briefly using heroin at one point in prison, which he said he tried because he was “miserable” and feeling hopeless.

    “If I could numb my sadness with alcohol, I was going to do it,” he said. “I was looking to ease that sadness within me.”

    Members of the board also asked Menendez about his connection to a prison gang and a tax fraud scam in 2013, but did not discuss details of the scheme.

    Menendez said part of the reason he associated with members of the gang, known as 25s or Dos Cinco, was fear of his safety.

    “When the 25ers came and asked for help, I thought this was a great opportunity to align myself with them and to survive,” Menendez said, adding that he thought he needed to keep himself safe because he had no hopes of being paroled at the time. “I was in tremendous fear.”

    The gang was in charge of the prison yard, he said, and a member approached him about the scheme, although Menendez said he did not personally control the checks. The gang also supplied him with marijuana, he said.

    Much changed after 2013, Menendez said, and he curbed his use of drugs and alcohol. At one point, members of the gang also believed he had become an informant.

    “I did not like who I was in 2013,” Menendez said. “From 2013 on, I was living for a different purpose. My purpose in life was to be a good person.”

    In Oct. 14, 2023, his mother’s birthday, he committed to stop using drugs, he told the board.

    Deputy Parole Commissioner Rachel Stern asked Menendez about his work with hospice inmates, including a World War II veteran convicted of an unspecified sexual violence crime that Menendez helped with getting his meals and bedding.

    Menendez said he saw his work with the inmate as a way to make amends for his father.

    Menendez apologized to his family during the hearing, noting their support.

    “I just want my family to understand that I am so unimaginably sorry for what I have put them through,” he said. “I know they have been here for me and they’re here for me today, but I want them to know that this should be about them. It’s about them and if I ever get the chance at freedom I want the healing to be about them.”

    James Queally, Salvador Hernandez, Richard Winton

    Source link

  • Mexico hands over fugitive wanted in 2008 killing of L.A. County sheriff’s deputy

    A man wanted in connection with the 2008 killing of a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy in Cypress Park has been returned to the U.S. from Mexico to face charges.

    Roberto Salazar, 38, was arrested in March by Mexican authorities and transferred Tuesday into U.S. custody.

    “Justice has been a long time coming, but today we are one step closer,” Sheriff Robert Luna said during a news conference at the Hall of Justice on Wednesday afternoon.

    The L.A. County district attorney’s office will charge Salazar with first-degree murder with special circumstances and conspiracy to commit murder. He faces a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

    Salazar’s arraignment Thursday morning was postponed until Sept. 22 because he did not yet have a defense attorney. Appearing before Judge Theresa McGonigle, Salazar stood slightly stooped over in a glass-enclosed holding area with his hair buzzed and wearing an orange jail shirt.

    Two female relatives of Salazar who attended the hearing declined to comment, as did Deputy Dist. Atty. Eric Siddall, who appeared for the prosecution.

    Salazar was handed over along with 25 other prisoners described by U.S. and Mexican authorities as high-ranking drug cartel members. Mexico long ago abolished capital punishment and reportedly agreed to the mass prisoner transfer on the condition that none face the death penalty.

    Salazar’s case dates back to Aug. 2, 2008, when Juan Abel Escalante was shot in the back of the head as he was reaching to adjust a child’s seat inside his car outside his parents’ house as he readied to leave for his job at Men’s Central Jail.

    By December 2012, four of the six alleged members of the notorious Avenues gang that authorities accused of having been involved in the killing had been arrested and charged. That list included Carlos Velasquez, who was arrested in December 2008 and ultimately pleaded guilty to murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Authorities said Velasquez shot Escalante multiple times after mistaking him for a rival gang member.

    U.S. Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi described the return of the 26 men as “the latest example of the Trump administration’s historic efforts to dismantle cartels and foreign terrorist organizations” in a statement Tuesday.

    Celeste Escalante, the widow of Juan Abel Escalante, and their daughter watch as pallbearers carry the deputy’s casket during funeral services on Aug. 8, 2008.

    (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

    Escalante and his family were living at his parents’ home in Cypress Park at the time of his slaying. He had served in the Army Reserve and had been working for the Sheriff’s Department for 2½ years.

    “My words go out to the Escalante family,” Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said Wednesday. “That relentess pursuit of justice is not over, but we are almost there.”

    Connor Sheets, Sandra McDonald

    Source link

  • Prominent Al Jazeera journalist among several killed in Israeli strike on Gaza press tent

    Israel’s military targeted a tent for journalists in Gaza City late Sunday, killing seven people, including Anas al-Sharif, a reporter for Al Jazeera who drew millions of followers on social media and emerged as a top voice in the Arab world for his chronicling of the war in Gaza over the last 22 months.

    Killed alongside the 28-year-old Al-Sharif were Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa and their assistant Mohammed Noufal. A sixth journalist, freelancer Mohammad al-Khaldi, who was in a nearby tent, was also killed, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

    In a statement, Al Jazeera, which is funded by the government of Qatar and has long had a fraught relationship with the Israeli government, described the killings as a “targeted assassination” that was “yet another blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom.”

    “The order to assassinate Anas al-Sharif, one of Gaza’s bravest journalists, and his colleagues, is a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza,” the statement said, referring to the Israeli government’s recently approved plans for its military to take over the Palestinian enclave.

    “Al Jazeera emphasizes that immunity for perpetrators and the lack of accountability embolden Israel’s actions and encourage further oppression against witnesses to the truth,” the broadcaster’s statement said.

    Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al Thani also excoriated Israel, saying in a statement on X that “the deliberate targeting of journalists by Israel in the Gaza Strip reveals how these crimes are beyond imagination.”

    Israel’s military confirmed it conducted the attack, issuing a statement shortly before midnight Monday saying it struck “the terrorist Anas Al-Sharif” who it said “posed as a journalist” but “served as the head of a terrorist cell” in the militant group Hamas.

    It claimed that “previously disclosed intelligence information” and “many documents found in the Gaza Strip” confirmed Al-Sharif’s involvement with Hamas. The documents, which the statement said included personnel rosters, lists of terrorist training courses, among others, “provide proof of the integration of the Hamas terrorist” within Al Jazeera.

    The documents were first released in October 2024 and accused six Al Jazeera journalists of involvement with Hamas or the Islamic Jihad militant group.

    At the time, Al Jazeera, along with a United Nations expert, the Committee to Protect Journalists and other groups cast doubt on the veracity of the documents. The U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan, denounced Israel’s accusations against Al-Sharif in July as “unfounded” and a “blatant attempt to endanger his life and silence his reporting on the genocide in Gaza.”

    The Israeli military has previously made unsubstantiated claims that journalists it targeted and killed in Gaza were terrorists. In March, Israel killed Al Jazeera correspondent Hossam Shabat; in July 2024, it killed Ismail Ghoul and his cameraman Rami al-Rifi.

    Chief correspondent Wael al Dahdouh lost his wife, son, daughter and grandson in an Israeli airstrike in October 2023. Weeks after that, he was injured in a strike that killed Al Jazeera cameraman Samer Abu Daqqa.

    Israel has barred international journalists from entering Gaza even as it has targeted local reporters. Health authorities in Gaza say 237 journalists have been killed since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023. The Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 186 have been killed.

    Sunday’s drone attack came weeks after Israel stepped up its attacks on Al-Sharif, with the military’s Arabic-language spokesman accusing the Al Jazeera correspondent in July of spreading “propaganda” and taking part in “a false Hamas campaign on starvation.”

    Later that month, the Committee to Protect Journalists said it was “gravely worried” about Al-Sharif’s safety. The group’s Middle East and North Africa director, Sara Qudah, warned that the smear campaign against Al-Sharif represented “an effort to manufacture consent to kill Al-Sharif.”

    In a statement on Monday, Qudah said, “Israel is murdering the messengers.”

    “If Israel can kill the most prominent Gazan journalist, then it can kill anyone. The world needs to see these deadly attacks on journalists inside Gaza, as well as its censorship of journalists in Israel and the West Bank, for what they are: a deliberate and systematic attempt to cover up Israel’s actions.”

    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was “gravely concerned” over the repeated targeting of journalists in Gaza; Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and other groups also issued condemnations. The U.S. government did not immediately provide comment.

    Al-Sharif’s killing drew tributes for a journalist who for many across the region came to embody Gaza’s suffering.

    On social media people shared poignant moments from his coverage, including when he covered his father’s killing in an Israeli airstrike in the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza City in December 2023; a video when he was reunited with his daughter this year; or when he almost broke down on air, his voice cracking.

    “Keep on going, Mr. Anas,” says an unseen passerby. “You are our voice.”

    Video posted to social media showed crowds massing at the Sheikh Radwan Cemetery for the journalists’ funeral. Video depicted mourners crying and embracing each other, while others in the crowd carried Al-Sharif’s shrouded corpse and chanted, “With our soul and blood, we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Anas.”

    Al-Sharif is survived by his wife, daughter and son.

    Minutes before the strike that killed him, Al-Sharif posted on X saying there was “intense, concentrated Israeli bombardment” of Gaza City for two hours.

    Al-Sharif’s final message, written in April to be posted in the event of his death, read: “If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.”

    He continued: “I have lived through pain in all its details, tasted suffering and loss many times, yet I never once hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification — so that Allah may bear witness against those who stayed silent, those who accepted our killing, those who choked our breath, and whose hearts were unmoved by the scattered remains of our children and women, doing nothing to stop the massacre that our people have faced for more than a year and a half.”

    Nabih Bulos

    Source link