Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Video: Close Encounters Above Central Park?
One of our tipsters sent in this exclusive-- a recent mugshot of Darryl Littlejohn, the suspect in the tragic death of Imette St. Guillen: "this one was taken on 7/23/03 and they are typically taken from time to time by the docs when an inmate is moved to a new facility or if it has been a long time since they have had one taken or if they change their look (there are any number of reasons). but this was just gotten by the docs today from the prison he was last held at."
In the photo, the suspect is identified by one of his aliases, Jonathan Blaze, and at the bottom (cropped) his DOB is given as 11/11/1964. There is also another notation: "scar r/cheek stomach."
Remember: Littlejohn is just a suspect in the slaying-- while there seems to be a lot of evidence piling up, he hasn't been arrested yet, and even if he was arrested, he's innocent until proven guilty.
UPDATE 5:36PM: we walked up to The Falls to get a comment on the mugshot, but the bartender would only give us a "no comment", and refused to look at it. She said the bar would have someone call us back-- and we'll update the post with information if they do. There were a bunch of other reporters and photographers standing around outside looking cold. No one was in the bar, but it was only 4:45pm-- if anyone goes up there tonight, let us know if it's crowded.
UPDATE 5:58pm: NY1 is now running the mugshot. Looks like it's hit the mainstream media-- and relatively quickly-- about five hours from a blog to MSM. Not bad, pros!
UPDATE 7:29pm: Stewart writes in and says Littlejohn's appearance has changed a bit in three years: "he has gained weight and that gives him a less menacing appearance. His skin is much darker. He also smiles a lot, unlike the picture. I can recognize the photo as him because of the bump on the back of his head that you can see from the side view."
UPDATE 11:06pm: CBS and ABC are using the mugshot on their broadcasts, NBC still isn't identifying Littlejohn. Focus tonight appears to be on the back seat of his van-- it was found outside the vehicle, and police appear to be analyzing it.
UPDATE 8:32am: The Post is running the mugshot on the cover. The Daily News is using the picture-- and so is the New York Times.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hey Gothamist, how about writing GUILTY in big red text over his picture if you're going to do this!
Not for nothing, I personally think he was there when it happened, but I don't think he's the murderer based on the facts at hand right now. Somerthing else happened that makes the facts--as they stand--not add up.
But leave it to Gothamist to smear the name of a suspect before all of the facts are in! Hoorah!
I think it's a good idea to get this picture out there-- there's always the chance somebody will see the picture and remember something else about the guy or the night... maybe they saw him but not her, etc...
even if he was arrested, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Well then good thing you posted his picture! I'm sure that won't hurt things at all. (Jack, I'm with you).
from todays NYT.com
--
He first tangled with the authorities when he was just 17, arrested for armed robbery in Manhattan. He slashed a man and tried to rob another with a shotgun, according to state records. He went to prison for three years.
Using the alias Darryl Banks, he was arrested on a drug charge in 1985, and served a year and two months in jail. In 1987, as Damon Wells, he again served time for drug possession. In 1992, he was arrested in Maryland, where he was using the name Derek Hansen, for unauthorized use of a car, among other charges. Mr. Littlejohn was extradited to New York on a warrant for another of his aliases: John Handsome.
As Mr. Handsome, Mr. Littlejohn was arrested in Queens with a bag full of heroin and cocaine and a 9 millimeter gun, according to a person familiar with that case. He was paroled in October 1995. Within three months, he was in trouble again, this time as Jonathan Blaze. He held up a bank in Farmingdale on Long Island that December. He stole $61,759 and fled, according to state papers.
Mr. Littlejohn pleaded guilty to robbery and criminal use of a weapon, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
On May 11, 2004, he appeared before a parole board. A transcript shows that Mr. Littlejohn was hostile and uncooperative, refusing to answer questions from the commissioners. He was denied parole.
"Your violent and out-of-control behavior shows you to be a menace to society," the decision read. "Your continued incarceration remains in the best interest of society."
But two months later, Mr. Littlejohn had served enough of his sentence to qualify for a conditional release. He took a job with a mortgage lender and met with his parole officer, officials said. But he failed to tell parole officials that he was working as a bouncer at a bar, which may have violated the conditions of his parole.
according to this he's an out of control violent-doing-society-no favors-piece-of-shit who should still be behind bars.. parole, HA! what a fuckin joke.
Innocent until proven guilty. Let's put away our torches and pitchforks until the evidence has surfaced, okay?
Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing. The picture is from a previous arrest (and Littlejohn does have a record) and we've made sure to emphasize that he hasn't even been arrested yet.
i think the post quite clearly states that he's only a suspect. gothamist often puts up pix of suspects before they've been convicted of a crime-- peter braunstein, for instance, or the suspects in the rape and murder of that poor girl in brooklyn. it's a completely legit use of public information.
Dude's not guilty. He's Black. Black people only commit crimes like killing people for pizza slices. White people do those crazy ass eating people's brains crimes. This shit is packing tape on the face - total whiteboy crime. and if the black guy really did do it White guilt will get him off like it did OJ and Jason Williams and how Crash won the OScars.
Jack, this guy deserves his name to be smeared. The facts which stack up as of now paint a picture of a man who at least had some part to play in the murder of a girl I once knew. Right on Josh, Kudos to Gothamist for getting this out there.
they haven't smeared anything... he's in police custody for a parole violation, for now.
Actually, you're doing something quite sad and pathetic. And what amazes me is how Gothamist can endlessly post about 'Law and Order' and the stories told there, but Gothamist cannot take a sserious look at how b-llsh-t doing something like this.
I really don't think adding a twee little sentence fragment that says "...he's innocent until proven guilty." really excuses Gothamist from fanning the flames of hate and bias here. ANd lets face the facts, Gothamist is going for the sensationalistic 'scoop' to drive traffic to the site.
Also his past history is one thing. And it definitely does make him a suspect. But it does not make him guilty in any way. It's actually quite possible that he's trying to be straight while out of jail and this whole tragic incident was caused by some of his old 'buddies' messing things up and going too far.
I don't know this guy personally and I have no personal investment. If he is proven to be the murderer, send him back to jail and may he rot in hell. But until then, Gothamist posting this mugshot is simply b-llsh-t. How would you feel if your face in a mugshot were plastered all over the Internet before the investigation is done?
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is often misunderstood. It means under the law you're are not considered guilty of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law. However, technically, the moment you commit the elements of a crime, you are guilty of that crime. Insert your favorite "not guilty" celebrity for an example.
jack, you are totally wrong, as usual. this guy is a suspect in a violent felony-- he's committed plenty of those in the past. the nypd has said that he is THE ONLY current suspect in the crime. if he was to be cleared as a suspect, gothamist would have an obligation to put that in the post-- but until then, publishing the mugshot is entirely fair game. likely it'll be on the cover of the post tomorrow, and we won't see you bitching at them.
"The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is often misunderstood."
As a white, Brooklyn-bred NYC Jew I can honestly say that this mentality would really never come up if this guy was NOT black. Whatever his criminal background is, this twisting of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is really a sick excuse for plain out racism.
If this guy DID commit the crime, let his name be smeared all over the place. But doing it now? Before all of the facts are in? It's pathetic.
I really wonder how many people who read Gothamist have actually sat on a jury and deal with real issues of real crimes. Watching Sam Waterson wax poetic on L&O does not count.
Anyone with the audacity to use the alias "Jonathan Blaze" in their own mug shot photo is most likely headed down the path of spending the rest of their life dead or in jail one way or another. This guy did a damn good job of smearing his own name many times over already- arguing that this post may hurt his good name should he be innocent is beyond ridiculous.
Gothamist -- as bad as Drudge in using suspect means to drive traffic -- advertisers must be satisfied after all.
Where's your flashing police light?
Shame on you. And double shame for believing that Gothamist's readers have to be "refreshed" about that little legal maxim -- "innocent until proven guilty." Perhaps it proves your guilt more than anything else.
-Z
Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing.
And you're using that as a defense????
The Post and News routinely racist, bigoted, warmongering, and generally disgusting crap on their covers. Are you gonna start doing that, too? Posting a mugshot of this suspect isn't as offensive as many of their covers, but your defense of it is.
Congrats on the "exclusive"... hope it drives traffic to your heart's content.
To the poster named "none" aka: Jake Dobkin thanks for pseudononymously spitting out your personal bile towards me instead of taking a critical look at your own behavior in choosing to post this sensationalistic b-llsh-t.
And please Jake, get off of the high-horse of noble obligation. Gothamist is not providing a public service by doing this. Gothamist is driving traffic and then making excuses to cover for it by saying tweely "...innocent until proven guilty." and taking advantage of the higher profile Gothamist got from this case by being on
When Jen was on Dateline, she actually had a cool/calm and completely reasonable. Her perspective made sense. In contrast, this post is typpical mean-spirited Jake Dobkin-ness.
Gothamist would do better if others like Garth and Jen would spend more time posting and Jake would concentrate on the business stuff and stop trying to be an "Ace" reporter.
suck it, scooped-- this is a public service posting-- what if someone sees his mugshot and remembers seeing him somewhere that night? what if someone remembers seeing him, and gives him an alibi? both ways, the public is better off. try thinking a little bit before you spew venom.
A while back on another Gothamist post, a commenter said that Gothamist readers fancy themselves as progressive, sophisticated New Yorkers, but when things go askew they tend to revert to the views of their Midwestern, Republican, corn-fed upbringing.
"Anyone with the audacity to use the alias "Jonathan Blaze" in their own mug shot photo is most likely headed down the path of spending the rest of their life dead or in jail one way or another."
