The shootings on the university campus opened a window into the pressure-cooker world of biotechnology start-ups, where scientists often depend on their association with academia for a leg up. Ms. Bishop was part of a start-up that had won an early round of financing in a highly competitive environment, but people who knew her said she had learned shortly before the shooting that she had been denied tenure at the university.
If this is really the window that was opened, I’d say that this NY Times story buried the lede at graf 15 … is the open window really about the pressure cooker world of bio tech startups – or is it, instead, I don’t know, about cover ups and influence in Boston a couple of decades back?
On Saturday afternoon, the police in Braintree, Mass., announced that Ms. Bishop had fatally wounded her brother in their home 24 years ago, which The Boston Globe first reported on its Web site on Saturday. Ms. Bishop was not charged and the case records were no longer available, said Paul Frazier, the Braintree police chief.
“The release of Ms. Bishop did not sit well with the police officers,” Chief Frazier said in a statement, “and I can assure you that this would not happen in this day and age.”
He said that Ms. Bishop had fatally shot her brother, Seth Bishop, in an apparent argument, contradicting the police account at the time, which said it was an accident.
Chief Frazier said that he had spoken with Officer Ronald Solimini, who was on duty at the time of that shooting. At a news conference on Saturday, the chief said that the original account had been inaccurate. The Globe reported that while he was reluctant to use the word “cover-up,” Chief Frazier said it did not “look good” that the detailed records of the case have been missing since 1988.
In 1986, The Globe quoted John Polio, the Braintree police chief at the time, as saying that Ms. Bishop, then about 20, had asked her mother, Judith, how to unload a 12-gauge shotgun. While Ms. Bishop was handling the weapon, it fired, hitting her brother in the abdomen, according to the Globe’s account.
Chief Frazier said in his statement that Officer Solimini “remembers that Ms. Bishop fired a round from a pump-action shotgun into the wall of her bedroom. She had a fight with her brother and shot him, which caused his death. She fired a third round from the shotgun into the ceiling as she exited the home. She fled down the street with the shotgun in her hand. At one point she allegedly pointed the shotgun at a motor vehicle in an attempt to get the driver to stop.”
Another officer, Timothy Murphy, seized the shotgun, and Ms. Bishop was handcuffed and transported to the police station under arrest, Chief Frazier said.
He said that he had spoken with the person who had been the booking officer at the time, who recalled getting a phone call “he believes was from then Police Chief John Polio or possibly from a captain on Chief Polio’s behalf” to stop the booking process. Ms. Bishop was released into the custody of her mother, and the two left the police station via a rear exit, Chief Frazier said.
But Mr. Polio, 87, reached at home on Saturday, called even the suggestion of a cover-up laughable and said that the case had been handled lawfully. He said that he remembered there being a shooting and recalled that Ms. Bishop and her brother were “horsing around.”
“Everything was done that should have been done under the circumstances,” Mr. Polio said in a phone interview. “She was questioned, and then turned over to her mother. The determination was made that we were going to turn the inquiry over to the district attorney.”
The district attorney at the time was William Delahunt, a Democrat, who is now a Congressman.
LN says:
Obvious bias: a more liberal newspaper would have made hay out of the fact that someone who had once killed a family member with a gun could still have legal access to a firearm.
February 13, 2010, 8:41 pmElliot says:
Pressure cooker? Everybody is a victim now.
February 13, 2010, 8:41 pmHarry Eagar says:
Yeah, did this post wander over from some lefty, antigun blug?
February 13, 2010, 8:48 pmThe Drill SGT says:
It’s unbelievable to think that somebody “trying to unload” a 12 gauge pump, could get off 3 rounds killing sombody on round 2.
- first of all, a woman is going to need to have firm control of the gun in order for it not to end up across the room after round 1.
- its going to take at least 5 distinct actions to get 3 rounds off, including at least 2 pumps. There is no way that you accidently pump a shotgun through rounds 2 and 3.
- then of course she ran into the street waving the gun and pointed it at a passing car.
some accident.
February 13, 2010, 8:49 pmGreg Conen says:
Lede confused me, but a little google tells me it apparently a valid term.
February 13, 2010, 8:51 pmGlenn Bowen says:
Well, I guess from her history she must have attended Pressure-Cooker High School if she was compelled to shoot her way out of the “pressure-cooker world of biotechnology start-ups”…
The staff at the NYT could be Twister® champions.
-and:
FWIW she was not charged with anything for the shooting of her brother- no felony, no suspension of 2nd amendment rights.
Looking into the first shooting is gonna be a lulu, brothers :)
February 13, 2010, 9:06 pmAnon Y. Mous says:
I’m curious about why anyone (other than her mother) would have covered for her. I mean, she wasn’t a Kennedy or anything. Why would the Chief of Police intervene on her behalf?
February 13, 2010, 9:08 pmThe Drill SGT says:
simple. The police were waved off:
The mother was politically active, serving in some local position. Alderwoman or some township selectman.
February 13, 2010, 9:12 pmBama 1L says:
All anybody can come up with so far is that her mother worked in municipal government. On the other hand, maybe it really looked like an accident and there was no need to ruin another life.
February 13, 2010, 9:19 pmSkyler says:
How do we know that mom was politically active?
February 13, 2010, 9:20 pmGlenn Bowen says:
Or six.
February 13, 2010, 9:22 pmBob from Ohio says:
“The shotgun was registered to Bishop’s father, Samuel S. Bishop, a professor at Northeastern University. Judith Bishop was active in town affairs and on the personnel board.”
Ah ah. The smoking shotgun!
Seriously. Why would Delahunt kill an investigation for a minor figure? I love a good Willie Horton story to use but we are jumping to some huge conclusions.
February 13, 2010, 9:24 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
The Times was printed in the wee hours of Saturday morning. The information about the prior shooting came to light “on Saturday afternoon”. It could not have been included in today’s paper, and we don’t know where this information might appear in tomorrow’s. These facts thus haven’t been buried, at least in the print edition.
I followed the link in Prof. Anderson’s post and looked at the NYT article. The 1986 shooting is now mentioned in the first sentence, and the “pressure-cooker” language has been moved to paragraph 13.
At some point today the Times’ website must have carried the same version of this article that appeared in print. It has been modified since then, perhaps several times. I’ve seen many articles (on many news sites) about developing stories in which newly-emerging details are just tacked on to the end of the existing article until someone can re-write it to incorporate those facts. That seems to be what happened here. I think Prof. Anderson saw the article while it was in transition and then lept to an incorrect conclusion.
February 13, 2010, 9:24 pmBama 1L says:
Yes, that is exactly what is going on. Yesterday the story seemed to be about guns on campus. This morning it seemed to be about academic politics. Now it seems to be about why the 1986 shooting was not thoroughly investigated. If it turns out tomorrow that she said something to her husband, then that will be the lede.
