First, the defense is trying to discredit the witnesses, specifically Victim 4 and Victim 1, and paint the picture that both men are embellishing their stories and lying about their accusations of abuse. It’s a risky move by the defense, as these victims already have the sympathy of jurors, with some jurors even crying as they testified last week. On Monday, the defense had a former youth counselor testify that Victim 4 had a very close relationship with Jerry Sandusky. Just because they were close, doesn’t mean Sandusky wasn’t abusing him. This tactic of trying to discredit Victim 4 continued Tuesday as a supposed “friend” of Victim 4 testified that he had been known to embellish and lie in the past.

Finally, the biggest blow to Victim 4 and the prosecution was when the defense played a recording of investigators talking with Victim 4 in which they can be heard telling him “you are a victim” and about other accusers who have come forward. The defense is trying to prove that investigators posed leading questions and coached/groomed him to embellish his story. However, these same investigators also testified that Victim 4 had crawled into the fetal position on the floor at one point during the investigation because he was so upset. Does that sound like the behavior of someone who is making it up? The reason why the defense is so focused on attacking the credibility of Victim 4 is because, like I said before, he is key to Sandusky’s conviction. Victim 4 has the only physical evidence in the case so far, the love letters written by Sandusky, which could be just the physical evidence some jurors are looking for to convict him.

The defense also attacked the credibility of Victim 1 Tuesday by putting his former neighbor on the stand. The neighbor testified that Victim 1′s mother had boasted of getting a big house and a new jeep when the case is over, with the defense trying to prove he was financially motivated and that’s why he’s making these accusations.

The second strategy the defense is using is to try to explain Sandusky’s behavior, specifically the love letters he wrote to Victim 4, by claiming he suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder. An expert psychologist took the stand Tuesday to testify the letters convinced him Sandusky indeed has HPD, a disorder he described as causing one to ”act out to get attention, act seductively, crave intimacy” and that those with HPD “can make people uncomfortable by hugging with ardor.” Even if jurors are convinced Sandusky suffers from HPD, that doesn’t negate the fact that he allegedly committed criminal actions, so to me this defense isn’t helpful. It could explain the letters, but letters titled “The BJ Story” and ones that read “I’m sorry for my mistakes” can only be interpreted as consistent with Victim 4′s accusations in my opinion.

Another strategy is to claim that yes, Jerry Sandusky showered with boys, but he didn’t do anything criminal. To this point, the defense put two Penn State coaches on the stand Monday who testified they showered with boys in the locker room too. I call this the Michael Jackson “I only shared a bed with boys” defense. Sandusky’s defense is trying to claim that in his mind, it was appropriate to shower with these boys, and that while he showered with them, the rest of the accusations are embellishments. Again, I don’t think jurors will buy this defense given the overwhelming testimony from eight different accusers claiming Sandusky did more than shower with them. If anything, this defense only hurts Penn State and makes it look worse because two other coaches have admitted to inappropriate behavior. This defense could piss off jurors and make them feel like Sandusky is further tarnishing the reputation of the school.

The final strategy is to put up character witness after character witness to testify that Jerry Sandusky is a good guy who is not capable of committing the crimes these accusers allege. On Tuesday morning, the defense put up 11 witnesses in only 65 minutes, including friends, colleagues and even a former New York Jets linebacker to testify that Sandusky is a good man, many admired him, were inspired by him, and that many trusted him around their kids. The main character witness was Dottie Sandusky, who testified her husband tried to help these boys, many of whom had behavioral problems. Dottie testified she never saw inappropriate conduct between her husband and the accusers and, sadly, never heard screams from the basement. She even testified that victim 1 was “demanding and conniving” and that another was “very clingy.” It’s hard for me to believe Dottie never saw or heard anything inappropriate when the accusers claim much of the abuse was going on in her own home, but sometimes people see & believe only what they want to.

The big question now is will Jerry Sandusky himself take the stand? Any good defense attorney would advise him not to, as he could only make things worse. The prosecution will be ready to pounce if he takes the stand. And if his past interviews, including the recently released footage from Bob Costas, are any indication he could end up admitting to the crimes on the stand. I mean, in the Costas footage just released, he actually said ”I didnt go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs…there are many that I didn’t have…I hardly had any contact with.” That sounds a lot like a confession to me. However, Sandusky, especially if he craves attention, may very well want to take the stand and tell his side of the story. At this point, he may not have much to lose since the prosecution’s case was so strong he’s likely facing a life behind bars regardless. Either way, as the defense wraps its case Wednesday, I’ll be watching closely. Stay tuned for more updates.

