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:

Credit Where It's Due: Blumenthal Is Right To Take On MLB's Monopoly

My latest column for CTNewsJunkie.com:

I may not be the biggest fan of Sen. Richard Blumenthal but I think he is has this right and it's time I said something about it. Major League Baseball's 100-year-old antitrust exemption has outlived its usefulness. Blumenthal and a bipartisan group of fellow senators are pressuring the league to explain itself in the face of evidence that the exemption serves only to protect the interests of the league and no one else.

To wit:

Speaking of wages, Blumenthal pointed out at a press conference (he likes press conferences) at Dunkin’ Donuts Park in Hartford last week, minor league players who are not on the 40-man roster of their major league organization make between $4,800 and $14,700 per year and are paid only during the baseball season. This would include most of the players on the Double-A Hartford Yard Goats, who play in the very stadium Blumenthal was standing in.

To that I might add, the low pay for minor leaguers disadvantages those whose families don’t have the means to support them while they work for pennies for a long-shot chance to make millions in the big leagues.

Read more ...

Follow @terrycowgill

My latest for @ctnewsjunkie >> I may have my differences with @SenBlumenthal but he's right about the #antitrustexemption enjoyed by @MLB and how unfair it is to all but the well-heeled owners. https://t.co/1d2d77WOCM

— Terry D. Cowgill (@terrycowgill) August 1, 2022

Lamont's Blunder: Using Abortion As Business Recruiting Tool

My latest column for CTNewsJunkie.com:

Few topics get the blood boiling like abortion. But the topic here isn't the procedure itself; it's Gov. Lamont's attempt to use abortion access as a means of attracting businesses to the state.

To wit:

But there is a twist to it. Instead of touting Connecticut’s great business environment, which would be difficult to do with a straight face, Lamont is trying to exploit unfavorable reaction to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade by bragging about the fact that abortion is safe and legal in Connecticut, and that it will remain that way if he has anything to do with it ...

It feels like, in the absence of a favorable business climate, Lamont is devaluing abortion rights by using them as a cheap gimmick, less to offer the procedure to desperate pregnant women from red states than as an wedge issue to deploy in the service of some sort of economic war with conservative states.

Read more ...

Follow @terrycowgill

"... Lamont is devaluing abortion rights by using them as a cheap gimmick..." https://t.co/jBWAsjm1IU

— Linda Blais (@LindaB1310) July 5, 2022

Break the Two-Party Stranglehold, Make Local Elections Nonpartisan

Update: Patch Brookfield community contributor Scott Benjamin wrote a story about this column and interviewed a few notables, including Prof. Gary Rose, who chairs the government department at Sacred Heart University and disagrees with my proposal. My response is in the comment thread.

My latest column for CTNewsJunkie.com:

You might think Connecticut's election laws and procedures are normal, especially if you've lived and worked here all your adult life. But I've got news for you. They are anything but normal. Indeed, I'd say they're oppressive.

Over the last few years, I’ve noticed that even local races, such as those up for grabs on Nov. 2, are becoming more contentious as national issues have crept into campaigns. It seems especially bad in Connecticut where, for some strange reason, it seems that all elections — from town registrars of voters to planning and zoning all the way up to the governor’s mansion — are partisan ...

I would urge Connecticut lawmakers to consider adopting a model similar to that of Massachusetts, where not only are local races nonpartisan but unaffiliated voters may vote in either party’s primaries. 

Read more ...

The op-ed has received a fair amount of notice. It even caught the eye of Paul Pacelli of WICC-600AM in Bridgeport. Paul kindly invited me on-the-air to talk about it with him yesterday. Click on the link in the Facebook post below to listen to the podcast/replay.

As someone who has endured the toxic partisan politics in #Danbury, this proposal from @terrycowgill is a damn good idea! https://t.co/Ke46OQNb27 #ctpolitics pic.twitter.com/pxQN4Nqzpy

— Alfonso Robinson (@ctblogger) October 26, 2021

Jobs, Jobs, But Only If They're Union

Great column today in the NYT by Joe Nocera. I sometimes disagree with Nocera, as when he famously called Tea Partiers who objected to raising the debt ceiling "terrorists" (yet later apologized for it). But I loved his piece two years ago on the utter absurdity that is the U.S. Postal Service.

Now he has drawn more attention to an absolute outrage -- the chicanery emanating from the National Labor Relations Board in the matter of Boeing. If you want a refresher on my views, see a post I did in June.

Essentially, Nocera makes the indisputable point that the Obama administration is standing in the way of job creation in South Carolina in order to appease organized labor back in the state of Washington. Could someone explain how this is helpful to the economy?

I know. Both political parties accuse the other of lacking ideas in the area of job creation, because -- frankly -- no one really seems to know what to do to get this economy moving again. Contrary to Republican dogma, Obama can counter the claim that tax increases kill jobs. After all, look to other vibrant economic eras that saw robust growth in spite of significant tax increases.

But here is an example of an American corporation that wants to invest billions of dollars in this country's manufacturing sector. And there is simply no way to get around the fact that the actions of the NLRB are designed to punish a right-to-work state and reward big labor in another state. And the cost? Thousands of jobs, Mr. President! Don't you get it? Or don't you care?

The headline on Nocera's column linked on RCP says it all: "The Boeing Case Should Embarrass Democrats."