Professor Anderson just caught the NYT while it was still digesting the 1986 information.
February 13, 2010, 9:33 pmBama 1L says:
Based on both Frazier and Polio’s accounts, it seems like Delahunt would have dropped the investigation because the then-Chief Polio had left him with no case. They just differ on why: Polio says there was no crime and Frazier says Polio had decided to cover up the incident.
February 13, 2010, 9:38 pmBama 1L says:
On Polio’s facts (witnessed accidental shooting while unloading weapon), it seems like there was no crime, just a regrettable firearms accident. Polio made a judgment call that was comprehensible at the time.
On Frazier’s facts (argument, shooting, flight), the shooter got away with some level of homicide back in 1986. The failure to investigate was inexcusable.
Is mom alive? I have missed that detail. She would know if Polio is telling the truth. Are any of the officers Frazier says disagreed with Polio’s decision to let the shooter go going to come forward?
February 13, 2010, 9:42 pmHary Schell says:
Anyone firing three rounds from a 12G shotgun is doing it intentionally or wild bears use outhouses. Has to be, if the facts are so.
February 13, 2010, 9:45 pmWho knows why Delahunt intervened, if so? The world is odd enough that Dr. Phil Jones can hide behind not “organizing data properly” to explain lapses in his AGW case. Only working at it 20+ years…give a guy a break!
Who knows why the booking process ended, but even in “accidental shooting” cases is there not an inquiry by police which is documented? And retained?
Almost, there are no accidental shootings, only negligent shootings. Somewhere in the trail some human screwed up, by omission or comission. No such “accident” involves firing three rounds of anything.
Dave Hardy says:
Haven’t we all had that experience? Try to unload a pump shotgun, have three accidental discharges in a row, and kill somebody. Only later does someone point out you can unload it without emptying the magazine. Duh!
February 13, 2010, 9:46 pmFlimflam says:
Given the year, it seems fair to leap to the assumption that the socialist prof shot her brother for supporting Reagan. What other explanation is there? Then the police covered it up because one less Republican vote was seen as a good thing.
February 13, 2010, 9:51 pmCharlie B says:
There is a Massachusetts State Police report from 1987 at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/13/Full1986Policereport/. The mother was the only witness and she said it was an accident. The shotgun was licensed to the father.
How was law enforcement – police and/or the DA – going to prosecute given these facts?
February 13, 2010, 9:54 pmSkyler says:
Maybe there was a motive in killing the brother that the local gendarmes thought best not to pursue. Maybe he was threatening her, or who knows.
Wasn’t it about that same time frame that the man in Dallas assassinated right on camera the man who molested his son? And wasn’t there a wave of child molestation prosecutions and repressed memories? Perhaps they figured it was just desserts and not worth wasting time on.
I suspect that will be the song being sung soon, anyway. Poor socialist murderer wasn’t really that bad, she was just part of a dysfunctional home.
February 13, 2010, 10:00 pmPhil Smith says:
I’m sure that the defense attorneys here will be thrilled to learn that “my mom said I’m innocent” is now considered probative.
February 13, 2010, 10:09 pmThe Drill SGT says:
It appears that they didn’t try to build a case period. sounds like the case ended in less than 60 minutes. The time it took to cuff her, ride her to the station, and start booking. somebody got to somebody. if not, the wheels of justice would grind on.
Any, and I mean Any detective had to know, given the facts presented, that both the shooter and the witness were lying. flat out lying. the 12 gauge pump could not have been handled as described.
any competent detective would want to find out why, get forensics, hammer the witnesses again and again.
This was a homocide.
February 13, 2010, 10:23 pmCornellian says:
I’m sure that the defense attorneys here will be thrilled to learn that “my mom said I’m innocent” is now considered probative.
It sure is when Mom is the only eyewitness to the incident.
February 13, 2010, 10:30 pmS says:
This post makes no sense, when you click on the linked Times story.
February 13, 2010, 10:35 pmjccamp says:
As others have pointed out, the report of investigation barely covers the factual situation, in that it does establish someone died as a result of fatal gunshot chest trauma. Other than that, it, not to mince words, sucks.
I can’t imagine this is the standard for an ’80′s era death investigation by the Mass State Police.
February 13, 2010, 10:39 pmCaptain Ned says:
No doubt. I own a pump-action rifle (yes, they exist, c.f. Remington Model 760) and there’s no way that three rounds are fired accidentally.
Since she was never charged in her brother’s death, that local D.A. should do his/her best to lay charges.
February 13, 2010, 10:40 pmThe Drill SGT says:
Cpt Ned, it gets better in the updated story:
so everybbody knows the gun is loaded. Sis asks Bro for help when she can’t unload it. He walks around to the front, puts his stomache up against the muzzle and then talks sis through clearing the action. However, she squeezes the trigger and proceeds to pump it 3 times :)
February 13, 2010, 10:47 pmJKB says:
I like how the “investigators” make no mention of physical evidence. You know like the kind, make and caliber of the shotgun, the spent shells and their location, the nature of the prior discharge in her room, the distance from which the victim was shot and whether that corresponded with the statements, etc. No, just mom’s word and they were off to catch some speeders. No discussion of the discrepancies between statements, the fact she put on a jacket but still took the shotgun, whether it was feasible for someone in the home not to hear a shotgun discharge in the bedroom, etc. Amy was afraid of the gun so didn’t listen when instructed but decided to take, load and teach herself about the shotgun on this day. When she couldn’t unload it, she didn’t put it down and get her brother to help her, she attempted to disassemble it, reassembled it and then carried it down a flight of stairs to seek help?
What we know now is that either someone quashed this investigation or the local and State Police were incompetent in 1986. If this is the best the could do in 1986, no wonder they couldn’t sort out Chappaquidik (sp).
And does anyone else find it odd that mom calls an ambulance, then waits at the door, while she knew her son could not survive his wounds? No attempt to render assistance, no attempt to spend his last moments with her son, that’s cold.
February 13, 2010, 10:51 pmBama 1L says:
Good luck with that! The prosecution’s entire case will consist of cops trying to explain why they lied in 1986 but should be believed now.
February 13, 2010, 10:55 pmohismith says:
Sarah Palin is black.
February 13, 2010, 10:58 pmohismith says:
If we can’t defend this professor and her second amendment rights, we can’t defend anything. Come on conspirators, get busy.
February 13, 2010, 10:59 pmOperationCounterstrike says:
A stupid, boring crime. Seriously, this woman had the entire chemical industry at her fingertips and the best she can think of is bang bang bang? ANY MORON CAN FIRE A GUN. There are SO many more interesting ways this woman could have gotten her payback.
I say throw the book at her.
February 13, 2010, 11:00 pmpmk says:
But the conclusion is so delicious because it confirms Prof. A’s predecided stereotype of the namby pamby NYT that mollycoddles liberals, so why not go with it?
