1993 film "Philadelphia Experiment II" DVD video: [ RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS US Title 18 ]
00:19:50
David Herdeg: Where you driving to, kid?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184906/releaseinfo
IMDb
The Internet Movie Database
Release dates for
Since Pearl Harbor (1943)
Country Date
USA 18 February 1943
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107819/releaseinfo
IMDb
The Internet Movie Database
Release dates for
Philadelphia Experiment II (1993) [ RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS US Title 18 ]
Country Date
USA 12 November 1993 (New York City, New York)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030764/releaseinfo
IMDb
The Internet Movie Database
Release dates for
A Slight Case of Murder (1938)
Country Date
USA 26 February 1938 (New York City, New York)
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/25/us/focus-on-susan-smith-s-lies-and-a-smile.html
The New York Times
Focus on Susan Smith's Lies and a Smile
By RICK BRAGG
Published: July 25, 1995
Correction Appended
UNION, S.C., July 23— While the authorities searched for her two young sons, Susan Smith watched herself lie to the nation on a taped television newscast, and even smiled at the television screen, a counselor who had come to help her testified today in the penalty phase of Mrs. Smith's capital murder trial.
The counselor, Margaret Frierson, recalled that Mrs. Smith's incongruous smile occurred near the end of her nine days of lies, as news reporters were beginning to speculate that Mrs. Smith might be involved in the disappearance that she had blamed on a carjacker.
"The family was outraged," said Ms. Frierson, who works in the Columbia, S.C., office of the Adam Walsh Foundation, a center for missing and exploited children. "I just seemed to notice Susan smiling to herself as she watched herself on television."
Prosecutors in told the jury in the opening statements of the trial's sentencing phase today not to forget the "nine days of deceit," when Mrs. Smith covered up the killing of Michael, 3, and Alex, 14 months, by sending her hometown, and the nation, on a hunt for a carjacker who never existed.
The jury took just two and a half hours on Saturday to convict Mrs. Smith of two counts of murder, one for each boy, after prosecutors described how she had released the hand brake of her car and let the vehicle roll down a boat ramp into a lake, drowning the two boys who sat strapped inside.
In the sentencing phase, the same jury will decide whether Mrs. Smith should die in the electric chair or receive a life sentence. If the jury chooses the latter, Mrs. Smith will be eligible for parole after 30 years. She will then be 53 years old.
"We're going to go back over the nine days of lies, the nine days of deceit, the nine days of trickery, the nine days of begging this country to help her find her children, when the whole time they lay dead at the bottom of that lake," said the assistant prosecutor, Keith Giese. "Look at it in the eye, face to face, and see it for the unspeakable horror that it is."
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/smith/trial_9.html
tru TV
By Rachel Pergament
On Friday July 21, 1995, the defense's most important witness, Dr. Seymour Halleck, testified. Dr. Seymour Halleck is a University of North Carolina psychiatrist and law professor who led the team that examined Susan to determine whether she was competent to stand trial.
Halleck testified that Susan suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts in the months leading up to the October 25th murders and that these thoughts allowed her to fall into a destructive cycle of sexual relationships in order to ease her loneliness. Halleck testified that Susan had sex with four different men during the six-week period leading up to the murders. Susan had also begun to drink heavily during this period of time.
Halleck testified that Susan had sex with her stepfather, Beverly Russell; Tom Findlay, her boyfriend at the time; with J. Carey Findlay, the owner of the mill where she worked; and with her estranged husband, David Smith. Halleck said that Susan's sexual relationships temporarily eased her depression, but that her guilt ultimately deepened her depression. Halleck told the jury that "Much of her sexual activity was not for her own satisfaction." Halleck added that, "Susan was more concerned with pleasing others and making sure that they liked her."
Halleck's testimony was an attempt by the defense to poke holes in the prosecution's theory that Susan murdered her children so that she could rekindle her relationship with Tom Findlay. Halleck dismissed the prosecution's theory that Susan murdered her children to reclaim Findlay saying that it was an "absurd idea." He labeled Susan's affair with Findlay as "passing" and added that Susan had, "strong feelings for a lot of different men and that it was very unlikely that Tom Findlay was number one on her list."