If that's the case, what is to be said about someone who posts under the name 'j0sh'? Are you then a menace to scoiety because you can't capitalize your own name and choose to use a numerical 'zero' instead of a plain letter 'o' in your name?
I think Dateline was drawn to the initial coverage of this case on Gothamist becuase it was actually decent coverage for a weblog. But this mugshot posting? Wreaks of desperation and it's a transparent ploy for traffic. Nothing more. Nothing less.
come on, "None", you know that all black guys look alike
To 'none'--aka: Jake Dobkin--if what you're saying is true, why can't you post under your real name instead of acting like you do behind a pseudonym?
We all know it's you Jake. And the fact you can't even post under your own name makes this whole post even more dubious and questionable.
Jen,
"Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing."
That doesn't necessarily make it right. In fact, your comment sort of implies that you have an interest in being just like any other tabloid. He's a suspect, who's in custody. He's no fugitive Peter Braunstein on the loose, so I don't see how this could be a reason for someone to "remember something else about the guy", as j0sh suggested.
Although Gothamist may not have any intention in smearing the guys name, the first thing I thought when his photo was, this guy is 'guilty'.
wow, jack thats an even worse argument than your previous ones. Everything else aside, can you honestly say you don't see the public service value of making this picture public information solely for the sake of hoping to find out the truth of what happened that night? Gothamist undoubtedly is serving the public's interest best by publishing this picture. If they were just looking for a boost in traffic, you'd be seeing a lot more paris hilton posts...
Innocent, guilty, public service, etc - none of these are the issue at hand here. The problem with posting the photo is that we (as in, some collective, weblog-reading we) are not exactly qualified to either 1.) solve crimes or 2.) discern subtleties when looking at a mugshot. If the police were certain of his involvement, charges would be pressed and this photo would be public, anyway. I'm not the NYPD's biggest fan 100% of the time, but I'm pretty sure they've got a decent handle on this and will release information to the public that can aid the case, not merely arouse suspicions and/or slander/endanger a suspect. Since we know his whereabouts, his job, and his history, thanks to the tabloids & the press that this case is receiving (why so much, I'm not sure), is already readily available. I'm not sure what kind of 'public service' this provides, although that's the only readily availale defense for posting it, so...
In any case, I love Gothamist, and the extra traffic sure won't hurt, if that's the kind of service we're really talking about.
While I'm not going to get into a spitting match over it, I have to agree with a lot of the posters here: if this guy isn't they guy, then a lot of people have a lot of explaining to do.
And you guys know I love ya, but publishing the guy's mug shot ahead of his arrest is inflamatory. Why not wait a few more hours until he's charged (assuming he is, see below)? I'm not sure we need a "warning" unless this guy is the guy. Most people already know not to mess with bouncers.
And here's what's starting to trouble me: if this guy is the guy, then why haven't they charged him? It's been more than twenty-four hours now that they've held him; I, for one, am getting a little concerned
jack, can you get a job? posting comments in real time on gothamist is a bit sad. you are really embarrassing yourself.
If Gothamist is only posting the picture "solely for the sake of hoping to find out the truth of what happened that night", then why cover it with the "GOTHAMIST EXCLUSIVE" watermarks?
Why not remove the watermarks so every blog can post a copy of it, too?
j0sh,
"Gothamist undoubtedly is serving the public's interest best by publishing this picture. If they were just looking for a boost in traffic, you'd be seeing a lot more paris hilton posts..."
Sure it's understood that this fits the criteria for news about New York City, but how could you say this is serving the public's interest?
I think people are interested if the guy is guilty, or if there is exclusive evidence of some sort, not the guy's mug.
You can't deny that this photo doesn't increase traffic.
Sorry, I meant to say that people such as myself who visit Gothamist, are more interested if the guy is guilty than the guy's mug.
Jake (aka: none), perhaps my posting comments in real-time on Gothamist once ever six months or so seems 'pathetic', but what is to be said about you Jake Dobkin--aka: none--posting this post and not coming clean about it and responding pseudononymously in comments? You're supposedly the owner of this site and you're just being mean spirited in your initial post and questionable in your bizarre pseudononymous posts here.
If it's a crime that I have a nice day off after weeks/month of real work, then call me guilty! At least I'm honest about who I am, Jake.
As I (and others) have mentioned already, showing the picture to the public could potentially be instrumental in proving the guy's guilt OR innocence. It's not unlikely someone got a good look at him but not her- either tying him to the crime, or giving him an alibi. The press has already thrown his name all over the place, giving the public information they can use, like a face, can do nothing but good.
This has become a very high profile case. It certainly deserves to be solved. But so does every murder in NYC...not just the attractive, bright, promising grad students, but the person of color who gets whacked in a dark alley, the old lady who gets tied up and robbed in her apartment, the drive-bys, the drug-relateds, the crimes of passion...
I don't see any value to Gothamist posting this guy's mug along with a disclaimer "innocent until..." The tabloids can sling muck, but I choose not to read them. Let the cops do their jobs. If this guy did the deed, then let him rot in Attica or, better yet, get knifed while awaiting arraignment in Rikers. But, recognize how high profile this case is. There is a reason why the NYPD is leading the press on this chase. Perhaps they think he knows who did it and will give it up when his own name is smeared.
Another tragedy...another preventable death.
To be on topic:
"Perhaps they think he knows who did it and will give it up when his own name is smeared."
Sadly I think this is the case. I'm betting solid money he did not have anything directly to do with the murder, but somehow 'friends' got mixed in and this poor woman's life was taken away. And somehow this guy was made the patsy.
What if this guy did not do anything? But his 'friends' knew he would be the main suspect and just set things up so he took the fall?
That's the deal here. If he were guilty, I don't think this case would have played out the way it has. Something else is missing and I'm starting to think the cops want to sweat this guy to give up the real perps.
"Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing. The picture is from a previous arrest (and Littlejohn does have a record) and we've made sure to emphasize that he hasn't even been arrested yet."
Jen, You just lost one of your biggest fans. This kind of stuff from Jake I've come to expect, but for you to support this kind of McCarthy-esque yellow journalism is just beyond reason. Let's say for the sake of argument, this man is later found to be the guilty culprit. Guess what? That still doesn't make what you guys did with this post right. I'd have more respect for you if you just admitted that you were working with the police behind-the-scenes. Working with the police is a "good" thing, but treat your readers right and be honest about it, rather than pretend this is just innocent blogging and "someone" anonymously sent you a mugshot no one else seems to have.
On the other hand, if this is really all just your own blogging, then wow, I can't see returning here, or ever recommending this site again (which I have done on numerous occasions). I am digusted by this post, as well as your attitudes towards the outcry from the other readers. You guys should be ashamed.
You people are all crazy. Gothamist posted this picture because its a good scoop. Obviously its going to increase traffic, look at the comments! Considering this is a BLOG and not a court of law or government agency, Gothamist has every right to post whatever pictures it wishes. And I guarantee that they do this as much as possible, solely to increase traffic. Its their business. Whats irresponsible here? They've posted the mug shot of a suspect. This is cause for finger wagging? People who think that "he looks guilty" should'nt lambast gothamist but question why that's their first reaction to seeing mug shot. I don't think Gothamist created this siuation with this suspect. Having a mug shot in the first place did. Oh yeah, and there's a watermark on these photos because thats how this world works, you naive fools.
Jack- so if the scenario you present is in fact true (it very well might be), are you saying that someone who is intentionally witholding the identity of a brutal murderer still doesn't deserve to have his "good name tarnished" in me media? Forgetting about all his priors, his good name is gone the minute he protects whoever did it.
"It's actually quite possible that he's trying to be straight while out of jail"
if this was the case, he wouldn't have violated his parole. he's guilty of that plus, parole doesn't mean you're free to go, he's technically still in jail, just serving his time on the outside due to a screw-up with the parole board.
black or white, this would be an issue, a servere issue. does anyone remember the "white kids" who beat the crap out of a black kid in queens last year (with a baseball bat)? that was smeared all over the headlines... or a white jewish guy who sexually assualted a woman on halloween... again, smeared with rage across new york city and the country for that matter... those of you playing the race card are ridiculous and are not going to be taken seriously, at least not by me or any others, i hope.
posting a photograph is not a crime nor shoujld it be looked at with distain. if this man was on the lam this photo wouuld have eventually surfaced so people could better get a glance... hey, he may be in your neighborhood, glad i saw that photo in on gothamist...
When it comes down to it, I don't really understand the need for speculation (even my own). There's an abundance of DNA involved (skin under nails, semen, hair) we'll all know soon.
jack, you're obsessed with jake-- you need to recognize that lots of people think you are a crank. i am one of those people. i thought you were a nutjob before, but now i'm sure of it. get your head on straight! the real crime here is that this girl was raped and murdered-- most likely by this dirtball. defending a rapist/murderer might seem like a normal thing to you, but frankly, it sends some terrifying signals about what's going on inside your head. i'll be over here with the normal people-- you can stay over there with the ex-cons and psychopaths.
I have no problem with posting the picture, but the "Exclusive" watermark is awfully tacky, especially since you've been pretty critical of how the tabloids are covering this case...
This guys rap sheet alone could suffice as a half decent post! Nice work Gothamist.
"Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing."
Jen,
that's not much of a defense and I think this lowers Gothamist to Sensationalism.
Also, in all seriousness, I'm not sure that Blogs have the same protections that a News organization have under the law. Could be that News Media organizations haven't done this to to serious liability issues. Jake may have just legally made Gothamist civilly liable, especially if he gets released on bail and/or this is someone else.