Again today Sandusky’s defense on cross-examination questioned the accusers on why they stayed silent for so long, why the details in some of their stories have changed and whether their accusations are financially motivated. Similar to the first two accusers, Wednesday’s victims testified they stayed silent due to fear, shame and embarrassment. One accuser attributed the fact that his account of the abuse is now more detailed to counseling sessions that helped him to remember more, a good explanation, and in my mind, proof the defense’s strategy is backfiring.

Wednesday also saw the testimony of Mike McQueary’s father, which is crucial to the case, as it helps establish the idea that McQueary is not making up his account that he saw/heard Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Penn State showers. McQueary is essentially the only independent witness in this he-said, she-said case and Sandusky’s defense hinges on the idea that McQueary is making up his story. Yet, McQueary says he called his father immediately after the incident and told him about it at home. McQueary’s father verified that very story Wednesday, saying, his son told him “you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on.” More importantly, McQueary’s father testified his son told yet another person the story that night, family friend Dr. Jonathan Dranoff. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dranoff was also called to the stand to verify he also heard the same story. Shockingly, McQueary’s father testified that when he told Penn State official Gary Schultz about what his son saw, he testified Schultz told him there had been “noise” about Sandusky’s alleged abuses prior to that incident.

Thus far, the prosecution seems to be developing a strong case, with five victims telling similar stories of repeated abuse and intimidation. More importantly, the victims seem to be standing up well on cross as the defense insinuates they are motivated by the idea of a civil settlement and financial payout. I’ll be following the case as it progresses, follow me on Twitter @MariFagel for updates and tune into The CrimeLine next week, when our guest, a sexual abuse victim and advocate against child sex abuse joins me and Jon Leiberman to discuss the case Tuesday at 4:30 EST.

Click HERE to watch Jon Leiberman and I discuss the latest developments in the cases of Jerry Sandusky and George Zimmerman on Tuesday’s CrimeLine. Jury selection started Tuesday in Sandusky’s sexual abuse case, with news that three jurors have already been chosen. Interesting to note that much of Tuesday’s jury pool was made up of white middle-aged retired men, some even wearing Penn State t-shirts and jackets. While it seems at first that convincing a jury of these crimes wouldn’t be difficult with ten different accusers, keep in mind that in Centre County, Pennsylvania, where the trial is being held, people are enamored with Penn State and just a year ago Jerry Sandusky was a revered local figure. The prosecution will have to break that notion and convince jurors that Sandusky used his position of power at The Second Mile to take advantage of vulnerable at-risk youth.

We also discuss the latest in George Zimmerman’s case now that he is behind bars once again. While I believe a raised bond is appropriate given he had more funds from his website than he disclosed at his original hearing in April, I still feel to fully revoke the bond and keep him behind bars until the trial is too severe. What’s more important here is how is the fact that Zimmerman lied in court going to impact the murder trial? Jon says for many potential jurors, it may be difficult to separate in their minds his lies at this hearing and what else he could be lying about. If Zimmerman wasn’t truthful about his finances, is he being truthful about what happened the night Trayvon Martin died? For now, Zimmerman remains behind bars with even more donations pouring in and is expected to stay in jail until at least next week as Judge Lester is out of town this week.

And finally, we discuss the bizarre and sickening case of Luka Magnotta, the porn actor who posted a video of his vicious killing of a student in Canada before fleeing the country. Magnotta was caught in Berlin and is being extradited back to Canada. We also discuss whether registered sex offenders have the right to join Facebook or whether they should be banned from using the social networking site. Jon argues just as sex offenders cannot live close to schools, they should not be able to use Facebook, a virtual school where they can troll for victims. However, I argue a physical school and this virtual world are two different things and its not fair to ban them from using the site. In my mind, it falls to the parents to make sure their children are not doing anything dangerous online and also just because an offender is banned from Facebook doesn’t stop them from trying to commit these acts. Plus, look at the case of Brian Banks, a registered sex offender, who if it weren’t for Facebook would never have been vindicated of the crime an accuser made up. Banks served five years in prison after a classmate claimed he kidnapped and raped her, though he maintained his innocence. It wasn’t until she contacted him on FACEBOOK and admitted she lied that he was exonerated.

Let us know where you stand on these issues and be sure to tune into The CrimeLine each week on Spreecast.

On Tuesday’s CrimeLine, Jon Leiberman and I spoke with Erin Merryn, a survivor of child molestation who has now made it her mission to educate children and prevent child sex abuse. Merryn was first sexually abused at age 6 by a friend’s uncle and later abused between the ages of 11 and 13 by a cousin. It wasn’t until she realized her younger sister was suffering the same abuse that she spoke out.

Merryn later published her childhood diaries into a book, telling the heart wrenching tale of what she endured and her stolen innocence. There was not enough evidence to link her first attacker to the abuse she endured and he remains free. Her cousin received a slap on the wrist basically as her parents felt it was too much for her and her sister to have to endure a trial and have their stories questioned…something we’ll be seeing in the upcoming Jerry Sandusky trial.

Yet, Merryn refused to sit idly by and let other children go through the pain and horror she experienced. She has made it her mission to educate children about sexual abuse by promoting the passage of Erin’s Law, which ensures school children will learn about molestation in much the same way they learn about the dangers of drug abuse and “stranger danger.” The law has already passed in four states and may soon pass in New York. Merryn is truly courageous and I encourage everyone to hear her story . Click HERE to watch.

In today’s CrimeLine, Jon Leiberman and I speak with Judy Byington, the author of Twenty-Two Faces: Inside the Extraordinary Life of Jenny Hill and Her Twenty-Two Multiple Personalities. In the book, Byington tells the true story of a young woman intended to be the victim of human sacrifice in a satanic cult and her resulting survival and trauma. Click HERE to watch the fascinating interview about the undercover world of cults and human sacrifice and what police are doing to try to crack down on these satanic rituals.

The 21-year-old Morgan Hill, California man has been arrested in connection with the 15-year-old’s disappearance in March. Police say DNA from the clothes in her backpack found on the side of a road tied Garcia-Torres to LaMar. His DNA also matches a 2009 assault. In a news conference Tuesday, police say this was a stranger abduction and that they believe LaMar is dead. Yet, why are the police saying with such certainty that they believe LaMar is dead if no body has been found? We offer some explanations:

Police say they got a DNA match six weeks ago from her clothes inside the backpack, and then ran it through their database and got a match to a 2009 assault. Immediately after the match, police put Garcia-Torres under surveillance. Reading between the lines, it’s likely that during the surveillance period police were hoping it would lead them to where LaMar was or her body and while they didn’t get that, we can assume police gathered enough evidence to definitively tell them that LaMar is dead.

Another big question police have yet to answer: if Garcia-Torres is connected to a 2009 assault, what happened after that? Was he on probation? Was he supposed to be checking in with a probation officer? What happened between 2009 and now, how was he allegedly able to commit another crime?

These sex offenders don’t often commit just one crime and then get a day job and stop offending. The recidivism rate is sky-high, these offenders, in general, are monsters, they prey on their next victim. It looks like in this case, Garcia-Torres had LaMar’s daily routine down pat and that he allegedly grabbed her on the way to the bus stop. The key is, frankly, without his DNA being in the database, Garcia-Torres may have never been caught. Luckily, police found his car on surveillance tapes near her house. This guy was familiar with the neighborhood, he lived only a couple miles away. These predators are familiar with their surroundings so even when they don’t know the victim, they do these things where they feel comfortable.

If Garcia-Torres has been under police surveillance for weeks, why arrest him now?

What’s interesting to note is there is a reason police arrested him now, after weeks of surveillance. Either one of two things usually happens to lead to an arrest after someone has been under surveillance before police complete their investigation: 1) he becomes a flight risk or they think he’s about to become a flight risk or 2) he’s about to harm somebody else and police are worried about that.

The most terrible thing to watch is seeing LaMar’s mother now pleading with this suspect to tell her where her daughter is.

“I do have a plea to the perpetrator. Please give the information that you have to,” Marlene LaMar said. “Lead us to Sierra and end this nightmare. Come forward and say where she is and end this nightmare for us as a family.”

Mark Klass, the father of Polly Klass and an advocate for families of missing children, said the worst part of his ordeal was when the police told him definitively that his daughter was dead, though there was no body, no details

“They’ve been told somebody murdered their daughter, but they can’t prove it. That’s how I felt,” Klass said. “They needed to prove to me one way or another before I would accept anything, until they proved to me my daughter was dead.

It’s as if the hope is gone, but there is no closure, so it’s this terrible in-between phase. You want to hope against hope that she is still alive. Not to mention, murder cases are very hard to try without a body. There is an old saying, “no body, no conviction.” It’s very hard, but it’s not impossible, and it seems police had a lot of evidence to arrest him.

We’ll be following this case closely, so be sure to tune into The CrimeLine each week on Spreecast and follow @MariFagel and @ReporterJon on Twitter for updates.

Much of the argument over stop and frisk lies in numbers. For instance, the NYPD says its policy has led to a falling murder rate and more gun seizures, with homicides down 21% this year and the number of illicit guns seized up 31% from last year. Yet, then there’s numbers from the New York Civil Liberties Union showing that although African-American and Latino young men aged 14-24 make up only 4.7% of the city’s population, they account for 41.6% of all stops in 2011, with similar numbers in the first three months of this year.

Yet, to analyze the controversial policy and whether it should be changed, one must take a look at the effects, both positive and negative, that stem from stop and frisk. Jon Leiberman, an HLN contributor and former America’s Most Wanted correspondent, and I debate the pros and cons of stop and frisk:

Jon: The reality is that crime has gone way down in New York City and that stop and frisk has certainly contributed to it. I get the fact that the statistics show nearly 686,000 stops in one year and that’s way, way, way up from 2002 where it was just over 97,000 but I feel that it’s working. It’s keeping guns off the street. It’s kept crime down to numbers that this city never imagined and, unfortunately, sometimes it takes things like stop and frisk to make that a reality.

Mari: While stop and frisk is contributing to a decrease in crime, we can’t ignore the fact that it provides the basis for racial profiling. Last year 53% of those stopped were African-American, 39% were Latino and only 9% were white and it was about the same numbers in the first three months of this year. So while the NYPD can present statistics showing a plunging murder rate and tout the policy as the reason why, I think what’s necessary is an independent investigation by the Justice Department or some other independent group into their policing and an independent verification of the numbers and the data, as a recent New York Times editorial called for.

Jon: The reality is, and this is not meant to stereotype, but homicide statistics show about half of all murders are committed by African Americans who represent just 12.6% of the population, so if you look at those numbers in the context of stop and frisk, then you see why more African Americans are getting stopped and frisked according to NYPD policy. People don’t want their rights violated, that is obviously a good argument and rights should be watched out for, but then you go to the other side, which is crime is down and whole areas of the city are now safe because of stop and frisk, according to Mayor Blooomberg. As a recent Washington Post editorial points out, whole areas of the city have risen from the dead, stores have opened, people stroll the streets.

Mari: The NYPD argues this policy ends up disproportionately protecting minority communities. They released statistics saying African Americans and Hispanics make up 96% of all New York City shooting victims and 90% of all murders victims in 2011 and they say, therefore, such a drop in shootings citywide will logically equate to fewer minorities being killed. However, the majority of the people who are stopped and frisked are innocent. According to the NYCLU, 88% of people stopped last year were innocent. The problem is, while it can protect minority communities, more importantly, it leads to a distrust of law enforcement among minorities and I think that is the big issue. City Council member Jumaane Williams has denounced the policy, saying, “communities are losing trust with the police, which is one of the biggest crime fighting tools we have.” NYCLU data shows police are significantly more likely to use force when they stop blacks and Hispanics than when they stop whites, which ultimately can lead to a deep distrust of law enforcement.

Jon: The distrust of law enforcement is an issue certainly. We have stop-snitching in many parts of the city and stop and frisk does not help relations, generally, in the community. But, that being said, what does help in these communities is when innocent people don’t have to fear for their lives walking down the street. If you’re not doing anything wrong and you get stopped and frisked, yes its an inconvenience, yes, you can be outraged by the very fact that you were stopped for no reason, but if you’re not doing anything wrong, you are generally not going to get arrested or cited for anything. I think the NYPD should continue on this path because of the results that, in part, this policy has garnered.

Mari: You’re saying if they don’t have anything on them, what’s the harm? Yet, the police could be writing up summons for things as little as disorderly conduct, which lead to fines, which a lot of poor families can’t pay. And if they don’t show up in court for these summonses, they can end up with a more serious situation. Your argument is what’s the harm if they get stopped and they have nothing on them? Yet, what about Ramarley Graham, the 18-year-old who in February died at the hands of a cop? Graham only had a bag of marijuana on him, but police thought they spotted a gun and a white officer chased him into his own home, into his bathroom and shot and killed this 18-year-old young man for nothing more than a bag of pot because he believed he had a gun. I know that is a rare circumstance, but things like that can stem from racial profiling and from stop and frisk.

Jon: Obviously that young man’s life should have never been taken, but that is the extreme of what happens. I argue that 99% of the time, law enforcement gets it right in some of the most difficult circumstances. While I do see the extremes at times, they are rare and they are not the norm. Sometimes, obviously, good cops go bad, but in general I do think law enforcement does an extremely good job especially in this city.

Mari: While stop and frisk is one factor that can contribute to a decrease in crime, there are a lot of concerns that come with it. Something else that can contribute to a decrease in crime is getting to the root of the problem, like the Safe Streets program in Baltimore and the CeaseFire program in Chicago. Both programs enlist former prison convicts to go into dangerous neighborhoods and try to prevent violence before it erupts. When they learn about a conflict brewing, they approach those involved and talk to them and try to steer them toward turnaround opportunities such as school or jobs, according to USA Today. The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health says Baltimore’s Safe Streets program gets some of the credit for a 56% reduction in homicides in the Cherry Hill neighborhood from January 2009 through December 2010. A 2008 Justice Department review found that since CeaseFire began in Chicago in 2004, it had brought about a decline in shootings from 41% to 73%, depending on the neighborhood. These programs target potential criminals and get to the root problem, which to me is more effective than these stop and frisk programs, which can ultimately lead to a deep distrust of law enforcement.

Jon: In many communities, there is already a deep distrust of police and no matter what you do, nothing will change that. You can convert a small part of the community, but there will always be a large part of the community that has a distrust of police as much as people don’t want to admit it.

 
While the city may appeal the judge’s decision to grant class-action status to the lawsuit, its’ filing no doubt is sparking an important conversation over the benefits and disadvantages of the controversial policy.

On Tuesday’s CrimeLine show, Jon Leiberman and I debated about NYPD’s controversial Stop & Frisk program. We also gave the latest updates on the case of missing Isabel Celis and the cloud of suspicion surrounding her father as well as the latest in the case of George Zimmerman, including news that the FBI is considering a hate crime charge. Click here to watch.

Click here to watch the latest episode of CrimeLine, where we discuss the case of missing Isabel Celis as well as new developments in George Zimmerman’s case. Co-host Jon Leiberman and I discuss how news of an attack on a child inside her home just 10 miles from the Celis home could affect the case as well as the misstep made by police when they released surveillance footage purported to be from the night of her disappearance, but instead from another night. We also discuss the search for Celis in the town bordering Mexico and whether her parents should step forward and speak out publicly, as police have recommended. I agree with Celis’ parents, who have released statements urging her return but have stopped short of a public press conference as they said they want to keep the focus on their child. However, Jon believes Celis’ parents must speak out in order to keep the focus and media attention on her, or otherwise this could become a cold case once the media starts ignoring it.

We also discuss Mark O’Mara’s social media campaign on behalf of his client, George Zimmerman, and whether that is a good step. O’Mara set up a Facebook and Twitter account for his client, and I believe there is nothing wrong with that, especially in light of numerous fake accounts by people claiming to be Zimmerman, why not set the record straight? Martin’s family used social media to propel the case to the national spotlight, which ultimately led to Zimmerman’s arrest, why can’t his attorney do the same thing? I do think it’s interesting that he is using social media and a website to this extent, and that this is the beginning of what I believe could be a trend in high-profile criminal defense cases.

Finally, we discuss the recommendations made so far by the 19-person “Stand Your Ground” task-force, which met for the first time today. The task force, made up of people from diverse ethnic and professional backgrounds, has stopped short of calling for an outright repeal of the law, which doesn’t surprise me. They do ask to revoke immunity from arrest, which oftentimes gets in the way of police investigations, as those claiming Stand Your Ground as a defense are protected from being arrested immediately. Had this recommendation been in place originally, Zimmerman would have been arrested that night and the police investigation would not have been as compromised as it was. Another step in the right direction is their recommendation that there be better record-keeping of how often and why the law is invoked, though that begs the question, why wasn’t this already in place? A third recommendation is that Stand Your Ground cases be directly sent to the grand jury, as one state senator on the task-force explains then the defendant can explain their case in front of a jury of their peers rather than waiting for the state prosecutor to bring forward a case against them and call for a grand jury, which can take weeks. However, I need to hear more details on this recommendation because on the surface it seems as if this recommendation takes too much power away from the prosecutor. The task-force will be holding public hearings on Stand Your Ground before presenting their recommendations to the governor and the Florida state legislature.

Be sure to tune into CrimeLine on Mondays at 7 pm on Spreecast for the latest headline legal and crime news.