Halleck testified that he thought Susan had sex with J. Carey Findlay because she was molested by her stepfather and had a need for love and approval of an older man. Halleck also testified that Susan had told him that when she slept with Beverly Russell, "it made her skin crawl," and that Halleck thought the reasons that Susan did these things was because she sought love and approval. Solicitor Pope had Halleck admit that most of his information came from Susan and that her constant need for affection was a symptom of "brief, intermittent depressive disorder," in which Susan was able much of the time to make her co-workers and friends believe that she was fine.
Halleck also described Susan's behavior on the night of the murders and said that he believed that she intended to kill herself, but that a "survival instinct" took over and that she blocked out the presence of her two sons at the instant she released the parking brake. Halleck also described how as Susan ran from the edge of the lake to the McClouds' home she began to make up her story of being carjacked by a black man because she was afraid of what others would think of her. Halleck told the jury that if Susan had been treated for depression with Prozac, the murders would never have occurred.
David Bruck asked Halleck the question that everyone wanted to ask, "Why didn't Susan go into the water?" Halleck answered that he could only assume that "when she ran out of her car, that her self-preservation instincts took over, and although up to that moment she fully intended to kill herself, she got frightened."
Several other defense witnesses testified that Susan had been depressed as a child and that she had been suicidal since the age of ten. After four days of testimony, the defense rested its case. David Bruck told the jury that Susan accepted responsibility for what she did, but that her actions were attributable to her depression.
Closing arguments were given on Saturday, July 22, 1995. Solicitor Pope was impassioned when he described the circumstances of Michael and Alex's deaths. "I submit to you that they were in that car, screaming, crying, calling for their father, while the woman who placed them in that car was running up the hill with her hands covering her ears." Pope went back to his theme that the murders were committed so that Susan could reclaim Tom Findlay and have a life with him. "She used the emergency brake handle like a gun, and eliminated her toddlers so that she could have a chance at a life with Tom Findlay, the man she said she loved."
[ Bill Gates-Microsoft-Corbis-Nazi the cowardly International Terrorist Organization violently against the United States of America actively instigate insurrection and subversive activity against the United States of America with all Bill Gates-Microsoft-Corbis-Nazi staff partners contributors employees contractors lawyers managers of any capacity as severely treasonous criminal accomplices and that are active unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States that actively make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in the United States and in the Severely Treasonous and Criminally Rebellious State of Washington by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8786586/Royal-wedding-mishap-revealed-as-Kates-dress-destined-to-be-kept-under-wraps.html
The Telegraph
Royal Wedding
Royal wedding mishap revealed as Kate's dress destined to be kept under wraps
The Duke of Cambridge nearly ruined his father's prized Aston Martin DB6 when he drove it out of Buckingham Palace with his new bride on the day of the Royal Wedding because he had forgotten to take the handbrake off.
By Roya Nikkhah, Royal Correspondent
9:00AM BST 25 Sep 2011
It was one of the most memorable images of the Royal Wedding - Prince William driving his new bride down the Mall in a glamorous vintage sports car after a perfect day that went without hitch. Almost.
In fact, it has emerged that the Royal heirloom Prince William drove, a dark blue Aston Martin DB6 belonging to the Prince of Wales, suffered a mechanical mishap when the groom took to the wheel.
Driving from the wedding reception at Buckingham Palace to Clarence House while waving to the crowds, Prince William forgot to release the handbrake on the car, which Prince Harry had decorated with heart-shaped balloons and a number plate that read: "JU5T WED".
Thankfully for the newlyweds, the engine's groans appear to have been drowned out by the applause of well-wishers gathered along the Mall.
The incident emerged in an interview with the royal photographer Arthur Edwards for Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, which is broadcast today.
During the interview, he told the presenter Kirsty Young: "I was talking to Prince Charles about that [the car] and I said 'did you mind him borrowing that car?' because he loves that car, it's his birthday present from his mother for his 21st, and he said 'No, he asked me if he could use it.'
"I said 'there seemed to be a problem driving it' and he said, 'Yes, because he didn't take the hand brake off'."
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: 03/09/07 3:39 AM
I "remember" that Ken had some kind of little car that was not unlike Comet, but I can't "remember" the make Ken drove. It might have been a Mustang II, which I think was very different than the Mustang. But I "remember" it was a butt-ugly yellowish-green kind of color. I also "remember" that Ken liked to pull back the emergency brake when he was driving because it would cause the car to spin around a few times. I have this visualization in my mind of sitting there talking to him in that car and I can picture him half-looking at me as he had his hand on the emergency brake and saying he was going to pull it. But he must not have because I don't "remember" the car spinning around. What is really odd about that "memory" is that it is right around the point on Hicks Road where Michael died.