Are you absolutely certain that's Littlejohn? Are you and Jake ready to bet your Assets on it?
Honestly, IMO, your sticking your neck out.
None, I'm not obsessed with Jake, but I know his writing style. And none, you are Jake Dobkin. In fact over the past few months on various other blogs odd posts--focused on specifically smearing me--have poppped up now and then. And in a few cases, I've been able to work with the blog owners to gather info and confirm that Jake Dobkin is in fact the source of these obsessive/stalking posts.
But for the benefit of the doubt, if you're not Jake Dobkin "i thought you were a nutjob before" who are you? You don't ID yourself, cowardly hide behind pseudononymous postings? Who are you?
The reality is none I am not obessed with Jake Dobkin. But you are DEFINITELY Jake Dobkin. And your history Jake in launching into bile filled tenacious campaigns gashing into others who dare critcize ANYTHING on Gothamist is well known. There's a whole army of writers out there who have stopped working/writing for Gothamist because of your behavior. I'm vocal abouot it, but it's well known. And you know it Jake.
Now do us all a favor Jake. Come clean. And stop it.
And in the case of this guy, I never said he was an angel, but just because he was guilty in the past does not mean he's the guy who did it in this case. I'm sure that when all is said and done there will be a nice and tidy "Law and Order" episode about it. Maybe then it will all make sense.
Oh, FYI on my last jury duty I sat on a jury that sent a truly violent rapist to jail. He was guilty without a doubt. And I'm actually quite happy I spent my jury duty doing something valuavble to help this city. So if you're going to accuse me of being 'twisted' get your facts straight. Nobody wants to defend a murderer/rapist. But if this guy DID NOT DO IT, then what's to be said about the folks in the media who have made this guy suffer another form of hell... Of being falsely accused...
If Gothamist posted this for scoop value, watermark away.
But if Gothamist posted this as a public service to tie a potential murderer to a crime, it should remove the watermark so that others might post it.
[b]Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing[/b]
And what wonderful company Gothamist is in. You suck.
Gothamist's new slogan:
Post first, ask questions later.
the best part about this comments thread is knowing that one man is ranting insanely. I have access to the IPs, and "none" is not Dobkin. I know, I know: I work for them, so automatically I can't be trusted. But I'll be content without you believing me, and I'll sit here with my popcorn as you rant your conspiracy theories Jack.
neps=neil http://www.gothamist.com/staff.php#neil
and how else could I edit my entry.
This negro has a record going back to when he was 17 and from there...he has increasingly increased and demonstrated his particular and unique display of intelligence in continuing his positive contributions to society ie. dealing drugs, assaults, robberies etc. What I see is a pathlogical liar and criminal who after being out of prison for only 2 + months, graduated to the next level...namely sadistic torture, rape, and murder.
Obviously he is not to smart otherwise there would have been no evidence, cell records, witnesses to him with her, in the bar with her, arguing with her, in the van with her etc. WHICH WAS THE LAST TIME SHE WAS SEEN ALIVE! His cell records track his BLACK ASS everywhere she was...including when her violated and lifeless body was dumped.
So I say, HE IS GUILTY until proven innocent. Race card...hell yeah...the FBI and Planned Parenthood both document that between 30-40,000 White women are raped A YEAR by blacks and that is only REPORTED crimes. I know...the truth hurts...but such is the blessings and results of not ever wanting to believe the obvious...
Oh...wait...news release...they have found the REAL KILLER...well I'll be damned...the demon from hell is a WHITE GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...my most sincere apologies to all of you...forgive me pleasssssssseeeeeeeeeeeee...
I guess I had it alllllll wrong...sorry :)
Jack, even Kojak, another Gothamist-commenting nutjob, has had the good sense to stay away from this one.
Who is 'neps'? Is it 'none'? C'mon Jake, come clean. We all know its you. An undergrad with basic writing anaylsis skills can tell.
Now go back and concentrate on the Gothamist LLC business model and please quanify how 'being a ponce' counts as a feather in the cap of Gothamist LLC...
I am Jake Dobkin.
Can we stop saying drug dealer like it's a negative thing? Some people gotta carry big quantities so I get my small quantities.
"So I say, HE IS GUILTY until proven innocent."
Jake, 'neps', 'none' or whoever you aree. If I'm a nutjob, and this 'richard zickler' is considered sane, then lock me up in that crazy 'innocent until proven guilty' ward of blog jail!
The most interesting part of this post is how--if 'neps' and 'none'--are not Jake, how Jake then himself is painfully silent on this whole issue. I mean, if that is the case and 'none' and 'neps' are not in fact Jake.
Kind of sad no matter what way you slice it.
To NoMoreGothamist
See I posted under the Name "Jen" and I am not Jen so dont go hateing you gont even know if that was her
Revised by Brad Pitt
To NoMoreGothamist
See I posted under the Name "Jen" and I am not Jen so dont go hateing you dont** even know if that was her
There's a reason I don't buy the Post in the morning.
No, I am Jake Dobkin.
Crazy Jack - Look at my first comment. I edited it (wow, how'd I do that? I must have some higher MT access). You'll see who I am there, and I'm not Jake, so please stop dragging my name around. It's not appreciated. But your insanity is quite enjoyable!
let's stay on the ball here, people-- i'm not neps-- i'm just a concerned citizen that is sick and tired of kneejerk liberals going crazy over stupid shit like this. criminals deserve to be identified and punished. as a society, we need to be on the side of the victims. jack, you're sick to believe anything else-- please get help.
mugshots are easy to access with simple freedom of information requests-- they are public information. there's simply no argument here-- gothamist did exactly what a news blog is supposed to do-- reported the news. if he turns out to be innocent, i fully expect them to publish a prominent retraction, but i don't expect that's going to happen.
Will the real Jake Dobkin please stand up, please stand up?
I am jake dobkin
None--aka: Jake--if you are in fact real and not Jake, then why be anonymous? Do you need a GMail invite? You know how to contact me. I'm quite transparent in my identity. What about you?
I do stand by the assertion that 'none' is in fact Jake Dobkin. The writing 'quirks' are too similar to be faked. And are consistent across all posts. And after Jake's bile-filled post towards me on Decent Content at one point, other bloggers came to my defense and notes were indeed exchanged.
So claim you're not Jake at all 'none'. We all know the truth. And 'none' is definitely you Jake. The tenacity and visciousness of your commenting speaks for itself.
And like I said before, if 'none' is not Jake, then why is he strangely absent from commenting at least once about this?
C'mon Jake, we all know the deal.
Oh, 'neps'. Sorry about that. I guess you are indeed who you are. But it's pretty clear who 'none' is. It's definitely Jake.
The man pictured above is a likely suspect, but I'd be surprised if he did it. There are cameras all over bars. If cops don't release video or stills of the suspect interacting with the victim in the bar in the next 24 hours, then I'd bet that they have very little to go on other than hearsay.
Snatching someone out of a crowded bar is one thing. Snatching someone out of an emptying place that would have less than a dozen people in it and where most witnesses could recognize you b/c you work there is pretty farfetched or incredibly stupid, which I'm not ruling out.
The guy is obviously bad news and should still be in jail; why in the world would anybody care about this guy's pic being posted on the internet. If this scumbag was such a great guy there would not be mug shots waiting to be published now would there? How can anyone possible defend this cretin?
New York has been invaded by idiots.
Dave Bob, there are mughsots of Frank Sinatra being sold and posted all over the city. Want to know what his 'crime' was? Adultery!
So I can see it. Anyone with a mugshot is automatically guilty! Brilliant!
Oh, and just watched "The Cruise" again. And in it there's a mugshot of Timothy "Speed" Levitch in his ealier days. He must definitely be a menace to society! I mean, waxing poetic about the beauty of NYC and "the cruise" is a crime against humanity.
It's amazing how conservative, prejudiced and racist this country has become under George W. Bush. Not like race issues were great before, but it's really depressing to be an American nowadays with attitudes like this.
If you don’t want anyone publishing your mugshot, don’t break the law. That is a simple fact jack.
News -- thoroughly reported and vetted -- customarily doesn't need the future option of a "retraction" hanging over it, Mr. None.
-Z
I knew it was only a matter of time before G.W. Bush was dragged into this! Can we stay on topic for, like, 30 seconds or would someone like to blame this murder on Cheney or Rumsfeld? There's a Chicken Little element to administration critics that dilutes legit criticism to the point of white noise.
Dave Bob: I'm not sure what third-world country you're from, but here in America we believe in due process. It's so important to us that it comes in at sixth place in our Top Ten Most Awesome Things About Living in America (aka the Bill of Rights).
But hey, it must be fun where you are, where being a suspect in an investigation equals actual guilt and a history of previous offenses is excellent supporting evidence. Your regime sounds like fun!
The Smoking Gun just posted Yanni's mug shot from his domestic abuse arrest. Let's argue about that, and then Jack can accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being anti-Greek. It'll be fun.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0307061yanni1.html
Dateline 3/7/06
Gothamist's Final Bizarre Bid to Beat Irrelevancy with Psychic Surgery.
The editors of gothamist.com left late Tuesday evening for the Philippenes in search of "psychic" healer's cure following the "mug shot" debacle. Friends had been noticing lately a persistent and nagging tendency toward fluff and fandango. Is this the final desperate attempt to rescue themselves using whatever means necessary, could it be an elaborate hoax, or has gothamist finally succumbed to the black cancer of irrelevancy? Time will tell.