The Enemies of Openness

Click here for my latest at CTNewsJunkie.com. Connecticut has great freedom of information laws. But some people don't like that. What on earth are they afraid of?

Laboring To Defend The Indefensible

In my days a commentator, I've written a lot about overreaching government. But right now I'm hard pressed to think of any recent example of government tyranny that exceeds what the National Labor Relations Board is doing to Boeing.

The NLRB has filed a complaint against Boeing alleging the company has engaged in illegal retaliation against its labor unions in the state of Washington by electing to locate a new non-union plant in South Carolina. Now, one would think that illegal retaliation would have to take the form of punishing union workers already on the payroll or closing an existing plant, firing its workers and relocating it out of reach of the unions (federal law rightly prohibits management from punishing workers for striking).

The plants in Washington have been plagued by strikes, so in needing to build a new fleet of 787 Dreamliners, Boeing elected to locate a second Dreamliner plant in a right-to-work state where the risk of labor disruptions is minimal. In its public statements, the company was quite candid about its motives.

In taking this action, Boeing did not cut one job from its unionized work force in Washington. Instead, thousands of additional jobs will come to Charleston. And this constitutes "punishment" against union workers on the West Coast?

Perhaps the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers would prefer that Boeing moved those jobs to Mexico? Truth be told, the union doesn't care where the new plant is located if its workers aren't dues-paying.

And we wonder why so many U.S. corporations are opening plants in China and India. Oh, I forgot. Boeing has already done some of that. Heavy industry is already dying in this country; if the NLRB keeps this up, the final nail will be poised to enter the coffin.

What does President Obama think about all this? He won't say, preferring, his spokesman Jay Carney said, to remain neutral in labor disputes. As Col. Potter would say, "Horse hockey!" Obama had no problem wading into the intense struggle in Wisconsin between public employee labor unions and Gov. Scott Walker.

"This is neither good law nor good business," the Washington Post thundered in an editorial. Amen.

Democrats used to insist, with some justification, that the Bush administration routinely politicized the Justice Department. Now the Obama administration, which sailed into Washington on the support of organized labor, is doing the same thing with the NLRB. Shame on him.

They Have Done The Deed

Osama bin Laden is gone. Ding dong, the wicked terrorist kingpin is dead.

I give President Obama credit where it's due. Despite campaign promises to get out of the Afghanistan region with all due speed, he quickly realized how important it was to hold firm in the face of a severe threat. Now you would think that the assassination of OBL would be the perfect pretext to withdraw from the region ASAP. But I don't think he will.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the reason we remain in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The latter nation possesses nuclear weapons but has millions of Islamic fanatics, including most of the Taliban that used be in Afghanistan. If the radicals take over that country, we and India (a key ally in the region) could be in a lot of trouble. Standing by next door sends an important message to Pakistan that we're ready to act if need be. And that's an important message, given the revolutionary climate currently prevailing in the Middle East.

Heck, even if the current regime stays in power in Pakistan, we could be toast. Evidently, the 3,000 SF home OBL was living in was only 30 miles north of Islamabad and a stone's throw away from a Pakistani military installation. The Pakistan government, or large factions in its military, had to know OBL was there.

Leave it to others to find humor in this. My friend John Pollard reports a great Facebook posting: "Osama should have been caught alive and continuously made to go through airport security for the rest of his life."

As someone who recently received a full 10-minute shakedown by Bahamian airport security in Nassau, I can definitely relate ...

Don't Trust The Cops To Police Themselves

My latest for CTNewsJunkie.com. Who investigates the police when officers are suspected of wrongdoing? The police, that's who. Am I alone, or is something wrong with this picture?

Recent developments in Connecticut have served to drive home the point that it's not fair to citizens (or, for that matter, to the police themselves) to have cops looking into charges of malfeasance in their own ranks.

Of Bloggers And Puritans

Thanks to Tom Dudchik for the Capitol Report link to the news that Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal is likely to sign a bill allowing for Sunday alcohol sales. That will leave only Connecticut and Indiana clinging to the Puritan-era ban on Sunday sales.

According to the AP article, most of the objections in Georgia are based on religion or on the presumption that Sunday sales will lead to increased consumption of booze. Here in the Nutmeg State, few people mention those concerns.

Instead, we are worried that a small group of business people (the state's mom-and-pop package store owners) will be forced to open on Sunday and incur additional expenses that could bankrupt them. So the fierce lobby that looks out for the little package stores cries foul at the possible elimination of such blatant protectionism.

* * * * * * * *

Also, I learned last night of the dumbest lawsuit ever. A group of bloggers who wrote for the Huffington Post on the condition that they do so only for exposure and not pay, has sued Arianna Huffington for ... back pay.

As Jack Shafer says, we have become "a nation of Winklevosses" who are happy with an agreement until we see that there's more money in the pit and want to a new deal.

If Jonathan Tasini, the lead plaintiff in the class action suit against HuffPo, had wanted to be paid, then he should have refused to write until he was compensated -- or found another outlet for his writings that would pay him.

I myself used to write op-eds for the Lakeville Journal on a pro bono basis, which was fine until I felt I could no longer justify spending several hours on a column without getting paid. So I found a place that would compensate me for my time.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it Mr. Tasini?