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 9 March 2007 excerpt ends]
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Posted by H.V.O.M at 12:42 PM Monday, September 19, 2011
Back and forth my car rolled in the parking lot.
I pulled the emergency brake handle but that didn't help. My car rolled forwards and backwards as I was stomping on the brake pedal to get it to stop in the parking spot I wanted in the parking lot in front of an office building complex I had gone to in response to a company calling me to provide technical support to their computer system. The parking lot had a slope to it and it peaked near the painted line the separated two parking spots and I would roll backwards and forwards between those two spots. I thought maybe if I could slow enough to stop on that peak then maybe that would do something. Towards the end of the dream my car had rolled out of the paved parking lot and into a dirt and grass covered area and there was a sign there with words on it I cannot visualize. As I rolled into the dirt and grass area and seemed to stop there because of some kind of obstruction such as a dense line of tree, although that is not established in the dream, in the distance I could see a woman laughing and I asked in the dream or I wanted to ask her in the dream if my car would get towed if I left it parked there in that dirt and grass covered area near the paved parking lot. You would think I would stop having these dreams now that I know why I have them.
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 19 September 2011 excerpt ends]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Channel_Naval_Duel
North Channel Naval Duel
The North Channel naval duel was the fight between the United States Continental Navy sloop of war Ranger (Captain John Paul Jones) and the British Royal Navy sloop of war Drake (Captain George Burdon) on the evening of 24 April 1778. It was the first American defeat of a Royal Navy ship within British home waters, and also very nearly the only American victory over the Royal Navy in the Revolution achieved without an overwhelming superiority of force.
In the following account, times are approximate because ships set their own time as they travelled, so different witnesses saw the same events at what to them were different times.
Background
Even before the official entry of other nations, the American Revolutionary War was by no means confined to American soil; naval operations, by both the Continental Navy and privateers, ranged right across the Atlantic. In 1777, American captains such as Lambert Wickes, Gustavus Conyngham and William Day had been making raids into British waters and capturing merchant ships, which they took into French ports- although France was officially neutral. Captain Day had even been accorded a gun-salute by the French admiral at Brest. Encouraged by such successes, and even more by the American victory at the Battle of Saratoga that autumn, France signed two treaties with America in February 1778, but stopped just short of declaring war on Britain. The risk of a French attack forced the Royal Navy to concentrate its forces in the English Channel (La Manche), leaving other areas vulnerable. Wickes and Day had shown that, despite the narrowness of St. George's Channel and the North Channel, it was possible for single ships or very small squadrons to get into the Irish Sea, and create havoc among the many vessels which traded between Great Britain and Ireland. John Paul Jones, on his first return to British waters as an enemy, had a more ambitious plan- to teach the British people that their government's policies in America, such as the burning of ports, could be turned back against them.
The Ranger mission
With a single small Continental Navy ship (or technically, "sloop of war"), the Ranger, Jones sailed from Brest on 10 April 1778, and headed for the coasts of the Solway Firth, where he had first learned to sail. Following an unsuccessful attempt to raid the port of Whitehaven in Cumberland, on the night of 17-18 April, he harassed shipping in the North Channel, then on the night of 20-21 April Ranger entered Belfast Lough in northern Ireland, with the intention of seizing a Royal Navy ship moored off Carrickfergus, HMS Drake. Unsuccessful, he returned to Whitehaven, and achieved the first key target of his mission, landing a large party at the harbour in the night of 22-23 April and setting light to a merchant ship. This raid was followed within hours by another, at the Scottish seashore mansion of the Earl of Selkirk, near Kirkcudbright. Even as the news of those deeds was racing to alert Britain's defences, Ranger was on the way back to Carrickfergus.
