The Peter Reilly-Barbara Gibbons Murder Case: A Chronology

A grave injustice occurred in Litchfield County, Connecticut, beginning on September 28, 1973, when Peter Reilly, 18, was arrested and subsequently coerced by State Police into falsely confessing to -- and was later wrongfully convicted of -- the grisly murder of his mother, Barbara Gibbons. Below, and reproduced here as part of the historical record, is an update and timeline of events as they appeared in the Lakeville Journal on March 17, 2005:

Connecticut Commissioner of Public Safety Leonard Boyle has agreed to give Peter Reilly access to state police files that could help him discover who murdered his mother, Barbara Gibbons, after more than 30 years. For decades, Reilly himself was the prime suspect for the police – in part because, after two days of interrogation without sleep, food or an attorney, the 18-year-old youth was induced to sign a confession saying he killed and sexually assaulted his mother. Reilly was not convicted of the crime but his name was never completely cleared, either. With the help of journalist Donald Connery, a Kent resident, and The Lakeville Journal, Reilly has been able at last to get access to the police files on the case.

[Photo at left of Peter Reilly speaking in 2005 at Noble Horizons by yours truly]

Searching through those files is likely to be a time-consuming endeavor, though. In 1983, The Lakeville Journal ran a chronology of the events up to the point of the investigation. The introduction to that listing notes that, "No other criminal case in Connecticut history has been so thoroughly investigated by so many people for so long a time ... State's Attorney Dennis Santore speaks of the principal investigative file on the case as something occupying not filing cabinets but whole closets."

That 1983 special section also noted that, "In the process, however, there has been much public confusion about what happened, and who did what to whom, and why the case went on and on like an Icelandic saga ... So many were the events and so mountainous the data that even insiders and diligent observers often lost their way."

To help readers understand the scope of the investigation and trial, The Lakeville Journal offers this abbreviated version of that chronology:

Courts: Shut Up, High School Students!

My latest for CTNewsJunkie.com.

Do public high school students have freedom-of-speech rights off-campus? Evidently, the courts don't think so. And knuckle-headed administrators are let off the hook. Ugh ...

Have a Very Columbia Christmas!

Lee Bollinger

This story makes me sick to my stomach. Really. I nearly lost my Cuban sandwich while reading about this over lunch today.

First we had the case of Kelo vs. New London  -- an egregious abuse of the concept of eminent domain in which the Supreme Court of the United States said it was OK for a municipality to seize the property of ordinary residents -- not to build a school or a highway, but to hand it over to private developers.

At the time, I could not have envisioned an eminent domain case as appalling as that of Kelo. But now we have that same U.S. Supreme Court refusing to hear the case of two small business owners in Manhattan who have been locking horns with an Ivy League university that wants to expand.

The New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, has overturned a lower-court decision that would have blocked Columbia University from using the power of the state to condemn properties in West Harlem to satisfy university President Lee Bollinger's "vision" of new space for the Business School, the School of the Arts, and the Jerome L. Greene Science Center for Mind, Brain, and Behavior.

As bad as the Kelo case was, at least its underlying premise was that the increased tax revenue generated by the developers would satisfy the constitutional requirement that there be a public gain or accommodation from the condemnation (ironically, five years after the decision, the property still sits undeveloped).

As Megan McArdle has pointed out, this latest decision will force two tax-paying businesses to sell against their will to a private organization that is largely tax-exempt and that predominantly serves the wealthy and the powerful. Could someone explain to me how this is a "public good?" A statement from the Empire State Development Corporation, the agency with the power to invoke eminent domain, was laughable:

This victory represents a significant step toward achieving the many goals of the project, including strengthening New York as an international center for premier education and academic research programs, improving facilities and infrastructure within the footprint and the surrounding community, generating thousands of jobs for New Yorkers and creating much-needed open space in the neighborhood.

And Bollinger's was even worse:

There's no question I’ve devoted myself to this conception of the future of the University. It all follows from a belief that one of the problems that interferes with Columbia’s potential ... is space, and this effectively solves that problem.

It solves your problem, all right, Mr. Bollinger. Man, this is the very essence of the arrogance of power -- both on the part of the judiciary and academia. Merry Christmas, gentlemen ...

Scan Or Pat Down?

Can someone please answer this question for me? What is the big deal about the recent security measures taken by TSA in the nation's airports?

I understand that some people don't want to submit themselves to a pat-down of their private parts. Frankly, I'm not sure I'd want that either. For us friskophobes, there's always the option of undergoing the full body scan. But of course, others object to that procedure because it allows a total stranger to see an electronic version of your nakedness. For scanophobes, there's always the option of the pat-down.

The problem occurs when a passenger objects vehemently to both procedures. Then you're really stuck. I guess your best bet would be to submit to the body scan but use Flying Pasties. Or take Amtrak.

I will say this about the controversy: It has spawned a very funny slew of one-liners. New media guru Jeff Jarvis has captured several of them on his Twitter feed:

• And I feel a helluva lot more sorry for the poor TSA guy whose job it now is to feel ballsacks than I do for any of us.
• TSA needs to think like a corporation: Hire Hooters girls and Chippendales, and charge a fee to get groped. It's all about the upsell.
• I fully plan on refusing the scan and then making it sound like I'm REALLY enjoying the pat down
• Relationships are like the TSA - you give up your freedom & you're guaranteed to get your genitals touched.

And there was this from a California software engineer who wanted to proceed unmolested through security:

If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested!

Is that what you'd call that part of your body? That man has "issues."

No Earthly Objection

It has come to my attention that Google Earth — the now ubiquitous tool for mapping and geographic information — is being used in ways that are troublesome to civil liberties advocates.

Facing a fiscal crisis so profound that even ours pales in comparison, the nation of Greece, where cheating on taxes is the order of the day, has used Google Earth to locate fancy homes with swimming pools that were built illegally and are therefore off the tax rolls.

Officials in Riverhead, N.Y., on Long Island, have used satellite imagery to locate homeowners with swimming pools that failed to comply with safety regulations, such as proper fencing. Unlike Greece, however, Riverhead officials insist their motivation was public safety — not filling the town's treasury.

Be that as it may, should we be concerned about public officials using such technology to find violations that are not in plain sight from the street? Is the practice a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures? Do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our back yard?

In the two cases cited above, I would have to say no. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on any place on your property that does not have a roof. If you disagree with me, then you'd have to ask yourself if we should also ban the practice of allowing authorities to hire aircraft to take aerial photographs of properties within municipal borders — a practice that has existed for decades.

So what is the objection? The fact that Google Earth makes it so easy to capture recent aerial and street-view images? I'd say if it can be see from the air, then it is pretty much in the public domain. But civil libertarians disagree:

The New York Civil Liberties Union's Donna Lieberman said there are ways to enforce requirements "without this sort of engaging in Big Brother on high. Technically, it may be lawful, but in the gut it does not feel like a free society kind of operation."

"In the gut?" Is that what we should basing our public policy on? Gut feelings? Show me a plausible way in which this practice can be abused and then I would be open to opposing it. Right now, I can think of none.