Luv, Andy
"If you don’t want anyone publishing your mugshot, don’t break the law. That is a simple fact jack."
Fine, if that's the case then Frank Sinatra is a dirty criminal for having sex with a married woman and the street vendors in Little Italy are doing a fine 'public service' by selling mugshots of his so people can hang them up on their wall and be reminded that Frank Sintra is a threat to to the sanctity of husband/wife sex.
Go with justice, valiant Frank Sinatra mugshot selling street vendors!
What moronic drivel Tim. He is in fact a convicted felon and therefore there are mug shots of him. From this you get idiotic ravings about foreign regimes? Put down the Kool-Aid pal.
Jen said:
"Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing."
Good lord, is that the standard you want to adhere to? This post should be taken down ASAP. What is the point, besides some salacious "exclusive"? Do yourself a favor and avoid the ethical deep end, because it's clear you all aren't equipped for it.
This mugshot isn't posted because of past crimes, this one is up because the person may or may not be involved with an unsolved crime.
OK, the Oscar liveblogging was unnecessary, but harmless pap, but now this. Disgraceful and in utter bad taste. Indefensible.
If this keeps up I'll be off Gothamist soon.
Jack,
you are a jerk.
You are the kind of person that makes honest-to-god liberals cringe when they say that they're members of the democratic party. This has nothing to do with George Bush, and it has nothing to do with the trajectory of the nation. And it definitely has nothin to do with who "none," "neps," or anyone else might or might not be. If your argument made any sense, you wouldn't need to resort to discussing totally irrelevant issues like those.
This guy has already been found guilty. Not of this crime, but of a number of others. And if gothamist or any other source just wanted to write a public-interest story saying, "hey, look what a shmuck this guy's been, you should look out for him (btw he's a bouncer at a bar you may have been to)" and never even mentioned this crime, they'd be well within their rights to do so.
And guess what? Posting his photo might actually advance justice. If he's innocent and wasn't there, now people will know what he looks like and they can say, "oh yeah, I saw him having a great time drinking a latte in staten island that night," and suddenly he's got an alibi. Alternatively someone could see the picture and say, "oh yeah, I saw him driving with some chick that I didn't get a good look at," or even, "oh yeah, that guy tried to rape me three years ago," and it helps figure out that he might in fact be guilty.
As for janine's comment, "Can we stop saying drug dealer like it's a negative thing," we're talking about a heroine-selling, gun-toting thug here. We're not talking about the guy who hooks you up with zips so you can bake brownies and watch Jeff Bridges movies for the million-and-oneth time.
yay for ultra liberalism....!!!!!!!!!! simmer down y'all, he's an ex-con and a suspect, his mugshot is public info...
Anyone with the audacity to use the alias "Jonathan Blaze" in their own mug shot photo is most likely headed down the path of spending the rest of their life dead or in jail one way or another. This guy did a damn good job of smearing his own name many times over already- arguing that this post may hurt his good name should he be innocent is beyond ridiculous.
[15] Posted by: j0sh | March 7, 2006 02:14 PM
****************************************
So, he (i>is guilty of something already -- a criminally bad pseudonym.
Those commenters who've pilloried Gothamist for posting this are right. The tabs are wrong and Gothamist is wrong, too.
Unless this guy has been deemed some kind of "at large" threat and the public needs to be warned to beware, posting his photo when he has not been found guilty of (or even charged with) this crime is Richard Jewell stuff -- an unwarranted, un-American smear.
I suspect this comes from the fear thing Jen was talking about in her Dateline interview. I honestly believe Gothamist feels they are doing a service here -- (imaginary dialogue) "Women are nervous; threatened. This man's identity has to be out there, so people know who they're dealing with."
But it doesn't work that way. So, next time, think twice before you drag someone's bad name through the mud. (It matters not that it was already muddy.)
And maybe you should take down the photo.
Neither am I.
Here here, Andrew.
Gothamist, it's pretty disappointing that you put up the above picture. Since the guy is in custody, you should have waited till he was charged.
This guy has already been found guilty. Not of this crime, but of a number of others. And if gothamist or any other source just wanted to write a public-interest story saying, "hey, look what a shmuck this guy's been, you should look out for him (btw he's a bouncer at a bar you may have been to)" and never even mentioned this crime, they'd be well within their rights to do so.
[81] Posted by: Matt | March 7, 2006 04:23 PM
*********************************************
Actually, I don't think they would be within their rights to do so without some other motivating/legitimizing factor.
I think this is rather funny: the only people who are enraged by this post are also the same people who think that it makes him look "guilty" and/or is threatening his due process. If only you folks would understand that you're CREATING this issue by 1) assuming the worst possible motives behind the intial post, then 2)attacking what you deem to be the intent. Its almost fascist in a way: we can't suppose anything about world affairs until a government agency has ruled on it already. No, no no.
Its a guys mugshot, who happens to be suspect in a "high profile case." His due process isn't being threatened: This isn't a court of law, it's a website, and the only way this guy will get to a court of law is if there's evidence to bring him there. All of this other stuff (the initial post, the comments) is just supposition about his involvement and his past, which is meaningless. Do you understand that this is all meaningless?
I find it funny that only the people who take offence equate a mug shot and prior history posts to where
"being a suspect in an investigation equals actual guilt and a history of previous offenses is excellent supporting evidence"
You said it, not gothamist. People can talk about whatever the hell they want. People can draw conclusions about whatever the hell they want. Don't blame gothamist for posting a picture because the public will read guilt into it.
too bad people are morons. I found the picture and the post regarding his criminal past interesting. Why, I don't know. But I know it doesn't prove a goddman thing. But it is interesting, and adds another wrinkle into this mysterious case. So shut up already and let Gothamist do its job and make money.
Suburban pot dealers are harmless. Black dealers in cities are dangerous. That's what I meant above. Hate to bring up GWB again but our President has definitely been on the holding side of several kinds of drugs. I'm just saying that listing a drug arrest as proof of a road to psycho killer is a stretch.
It's not simply a matter of defending this guy. I think this crime looks like some crazy, Dahmer-like stuff where the dude is going to be a real sick puppy with a drive to do it again and again. I'm worried that they're putting all their focus on a petty thief/possibly reformed thug. This dude sounds like his sort of violent crime would be followed by using her credit cards the next day.
i dont think the argument "but he's being held for a parole violation" is a good excuse for plastering his photo on gothamist. if that was the case, gothamist should just show mugshots of every parole violator. clearly they put this up because he is being charged with a crime. gothamist has been doing a good job keeping everyone posted about the details of this story, but his mugshot added nothing, and was unnecessary.
yes, its not wrong, and yes his mugshot is public info, but that doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
grrlz rule,
Um, no. Fascist? You're essentially stating that these people shouldn't criticize Gothamist and any other publication for ruining someone's reputation.
If all of these comments/posts about his previous history is meaningless, then why is it posted in the first place? And how is that not any sort of evidence as to where Gothamist lays part of its interests? Is that still an assumption now? Because it sounds a little contradictory, no?
Furthermore, Jen said in a previous post, "Jack, I don't think we're doing any more smearing than the tabloids are doing." It sort of sounds to me that she admits smearing the guys reputation already.
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it seems like Gothamist is becoming some more like 'Starz' magazine, but for New Yorkers, and with personal criticism.
Maybe that's okay, maybe it's not. I'm just saying.
Uh, mo-rons. This is not PBS. It's not much different than the tabloids. Why wouldn't a for-profit website post something that will generate over 90 comments? Are you all saying that Gothamist supposedly lives up to some sort of ethical code? It's a blog. The whole point is that it doesn't need to abide by the same standards as a newspaper. I know, I know, posts like Liveblogging the Academy Awards and The Pita's Weekly Picks are prime examples of the unbiased hard-hitting reporting you've come to expect from this blog, but really. Ever heard of the Smoking Gun website? Mug shots are taken and shown for many people that interact with the police, not just people that were found guilty.
It's not such a big deal, and the Gothamist is not some sort of investigative ethical frontrunner. Take it for what it's worth. (Plus, that dude totally did it. He looks really guilty in that pic)
I have no problem with this at all.
I do have a problem with 25 posts from Jack though.
JACK-NO ONE IS READING YOUR POSTS!
See your name and I just scroll on by.......
Go outside.
4:57,
yes, gothamist should live up to some ethical code. that is why i read it. and that, im sure, is why so many people are commenting. because they hold gothamist up to an ethical code that the they dont hold the tabloids up to, thats why everyone else reads gothamist, and the reason why everyone is posting, is to let Jen know that they are concerned that gothamist isnt living up to what the readers expect.
Gothamist, thank you for finally giving me a definitive reason for never reading your lame blog ever again.
Unlikely, perhaps, but that assumes that this guy (if he did it) has not been caught before.
Congrats Gothamist, you got the traffic you were looking for!
Wow, 100 comments since 1:51...
"See your name and I just scroll on by......."
Thanks! Now if Jake would just chime in to clear up this whole mess, maybe we could all move on.
Got a few e-mails into him regarding 'none' but no response yet.
Said it before and I'll say it again. If Jake is not 'none', then why is Jake--who normally defends posts tooth and nail--not posting on this post. A post that Jake himself initiated.
I mean he personally defended himself and his odd editorial choices in lashing out Lindsayism in a bizarre/self-centered post. Ditto with his defense of the fake hipster/Cobra Snake homeless pictures. Why not here? And why not publically? And who is this 'concerned citizen' who calls themselves 'none' if they are indeed not Jake?