24 April 1778
Preparations for combat
John Paul Jones's crew had been recruited by an advertisement promising them the opportunity to "make their Fortunes", which was a goal that could definitely be achieved by privateering operations against British merchant ships. In practice, because Ranger was supposed to be a Navy vessel, not a privateer, more British ships had been sunk on the mission than captured, to avoid diverting too many crew members to the task of sailing merchant ships to France. To an extent, Jones had even failed as a Navy commander, the crew blaming him for what appeared to be a strategic error which allowed a British Customs vessel to escape after being fired on by Ranger. Now he was intent on capturing a Royal Navy ship from its moorings- it carried no cargo that could be sold for a handsome profit, just trained fighting sailors and guns. The account of events just after dawn on 24 April that Jones published in his highly embellished French autobiography a few years later may not be greatly exaggerated: "I ran a great risk of being killed or thrown in the sea". Unfortunately for the crew, the state of the wind and tide at that time prevented them from leaving anyway, but then telescopes trained on the Drake revealed that they might not have to visit Carrickfergus after all, as the Royal Navy sailors were preparing to leave port.
In fact, Drake had been preparing for action since the previous visit by Ranger, taking on volunteers from the Carrickfergus area to boost the crew from 100 to about 160- though many of these were landsmen, to be used for close-quarters combat. It was ironic, therefore, that only on the evening of 23 April did the acting Gunner (the original Gunner having been hospitalised on the ship's last visit to the Portsmouth naval base) report that there was not enough cartridge paper to make up ammunition for all these extra fighting men. Also absent from the ship's company at this crucial time were the master's mate (sick), boatswain (shot dead while attempting to capture a smuggler) and lieutenant (died of fever two days earlier). The aging Captain, George Burdon, was later reported to have been in poor health himself. However, such problems could not be allowed to stop a Royal Navy vessel from doing its duty. Drake got under way about 8am, but with wind and tide still wrong, made little progress. After an hour or so a boat was therefore sent to get a closer look at the intruder, and the result of this may possibly have been a key turning point in history. Jones opted to try a slight variant of the plan which had failed to capture the Customs vessel a few days earlier; hiding most of the crew and the big guns, just acting innocent and dumb. This time it worked; the crew of the reconnaissance boat (the Gunner's Mate, a Midshipman and six crewmen) were all captured. The success was tremendously beneficial for the morale of the Americans, and it seems that as a bonus, one of the prisoners mentioned the large number of volunteers who had gone aboard Drake.
As Drake moved sluggishly out across the Lough, there was also a double bonus for the British. About 1pm another small boat came out, carrying another volunteer, Royal Navy Lieutenant William Dobbs, a local man who had just got married; and according to Drake’s pilot he brought with him a copy of an express letter from Whitehaven, explaining the full details of the mystery ship (and yet- Jones makes a point in his official report of stating that the news from Whitehaven had arrived the previous evening and was known to his morning captives). With the wind and tide more favourable in the afternoon, Ranger moved slowly back out of Belfast Lough into the North Channel, making sure never to get too far ahead of Drake. Finally, about 6pm, the two enemies were within hailing distance. Jones had the American naval colours flying, and Lieut. Dobbs' formal inquiry as to the ship's identity was answered with absolute truth.
The North Channel naval duel was in some respects a reverse, small-scale dress-rehearsal for Jones's 1779 battle with HMS Serapis. Drake had been built as a merchant ship with defensive capability, and bought by the Royal Navy to help fill the gap left when many ships had to be sent to America; even the 20 four-pound guns were not official Navy issue, just the ones which had originally been bought by the merchants. The hull was the wrong shape for rapid battle manoeuvres, and not designed to resist cannon fire. Ranger had been built as a fighting ship, and modified by Jones for maximum efficiency; for example, although there were ports for twenty guns, he found it safest to install only 18 six-pound guns. That made a total broadside weight of 54 pounds, slightly more than Drake’s 40 pounds total- but those dozens of Irish volunteers meant that if Drake could grapple and board Ranger the Americans would be in trouble.