Click here to watch the latest edition of The CrimeLine, where Jon Leiberman and I speak with Steve Raw, a member of a volunteer team spreading the word about missing Tucson, Arizona 6-year-old Isabel Celis. Raw discusses how you can help to keep Celis’ face and name out there, as the search for the missing girl reaches day 4. She was last seen inside her bedroom Friday night and police are combing the area for clues. We also interview Beth Profeta, the daughter of Mary Badaracco, a Connecticut woman missing since 1985. Profeta discusses her beliefs that her ex-stepfather is involved and how he has thwarted the law since her disappearance. Be sure to watch CrimeLine every Tuesday at 4 pm on Spreecast, and for updates follow the show on Twitter and Like it on Facebook.

Click here to watch this week’s CrimeLine, in which we interview Dr. Maggie Zingman, the mother of an 18-year-old brutally raped and murdered in her Tulsa apartment in 2004. Her case remains unsolved. Zimmerman is a strong advocate for collecting DNA at arrest and in this week’s episode we have an honest debate about the issue, weighing privacy concerns with what I believe is a vital tool in solving & preventing crimes. Please let me know your thoughts on DNA at arrest in the comments section below and be sure to tune into CrimeLine each Tuesday on Spreecast at 4 pm EST.

Click here to watch this week’s episode of The CrimeLine with Jon Leiberman, where we discuss the latest in the Trayvon Martin case as well as the case of the Tulsa shooting suspects. Jon and I give our take on what special prosecutor Angela Corey’s decision to cancel the grand jury means for George Zimmerman and on whether the Tulsa shooting suspects will be charged with a hate crime. We also interview the sister of a man missing since 2010. Bobby Smelcer completely vanished from Shelbyville, Tennessee and his missing persons case could be tied to the cases of two others who vanished from the same town. Be sure to tune into CrimeLine every Tuesday at 4 pm EST on Spreecast.

Click here to watch the latest episode of CrimeLine with Jon Leiberman. In this episode, Jon and I interview Dan and Gil Harrington, the parents of 20-year-old Morgan, who was abducted and murdered in 2009. Morgan was last seen outside a Metallica concert in Charlottesville, Virginia. Her remains were found in a remote farm three months later, and the killer has never been found. We discuss the importance of DNA in solving similar crimes, how to “Help Save the Next Girl” and the Harrington’s constant efforts to find their daughter’s killer and prevent other families from enduring tragedy. We also discuss the latest details and our take on the Trayvon Martin case. Be sure to tune into CrimeLine every Tuesday at 4 pm EST on Spreecast.

Two arrested in brutal hammer beating in Seminole

Here is their mug shots …

Julius Bender, left, Yahaziel Israel arrested in beating (Seminole County Jail)

A tip to Crimeline has led to the arrests of two men in a brutal beating that occurred a week ago in the Midway community east of Sanford.

Julius Ricardo Bender, 18, and Yahaziel Isaac Israel, 19, face charges of attempted first-degree murder, burglary with assault or battery and armed burglary.

The victim, a 50-year-old Winter Springs man whose name has not been released, is on life-support at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Deputies were called to the area of Lincoln Street and Beardall Avenue about 6:30 p.m. March 26 to investigate a report of a man being beaten, Seminole County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Heather Smith said.

They found the victim in the woods on the north side of Lincoln Street.

According to arrest affidavits:

A witness told deputies he heard someone screaming for help and saw two men pull the victim from his vehicle. He said he watched as one man held the victim and the other beat him in the head with a hammer.

After they dragged the victim into the woods, the men drove away in his sport utility vehicle, which was later found abandoned about a half-mile away on Garbo Jack Lane.

Investigators got a break in the case Thursday, when a tip to Crimeline named Bender and gave the street name of the second suspect.

On Friday, investigators learned Israel’s fingerprints had been found both inside and outside of the victim’s vehicle.

The witness was shown photo lineups and picked out Bender and Israel as the men he saw beating the victim. He said Bender was the man wielding the hammer.

Both men were arrested late Friday.

Hate crime?

After my last post, which touched on psychos and psycho-babbling on the Internet, I thought I’d shift gears and share what supposed psychics had to say to Crimeline, OCSO and ACISS about Caylee Anthony’s whereabouts within days and weeks of her publicized disappearance in mid-July, 2008. This list is only for the last two weeks in July. Of course, she was last seen a month earlier, but at the time of these reports, she was merely listed as a missing child. No one actually knew she was already deceased. A lot of us had our inner-feelings, but only the psychics knew where she was and whether she was still alive… or not…

TO CONTINUE READING, CLICK HERE