It doesn't take a Mensa member to look over Jake's writing, compare it to 'none' and come to the conclussion that it's it's one and the same person.
STOPPPPP. sheesh.
dude:
"But, I do think you're making yourself crazy over your conspiracy theory."
Maybe you're a bit right. But a bit wrong. Anyone who has dealt with "Gothamist Staff" in the past knows it's not as much of a conspiracy as you would think.
But regarding Jugz:
"Any mugshots from the underage girl molestor at Stuy??"
Brilliant! We know the deal! And glad someone else said it. ;)
BTW, I've been following this story intently ever since it initially broke, both from a media and law enforcement perspective, and all of the evidence and facts of the case STRONGLY suggest--indeed, leave no room for doubt--that Littlejohn is in fact the killer. Police have not yet charged him because they want to be absolutely sure they have everything they need before making that move. This was an extremely vicious slow-death torture/rape/homicide and the victim suffered a great deal before dying, so the cops want to make sure they nail this guy without leaving him any wiggle room. As for all the crticism concerning the posting of Littlejohn's mug shot, this is probably the wrong guy to hold up as a poster child for that argument.
two.oh:
All gothamist did was post a mug shot (from a prior crime) of a suspect in a murder case. I don't understand how his reputation is being ruined UNLESS you think that it makes him guilty. If you want to think that way, thats your prerogative. I don't think like that. YOU do, so I guess you could say gothamist is a vehicle for ruining someone's reputation. But this vehicle only works if you already think that way, i.e. "I will derive guilt from a picture."
As far as "not criticizing other publications who smear," well, I didn't say that at all, but I do think that way. Don't read them if it bothers you. But limiting content because people could interpret it the wrong way (or any way at all, for that matter) is ludicrous, a form of censorship and reminds me of certain elements of fascism.
Why is it posted in the first place? Thats what people do. They talk about random stuff. Is it meaningless? Not socio-politically. In a court of Law, yes, it is meaningless. It doesn't matter at all. Thats why we have courts and thats why we have comment sections on the internet.
As far as gothamist smearing, well mug shots don't exactly compliment your features. They're grainy and ugly looking. You look like a jerk in a mug shot, so yeah, posting a bad picture is "smearing," in a way. I don't think so. He was in jail. too bad bad he's a suspect now. People will already think he's guilty!!! ARRGGHH
Draw your own conclusions, talk about them, but saying that Gothamist is irresponsible and guilty of yellow journalism is fucking stupid.
I just viewed this post and the comments following it, and I have to say that I'm totally disturbed by everyone's rationalizations of the entire event. Though I'm not totally in line with Jack, I was very pleased to see that the first comment on this thread was made by him. When I opened Gothamist today, I found this thread extremely disturbing and totally out of line with the quality of posts that this blog typically has. For one, it is outrageous to post a suspects picture merely because they've had a criminal record in the past. It's not illegal, but it should be, because it further entrenches whatever character archetype we've already established for him. We aren't rehabilitating former criminals, we're continuing to label them criminals, thus perpetuating this status.
About the victim... that's not what Jack is taking issue with. I'm sure that IF INDEED this man is guilty, then Jack would agree that justice should be served. However, the post made here basically assumed guilt. What if this post led to a report by someone who vaguely remembered being there, and seeing someone who looked vaguely like this guy. IN REALITY it turned out that he was truly innocent. But because the information was out there, like some baited hook, this man went to jail for the rest of his life for a crime he didn't commit. He would absolutely be a victim as well. It is extremely irresposible to post such information, which could potential alter the course of this man's life simply because he had a prior criminal record. I sincerely hope you reconsider posting such information in the future.
If anyone would like to continuing discussing this, feel free to email me.
Jack has commented a million times, S.D. cas commented once. All we need now is a comment from kojak and all the Gothamist wackos will be represented. Although next to Jack, those two look like fully integrated members of society.
bill,
regardless of whether you think he is likely guilty or not, or whether i think he is guilty or not, i think it sets a bad precident for gothamist to post mugshots of the accused that people think may be guilty. i am not arguing that he should get any special rights, but i do believe that putting his picture on gothamist, will undoubtably give some people the impression that he is guilty, which i think is not something that gothamist should be doing, or promoting.
Sorry but all the people on here who are angry that the mugshot and story were posted are out of their damn minds. Since when is there something wrong with that? He happens to be the main and only suspect at the moment in a particularly horrific crime. Anyone with a heart would want to see the person who is responsible caught. So naturally as news breaks people are going to want to know.
Yea yea we all know "innocent until proven guilty" thats all fine and well. I don't recall him being labeled "guilty" anywhere in the post. Personally I don't think he should have ever been let out of jail in the first place given his track record and i have no idea what judge in their right mind would have thought otherwise.
"About the victim... that's not what Jack is taking issue with. I'm sure that IF INDEED this man is guilty, then Jack would agree that justice should be served."
Comepletely agreed. I'm not defending rapists and murders. Whoever did it should be sent to jail. Plain and simple. But the concept that his mugshot was posted in this way is a bit sickening. I really do believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. And while this guy is DEFINITELY no angel, I don't think his past needs to be raked through the coals until he's charged for this specific crime.
Note to the Foodies on Gothamist (and there are tons of you): Tons of the workers in ALL the restaurants in this city have backgrounds of some sort. It's par for the course and not surprising. But just because someone did something in the past does not mean their reputation should be dragged through the coals for a crime they have not even formally charged him with.
"S.D. cas commented once."
Counting this time, 3 times actually.
"Wacko"? Me? How nice.
Also, get Spellbound for Firefox.
"all of the evidence and facts of the case STRONGLY suggest--indeed, leave no room for doubt--that Littlejohn is in fact the killer."
No room for doubt? Ah, you must be a detective working on the case. Oh wait, you're just a jamoke posting on the Gothamist who knows the same unconfirmed and conflicting details that we do.
As of now, there is ZERO physical evidence tying Littlejohn to the crime. He works at the bar, he may or may not have escorted her outside, he sort of lives near where her body was found. If that's enough for you for a conviction, then let's pray you don't work in any facet of the justice system.
jack...
put down the red bull. stop pacing back and forth around your apartment stopping only to refresh this page to see if none/jake has replied to you yet. take a shower, have a shave, and go out and get some sushi or something. don't forget your ipod so you can listen to that new tapes n' tapes band.
jake/none...
the time has come to respond to something... anything... as jake. fess up to being none, or don't. nobody (except jack) cares either way, so post as jake, give us your take on things, and let's move on. then you can put the computer to sleep, and go out and snap some photos... or grab some sushi with jack.
whatever.
FYI folks, the main drive for my "million post march" is the fact that Jake himself has simply not commented on this in any way. Or at least publically comments. I'm quite confident that 'none' is in fact Jake and while 'none's comments are not too pleasant, at least if Jake came clean about it, it would clear things up.
But instead we get this. A biased posting of a mugshot followed by the anonymous defense of the post by the mysterious 'none' and not one public comment from Jake himself about the whole issue.
I find it very dubious and very cowardly that Jake would have posted this mugshot to begin with. And find it even worse he doesn't say something publically and simply hides behind this 'none' nom de plume in his comment responses.
If people are complaing about the amount of posts, don't worry. It's clear Jake wanted to milk this case for all its worth and drive traffic to the site. And I think we can all agree he succeeded!
Kudos for the increase in excess sellable ad-views!
OK OK... you idiots are gettng this all wrong... or perhaps your reading comprehension is below par....
JOHNNY SHOTGUN IN THE ABOVE MUG SHOT IS A CURRENT VIOLENT FELON SERVING TIME, I PRESUME IN A STATE PRISON.
HOWEVER, DUE TO A PAROLE BOARD SCREW UP (WHICH I'M SURE IT WAS (SEE TODAYS NYT ARTICLE, HE WAS REJECTED TWO MONTH PRIOR) HE'S OUT ON PAROLE.
HE VIOLATED HIS PAROLE BY NOT TELLING HIS PAROLE OFFICER HE WAS/IS WORKING AS A BOUNCER AT A BAR. WHETHER HE'S BEEN CHARGED FOR MURDER OR NOT, THERE IS NO VIOLATION BY GOTHAMIST OR ANY NEWS SOURCE FOR PRINTING/POSTING HIS PHOTOGRAPH... IN FACT I'M SURE THE COURT WOULD NOT "OBJECT"
HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER, BUT BY HIS EXTENSIVE RAP SHEET HE HAS BEEN IN JAIL FOR VIOLENT CRIMES. AS I SAID YESTERDAY, MURDER ONE WAS/IS NEXT ON HIS PORTFOLIO OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
I wonder if the NYPD detectives working on the case appreciated the mugshot posting. Usually they can call reporters to ask them to hold off on printing something that might affect an investigation, taint potential witnesses, etc. But did Gothamist contact the NYPD to talk about this before posting?
"But did Gothamist contact the NYPD to talk about this before posting?"
I think they talked to a 'Best Boy' on a 'Law and Order' filming crew. Does that count?
edex,
there's the button called "caps lock" that can take care of all those capital letters.
but about your comment, although he is guilty of past crimes, he is not guilty of this murder yet. and im sure you can see that if the press and nypd were mistaken in accusing him, if his picture is up when someone sees this post, but those people do not see the post where he is found not guilty, then in their minds, that man and that face is the person who committed the crime, regardless of what the truth is.
no one believes gothamist violated any laws, or any court would object to this, but clearly many frequent readers of gothamist object and made clear what their views were.
grrlz,
"All gothamist did was post a mug shot (from a prior crime) of a suspect in a murder case. I don't understand how his reputation is being ruined UNLESS you think that it makes him guilty."