The fight
The formalities completed, Ranger turned sharply and fired a broadside at the following Drake. The British were unable to reply immediately- and when they did, they found they had a serious problem. With full charges of powder, the four-pounders were unstable, and tended to tip forward; in the case of the two pairs of guns at the rear of the ship, most subject to the rise and fall with the waves, this meant that they could skid almost anywhere as they were fired, presenting grave danger to the gun-crews. In Navy records, Drake’s armament had been listed as only 16 guns, suggesting that the rearmost guns had been left aboard just for show. The original Gunner may well have known of these problems, and perhaps the Gunner's Mate too- but of course one was back in Portsmouth, and the other, since that morning, was aboard Ranger. After a few more broadsides, further problems emerged. Shrapnel from Ranger’s third broadside hit Lieut. Dobbs in the head, putting him out of action. Conditions on Drake’s gun-deck were so unpredictable that the "powder monkeys"- the boys who brought charges of gunpowder up for the great guns, in fire-resistant boxes- eventually became reluctant to do their duty. Twice the ship's Master had to go below to urge the acting Gunner to be more efficient in supplying the powder, when opportunities for broadsides were missed. Another utterly ridiculous problem was that the "slow matches" which were used to fire the guns kept falling into their fire-safety tubs and going out. The four-pound guns could not penetrate Ranger’s toughened hull anyway, so Drake tried copying the technique the Americans had been using from the start- aiming at the masts, sails and rigging, in order to slow the opponent down.
The combatants were very close together- but never close enough for grappling, probably because Captain Jones knew of the extra men hidden below decks on Drake. As well as the great guns, both sides were firing small arms at each other, and here too Drake failed. Little or no extra cartridge paper had been found since the previous night's embarrassing discovery, and soon the musketeers ran out of cartridges. That meant they had to load their guns the slow way, pouring in the right amount of powder, then putting in the shot. Musket balls were passed round in the Armourer's hat, and two powder-horns were shared between all the men on duty. With the other side much better organised, such inefficiency meant the difference between life and death. Drake killed just one of Jones's crew- Lieutenant Samuel Wallingford- by musket fire; another two who were firing from positions up the masts died as a by-product of a broadside. Four of Drake’s crew were killed, including, just under an hour into the fight, Captain Burdon himself, struck in the head by a musket ball. With both the Captain and Lieutenant out of action, command of Drake passed to the Master, John Walsh.
By that time, Drake’s sails and rigging had been reduced to tatters by Ranger’s broadsides, and even the masts and yardarms were seriously damaged; in the light wind, the sloop was more or less immobilised, not even able to turn to aim a broadside. Unable to load fast enough, the small-arms fighters had retreated to cover, so only about a dozen people were left on Drake’s main deck. A few minutes after the Captain died, the two remaining Petty Officers on deck went to the Master and advised him that they should strike their colours and surrender; after further consultation, he agreed. The colours had already been shot away, so Mr. Walsh had to shout and wave his hat instead. According to John Paul Jones's records, the duel had lasted one hour and five minutes.
The aftermath
35 men were sent from Ranger to Drake to take charge and assess the damage, then the next three days were spent making repairs, while moving slowly north-westward between Ireland and Scotland. A cargo brig which came too close was captured, and used as extra accommodation; on the other hand, half-a-dozen Irish fisherman who had been captured on the first Carrickfergus expedition were allowed, along with three sick Irish sailors, to take a boat and go home, with a present of sails from Drake, and some money from Jones. On their return they also reported the concern Jones was showing for Lieut. Dobbs, who remained gravely ill. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy had sent out some proper warships in pursuit- but despite Drake’s lameness, they never caught a glimpse of the slowly escaping Americans. The only real trouble Jones had was with his Lieutenant, Thomas Simpson, who was given command of the precious Drake and at one point on the voyage sailed right out of sight.
The news reached France much faster than Jones did, and the Americans were welcomed as heroes. As for the British, they had learned their lesson well– the Royal Navy could not defend British shipping against American raiders; it could not defend British coasts against American raiders; it could not even defend its own fighting vessels against American raiders. Militia regiments were hastily redeployed to coastal areas; seaports equipped themselves with artillery to defend themselves against further raids; the gentry banded together in volunteer battalions as a last line of defence. And from then onward, the press paid very close attention to every move John Paul Jones made; struggling to reconcile the malicious rumours of his murders and piracy with the evidence of his chivalrous and far from bloodthirsty behaviour on the Ranger mission (back in France, he wrote kind and thoughtful letters to the Earl of Selkirk, and to the family of Lieut. Dobbs, who had died within a couple of days). John Paul Jones had gone from being an obscure Scottish-American to an international star, and the naval duel in the North Channel was the unequivocally triumphant climax to a remarkable mission, which demonstrated that the world's most powerful nation was as vulnerable to attack as any other. The press reports of his preparations for his next mission created a climate of fear and uncertainty which helped turn his return visit in 1779 into his best-remembered achievement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Wikipedia
Causality
Causality (also referred to as causation) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.