February 13, 2010, 11:04 pmthinkstrategically says:
@charlieb
So if three people are in a room, one shoots another three times, and the non-shooter swears it was an accident, you don’t think the cops could bring a case? Hell, even if they couldn’t bring a case, you don’t think they’d investigate for more than an hour?
I think it’s far, far too early to start making claims about cover-ups or political plays. I simply think that given the facts that are being reported, I can’t imagine how this case would be closed so quickly.
February 13, 2010, 11:06 pmBama 1L says:
Well, on the one hand, the witness is the victim’s mother. On the other hand, the witness is the suspect’s mother.
If this were a Dennis Lehane novel, mom would turn to the detective and say, “I’ve lost one child today. Isn’t that enough?”
February 13, 2010, 11:14 pmGene Hoffman says:
I think the concern here is that she should have become a felon in 1986 and not been driven home by the police. The police report here is… Odd.
Even pro-gun folks don’t like people with what should have been a violent felony having firearms generally.
-Gene
February 13, 2010, 11:18 pmthinkstrategically says:
And if this were the Shield, the detective would bludgeon the mom with a phone book until she told him what really happened. le sigh
February 13, 2010, 11:19 pmBama 1L says:
Good point. Somewhere in the middle is the real world.
There are so many officers’ names out now and the current chief is accusing the old chief of implementing a cover-up, so I imagine we’ll get more details in the next few days. I’m going to stop conjecturing till then.
February 13, 2010, 11:31 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Really? Wow. You mean that there’s no way to determine what happened in a shooting without a witness telling the police whether it’s accidental or deliberate? It’s a wonder anybody is ever convicted of murder, if that’s the case. All murder defendants have to do is say, “It was an accident,” and as long as there are no witnesses to contradict them, why, there’s nothing police can do about it.
February 13, 2010, 11:33 pmJames N. Gibson says:
As it is, this story is already taking on a mythos of its own. As even one of the previous responses here has suggested, on Geraldo tonight the story is she pumped her brother three times with 00 buck.
The issues should have been:
February 13, 2010, 11:43 pm1) How do two young people get a hold of Dad’s shotgun and his Ammo stash.
2) Are we to believe gun control Massachusetts allows Shotguns to be left unlocked.
3) If the father wasn’t going to use the gun for home defense he would have kept the gun in two pieces (shotguns are stored dissassembled in cases).
4) If the mom was there why didn’t she stop her daughter from running outside and stopping the car with the gun in her hands.
Oren says:
Especially towards the end of putting some in jail for life that already faces the death penalty in AL.
There’s a difference between no witnesses and a witness that testifies that it was accidental.
February 14, 2010, 12:06 amGlenn Bowen says:
Hole in the brother, hole in the wall, hole in the ceiling, then a jog outside to point the shotgun at a motorist, subdued at gunpoint by the police.
I don’t see a problem with Mom saying it was all an accident.
February 14, 2010, 12:17 amkarrde says:
Everyone, in skimming the official report linked above, I can only see two reported discharges of the firearm, not three…one was upstairs in the bedroom, and another after carrying it downstairs into the kitchen.
I don’t see two (or three) sequential discharges without the person picking up the firearm and moving. She still must have worked the slide between the two discharges…but I don’t see two sequential discharges from a single position, let alone three.
I have a hard time believing the mother’s statement that the house was sound-proof enough to cover a 12-gauge shotgun blast. There was some damage to the daughter’s room, with her claim that it had happened while her mother was downstairs, and no memory of whether the door to her room was open or closed…there’s something fishy, but not impossibly so, about those claims.
However, the story about a single shot while swinging the shotgun from floor-pointing to ceiling-pointing, with a claim of unawareness that the brother was under the muzzle, and a claim that he had begun moving, might be what actually happened.
This doesn’t rule out possible malicious intent on the daughter’s part, but it also doesn’t rule out accidental/negligent discharge.
It is remotely possible that the shooting was accidental, if everyone involved told the truth about the young lady’s lack of training…and if the truth was told about when the damage in the upstairs bedroom occurred…and if the truth was told about how the daughter worked the slide between shots…and if the truth was told about whether the daughter brought the weapon to her shoulder…and if the truth was told about how her finger ended up on the trigger during the movement of the shotgun…and if the parents and daughter didn’t agree to tell a common set of lies to the policeman before the second interview, eleven days after the event.
Finally…for anyone who is reading this, and unsure of the method for unloading a shotgun, some directions are available here for Remington’s model 870. Look for “how to unload” after you’ve found the picture showing which element is the “Action Bar Lock.”
An alternate method is describe here.
February 14, 2010, 12:18 amThe Drill SGT says:
I think you are correct. I for one was confused by the reprise of her story.
February 14, 2010, 12:33 amravenshrike says:
Point out to the jury that unless you have an IQ of less than 70 it’s impossible not to figure out how to unload a pump action shotgun without pulling the trigger on three separate occasions and then running outside and threatening a driver with it.
February 14, 2010, 12:36 amorca says:
Look for this story as the the plot to an episode of one of the half dozen Law & Orders in 3..2..
February 14, 2010, 12:51 amJohn Thacker says:
Except that she didn’t have a permit for the firearm, as the story noted:
February 14, 2010, 12:54 amPinandpuller says:
John Thacker says:
“LN: Obvious bias: a more liberal newspaper would have made hay out of the fact that someone who had once killed a family member with a gun could still have legal access to a firearm.
Except that she didn’t have a permit for the firearm, as the story noted:
After she left the room, the police said, she dumped the gun — for which she did not have a permit — in a second-floor bathroom. The people still in the conference room barred the door, fearing she would return, the faculty member said.”
She didn’t have a concealed carry permit. I don’t think that you have to have a permit to buy or own a pistol in Alabama.
She didn’t have a license to kill either but she did.
February 14, 2010, 1:19 amConsi says:
Some quick thoughts:
1) I only see two shots in the report as well. I think Frazier is saying that there were unwritten reports of 3 shots.
2) I find it implausible to believe that a 20 year old woman, who up to this point is scared of the shotgun, loads it and discharges it accidentally, then picks it up again. If the shotgun was held up to her shoulder at the time of the first discharge, she would have been shocked by the kick from the gun. If the shotgun was not held up to her shoulder at the time of discharge, she would have scared to death when the shotgun went who know where after discharging. In either event, she does not try to unload it.
3) In light of the above, I find it implausible to believe that she did not intentionally pump load the next shell.
4) There was an argument between the father and daughter prior to the discharge of the shotgun. It is after this argument that the daughter loses her fear of the shotgun. Unusual.
5) There is no mention if the shotgun was loaded or not when it was taken from the daughter. This particular model holds three shells, unless it has been modified, at which time I think it holds five. Would like to know how many shells she loaded initially. I would also like to know if she was pointing a loaded weapon at an innocent member of the Commonwealth.