That doesn't seem to make any sense. You're basically putting the blame on me, or other people who got the same response. In other words, you don't think I should've said anything in the first place?
It's common sense here. Why would anyone put a mug shot of a known felon for a completely different crime? Can you please explain to me, and to others how you can say this post is not derogatory in any way? If you were to see the person in this mug shot, would you feel comfortable seeing him on the street? If your answer is no, then surely there is contradiction in your responses.
"Don't read them if it bothers you."
Ugh. Is that the only solution you have? I am here, as a concerned reader, writing to Gothamist about my opinions. It's called an opinion, and obviously you don't believe in my opinions, and that's okay. Just don't try and say that I shouldn't be here having one --which is what you are saying.
I am not saying to limit the content, I am saying, take responsibility as to what you're implying in a blog that is well known, and was seemingly unbiased in the past.
For you to tell me I shouldn't be here, is fascist in itself. Why do you have a problem with me stating my opinions when I'm not censoring them.
Simply stated, they posted a photo that is completely irrelevant to the current case other than identifying the suspect. The general response is that, "this guy is guilty", not because the photo is bad, but because it's a mugshot, and because it connotates the crime with the suspect. It's not MY problem, it's human nature, and you'll just have to accept my opinion.
As I stated before and now again, I am saying it's fine up to Gothamist to put the photo here. Hey, it's their blog. But it's irrelevant, and simply marks this guy as guilty. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.
In regards to the post about the mainstream displaying this information (mug shot, story, etc), I'm not condoning that in any way. I feel it is a true injustice to this man, regardless of prior conviction, because he will never be able to escape the spectre of "suspected murder". I simply thought Gothamist was a blog more hip to civil and personal rights, which were clearly just violated. But maybe you're trying to alienate a certain demographic. Thoughts?
Jack,
Jake can't comment because he is here with me having a glass of wine while we watch mugs-gone-wild.
The purpose of the mug shot is to allow law enforcement to have a photographic record of all arrested individuals to allow for identification by victims and investigators. As such, the photograph(s) are automatically entered into the public domain in the United States, and can be obtained by anyone through the Freedom of Information Act, except for when the arrestees' record has been sealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot
oh n0ez! jake's internet credibility just went from none...to none. losers.
True, Mugs! I also just saw the mugshots on the CBS 5 and 6pm newscasts.
mugsette,
please read prior posts before making attacks on other commentors. the argument is not whether gothamist is allowed to post this picture, its whether gothamist should post this picture, because for many readers, they think gothamist is doing more harm than good by posting this picture. seriously, how many people are going to see this on gothamist and then start combing the streets of new york looking for places he has been, or people he has talked to?
I think having a picture of the bouncer helps clarify the 'case' for the public - not that we have a right of any sort to have it clarified, but for those of us curious about what happened, more information is always appreciated. And I don't see why a blog need be more deferential to the sensitivities of an ex-con of his caliber than to the desire of its readers. I've kind of been wondering how this very pretty 24 year old white woman may have regarded a burly 41 year old black man such that she, reportedly, a) spent most of her time at The Falls (limited though it was) talking with him, b) left willingly with him and c) (according to one witness report) willingly went upstairs with him.
Well, now I see that he is kind of an attractive / sexy looking guy, and I can imagine that he may have been charming enough such that she may have enjoyed his attention at bar, and trusted him more than she ought to have.
The picture also convinces me that, if he is the killer, it's possible that the murder could have been instigated by the not uncommon mixed signals that men and women give each other, in which case, he, unfortunately, probably wished she had fancied him more than she did. Well, the DNA testing should clarify this soon one way or another.
If what they're saying now is true, I think it's dreadful, if not criminal, that these bar workers, owners, managers, etc took a week to come clean with what went on there that night. Why did they previously repeatedly claim that she left alone if she hadn't? It's a pity.
I've not commented yet because we've been out trying to do some reporting; see my update above. Also, because of my tendency to get into flame wars with trolls (see above: the trolling comments are very obvious), I have to pay Tien and Jen $5 for every comment I leave on Gothamist. They've got all of my IPs, sites, and emails flagged so they can charge me correctly-- as such, I've been restricting my commenting to "updates" like the ones I've added to this post.
It does make me angry to allow some people to go unchallenged when I disagree with them so strongly. Very, very angry. As ever, we're just trying to do what we think is right. We had confirmation on the ID from a trusted source, and we went out of our way to get further confirmation.
But make no mistake: as I wrote in the post, he is innocent until proven guilty. All we are doing is reporting that this is a mugshot of a person the NYPD has described as "the sole suspect in the case". Nothing more.
For the reasons I described above, that's going to have to be it for me on this post. Maybe I can get Tien and Jen to jump in for me again, but responding to trolls isn't worth more than $5 in one day.
Oh, the van detail that was just released...why did he remove the backseat and bring it into his home? Was he planning to turn it into front porch "furniture?"
two.oh,
No one's telling anyone whether to be here or not, god forbid. And for chrissakes, say whatever the hell you want, I don't care. Just remember that you form your own opinions. Information doesn't form opinions. You can criticize gothamist for being tabloid like, sensationalising up to whazoo, but I really don't think journalistic responsibiliy should be questioned here BECAUSE the mug shot COULD be construed as making the guy look guilty. I don't think it does. Like you said, the photo connotates the crime with the suspect. Yes it does, but it Denotates crimes in the past with the suspect. Depends on how you look at things. gothamist was smart to identify him that way (rather than using his prom picture) cuz people took offence at it.
Of course, you can read it that way if you want, but don't blame Gothamist for the way you read!
I respect your opinion as much as my own, and I apologize if you interpreted my post as attacking you. Heck no. You're cool from what I gather.
(but gothamist shouldn't have to apologize to Mr. Littlejohn - its not their fault that 1) he has a mug shot, 2) internet traffic equals money and 3) people will interpret the context of the mug shot posting differently)
Jake,
I'd be the first to ask Jack to give it a rest - it got very tired several shrill, self-serving posts ago.
However.
If it does make you steamed to have people go unchallenged, then write a well-argued response. Don't invoke the $5 policy (won't even go into how stupid that is, if it's for real) and rise above your self-acknowledged 'tendency' to get into flame wars.
Hold yourself accountable.
Jack,
will you marry me?
This line I find quite disgusting:
"No one was in the bar, but it was only 4:45pm-- if anyone goes up there tonight, let us know if it's crowded."
What? It's not a circus show!!
eric,
To catagorize my post as an "attack on other commentors" shows that we see things differently...no right or wrong, just different.
I feel the same way about the posting of the mug shot. It's fine with me, others are adamantly opposed. I'm happy to say I can live with these differences.
JOHNATHAN BLAZE SPARKS A FLAME WAR
Maybe someone can explain this to me. The mugshot with the alias "Jonathan Blaze" above is dated 2003. Now Littlejohn is a habitual criminal with a rap sheet going back almost 25 years. Weren't his fingerprints on file? Wouldn't a simple fingerprint check have uncovered his real name and extensive criminal background? How is it that this fairly recent mugshot is under one of his many aliases?
I guess he found it "useful" to use a different name every time he committed a new crime.
eric,
"edex,
there's the button called "caps lock" that can take care of all those capital letters."
it was intentional. did you read the part about reading comprehension? if you have read the past posts you would have seen i never use CAPS... also, most of what what i said uses the the word or assumes the word alledged. i never implicated him in this crime. "HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER, BUT BY HIS EXTENSIVE RAP SHEET HE HAS BEEN IN JAIL FOR VIOLENT CRIMES."
however, with an extensive rap sheet such as his, and the girl being at that particular bar, annd him having removed her and a call from his cell phone in the vicinity of the dumoing grounds, put 3 and 3 together and you have a prime suspect.
also, and again, this is where reading comprehension comes in, he violated his parole, if he didn't commit this murder, he's undoubtebly guilty of parole violation.
"...He took a job with a mortgage lender and met with his parole officer, officials said. But he failed to tell parole officials that he was working as a bouncer at a bar, which may have violated the conditions of his parole." - The New York Times
"...Littlejohn has a curfew as a condition of his parole and he is not supposed to be out of his house after 7PM." —CBS
Can't we all just give some praise to Jake for getting a scoop?
Mainstream media needs to catch up with the bloggers.
Getting the pictrue out there may jog someone's memory who may have seen something. We all know the various "traditional media" outlets would run the photo if they got it.
anon.ny:
Mug shots are taken immediatley after an arrest in the booking station house. Finger prints can take several hours or days to recover. So, when you're dragged into the fuzz house they use the name you have given them, using an alias, is illegal and people are usually charged for that offense as well, this charge is typically dropped during plea deals.
edex -- so, does this mean that someone using an alias can be released on bail (and subsequently disappear) before his fingerprints and complete criminal history are obtained? I guess I just can't understand how with today's technology that it could take hours or even days to verify fingerprints, particularly when the crime was a violent one involving armed robbery.
Also, it seems like there's some kind of virtual "honor system" for paroled felons to report in, etc. Seems like parole officer just takes the parolee's word for whatever the parolee says and does minimal follow-up or checking.
suburban pot dealers are harmless? no, not all. growing up white in minority majority inner city boston neighborhood i can tell you dealers of all kinds would go out of business if it weren't for middle class suburban college students,white blue collar workers,and some of the biggest druggies of all, white collar so-called professionals.
most crime in cities,violent and other wise,revolves around drug dealing and turf wars.
littlejohn? blaze?handsome? wtf! what are these his porn names!?
why are there tools on this site defending this ignant foo? he's been a piece of s*it since the day he was born.would you want to encounter him at 1am on a train?
the assh*le owners of the bar deserve to be reamed but it sounds like they have mucho connections.
