LA Times Reporter on LAPD hostage death: “Who cares who actually shot her?”

As I mentioned in my welcome post for this blog, one of the things that motivated me to start this website was my own experience with misinformation in the press.

All the world will find of me today in an internet search is what has been printed (and subsequently picked up and reprinted by other news organizations and websites) by Joel Rubin and Celeste Fremon.   And it ain’t good.

The subject of Rubin’s January 7, 2009 story on the front page of the Los Angeles Times was a 2005 high-profile, soul-crushing officer involved shooting in which a man named Jose Pena engaged in an hours-long shoot-out at his used car dealership with patrol and SWAT officers from LAPD while using his very young daughter, Suzie Pena (various reports list her age as between 19 and 23 months), as a human shield.  In the end, SWAT officers stormed the office where Jose Pena had holed up, resulting in a final shoot-out in which both Jose and Suzie Pena were killed.   I was one of the primary investigators.

Rubin’s article paints me as an inexperienced rookie who didn’t know what the hell she was talking about and questions the ethics of the LAPD side of the investigation, specifically with regard to challenging the findings of the medical examiner from the LA County Coroner’s office who performed Suzie Pena’s autopsy, Dr. James Ribe (pronounce ree-bee).  Celeste Fremon served as sycophantic cheerleader.  Rubin did call me in late 2008 to ask if I would speak with him for his article but, due to various pending litigation, I did not comment.

Joel Rubin is the only reporter at the Los Angeles Times responsible for reporting on the LAPD.  Celeste Fremon describes herself on her website, WitnessLA.com, as “an award winning freelance journalist specializing in gangs, law enforcement, criminal justice and education policy.”

Lest you think that I’m getting hot and bothered over having my name mentioned in the paper, let me point out this (and this fact becomes damn shocking later):  Rubin’s story was not a column or two.  It was, in newspaper-speak, 44 inches, starting on the front page.  Even on the internet it’s five pages long.  Fremon’s blog post is a shorter, rambling yet more heatedly slanderous piece, complete with John Madden-esque photo/diagram.

To say that Rubin and Fremon got it wrong is an understatement but, I thought, not shocking.  Journalists get things wrong all the time.  However, I keep getting questions about these articles, professionally. Everything lives forever on the internet.  So I decided to address it, starting with reaching out to the Times.  I realize that I’m a year behind (OK, a year and a couple of months) but I only recently had an actual conversation with Joel Rubin and, trust me, it bears repeating.

“Fact Checking Is Your Friend”- Celeste Fremon, WitnessLA.com, January 26, 2010

On the same day that Rubin’s article was published in the LA Times, the journalist Celeste Fremon, who lectures in journalism at both the University of California at Irvine and the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism, and whose journalistic website, WitnessLA.com, is supported by the Justice and Journalism Fund, made the following journalistic statement, journalistically, on her journalistic website:

Now it seems, Rubin has learned that a 32-year-old criminalist named Amy Driver, who had on the department four years [SIC], decided that SWAT had not killed Suzie at all. Instead, her father had put his own pistol to her head and shot her.

…Color me not surprised that Berkow was the higher-up that championed this fact-challenged notion…

Anyway, this fun little posse began hammering the coroner’s office saying that Dr. James Ribe, the senior deputy medical examiner who had performed the autopsy, had essentially done a shoddy job with his examination…..and that’s why, they maintained, he erroneously thought that SWAT had killed Suzie.

Read the story. It gets worse from here. In the end, Driver and Berkow’s quest to rewrite the truth was rejected by neutral experts.

Celeste, your professionalism and intricate knowledge of the case are dazzling.  But, since you talk so passionately about “facts”, I’d like to submit some for your consideration.  I realize that the actual facts of the case don’t make for tidy bumper sticker rhetoric, but do try to keep up.

Two Simple Questions

My part of the investigation did not start as, nor was it intended to be, a push to reverse the medical examiner, Dr. James Ribe.  And, yes, it was very much my part of the investigation that started this.  I have suffered for it, so I will take credit for it.  I was just trying to figure out what the evidence meant, which was my job.  This started with two simple, obvious questions:

1. To illustrate my first question, try this:
   • Put your left index finger at the inner corner of your left eye, against the bridge of your nose (like you’re wiping something out of your eye).  That’s where Dr. Ribe said the bullet entered. (Hold this position for the next couple of steps)
   • Now, put your right index finger at the very top center of your head, then move it about an inch diagonally toward your right eye.  That’s where Dr. Ribe said the bullet exited.  This is also the point that I ultimately proposed was the actual entry point, with a downward trajectory.  Now consider the following:
     • If a bullet is traveling in a straight line along Dr. Ribe’s proposed path (from your left index finger to your right index finger), how could big pieces of the bullet end up in your chest just above your heart (roughly above your left nipple) and just below your right arm pit, with lots of additional bullet fragments in your lower face, jaw, and throat?
     • If a bullet traveling along Dr. Ribe’s proposed path lost all those fragments (arguably almost a whole bullet’s worth), how could there have been enough of the bullet left to cause the “exit wound” at your right index finger and the resulting damage emanating from that point, which can only be described as total and catastrophic?
     • Also, push with that left index finger (Dr. Ribe’s proposed entry point).  Feel that?  That’s bone.  There was no damage to that bone as illustrated by very close-up autopsy photos of the area.
2. Why didn’t Dr. Ribe collect any bullet evidence from Suzie Pena’s body?  There were significant, sizeable fragments on the x-rays taken at the time of autopsy. It was standard practice at the Coroner’s office to collect ALL bullet fragments, no matter how large or small, and to x-ray bodies before and after autopsy to make sure that all fragments had been collected.

A meeting was eventually set up in August 2005 between the Coroner’s office and members of LAPD.  The meeting took place at the Coroner’s office.  I made a presentation outlining my concerns regarding Suzie Pena’s autopsy.

“Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.”- Eric Hoffer

At the meeting the room was crowded, with about a dozen members of each organization present.  Rubin’s article referred to this meeting as “tense”, which was true.  However, all the members of the Coroner’s office, except Dr. Ribe, were very calm and professional in asking their questions and answering ours.  Dr. Ribe, however, was clearly angry and openly hostile at being questioned about his findings.

Rubin’s article claimed that each point of my presentation was refuted by Dr. Ribe and that Ribe thoroughly explained how he came to his conclusions.  He did no such thing.  His answers could not have been more ridiculous or offensive.  When reading Ribe’s responses below, keep in mind that he delivered these outrageous excuses in a tone of hostile, disgusted, self-righteous indignation.  To summarize the exchanges on some of the questions posed:

• The Bullet Fragments

When presented with the x-rays of Suzie Pena’s body and asked why he didn’t collect the sizeable bullet fragments evident in those images, Ribe responded, “It is my prerogative whether or not to collect evidence at autopsy.”  This was met with a moment of stunned silence from everyone in the room.  He was then asked several different ways by several different people whether or not he came across these large and numerous fragments and what he did with them.  His only response was, “I didn’t see any fragments.”  He was asked repeatedly, “Did you look for fragments?”  He would only say, “I didn’t see any fragments.”  He was finally asked, ““Did you look for fragments, yes or no?”  Ribe refused to say yes or no, choosing instead to stick with his petulant mantra, “I didn’t see any fragments.”

• Skull Fractures
  

It is standard for medical examiners to attempt to reconstruct portions of the skull during an autopsy of someone who sustains head injuries (especially gunshot wounds to the head).  Dr. Yulai Wang, the medical examiner who conducted Jose Pena’s autopsy, did an excellent job in this respect.

When Ribe was asked why he made no attempt to reconstruct the area of what he called the exit wound or any of the skull fractures, his response was astonishing: “There were no skull fractures.”  Yes, Dr. James Ribe, MD, said that a child who suffered a catastrophic gunshot wound to the head sustained “no skull fractures”.  In a room full of people, including his boss, the Chief Medical Examiner of Los Angeles County.

Ribe went on to insist that there were absolutely no skull fractures and that Suzie Pena’s skull separated solely and completely along the sutures of the bones of the skull (the uneven, irregular lines along which the flat bones of the skull are naturally joined. See illustration.).  He then took a couple of minutes to explain that it takes some very complicated and expensive machinery to put these sutures back together and that the LA County Coroner’s office does not have the money for that kind of equipment, therefore it would have been impossible for him to reconstruct Suzie Pena’s skull, so why bother looking at it anyway.  Anyone who has seen the photos from the crime scene or the autopsy can tell you this is wrong.  Even the Coroner’s own radiologist stated in Suzie Pena’s autopsy report that there were multiple skull fractures.

• Bone Damage

Turning to Ribe’s proposed entry wound (remember that left finger at the inner corner of your left eye)… when Ribe was asked about how a bullet could have passed through that area without damaging the underlying bone, he simply said, “I didn’t consider the condition of the underlying bone.  I only looked at the skin.”

Ribe did not adequately answer or explain a single question posed to him.  Not one.  We asked for answers to very valid (and still unanswered) questions and we were met with “I’m a doctor, dammit, how dare you question me.”

Rubin’s article states that the medical examiner who assisted Ribe on Suzie Pena’s autopsy supported Ribe’s conclusions and helped defend Ribe in this meeting.  Again, untrue.  That medical examiner stood up at the beginning of the meeting, before my presentation, to say that he had assisted Ribe on the autopsy and concurred with his findings.  However, at the end of the meeting, after my presentation and Ribe’s absurd behavior, that medical examiner again stood up and addressed the group in an apparent attempt to distance himself from Ribe.  In his second address to the room he said that he wanted to clarify that he had not, in fact, been present at autopsy and had only gone in after Ribe was finished to review Ribe’s basic notes.

I had a conversation with someone from the Coroner’s office in the days following the meeting.  I was told that Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the Chief Medical Examiner, was furious with Ribe’s little display during the meeting and that Dr. Sathyavagiswaran immediately changed the rules which govern how medical examiners perform autopsies at the LA County Coroner’s office to limit the latitude that Ribe felt made it his “prerogative” whether or not to collect crucial evidence during an autopsy.

As it turns out, James Ribe has a long history of missing major injuries and changing his findings.  One of the more high-profile instances of this was the 1995 murder of a toddler, Lance Helms.  Dr. Ribe’s testimony sent Eve Wingfield, Lance’s mother, to prison for his beating death.  The case was later re-opened and Ribe was forced to admit that he had missed some of Lance’s major injuries, which changed the timeline of Lance’s death.  This resulted in Eve Wingfield’s release from prison and the conviction instead of Lance’s father.

So, yes, Dr. James Ribe has sent at least one innocent person to prison.  And he knows it.  As a matter of fact, there have been so many cases in which James Ribe has missed injuries, altered his findings, and changed his testimony in court that at least one murder conviction has been overturned simply because the defense attorneys weren’t informed of Ribe’s history of frequently changing his story (in legal-ese, this is called a Brady violation).  Jim Crogan listed some of the cases where Ribe missed injuries and changed his findings in his August 2003 article for the LA Weekly titled Web of Deceit.

My Conversation with Joel Rubin

In March 2010, I reached out to Joel Rubin’s editor, Matt Lait, in a letter, simply as a place to start.  Rubin promptly called me back which, quite honestly, surprised me.  The conversation, according to my phone bill, lasted 54 minutes.  We talked about the meetings and conversations with the Coroner’s office, the evidence in the case, the outside experts, and Rubin’s sources for his story.

Regarding the source for the story, I had heard that one of the Pena family’s attorneys in their lawsuit against the city had selected and provided the documents used for Rubin’s story.  At the time the article was printed, I thought that surely the LA Times based a lengthy front page article on more than that.  However, Rubin confirmed that no one would talk to him- “No one from LAPD.  No one from the Coroner’s office.  No doctors would talk to me.  No one.”- and that his story was based entirely on some documents that “were given to [him].”  Celeste Fremon also confirmed this in her post regarding Rubin’s article:

But the events are troubling in that they only came out because the paperwork became part of discovery in a big-bucks wrongful death suit against the department.

Celeste also called Rubin’s article “very well researched.”  I found out about James Ribe’s problem identifying major injuries in dead children by Googling his name.  In 2005.  Spot-on again, Celeste.

So… Joel Rubin has no problem admitting that he based 44 inches of front page journalism solely on documents hand-picked by an attorney who was rapidly losing a case that most of the world expected him to win, without clarifying the bias for his readers.  And Rubin has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University.  The one in New York.

For the record, I have no problem with what the attorney did and nor, in my opinion, should you.  He gave his client everything he had.  Say what you will about attorneys but they have a job to do and, when you need one, you want one that will fight like hell for you.

Most of my conversation with Rubin was relaxed and friendly.  I kinda liked the guy. Rubin asked me, point-blank, what my opinion was on whether Suzie Pena was shot by Jose Pena or by one of the SWAT officers.  We discussed quite explicitly whether the evidence pointed to Suzie Pena’s injuries being caused by a contact shot from a handgun (Jose Pena’s weapon) or a distance shot from a high-powered rifle (a SWAT weapon).

Late in the conversation, things were going well and Rubin was relaxed, so I pushed him a little on why he gave LAPD such harsh treatment but didn’t mention Ribe’s past, which made questioning his findings perfectly reasonable.  He first said it was because Ribe had Dr. Sathyavagiswaran’s “staunch” support.  I pointed out that, staunch support or not, Rubin had taken the time to paint me as a clueless rookie but only called Ribe “controversial” without elaborating on the fact that the guy put at least one innocent person in prison.  He got defensive and responded with his epic question:

“Who cares who actually shot her?
They couldn’t pursue criminal charges anyway.”

Now, I have heard some irrational, illogical, inappropriate nonsense issue forth from people who should know better and who represent themselves as being on the opposite philosophical side of the noise coming out of their head, but I can say with absolute certainty that this was the last thing I ever expected to hear from Joel Rubin.  And in that moment I, in my mind, stumbled.

I slowly sputtered, “Um… there’s always… a criminal… investigation… see… it’s a shooting… it’s always investigated… as… a crime… ”  But Rubin, bolder now, interrupted me again with the same incredible question:

“Yeah, but who cares who actually shot her?
They couldn’t pursue criminal charges.”

My brain finally found traction.  From the rapidly growing list in my head of people who would care about knowing who actually killed a toddler, I decided to bring up to Rubin the fact that there are still three SWAT guys walking around with the official “Baby Killer” brand on them courtesy of James Ribe and who have been devastated by the thought that they killed an innocent child.  Rubin relaxed a bit and said, “Yeah, I know.”

At that moment the mood of the conversation changed, silently but dramatically.  Rubin had shit the bed and I was the only witness.  He seemed to be trying to figure out: Does she realize what I said?  Will she tell?  And I was trying to figure out: How do I get out of this conversation without a journalistic bullet to the back of my head?  I’ve already seen the damage this guy is willing to do for attention or a paycheck or whatever it is that drives him.  Now I had to figure out how to get out of this conversation without inspiring more.  Rubin went on the offensive.

Tense and talking faster now, Rubin declared several times that his article had given the LAPD and the Coroner’s office equal treatment and simply stated the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.  He began to read some sentences from his article to me and even e-mailed me the archived version so I could have it in front of me to see how fair and sensible it was (he had called me, so I didn’t have it in hand).  I essentially said, “Yep, you’re absolutely right, buddy.  Thanks so much for your time.”

Obviously Joel Rubin needs an editor between himself and the world at all times.  The share holders of the Tribune Company should be impressed with Sam Zell’s ability to cherry-pick his way to both profitability and journalistic prowess.

Why You Should Care

Journalists like Joel Rubin and Celeste Fremon claim to represent the best interests of the community, pushing for necessary reforms in the criminal justice system and telling it like it is.  They use the credibility of the historic institutions which offer them a platform to promote themselves in the community as beacons of truth and bringers of true justice.  The intellectually, ethically, and journalistically barren results of their efforts damage the community in ways a career criminal never could.

Criminals, even the worst and most horrifically motivated, are limited in the number of people they can hurt at any one time.  Rubin and Fremon affect thousands with every article and internet post.  People read what they have written and they believe it as if it were gospel.  The Los Angeles city council and other officials make decisions that affect the community based on the pressure created from their uninformed drivel.  These are journalists, after all.  They have sources.  They check facts.  They speak only the purest, fully supported truth… don’t they?

Joel Rubin claims he gave the LAPD and the Coroner’s office equal treatment, which he clearly did not.  Rubin, Fremon, and others like them declare that they are only looking out for the best interests of the people of Los Angeles when they blindly condemn law enforcement agencies.

But know this, Joel and Celeste: whether the target of your attention-seeking journalistic efforts is the LAPD, the LA County Sheriff’s Department, Long Beach PD, Hawthorne PD, Redondo Beach PD, or UCLA Campus Police… eventually everybody goes through the LA County Coroner’s office.  So, how much good did you do the people of Los Angeles by hiding the facts about James Ribe and how the Coroner’s office handled this child’s death?