6) Mom’s story does not agree with daughter’s story. The daughter’s story is implausible in regards to how that shotgun discharged. If the shotgun, in effect discharged from the hip, it would not have remained in hands. In fact, it is likely in mind that she should have had lacerations on her fingers.
7) I don’t care if the only witness was the victim’s mother, she was also the shooter’s mother.
8) Too many things just do not add up. So many things that it is not possible in my mind that it was incompetence or poor decision-making by the police or the DA.
February 14, 2010, 1:28 amCornellian says:
I’m sure that the defense attorneys here will be thrilled to learn that “my mom said I’m innocent” is now considered probative.
It sure is when Mom is the only eyewitness to the incident.
Really? Wow. You mean that there’s no way to determine what happened in a shooting without a witness telling the police whether it’s accidental or deliberate? It’s a wonder anybody is ever convicted of murder, if that’s the case.
You’re confusing “probative” with “dispositive.”
February 14, 2010, 1:49 amCurt Fischer says:
Having the “pressure cooker world of biotechnology startups” as the ledge definitely makes no sense, but I think my view of why no sense was made is dfferent than most posting here. The shootings allegedly happened on the day the *university* informed *Professor* Bishop that she wouldn’t get *tenure*.It sure seems like it opens up a world into the pressure cooker, publish-or-perish world of untenured junior professors, and has little or nothing to do with companies the professor may have been associated with.
February 14, 2010, 3:26 amJames N. Gibson says:
Your right, you don’t need a permit to own a handgun or pistol in Alabama. And all you have to do if fill out the paperwork stating that you are not a convicted felon, drug user or perpetual Drunkard. There appears to be a waiting period from my read of the statutes but its less then three days. Alabama is also a may issue state which means if she was in good stead with the Sheriff she probably could have gotten a CCW by just asking for one.
February 14, 2010, 4:26 amJeff Walden says:
My reading was that Professor Anderson was surprised that an article would use such a bizarre angle to open, when the actual body contained a far juicier angle that should have been exploited instead — the point being, “How do you misdiagnose the primary issue in a story like this so spectacularly?” Nothing liberal or conservative about it, just a News 101-style error. Of course, the comments suggesting that this was caught in a half-edited state easily explain the wrinkle if they’re correct.
(Speaking of which, am I the only person who thinks the NYT shouldn’t be editing published stories like this, at least not for substantial changes [anything more than basic typo-fixing or very minor fact-fixing, say]? Clarifying note at beginning or end, maybe, but once it’s out there you get confusion like this happening.)
February 14, 2010, 4:29 amfit to print says:
this is not an exclusive nyt practice, but a standard practice for the online versions of all major newspapers.
February 14, 2010, 5:55 amJPG says:
How cute. You must be new to the Volokh Conspiracy to believe prof. Anderson picking on the NYT is coincidental.
February 14, 2010, 6:06 amJeff Walden says:
I’ve been reading posts here since before Prof. Anderson became a Conspirator, and I don’t think of him as aggressively partisan or antagonistic toward the NYT or other putatively-liberal news outfits.
Even assuming that were the case, this in particular doesn’t seem to be a liberal bias issue. I mean, really: biotech startup competitiveness as a liberal shibboleth? News to me. Or is it about avoiding talking about an apparently-botched decades-old investigation? Again, I’m not sure I see how that’s liberal bias. (Bias in favor of the police chief maybe, but that’s conspiracy-theory land.) (And no, I’m certainly not a closet liberal or liberal apologist, but I don’t see how this post gets anti-liberal antagonism read into it.)
The NYT seems to perform the corrections most extensively of the places I’ve seen make live changes. A word or a phrase is one thing (and that, everyone does, and I don’t mind it), entire section rearrangement and primary-angle changes are completely different.
February 14, 2010, 6:15 amButternut says:
Poor old NYT. Fact tripped up their theme. The professor’s accident of 24 years ago makes the planned “pressure cooker” defense unusable.
Did you see the picture of her? The news division at NYT should turn this over to the Style section and let them push the “bad hair day” defense.
February 14, 2010, 6:27 amCharlie B says:
Consi says:8) Too many things just do not add up.
No argument. The question remains how to prosecute when the only witness says it was an accident.
James N. Gibson says: 1) How do two young people get a hold of Dad’s shotgun and his Ammo stash.
They were both old enough to vote per the 26th Amendment.
February 14, 2010, 7:59 amKharn says:
Only super-expensive break-action shotguns are stored in two pieces in wood cases. Pump actions (usually a much cheaper firearm) are almost universally stored whole, since the magazine tube negates most of the length savings from removing the barrel. Or, even if the barrel was removed, you slide it into the reciever/onto the magazine tube and tighten the magazine cap until it stops, its not hard, 11 year olds learn how to do it at Scout camp every summer.
February 14, 2010, 8:21 amS says:
You mean the story in today’s NYT print edition: A Previous Shooting Death at the Hand of Alabama Suspect ?
February 14, 2010, 8:32 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Well, this is all baseless conjecture until the facts of the brother’s shooting are better established. I would like to know if other Braintree police records from the time are missing, though.
February 14, 2010, 8:36 ammls says:
What Jeff Walden said. Professor Anderson read a NYT article that, on its face, bizzarely buried the most important information at the end of the story. The explanation for that is undoubtedly as described by other commenters, although one might think that information of this significance to the story would be added at the top of the article. But regardless, the NYT has fixed the problem. That ought to be end of this thread. I am sure we could go on for days speculating about Professor Anderson’s biases, or comparing them to the NYT’s, but . . . why?
February 14, 2010, 9:04 amkarrde says:
Did I miss anything in the official report?
Where was the firearm when the incident ended? Was it in the control of the young lady, or still in the kitchen?
In the first case, I have a hard time believing both that she was untrained and that the shooting was accidental. In the second case, it could well have been accidental or negligent handling on her part.
That little detail (plus the fact that eleven days elapsed between incident and official interviews) makes me suspect that a cover-up was happening.
However, I still wonder whether the official report forgot about one of the firearm-discharges, or the papers made up the third blast.
February 14, 2010, 9:05 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
IANAL. But I suspect that when the story the police are given is not consistent with the facts, and the facts ARE consistent with a story that can and should be used as a base for prosecution, not to mention that you have a dead person whose death needs to be accounted for some way, the fact that the suspect’s mother exonerates her is not sufficient to prevent prosecution. At least, I hope it’s not.
February 14, 2010, 9:42 amS says:
There sure is allot of ‘cold case’ speculation going on here. You honestly think you can reasonably speculate on what happened in that house 24 years ago, given the scant info?
February 14, 2010, 10:10 amOrson Buggeigh says:
The ‘pressure cooker’ defense seems harder to buy when one considers the way the process works. The professor should be aware of how many publications and other requirements they will need to meet by the deadline for submission of their formal application for tenure. If she hears that she wasn’t getting tenure, she should have been aware of the reasons the department personnel committee was not recommending her. The description of the shooting sounds more like she knew what was coming, and why, so she decided to get even.
The fact that professor Bishop was involved in an earlier shooting, and that that investigation was handled in a manner so different than the normal shooting investigation should have excited interest on the part of most reporters. One would suspect that Amy Bishop may have serious issues with anger management. The possibility of political interference with a shooting investigation would be of great interest under other circumstances, i.e. if this were not someone tied to a Democratic politician. The NYT didn’t see anything noteworthy about these events. Which is why this appears to be a classic example of burying the lede. Re-define this as a story about the stresses of academic life, not a person who shoots people who cross her.
February 14, 2010, 10:13 amsubpatre says:
The circumstances point to a previous thread and my comment posted in defense of ‘discharge firearms within city limits‘ type ordinances.
Had this misdemeanor been used in 1986 to reveal what happened, there would be a solid factual and legal foundation for what is only speculation today. The lack of even that minor charge speaks volumes about the law enforcement —or lack of— climate at the time.
February 14, 2010, 10:26 amS says:
Orson: The story says she didn’t get tenure because she was a poor teacher and did not get along with colleagues and if you click on the story they did not ‘bury the lead.’
February 14, 2010, 10:43 amtamerlane says:
I actually have a relative working in the Braintree city government. There’s a lot more to this story than is going to readily make its way into the paper. Delahunt will evntually have a lot of explaining to do. For those who don’t believe these kind of shennanigans happen frequently in Massachusetts I’ll mention two cases where the evidence suggests that persons were framed for capital crimes they did not commit: Garret Byrnes’ pinning the “Boston Strangler” murders on Albert DeSalvo and his successor pinning the murder of Marie Ianuzzi on Leonard Paradiso (in the latter case it also got the Irish boyfriend off the hook). In Massachusetts, political influence regularly gets the guilty a free pass, e.g., Ted Kennedy. It also less frequently leads to frame-ups.
February 14, 2010, 10:53 amJohn Thacker says:
Yes, what happened is that the online version of the article was subject to live rewrites, and the new lede was added first in the middle as the news was broken by the Globe, and then migrated up to be the lede.
It’s understandable that people might be confused and surprised by live rewrites, though. One might expect the online article to match the print, or some kind of indication when the article is changed, or the site not to post still in-flux versions. (Those expectation would be incorrect, though.)
February 14, 2010, 11:26 amS says:
John: It makes sense to me that if you are an online news and a print news outlet, you would change the online article, as info becomes available, until you go to print.
February 14, 2010, 11:32 amHarry Eagar says:
I suspect, based on what’s here, a summary judgment, though not a political coverup.
First homicide I ever covered, as a teenager, involved a husband chasing his wife around the house. Their son, 14, hid behind a door and when he dad ran past, gave him 2 loads of 12-gauge in the back.
I interviewed the sheriff a few hours later. ‘Are you going to charge the boy?’
‘Hell, no! I’d done the same thing.’
February 14, 2010, 12:14 pmOren says:
Yup, that one. They buried the lede so hard it came all the way back up to the headline.
February 14, 2010, 12:23 pmCatharine says:
Perhaps now would be a good time for employers to update their employment applications and online dating questionnaires to include a specific inquiry: “Have you ever shot anyone?”
February 14, 2010, 12:58 pmEli Rabett says:
This is one of those things where the pressure to say something buries common sense. First of all information is just coming out. Second people are still in shock and mouring.
February 14, 2010, 1:02 pmtamerlane says:
Except that from what I’m beginning to hear the girl was well-known as a violent whackjob and her mother, the police chief and other politicians got her off the hook on other occassions. Like I said earlier, this may never reach today’s papers. It’s common gossip around town but could be verified by interviewing multiple sources. The problem is it would take a lot of leg work to track the story down, today’s reporters lack the stamina, and editors wouuld just as soon bury a story that throws dirt on prominent democrat politicians in this state.
February 14, 2010, 1:05 pmTRE says:
corruption has consequences. not just degrading the moral and ethical fabric of the nation.
February 14, 2010, 1:14 pmBT says:
I wonder what her life has been like in the ensuing 24 years since killing her brother? She no doubt has numerous former co-workers, class mates, boyfriends, etc., and what take do they have on her? If she killed her brother in anger (which is obviously the case with this most recent incident) there is little doubt that she has expressed or acted out that anger in other ways to any number of other people over the years. Obviously she hasn’t killed anyone else (that we know of) but she could have threatened people or acted out her anger in other ways.
Also I wonder about the relationship between mother and the son that was killed. The mother’s behavior at the time of his death seems awfully callous and given the fact that the mother vouched for the “accident” theory which gave her daughter a get out of jail free card may mean that there is more to this story than meets the eye.
February 14, 2010, 1:21 pmBama 1L says:
Welcome to the Internet!
February 14, 2010, 1:28 pmLN says:
Left-wing bias headline: “A Previous Shooting Death at the Hand of Alabama Suspect.”
Objective headline: “The Democrats are radical socialists hellbent on destroying our great nation. Obama should be impeached and Sarah Palin/Scott Brown must be elected in 2012.”
February 14, 2010, 1:34 pmLN says:
Also, many commenters seem to be confused about what prompted the Professor’s post. Anderson says that IF the biotech startup angle is really a big deal, THEN the NYT buried the lede by placing it in paragraph 15. In other words, even the version he read didn’t open with the biotech angle — it placed it in paragraph 15.
This was pure passive aggressiveness. I was the very first commenter on this thread, and when I clicked on his link the article was titled “A Previous Shooting Death…” KA read the entire article, was outraged that the partisan affiliation of the district attorney was not its primary focus, and passive-aggressively decided to make a big deal about paragraph 15 by accusing the NYT of “burying the lede” even though he surely agrees that paragraph 15 is the right place to put the observations about biotech startups. (This case IS opening a window into that world, because people are interested in knowing more about the circumstances of this murder, even if the murder cannot be explained or justified by the pressure of that world.) Pathetic.
February 14, 2010, 1:43 pmPurple Koolaid says:
Well, I like the NYT article better than the SFGate blogger that said since she graduated from Harvard she experienced “anti-intellectual prejudice from the Alabama-Huntsville culture that could have just driven Bishop batty”
February 14, 2010, 1:53 pmGIMME A BREAK!! We should all blame it on Palin and her “Professor” remarks.
A. Zarkov says:
One of Bishop’s students in an otherwise positive review described her as a “socialist” in 2009. Here’s the whole entry,
Of course this is only one student’s opinion, and his description of her as “hot” doesn’t say much about his powers of observation. This is hot? In general she mixed reviews from her students, some describe her as an “excellent teacher,” while others call her “horrible.”
February 14, 2010, 2:01 pmthinkstrategically says:
You missed the point. When this post was written, the article led with the discussion of startups. The information about the previous shooting was buried toward the end. The NYT article has since been updated to reflect that.
February 14, 2010, 2:01 pmthinkstrategically says:
Amusing coincidence:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/13/delahunt_says_he_is_considering_leaving_his_seat/?page=1
“US Representative William Delahunt said yesterday that he is considering retiring from his congressional seat representing the South Shore and Cape Cod, although he portrayed his deliberations as routine and said they are not related to challenges from Republicans who are energized by Scott Brown’s upset victory in last month’s special Senate election”
February 14, 2010, 2:04 pmSarahW says:
Tamerlane, like what other occassions?
February 14, 2010, 2:26 pmHarry Eagar says:
A socialist hunting venture capital for a private biotech startup? This tends to confirm my view that not one American in 10,000 has any idea what a socialist is, and I am not excluding VC habitues.
February 14, 2010, 2:33 pmLN says:
You missed the point. When this post was written, the article led with the discussion of startups. The information about the previous shooting was buried toward the end. The NYT article has since been updated to reflect that.
No, you missed the point. Read what KA wrote:
Read carefully… he says the NYT buried the lede at graf 15… IF the window that was opened was into the world of biotech startups.
As I said, I was the first commenter in this thread, and the article was already titled “A Previous Shooting…” when I clicked on the link.
Also, note that the long batch of writing about the MA killing that KA quotes must be FROM the NYT article at the time he wrote the post. Do you really think the NYT article started with the bit about biotech startups and then went into a long discussion of the previous shooting?
I haven’t missed the point at all. You’re being more charitable than the good Professor deserves. Read his post carefully.
February 14, 2010, 2:47 pmRowerinVA says:
I don’t know what did happen in 1986 but I know what certainly did not happen:
1. The gun did not go off when it was being unloaded. In every design of pump-action shotgun available in 1986, unloading the gun is done through a bypass (so that the shell never enters the firing chamber — it comes out of the tube directly) or is done through the open chamber (so that the shell goes into the open chamber, then falls out the side, bottom, or top). In neither case is it possible to fire the weapon.
2. Pump-action shotguns cannot be fired accidentally more than one time. They are not automatic, meaning they do not pump (expel a spent shell and load a new, live shell) by themselves.
3. The trigger did not go off without being pulled with significant force. Unless it was specifically altered, the trigger force was at least 5 and usually 6.5 pounds. Brushing it, jostling the gun, etc. does not make a shotgun go off. You must pull the trigger, hard. Why are shotguns made this way? For safety, and because there is no reason to make them “light” in the trigger pull. Shotguns are not made for precise long-range shooting and, as a result — unlike certain rifles that are made for target accuracy or long range shooting — they do not need light trigger pulls to avoid yanking the sights off target. Shotguns triggers therefore are heavy-pull-weight for safety, and for use with gloved hands (game hunted with shotguns tends to be cold-weather game) that won’t feel a trigger precisely.
4. The gun did not go off until someone took the safety off. All widely-available shotguns, unless modified, have safeties. None are designed so that the safety can be taken off accidentally.
So we know this: the gun wasn’t in the act of being unloaded, someone took the safety off, and someone pulled hard on the trigger while the gun was aimed at the brother. We don’t know from the article which was the fatal shot, but we do know that someone fired once, then manually pumped the gun and fired twice more.
There is no way this was an accident. It may have been self defense, or a suicide followed by a cover up, or something else. But accident? Not possible, if the facts as reported are correct (big if).
February 14, 2010, 3:12 pmPintler says:
While the facts of the instant case don’t seem to point to an accidental shooting, it has been my experience that quite a few people don’t know how to unload a pump shotgun other than by racking shells through the chamber. There are also models (older Ithacas??) where holding the trigger down and cycling the action results in the gun firing each time the action closes.
If you are attempting to unload a gun, and it fires unexpectedly, my advice is to put it down rather than continue trying :-(.
February 14, 2010, 3:32 pmA. Zarkov says:
Yes socialists are anything but consistent. Look at Armand Hammer president of Occidental Petroleum, contributor to Richard Nixon and yet agent of influence for the Soviet Union. See the excellent and highly detailed biography of Hammer Dossier, by Edward J. Epstein. Let’s not also forget that Friedrich Engels was an industrialist as well as a communist. Lenin did a complete about face with his New Economic Policy. In fact strictly speaking Lenin was not a Marxist. By adopting a rigid and narrow definition for terms like “socialist,” “Marxist,” and “communist,” no one qualifies. The question of exactly who is a Marxist and what Marxism actually means have vexed the left for decades. Read the Hungarian György Lukács. Or better yet start with Leszek Kołakowski.
February 14, 2010, 3:39 pmKirk Lazarus says:
It’s a pretentious archaic spelling of “lead” (as in follow).
February 14, 2010, 3:53 pmLN says:
Yes, when people are accused of being socialists, any evidence that they are not socialists is simply proof of their hypocrisy. QED.
February 14, 2010, 4:22 pmjUSTICE says:
i HAVE TO SAY – duh!!!
First of all the parents were BOTH connected and politically active. I am from a suburb of another corrupt dem stronghold. Someone does not have to be high up in national politics to have pull. And from what I’ve seen they did.
And most importantly – please don’t comment if you are clueless (to all of the posters). If the gun belonged to the parents and this happened in their home, THEY would also have some level of legal (and moral) responsibility. They could have been charged with facilitation or even criminally negligent homicde/manslaughter. So why would Mom lie??? Maybe to cover her own and her husband’s ass as well as her own?
February 14, 2010, 4:23 pmLN says:
I was living in Braintree in 1986 and it was well-known at the time that Seth Bishop was a big supporter of Republican policies. The Bishop murder was just one of many hits on young Republicans that the corrupt Democratic establishment covered up. (Did you know that the woman Willie Horton raped after coming out of prison was also a Republican?) I heard from definitive sources that Amy Bishop, Seth Bishop, and their mother were having an argument about the progressivity of the tax code, and that is what prompted the cold-blooded murder of a very promising young conservative. (Seth Bishop would have been a leading Republican candidate for President in 2012, if he had survived.) And oh yeah, I forgot — paramedics actually arrived on the scene with an opportunity to save his life, but when they found out about his conservative political views they let him die. Typical socialist hypocrisy, caring about “helping the unfortunate” until it turns out that the unfortunate is a conservative white male, then they shoot him and let him die and cover up his murder.
February 14, 2010, 4:42 pmDennis N says:
Unlike Capitalists, Libertarians, Presbyterians, Bird Watchers, or Cubs Fans. ;-)
February 14, 2010, 4:55 pmSarahW says:
Tamerlane – Is THIS what you were talking about?
Cheezit Crackers!
February 14, 2010, 4:58 pmDon de Drain says:
I have no doubt that somewhere in the blogosphere there will soon be a story speculating that the earlier shooting may have been motivated by the fact that her brother was going to publicly reveal the truth about Obama’s birth certificate. Maybe Orly Taitz will argue this in her next court filing.
LN, I concur with your observations and conclusions. But, despite the fact that no one here has any personal knowledge of any of the facts, the reported “facts” seem more than a bit odiferous for Delahunt. I have no doubt that there are cover ups of potential (alleged) criminal activity, even activity with firearms, due to political influence. Maybe we can have a panel discussion of this topic with Rep. Delahunt and former VP Cheney.
February 14, 2010, 5:01 pmCato The Elder says:
Nice summary, RowerInVA, thanks.
February 14, 2010, 5:28 pmtamerlane says:
Nope. But Braintree is not that big a place and there’s a lot of residential stability. The gossip is presenting a fairly consistent picture of a girl who got a way with more than just murdering her brother, although other incidents were obviously less extreme. I’m hoping this story is hot enough for the reporters to really dig into. But this is Massachusetts and the Globe is the leading paper. They’ll probably do about as good a job on this as they did on Chappaquidick.
February 14, 2010, 7:25 pmDerHahn says:
It’s a pretentious archaic spelling of “lead” (as in follow).
Just like having the words two, to, and too is pretentious and archiaic .. not to mention doubleplusungood.
February 14, 2010, 7:33 pmjccamp says:
There are now news stories that the professor was also a suspect in the attempted pipe bombing of a doctor (who reportedly was going to evaluate her poorly) while she was a post-doc candidate. The FBI never charged her, although the reports claim she was the main suspect.
The bomb failed to detonate. At the time of the investigation, the professor was writing a book about a fictional character who murders her brother, and then takes up a science career in his honor. Or something equally bizarre.
It sounds as though Professor Bishop was not a woman to scorn lightly.
February 14, 2010, 8:21 pmDennis Nicholls says:
This story is unraveling at a rapid rate in the press…
Boston Globe/NY Times now is reporting Amy AND her husband were prime suspects in a 1993 pipe bomb attack on a Harvard Medical School professor. Their house was searched. The case was never solved and nobody was ever charged.
February 14, 2010, 8:24 pmLN says:
And what do we hear from the MSM? Crickets chirping.
February 14, 2010, 8:27 pmDennis Nicholls says:
Actually the word “lead” has two common meanings: in first position, or the chemical element Pb. Years ago this caused confusion at newspapers who were using lead “hot type” at the time: paragraphs on the press were literally made of metallic lead. For this reason journalists agreed to use “lede” as meaning in first position and “lead” to mean metallic lead.
February 14, 2010, 8:36 pmA. Zarkov says:
The hypocrisy of socialists is not the issue here. It’s the assertion that someone who is involved in a business venture can’t be or is highly unlikely to be a socialist. That assertion simply doesn’t match the facts of history. In today’s world being a socialist on campus is in no way career killing, it might even be career enhancing. We need other evidence.
February 14, 2010, 8:57 pmBama 1L says:
Well, that cracks the case. She felt horrible about killing her brother and wanted to become a great scientist. Get it: the character in the novel was her. She relapsed into violence every time that dream of redemption was threatened. So it’s no surprise she sent the bomb and, now, mowed down her department. They weren’t letting her develop into the good person she was.
I knew watching all those episodes of Law & Order would pay off!
February 14, 2010, 9:24 pmjccamp says:
it is kind of a cliche’, isn’t it? Of course, it does raise the question of who else may raised this lady’s ire over the years, and suffered a fatal accident? Given the nature of the current offense, such curiosity is academic really. It should be followed up on, though, and the investigators in the original case from 1986 have a lot to answer for.
February 14, 2010, 9:43 pmLN says:
A. Zarkov: that’s a surprisingly nuanced view on logic and evidence given that the other side of the equation is “look what someone wrote on RateMyProfessor.com.”
February 14, 2010, 9:45 pmHarryEagar says:
I think I’ll stick with my supposition that the student doesn’t have any idea what a socialist is, and — based on a separate field of evidence — hardly anybody else does either.
It’s true, though, that sometimes socialists put money in private firms. I have been watching a video of the Tea Party convention up the road in Nashville, and it seems pretty solidly held there that Obama is a socialist, although he did oversee the transfer of some trillions from the public fisc to predatory private businesses. But, hey! What socialist hasn’t done that from time to time?
February 14, 2010, 10:38 pmkimsch says:
Of course, that kind of socialism is just for “other people”. The socialists will take your money and give it to someone else. But they’ll keep their own money. Because somebody has to run things and those people running things can’t have their money taken from them. They need their money, and more, to be able to run things. They are the elite aristocrats donchaknow.
February 14, 2010, 11:49 pmA. Zarkov says:
I thought that I had ridiculed the student enough to indicate I didn’t put much stock in his calling anyone a “socialist.” He couldn’t even spell it correctly.
February 15, 2010, 12:40 amA. Zarkov says:
I think one could make a case for Obama being a “cultural Marxist.” Of course it’s hard to say anything definite about Obama since he has no paper trail other than two vanity books. Despite the deeply self centered focus of Dreams, some Frankfurt-School type of critical analysis leaks through wrapped in racial garb. This does not necessarily make him a socialist, but he does seem analyze and interpret America in the way someone influenced by Marcuse would. If he is a socialist, it’s a funny kind of socialism. No proletariat. If anything he exhibits hostility to the working class.
February 15, 2010, 1:03 amSara says:
There was a comment on Amy Bishop’s ratemyprofessor page…comment dated 4/14/08
Up to the day of her recent killings, it said:
“Neuroscience essentially turns into a bioethics class. She’s a liberal from “Hahvahd” and let’s you know exactly how she feels about particular subjects. Class is a breeze, but you’ll have to put a bit of concentrated effort into a few things”
***************
By the evening of the killings, the above comment was removed and replaced with:
RATING UNDER REVIEW
***************
It seems odd that the website instantly removed a comment that was made years ago…and obviously, at one time… approved…because someone called her a liberal?
February 15, 2010, 3:10 amSteve (CT) says:
Somehow, I think this revelation is important in understanding her state of mind:
February 15, 2010, 4:44 amA family source said Bishop, a mother of four children – the youngest a third-grade boy – was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.
Martha says:
Agreed on the oddness, but I doubt that ratemyprofessor.com has any desire to shield liberals.
February 15, 2010, 9:42 amLN says:
Presumably visitors to the website can report comments, which may automatically put the comment “under review,” until the comment is reviewed and deleted/modified/left untouched. Really not that weird.
February 15, 2010, 9:54 amtamerlane says:
The Boston Herald actually has had some reporters thinning their shoe leather in Braintree. See here and here. There’s a lot more there if they exert themselves a little more. The Globe is scared of what it might find. Don’t expect any more on this story from that paper.
February 15, 2010, 11:08 ammack says:
State police report indicates a number of discrepancies – mother reports Amy was asking for her help with shotgun – but Amy stated she was asking her brother and talking to him. Mother states first shot in Amy’s bedroom not heard probably due to the house having good soundproofing and yet Amy reports that she heard her brother downstairs and went to seek his help with unloading the gun after shooting the shotgun in the enclosed space of her bedroom. A shotgun blast is very loud especially in a room in a house and would be too loud not to be heard and someone shooting a shotgun in a room would have immediate hearing impairment from doing so and would be unlikely to hear someone downstairs unless that person was yelling. Also if has been stated the shotgun was a pump shotgun then it would not reload after being shot one time unless action was manually cycled or pumped. No mention is made of Amy’s taking shotgun with her and threatening employee of a car dealership in an attempt to steal a car before being arrested by police. All of which do not point to an accident.
Since this is the internet here is my pure unadulterated speculation – Amy and her father have argument, (over marital problems and fathers threat to divorce her mother, due to moms affair with chief of police). Amy is enraged at father or mother because of affair or possible divorce and goes up to her room as her father leaves to go shopping(cool down) – Amy get shotgun and loads it – being unfamiliar with how it works she loads it and pulls trigger to see if it works – it does and puts hole in her bedroom wall, she pumps it to load another round in chamber, and starts downstairs planning to shoot dad or mom when he/she gets home, mom gets home, she is about to shoot mom when brother gets in the way trying to save mom or brother enters kitchen and Amy shoots thinking it is mom or dad coming into kitchen. Amy flees the scene with shotgun and trys to steal a car from car dealership but is arrested. Mom calls ambulence, then calls police chief and tells him what happened – police chief and mom discuss story to tell and police chief agrees to let amy go. Mom and Dad discuss story – agree to shutup together and not lose only remaining child. Police Chief facing scandalous affair with tragic homicide covers up. Mom guilty over affair that lead to death of son covers up. Dad guilty over dicussion/argument with Amy that precipitated her actions feels guilty so covers up. Amy goes along with story.
February 15, 2010, 11:28 amJohn Herbison says:
Interesting stuff in the linked articles. I wonder how this woman came to locate in Northern Alabama.
February 15, 2010, 11:56 amLN says:
In academia, you go where the jobs are.
February 15, 2010, 11:59 amArthur Kirkland says:
It sounds like more justice might have been effected had the intrafamilial shooting occurred in ” Brainerd instead of in Braintree.
February 15, 2010, 12:13 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The car dealership employee’s story is horrifying. She pointed that gun at him. He is damn lucky to be drawing breath right now.
February 15, 2010, 12:43 pmA. Zarkov says:
Her running into a car dealership to steal a car was hardly an “accident.” Did she also “accidentally” put a gun to someone’s chest? Even if she shot her brother unintentionally, why was she not charged with attempted armed robbery? I could understand why if her name were “Kennedy” and not “Bishop.”
I wonder if she will get capital punishment. They don’t like wacko Yankees coming down to Alabama and killing southerners.
February 15, 2010, 1:06 pmHarry Eagar says:
mack, that’s more complicated than my speculation, but yours is quite satisfying. I doubt we’ll ever know.
February 15, 2010, 1:23 pmmack says:
Heck, Law and Order might get a two parter out of this one. First the school shootings, an attempted pipe bombing of a professor, and then the family shooting. Sad part is evidently she has children.
February 15, 2010, 1:43 pmLN says:
They don’t like wacko Yankees coming down to Alabama and killing southerners.
Interestingly, all of the deceased were colored folk, and one of them was an immigrant. Typical liberal hypocrisy, claiming to be pro-immigrant and pro-civil rights and then murdering immigrants and black people. I swear to God, liberalism is like a disease.
February 15, 2010, 1:48 pmA. Criminal says:
Sure, why not? Maybe she was trying to get in on the “Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund” scam.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19opclassic.html?_r=1
“What is socialism? In its purest form, socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production. Ownership of anything implies the right to the income produced by that thing. … The U.S. is now 45 percent socialist.” — M. Friedman in 1989. (FWIW, he updated the 45% to 50% in 1991).
It’s clear that Bishop is/was a socialist because:
February 15, 2010, 2:29 pm– She was employed at a socialist organization (a state school).
– Far more importantly: the hair-do.
HarryEagar says:
So, is he going to come back from the dead and revise his figures downward now that umpty-trillion public dollars have been transferred back to private business?
You guys aren’t doing anything to make me think my original comment was incorrect.
February 15, 2010, 3:28 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Harry Eagar, I suspect that once the usual amount of corruption sets in, socialism and crony capitalism are pretty much the same: an elite using the government to do one another favors while telling everyone else to be grateful for it.
February 15, 2010, 4:39 pmneurodoc says:
Oh, but there’s more to consider than just the ’86 fatal shooting of her brother. Seven years later, there was reason to suspect that Dr. Bishop tried to kill a faculty mentor with a bomb.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/ala_slay_suspec.html
February 15, 2010, 4:49 pmclyde says:
she was arrested after the shooting at a car dealer for using the same shotgun to get a getaway car.at what point does prosecutorial indescretion become obstrution of justice.
February 15, 2010, 5:33 pmneurodoc says:
Huh? Wasn’t Seth Bishop the 18-year-old younger brother she killed in 1986? He was expected to be “a leading Republican candidate for President in 2012, if he had survived”?!
February 15, 2010, 6:54 pmJeff Walden says:
I think your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.
February 15, 2010, 7:32 pmBama 1L says:
You can be sure UAH was neither her nor her colleagues’ first choice, but that’s academia. You get to do what you want and in return you have nearly no control over where you do it.
February 15, 2010, 10:08 pmHenry Schaffer says:
Yes, they weren’t required to have a “disconnector”, and so could be fired in that manner. (Actually it makes it slightly easier to shoot skeet doubles – although shooting skeet with a pump shotgun makes sense only for people who really like a challenge.) This includes the (early) Ithaca Model 37 and probably the Winchester Model 12.
Modern pump shotguns are required to have a trigger “disconnector”.
February 15, 2010, 10:28 pmcm smith says:
Ditto.
From the report, the state trooper would appear to also not know anything about shotguns.
February 17, 2010, 7:41 pmhunter sloane says:
Entitled white women make me sick. She kills THREE professors of color. I’d call that a little racist. In Alabama, that might be just the thing to get her tenure and a lead horse position at the local KKK parade. Ya———–hoooooooooooooooooooo!
Of course, from one of the photos, I’d've thought it was her husband that looked like he was a killer. Maybe their both nuts. And her mom too.
February 21, 2010, 7:00 pm