Jake, good to hear about your $5 policy. Does that policy also go towards you pseudononymouslty slandering others in comments on other websites and even Wikipedia? Want to make sure your fully paying the $5 per comment thing for those as well. Gotta be legit!
Also, trolls are not simply who post against you. As someone who has been on--and worked on--the Internet long before you knew what an RFP is, you're behavior speaks volumes. And if you were not intimately connected with Gothamist LLC, people would call you for what you are. A complete ponce.
Hey The Queen Is Dead, let's go share some drinks and some fun times and then get eloped!
Oh, fyi regarding this comment in the post:
"No one was in the bar, but it was only 4:45pm-- if anyone goes up there tonight, let us know if it's crowded."
Why not call it Movable Hype: The Rape Murder edition and call it even!
jake,
i'll give you $5 to take the post off gothamist.
thats just my opinion.
why are there tools on this site defending this ignant foo? he's been a piece of s*it since the day he was born.would you want to encounter him at 1am on a train?
the assh*le owners of the bar deserve to be reamed but it sounds like they have mucho connections.
[142] Posted by: phatty2006 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 7, 2006 07:41 PM
**********************
Nobody is defending his past criminal actions. We are defending his rights. They are your rights too.
Nice reporting Jake.
Jen & Tien - Cut him some slack on the Lincolns; no way Thompson ever drove this kind traffic.
NY1 is mainstream media? Who knew?!
Can you guys post something journalistically responsible, like the brewing debate between union workers at the U.N. and Kofi Annan's recent "modernization" announcements? That would be cool.
RE: Gothamist 7:29pm update re fact that Littlejohn's appearance has become "less menacing" over the past 3 years.
Quite frankly, he doesn't look at all *menacing* to me. His appearance is pleasant-looking, certainly nothing that says violent, habitual criminal.
If you want to see some really menacing people, show up for jury duty at Brooklyn criminal court. Some of those scowling defendants look really hardened. (Sometimes the victims are even too scared to show up in court.)
"Nobody is defending his past criminal actions. We are defending his rights. They are your rights too."
[145] Posted by: Andrew J. Lederer | March 7, 2006 08:11 PM
i'm intimately familar with dudes like mr. littlejohn. if he's anything like them he's been manipulating since his teens. his rights HAVE NOT been violated, but he has violated others far to many times. how many chances do guys like him get? he's a classic career criminal and repeat offender. dudes like him make life miserable for soo many others. bleeding hearts will be the death of us all.the road to hell is paved with (alleged) good intentions.
btw: that said, i'm surprised many other-wise intelligent people are oblivious regarding the background of many people they encounter,and often trust implicitly, on a regular basis. the backgrounds of most bouncers,waiters,bus boys,valets,security guards,movers,cab drivers,maintenance men,pizza delivery men,etc., are not closely checked.if it weren't for illegal aliens the best restaurants would go out of business!
"Quite frankly, he doesn't look at all *menacing* to me. His appearance is pleasant-looking, certainly nothing that says violent, habitual criminal."
LOL. i don't look menacing either. what's a violent,habitual criminal suppose to look like?
oh,i get it, you're being sarcastic.
'm intimately familar with dudes like mr. littlejohn. if he's anything like them he's been manipulating since his teens. his rights HAVE NOT been violated
[149] Posted by: phatty2006 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 7, 2006 08:46 PM
***********************
While his right to be presumed innocent until and unless proved guilty has not been violated (presumably) by the authorities, in a broader sense, it has been violated here.
Additionally, by implying his guilt (with reluctant, belated, perfunctory disclaimers), this site has, in essence, violated the man's civil rights. There is a libelous aspect to this. If he did not do this thing, he can/will find himself tarred by it nonetheless. This is typical in the present day U.S. (and for all I know, it was typical in the "good old days" too), but it's not right and while one expects this kind of unfairness from the Post (though one's stomach always aches when the expected comes to pass), one does not expect it from Gothamist.
"He took a job with a mortgage lender"
Armed robbery looks good in your resume if you are applying for a position in real estate. And still some say we don't have housing bubble:)
While his right to be presumed innocent until and unless proved guilty has not been violated (presumably) by the authorities, in a broader sense, it has been violated here.
Additionally, by implying his guilt (with reluctant, belated, perfunctory disclaimers), this site has, in essence, violated the man's civil rights. There is a libelous aspect to this. If he did not do this thing, he can/will find himself tarred by it nonetheless. This is typical in the present day U.S. (and for all I know, it was typical in the "good old days" too), but it's not right and while one expects this kind of unfairness from the Post (though one's stomach always aches when the expected comes to pass), one does not expect it from Gothamist.
[151] Posted by: Andrew J. Lederer | March 7, 2006 08:55 PM
he should have no trouble finding a lawyer to institute a civil lawsuit. the attorney will make enough to cover his childs prep school tuition and mr. blaze can get himself some bling bling.
"with reluctant, belated, perfunctory disclaimers..."
reluctant,belated,perfunctory? says who? a dislaimer is a disclaimer.
Completely on-topic, but just watched "The Call" on NY1 and John Schiumo was great. He kept on talking about how NY1 has been very careful about reporting this story yet the viewers of NY1 are the one's obsessed with talking about the story.
He also was very atute and very clear about the issues of jumping to conclussions and focusing on the facts. He even added that the circumstantial evenidence is strong, but accusing this guy straight out at this point is too much too soon.
While the blog world is patting itself on the back for breaking the story, did it ever occur to others that "mainstream" media sources received the mugshot at the same time, but spent that additional 4-5 hours actually *GASP* researching the story and clues?
Blogs are great at yelling "The sky is falling!" but blogs are--more often than not--horrid at getting the facts straight and painfully constipated when it comes to acknowledging the need to research and fact-check things that come their way.
I mean geez louise, you'd think with the incidents of Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, James Frey, Nick Sylvester and even J.T. LeRoy fabricating things out of whole-cloth people would understand the value of research and double-checking. But I guess the rush to get impuslive gossip out has overwhelmed the most basic--and long respected--practices of journalism.
I think that people expect better from a high-profile blog like Gothamist. And perhaps Gothamist really needs to realize that simply declaring yourself a "reporter" because some random person sent you a JPEG of a mugshot is just not enough.
At least the other media outlets know how to do basic research. And understand the true impact that posting one's mugshot in a context like this has.
Jack, can't you just go home? Mummy must be worried by now.
Ok Gothamist, you omitted my post due to a well-placed profanity (meanwhile I see at least two other posts with the same one). So let's try this again:
Whether or not this bouncer is guilty, The Falls should be shut down immediately. The owners should be sued for everything they have, and their liquor licenses should be revoked for life. This guy is their responsibility; you don't hire an ex-con who's on parole thats NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THE JOB. It's unbelievable.
If this guy is in fact guilty, The Falls is complicit with the crime, no matter how indirectly.
I think its good his photo is posted so if people know or recognize him they can give more information...
I expected him to look scary and rough but he seems like a decent looking guy, I could see him being friendly and trying to fool someone..with a harmeless nae like littlejohn,
I guess thats part of the trap.
He is most def involved in this crime even if he is not the murderer. Too much evidence against him already.
I agree with ajdisco. It seems that Fall's owners have been lying to police. This is a cover-up.
nypost:
"The new details in the chilling case surfaced as sources revealed how an owner of The Falls bar, along with one of its bartenders, took nearly a week to come clean over what they saw early Feb. 25, the day St. Guillen disappeared.
The bar owner, Michael J. Dorrian - scion of the famous New York tavern-owning family - had told investigators on numerous occasions that St. Guillen was served two drinks before she glanced at a note and walked out of the bar alone, sources said.
But the sources said Dorrian has since admitted that at the end of that night, he had actually ordered the 5-foot-7, 200-pound Littlejohn to "Get her out of here!" because St. Guillen was so drunk."
Jack, I can tell by your writing style that you are Jack. Why don't you come out and admit that you are Jack, Jack? I am a psychotic who has spent hours upon hour obsessing over this very fact, and I am certain that you are Jack, Jack. Why hide behind the name Jack, rather than admitting that you are, in actual fact, Jack?
signed Jake
Hmm......
I'll reserve my insensitive comments until he’s actually CHARGED with something.
I don't think Gothamist is painting him guilty before he’s judged though. Overly-Enthusiastic over this EXCLUSIVE? Maybe
In the end, LittleJohn (What?!) could be totally innocent of the killing and probably just did his job as a bouncer and threw her out.
Of course when people look at his rap sheet (and his skin), everyone seems to form their own conclusions as to whos responsible...
Not everyone here of course... but SOME people.
I needed to Clarify that
All this bs about his skin color.
What about when gothamist showed the camera phone photo of that subway wanker before he was proven guilty? He was as white as all you white apologists.
dear gothamist iam 30 rs old from cali and i am currently going to kaplan university for forensic profiling.. iam utterly mad that first off with all the info they have. i feel it was someone who knew her by posing this picture i feel its ok cause everyone is innnocent intil proven guilty now if he gets mad that u posted it it is only for he has a guilty consience.. and also as far as i am concerned if she took self defense classes and tryed to fight the suspect off. then i feel personally it was someone who most definately knew her and knew her weaknesses. i am not happy that they are prokrastinating... i feel imette deserves justice and if her killer is not found by the time i graduate i willmost definantely take this case and find out my self.... i know that sounds bold but my job will be to find the truth to why ppl do what they do to ppl and why they do it and ti find them and bring thwm to justice.... may she rest in peace... envy
i wonder.... if gothamist wants to be taken seriously for its journalism, then perhaps they should actually pay for the stories that they borrow from other sites. Other news sites forbid re-writing their news, due to copyright but mainly because they were the ones who put the financial resources into actually getting the story (they sent out reporters, did research, got cameramen etc). The fact that gothamist gets advertising dollars alongside content that isnt truly theirs is, well, questionable. google news got into some legal trouble for something similar, but their argument was that they didn't have banner ads for the google news section, so they werent making money from other sites' content. cant say the same here.... while i give you guys credit for taking the time to walk to the bar, the rest of your 'reporting' was simply going to other news sites. this might not qualify as true reporting.
c'mon, gothamist readers, didn't we learn anything from the simpsons, season 8 episode 16 ("brother from another series"), where sideshow bob was released from prison and worked at a dam construction site, but only to be framed by his brother cecil?? classic! (and apparently educational in certain contexts.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_from_Another_Series
In defense to Gothamist, they do at times have their own exclusive stories which some news outlets take from. (Ask them, not me) And they usually link the sources directly to the keywords in their posts.
Its basically a one stop site for most of the info you need about New York, either it be BREAKING NEWS, murder, events around town, and more importantly a forum in which discussions take place and ideas are exchanged, something that NY news websites lack. I wouldn’t hold them to the same standards as say the New York Times, but it keeps me in tune with what’s happening in and around the city.
By following your narrow minded logic Anderson, the entire blogging enterprise would be illegal. I’m a lot more then just taking stories from the major news outlets. Hell the News outlets steal from each others papers usually.
Its a lot more...* typo
"expected him to look scary and rough but he seems like a decent looking guy, I could see him being friendly and trying to fool someone..with a harmeless nae like littlejohn,"
will a (real)female(s) please explain to me why so many senoritas fall for this "nice looking guy" bs? why do alot of woman believe they see something deeply emotive in a guys various facial expressions. scowl? maybe the dude has a toothache! he or she must be real nice,they're always smiling...please...everyone on this site knows jerks who walk around with their face contorted into a fake smile. and is there anything more creepy than watching a reporter talk about something horrible with a totally inappropriate smile on their big goofy face?
cons,even the stupid ones,are really good at manipulating naieve,sentimental people.it's pathetic and tragic soo many,especially otherwise intelligent woman,fall for their con.
Back to the Falls. Why did the owner lie to police and try to cover up information relating to a murder??? Why would anyone try to cover for a guy like Littlejohn???? That says that 1) someone else is involved, or 2) the owner is truly a scumbag (distinct possibility) or 3) that maybe Littlejohn and the owner had something else going on, on the side...maybe he was helping out with the 'Yayo'
Well guys who are good looking who act charming and very nice are easy to trick women into rape.
Women expect a rapist to look ugly or mean, which makes them vulnerable.
Look at Robert Chambers.
LittleJohn may have other murders in his past, read this article:
http://news.bostonherald.com/stGuillenMurder/view.bg?articleid=129497&format=
Its just horrible. Beautiful girl. Not much to say except whoever is responsible should rot in hell.
I'm curious how a scumbag like him can be out there (working as a mortgage lender was a reason for his parole!). He is a violent career criminal and should have been held behind bars for the rest of his life (even without this latest incident in which he is guilty of breaking his parole rules and probably much more).
We have too lax and liberal laws. By the way, what were his official job duties as a mortgage lender? Being an enforcer? I love RE business.
NYPOST:
"..is now being eyed in a string of rapes in Queens and Long Island, law-enforcement sources said yesterday."
Somehow I'm not that surprised.
BOYCOTT Dorrian's and & The Falls:
The people who work at The Falls lied to the police and witheld crucial information about Imette St. Guillen-- giving the suspect over a week to destroy evidence. What sane human being would do that--choose making money over a human life??? If we are compassionate human beings, we would not frequent a bar that does nothing to protect it's cutomers, that instead chooses to protect their precious liquor license & cash registers!
PLEASE BOYCOTT The Falls and the other bar owned by the same people, Dorrian's (on East 84th steet). The owners are despicable and should not be in business. As I see it, the owners of these bars will serve young women alcohol and allow them to die after getting them drunk.
Isn't lying to police and assisting a killer a crime?
If they really did this then they should go to jail for a long time (I don't care what happens to the bar I just want these sickos behind bar). Or maybe I'm just racist and I think they are guilty just because they (owners) are white. I should add a disclaimer or two..Innocent until proven guilty.
On March 8, 2006 01:01 AM, phatty2006 wrote:
"will a (real)female(s) please explain to me why so many senoritas fall for this "nice looking guy" bs? .....it's pathetic and tragic soo many,especially otherwise intelligent woman,fall for their con."
It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. Women fall for nice looking men for the same reason men fall for nice looking women. Good looks are seductive. Looks matter, and there are multiple billion dollar industries built around being, or trying to be, "nice looking" (modelling, pornography, cosmetic surgery, cosmetics, physical fitness...) that prove that looks matter. This fellow seems to be a pretty good looking guy which is likely why the inebriated Miss St. Guillen (RIP) reportedly hung around after the bar closed and everyone was leaving.
"“The word on (Littlejohn) was that he had been invovled in committing murder-for-hires for the South Jamaica drug crews,” said the source. “We had gotten some evidence, but we couldn’t make a case on him for murder.” "
I am 179!
"Jonathan Blaze"? Holy shit, he's Ghost Rider!
Jack - Does it really matter who n0ne is or who anyone else is? If someone disagrees with you, it's OK and it really makes no difference if that person is Jake. It's a lot like when Donald Trump freaked over that mild criticism/comment from Martha Stewart. All out of proportion to the original offense.
Jean
Gothamist should charge Jake for his entries, too. His tend to be inflammatory. (For example, the entry called "Beautiful WTC Photos" that showed the Twin Towers blowing flames and smoke on 9/11.) Jake Dobkin is the one inciting most of this.
READ THIS, IT IS INTERESTING AND NOT OFF THE MARK
This is one example of how the authorities should have locked this guy up and welded the door shut.
In California, this creep would have been locked up for 25 years to life under the "3 strikes" rule (which liberals and relatives of scum like this want to repeal).
In New York, this guy not only had 3 strikes, he had nine innings. Now, an irresponsible, inebriated, belligerent girl, pursuing a career in criminal justice, is dead. Innocent before proven guilty? Anyone who has been following this case knows the evidence will support his guilt when processed. The next step? His bleeding heart liberal, court appointed (at our tax expense) attorney will claim that the DNA drifted from one countertop of the lab to the other, just like in the O.J. case. My suggestion to you, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Blaze, Mr. Handsome or whatever the hell you are calling yourself these days.......have the pimp, "forensic" pathologist, "Doctor" Lee from Connecticut testify on your behalf. For half a million bucks, he'll swear he can't tell the difference between your DNA and the DNA of your identical twin that was given up for adoption at birth but never reported to the authorities. We know that that twin's gotta be out there somewhere. How else would your DNA find it's way onto the girl's clothing and genitalia. Didn't swab it off all the way, this time?
Good luck, New York. You'll waste millions bringing this slime to trial when he should have been in prison for the rest of his life to begin with.
Furthermore, the owner, bartender and anyone else who swayed the police away from investigating this piece of excrement should serve time for obstruction of justice.
As to why this is 'none' actually 'Jake' controversy, Jake let his feelings on the issue be known long ago:
"Gothamist does not approve of anonymous blogging: We believe all bloggers should stand behind their posts with their real names."
He seems obsessed with 'outting' others, but does not 'lead by example'. Way to go!
Scott Pearson, you're exactly why I love this country. There's always someone out there has has two cents but seems to be broke all the time. If we were back in Salem in the 1600's Scott would have been the one with the pile of stones in his tweed sack.
Dude, you're talking and talking but aren't sayin' a damn thing. Following this case? What the hell do you know that any of us don't? So far every shred of evidence is pure circumstance. Maybe you have special access to the forensics?
Get a life dude. You're the reason we have to be proven guilty in a court of law - even if we taxpayers have to fit the bill. This aint Cali and Ahhnold don't run shit here.
Jack: I can't believe you're still going! You are so pathetic! Take the advice of like 15-20 other commenters on here and move on. How could someone who hates this site spend so much time here? You must really hate yourself.
I would like to commend Scott Pearson for the honorable statements he had made in post #183, March 08, 2006 @2:50 pm.
You have my vote Scott. And as for the POS that our suspect is? I would without hesitation, assist his leaving this world as a service to Imette and other women who will at some point in time, become victimized by such filth.
Hi, Gothamist. My first time writing on this website (first time visiting)on this shocking and horrible case. If the evidence points out that he did it, then I'm all ears. But I think Mr. Littlejohn may have an alibi. Sure he worked as a bouncer at that club, but you shouldn't assume the worse until the facts are gathered. I must say wholeheartedly that I am deeply sorry about her loss and the toll it has took on her family and friends. But as we all know: Innocence comes before guilt.
this man should never have been free on the streets wtih decent people. Should have been locked up for life. He's been arrested & charaged now.
this man should have never been permitted in society with decent people. Does NY have the death penalty?
if he ever walks free again it will only be short lived i promise.
That nigger uses the alias "John Blaze"? Like "Ghost Rider" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA