The Impending Execution of Daniel Bedford

Daniel Bedford sits on death row, awaiting execution by the people of Ohio. I offer the following summary from the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Daniel Bedford v. Terry Collins. I have eliminated most of the legal references without adding ellipses.

A jury convicted Daniel Bedford of the aggravated murder of Gwen Toepfert and the murder of John Smith, and at the jury’s recommendation a state trial court sentenced him to death. The Ohio courts affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct review and denied postconviction relief. Bedford sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied. We affirm.

As a side note, we are the publishers of Smith's Guide to Habeas Corpus Relief for State Prisoners under 28 U.S.C. §2254. In the hopefully unlikely event you find yourself in need of understanding the process of filing a Habeas Corpus petition, click the appropriate icon along the right-hand sidebar of this august blog.

In 1978, Bedford met Toepfert, whose father owned the bar where Bedford worked, and for the next several years the two were involved in an “on-again, off-again” relationship. By 1984, they were estranged.

Bedford’s feelings for Toepfert remained, however, prompting him to try to “rekindle [their] prior romance.” On April 21, 1984, he visited her apartment bearing a gift and hoping to make amends -- only to learn that Toepfert’s new boyfriend, John Smith, was already there. Three days later, Bedford tried again. At around 2:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 24, Bedford, who had spent the evening working at one bar and patronizing another, telephoned Toepfert’s apartment -- only to learn from her roommate, Jo Ann Funk, that Toepfert was asleep and that Smith was with her.

Later that morning, Funk woke to the sounds of “gunshots and screams.” Apparently overcome by Toepfert’s rejection, Bedford entered her apartment armed with a .38 revolver and a shotgun, shot Smith after a brief struggle and shot Toepfert. During the melee, Toepfert ran into Funk’s bedroom, screaming that she had been shot. Bedford found her there and shot her again with the revolver and the shotgun. Smith and Toepfert died from the gunshots.

Bedford fled to Tennessee. Once there, he visited an acquaintance, to whom he confessed his crime, and who reported Bedford to the police. After Tennessee police arrested Bedford (and Mirandized him), he gave a statement admitting the crimes and eventually gave a similar statement to Cincinnati authorities.

I find nothing intrinsically suspicious about the state's explanation of the crime. I find no one making claims of actual innocence for Daniel Bedford. Not even Bedford himself claims he did not kill Gwen Toepfert. His defense during his trial was that his crime was not pre-meditated, that it was an unplanned outburst fueled by alcohol and emotion. His argument is mentioned in the Sixth Circuit's decision as the court discounted his claim that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper.

Bedford complains about comments by the prosecutor in closing argument at the guilt phase that allegedly disparaged defense counsel’s tactics. The prosecutor called “[s]ome” of Bedford’s “arguments” “Mickey Mouse defenses,” and he characterized others as attempts to “confuse” the jury by “fill[ing] the courtroom with as much smoke as you possibly can,” casting aspersions “all around the courtroom” and putting “everyone on trial in the case except our little boy over here” -- all in the hope that the jury would “lose sight of the real issues in the case.” Attempting to deflate an attempt by the defense to discredit a particular government witness, the prosecutor also predicted that the witness would “be dragged through the mud by the defense.”

These comments were not improper. The prosecution necessarily has “wide latitude” during closing argument to respond to the defense’s strategies, evidence and arguments. How far the government may go, true enough, depends on what the defense has said or done (or likely will say or do). And in all events the prosecutor may not simply belittle the defense’s witnesses or deride legitimate defenses, nor may he offer his own opinion about a witness’s credibility. But the prosecutor’s remarks in this case -- all made in the course of the fastmoving thrust and parry of a criminal trial -- did no more than respond to Bedford’s actual and reasonably likely contentions and tactics.

Several of the prosecutor’s comments, Bedford adds, were calculated to incite the jury’s passions and were engineered to elicit an emotional, not a reasoned, reaction to the evidence. Responding to the defense theory that Bedford’s conduct was the culmination of an unplanned outburst -- fueled by alcohol and emotion and sparked by a life-threatening confrontation with Toepfert’s new paramour -- the prosecutor argued: (1) that the evidence, including graphic photographs of Toepfert’s and Smith’s bodies, proved Bedford’s conduct was purposeful and planned; (2) that Bedford’s inner “demon” -- his alcohol dependence -- was not responsible for his behavior, as the only “demon in this case” was Bedford and (3) that the jurors’ duty required finding Bedford guilty and that, if they did so, each juror could say to himself “I did Gwen justice and I did Johnny justice.”

These comments did not deprive Bedford of a fair trial. By alluding to the victim photographs, already admitted into evidence, and arguing that they established Bedford’s intent, the prosecutor permissibly sought to draw an inference from the evidence. Calling Bedford a “demon” comes closer to the line -- it was unnecessary and unprofessional -- but it goes no further than similar comments that have not required setting aside a state conviction. See Olsen v. McFaul (holding that prosecutor’s deliberate, repeated references to defendant as a “deadbeat,” a “thief,” a “creep” and a “liar” did not violate due process); see also Byrd (regarding prosecutor’s repeated references to defendant as a “predator”).

Apparently, according to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the prosecutor may not "offer his own opinion about a witness’s credibility" but he can call the defendant a "liar." Welcome to the U.S. justice system.

Discussing prosecutorial misconduct is way, way, way, way, way beyond the scope of this modest post. Here I will merely observe that the court (in its desire not to overturn a case) has done nothing to discourage prosecutors from relying of theatrics and passion rather than evidence. In my not so humble opinion, closing arguments should be limited to discussion of facts. Alternatively, they should be forbidden altogether. Allowing either the state or defense attorneys descend to name-calling, character assassination, invectives demeans our justice system.

If the prosecutors can prove their case on facts alone, they should do so. If the prosecutors cannot prove their case on facts alone, the verdict should be "not guilty." In either case, prosecutors should not be allowed to  supplement evidence with disparagement and inflammation of the jury.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals once again encouraged prosecutor misconduct when they should have sanctioned it. They thereby increased the risk that defendants will be convicted by showmanship, passion, and fear rather than facts and considered deliberation. They have increased the risk of wrongful convictions.

Since I ration my resources for those cases in which a defendant or prisoner is factually innocent of the crime for which they are charged or convicted, I stand mute with respect to the execution of Daniel Bedford, with an exception. I object to the prosecutors conduct in this case and to the Sixth Circuit Court's endorsement of that conduct.

Automating Wrongful Convictions: Petard Hoisting In Maryland

From The Free Dictionary, we learn that petard means "a small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall." The word is from the French peter, meaning to break wind, which is from the French word pet, a breaking of the wind, from the Latin word peditum (neuter past principle of pedere), to break wind.

We learn further of the word's history:

The French used pétard, "a loud discharge of intestinal gas," for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. "To be hoisted by one's own petard," a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means "to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices." The French noun pet, "fart," developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, "fart."

The fine folks at Optotraffic have blown themselves up with their own devices. Either that or they have farted. I'll allow them to choose.

TFFAO (The Fine Folks at Optotraffic) have mounted a somewhat less than stout defense of their system. Clearly they are bothered by Will Foreman's success in court. Most assuredly (I tell myself) they are deeply  scarred by my pithy observations in Demons Devices from Hell, Lasers Gone Wild, and The Empire Strikes Back. I should have used the last title for this post, but I panicked. Now I'm becoming concerned that if TFFAO don't give up soon, I'll run out of clever sub-titles.

Optotraffic presented its case recently in both a textual and video format. I'll first critique select portions of the textual defense. Hang on. Here we go. 

How Optotraffic's Laser Sensor Speed System Works

That's not a very flamboyant title. They could have generated more hits by using something more colorful. I offer the following titles free of charge.

1. Speed Kills. Lack of Speed Kills our Profits.

2. Lasers, SI!   Bendy Poles, NO!

3. Please, Please, Please Don't Use the Photos as We Suggested

The last one isn't particularly clever, but the hour is late and I'm tired.

Like their other speed sensor units in Maryland, the unit in Forrest Heights ...

It's Forest Heights, with one r. It's not Forrest "Gump" Heights, with two r's. You shouldn't make such silly mistakes when you are trying to convince people that you don't make mistakes. 

Uh, oh!  I feel myself being overwhelmed by a cultural reference.

In the touching scene below, entitled "Run, Forrest, Run," Forrest Gump ran right out of his leg braces trying to get away from bullies.

In a seldom viewed out-take, Forrest was clocked by an Optotraffic DLS-10S Automated Speed Enforcement device doing 76 in a 35 mph zone. The system took two images of his butt and mailed them to him, along with a ticket for $40.

But I digress.

Let's see if I can finish the first sentence without getting further distracted.

Like their other speed sensor units in Maryland, the unit in Forrest Heights, [sic] MD. has two laser sensors, some centimeters apart, that employ light detection and ranging technology in a "laser pointer type" fashion.

I don't think MD. needed a period after it. The period made the sentence seem as if it ended prematurely.

I see they use two laser sensors "some centimeters apart."  Wow. WOW!

(Psst! You folks at Optotraffic. Any two items are "some centimeters apart," even if only zero centimeters apart.  Unless you specify how many, you're not communicating.)

Regarding their description of how the system works, I can envision the author using finger quotes when he/she informs us, the unwashed masses, that their system works in "laser pointer type" fashion. Now I finally get it. Thanks, Optotraffic.

These two beams, one further "downstream" from the other, are perpendicular to the lanes of traffic.

The quotes around "downstream" are unnecessary and unimpressive.

Using laser beams, they precisely measure the presence of an object 10,000 times PER SECOND for as long as it takes to travel between the two.

The "laser pointer type" lasers just don't fire 10,000 times per second, they fire 10,000 times PER SECOND. Hopefully TFFAO will never, ever again try to impress us with their awesome caps locking capability.

The speed is precisely measured BY THE LASER SENSORS ...

Jeez Louise!

The speed is precisely measured BY THE LASER SENSORS from the time a vehicle hits the first beam to the time it hits the second beam. The units are calibrated daily, using GPS -- the most accurate means available today, and are removed and tested annually in an independent testing lab. This laser sensor system is believed to be the state-of-the-art in terms of accuracy and precision.

They are mightily impressed with their LASER SENSORS, as they should be. I have no doubt that Optotraffic, a sub-division of Sigma Space Systems, is spectacularly good at building lasers. I also have no doubt that they can and do calibrate their laser firing rate daily against GPS pulses. Nonetheless, There  is compelling evidence that their system is not working.

Though the laser firing portion of their system may be top notch, there must be some other problem causing the well documented wrongful tickets. I have suggested (as possible sources of error) bendy poles (due to wind), cross-eyed (misaligned) lasers, near-sighted lasers (which are differentially unsure how far away the ground is), and astigmatic lasers (which must augment their time delay detection with signal strength change detection.)

None of these other potential sources of error have anything to do with how well calibrated the laser pulse rate is. Yet TFFAO refuse to even mention any potential source of error other than lasers firing too quickly or too slowly, which they would never do, and we have the daily GPS calibrations to prove it, dagnabbit!

If Optotraffic could explain why bendy poles or cross-eyed lasers cannot cause gross errors, I suspect they would do so. I expect instead that they will rely on the "We Fire Lasers 10,000 Times A Second" explanation until 10,000 cows come home.

The speed of cars is NOT determined by cameras in Forrest [sic] Heights or in any of the other Maryland jurisdictions using Optotraffic’s system. It is determined solely by the laser light sensors. This fact is at odds with ... how one chronic Maryland speeder -- a crusader against speed sensors, has represented ... the speed sensor system that is actually used in Forrest [sic] Heights;

Whoa! I believe they might be speaking of Will Foreman when they refer to "one chronic Maryland speeder." Will Foreman, after all, lives in Maryland. Furthermore, his employees have been given 40 or so tickets by the fine folks at Forest Heights. Maybe I'm just imagining things.

In Maryland media and the courts, this chronic speeder is using time stamped still photos to seek to call into question the accuracy of the speed sensor measurements in Forrest [sic] Heights. According to media statements, this individual or his company have received more than 40 speeding citations in the last year, the majority of which have been in a Forrest [sic] Heights’ school zone. This individual argued that the time and distance travelled between the two time stamps show he had to have been moving slowly -- ie., [sic] that the time stamp and camera shot of his actual location/distance were equal in precision. This is false and factually wrong.

Just a minute while I check Dictionary.Reference.com. I'll be right back.

Okay, I'm back. I found what I was looking for. Here it is.

Libel: defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures; anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

Optotraffic once again refers to Will Foreman as a chronic speeder. They even make it clear they are talking about Will Foreman, since he is the only individual or company in the news with more than 40 speeding citations, the majority of which have been in Forest Heights. I immediately recognized Will Foreman as the chronic speeder of whom they were speaking.

Not only is Will Foreman not a chronic speeder, he is not even a one-time speeder, at least as far as our judicial system is concerned. Foreman has won the first 5 of the 40 cases which he will have heard in court. Not only that, I don't believe Foreman was even in the vehicle for any of the tickets issued. The vehicles were company vehicles driven by his employees.

I certainly thought less of Mr. Foreman after reading those paragraphs. Had I relied only on the word of the fine folks at Optotraffic, I would have vowed to never set foot in Mr. Foreman's business. Ever. Only through the power of the Internet did I learned that the smear campaign was merely a case of Optotraffic defaming Will Foreman with misrepresentations in a form other than spoken words or gestures.

Prepare yourself for the second grand claim of their defense. Remember, the first one is Lasers firing 10,000 times PER SECOND, calibrated daily with GPS.

Still photos cannot be used, and are not used, to measure speed because of built in delays in the camera mechanisms and functions including shutters. In actual practice, the time stamp and still photo of where the car is located do NOT match.

I won't waste my time falsifying this grand claim. I'll allow Optotraffic to do it themselves. I'll allow them to be hoisted with their own petard. The following quotes are from their own brochure.

The innovative and non-invasive sensor determines with high accuracy the vehicle speed and triggers a digital still camera. Since a stationary object is present along with the vehicle, a photographic method also determines speed, guaranteeing fairness.

While the primary evidence for issuing a speeding citation is the calibrated lane sensor, the two photos provide the secondary evidence of speeding that is presented to the citation recipient.

The sound you hear is the sound of Optotraffic's head exploding.

That petard like explosion provides a nice segue to Optotraffic's professionally produced video, here. When editing the video, they apparently realized they wrote in their brochure that you can in fact use the cameras to determine speed. In the video they cleverly tap-danced around the issue. They make it seem as if you can't use the photos, but actually say only that they don't and won't rely on the photos.

My name is Mario Bohorquez. I am the Chief Commercial Officer for Optotraffic. The citizen who received the citations issued by one of our clients claims that he can use photographic pictures, two pictures, to determine his vehicle's speed when the citation was issued.

Mr. Bohorquez was sitting in front of an array of brightly lit instrumentation. Notice that he did not say, at least on the video, that you could not or should not determine speed from the photos. Just as he was about to begin his second sentence, the video cuts away to what has become known as the Forest Heights Toll Road. Other than that single interrupted thought, we never hear from Mr. Bohorquez again. Instead, Lt. C. Washington of the Forest Heights Police Department picks up the thread.

Some of the concerns were that the photos determined the speed and that's not the way we measure the speed. We measure with the Lidar system, not the photos. The photos are simply to show that the vehicles were there on the time and date of the violation, get owner information from the rear license plate, and to prove that the vehicle was in motion.

Lt. Washington never says that the photos could not or should not be used to determine speed, only that they never use them. Just as a reminder to one and all, I excerpt an excerpt from the Optotraffic brochure.

... a photographic method also determines speed, guaranteeing fairness.

I think Optotraffic is breaking wind.


P.S.
For even better petard hoisting, read this post at the Stop Big Brother Maryland web site. It is quite nicely done. For information straight from the chronic speeder himself, visit Will Foreman's Facebook page.

The Impending Execution of Benny Stevens

Benny Stevens sits on death row. On Tuesday, the people of Mississippi will execute him. I have reviewed Stevens' case, as I have reviewed each execution this year, and I find no reasonable possibility that Benny Stevens is factually innocent of the crimes for which he is to die.

From the Mississippi Supreme Court decision in the case of Benny Joe Stevens v. State of Mississippi, I offer the State's summary of his crime. I exclude, without ellipses, the legal references.

Benny Joe Stevens was charged with the shooting deaths of his ex-wife, her husband and two children. Stevens was convicted of four counts of capital murder on December 4, 1999, and sentenced to death on all four counts. The convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court. Stevens has now filed his application for post-conviction relief.

The murders of Wesley Reid, Glenda Reid, Heath Pounds and Dylan Lee, as well as the aggravated assault of Erica Stevens, took place on Sunday, October 18, 1998, in Marion County. Erica is the daughter of Benny Joe Stevens, and she lived with her mother, Glenda Reid, with her stepfather, Wesley Reid, and her brother, Dylan, in a trailer home in Marion County located on Shiloh Firetower Road in Foxworth, Mississippi. Glenda and Stevens had divorced when Erica was three years old. Benny Joe Stevens subsequently married Lauren Stevens ("Lauren") in 1993 and thereafter gained custody of his daughters, Erica and Angela, in 1996. However, in August of 1998, Glenda regained custody of Erica. ...

On Sunday, October 18, 1998, ... Lauren entered Stevens's bedroom, she saw her husband with his gun belt laid out on the bed and putting shotgun shells in the gun belt. Lauren also remembered seeing his .357 handgun. Stevens then took his guns and left the home in his truck.

On Sunday, October 18, 1998, Erica, Heath, Wesley, Glenda and Dylan were all at the trailer and had finished eating supper when Erica saw Stevens park his truck beside Wesley's truck in the backyard. No one was with Stevens. Erica saw Stevens get out of his truck. According to Erica, Wesley opened the sliding glass back door wide enough to stick his head out the door and called, "Benny Joe, Can I help you?" Erica then heard a gunshot and Wesley scream, "[S]hit, he shot me." Erica tried to rescue her brother and his friend but Stevens shot her in the back. She then hid in the trailer's master bath and watched helplessly as her mother was shot by Stevens. She then heard Benny Joe say, "[B]itch, I told you that I'd kill you one of these days."

Erica climbed through a small window in the bathroom where she had been hiding and heard more gunshots while she was running away from the trailer. Erica went to a neighbor's house for help and collapsed at the door. Erica told the neighbors that her father had shot her mother, stepfather, brother and friend. Stevens returned to his home where his wife inquired, "[W]hat did you do?", to which Stevens replied, "I just killed a family."

For a more detailed and more grisly recitation of the States' case, see an earlier ruling by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

I find nothing in the States' summary which suggests to me that Stevens may be factually innocent.

I find not a single organization or person who suggests that Stevens may be innocent.

I therefore stand mute regarding the execution of Benny Stevens.

Automating Wrongful Convictions: The Empire Strikes Back

Two months ago, I published the first of eight posts on Eric King. I believed there was an outside chance that facts and evidence could spare his life. I was naive and wrong. Arizona executed Eric King for a crime he probably did not commit. Eric King is still dead, and I'm still bummed.

Two weeks ago, I published my first post ever regarding speeding tickets. I have since written a second. I'm admittedly more sanguine and jocular about those tickets than I am about Eric King, or Cameron Todd Willingham, or Byron Case, or Michael Ledford, or Cory Maye, or [insert very long list here.]

Will Foreman, the folks at Stop Big Government Maryland, and reader / commenter Al Smith, on the other hand, are considerably more bummed about the tickets. Will Foreman has been beating Maryland up in the courtroom. Stop Big Government Maryland has been beating Maryland up online. Reader / commenter Al Smith deviously linked his name to a company that sells GPS Camera Detectors.

I'm pleased to see a public aroused by injustice. I join the rabble for two reasons. First, it's more pleasant writing about people being wrongfully deprived of their dollars rather than their freedom or their life.

Second, I see the injustice associated with wrongful speeding tickets to be a microcosm of our country's wrongful conviction problem. The process in each situation is similar.

Charge someone who is innocent
Presume the person is guilty
Ignore, hide, never find, or otherwise exclude exculpatory evidence
Rely on evidence known to be unreliable
Relieve the state of its burden of proof
Convict

I calculate that more than 10% of the 2.5 million people we have behind bars have been wrongfully convicted in such fashion. That's more than a quarter million of our countrymen that we have seriously, seriously wronged.

Not to worry, though. It can never happen to you. Or your loved ones. 

The Empire Strikes Back 

The Maryland Towns of Cheverly and Forest "One Community - Many Cultures" Heights have posted a defense of their Demon Devices from Hell "automated speed enforcers." The two posts are nearly identical, so much so that they were likely written by a third party. While the names Optotraffic and Sigma Space Systems come to mind as possible ghost writers, the author at this point remains shadowy. (That sounds more ominous than unidentified.)

You can follow the two links if you wish to see how similar the two posts are. Alternatively you can trust me. In either case, I'll repeat the Forest Heights post below, interrupting only occasionally to offer constructive criticism.

Ready? Good. Settle in, buckle up, here we go.

SPEED CAMERA PROGRAM VERIFICATION ANALYSIS

Recently some citizens have raised concerns regarding the accuracy of Forest Heights Speed Camera Program that was instituted on May 1, 2010. The Mayor, Council, and Police Chief take these concerns seriously, as it is critical that citizens have confidence that the Speed Camera Program is operating correctly. Over the last week town officials have reviewed public concerns and instituted an independent verification process. Below is an overview of how well the Town’s speed camera equipment operates.

It would have been nice if the "town officials" had better explained what they meant by "independent verification." Does "independent" mean merely that the "town officials" did not conduct the analysis? Is it possible that the "independent" review was conducted by the fine folks at Optotraffic or Sigma Space Systems. They are, after all, the ones who allegedly know how the system works.

Note also that the independent review took less than a week. Part of "the last week" was taken by town officials reviewing public concerns. Part was then taken by instituting an independent verification process. (It's almost as if they knew who to contact and contract for such a quick and thorough review.) Part of the week was then consumed by the independent analysis. The remainder must have been spent preparing the unattributed report, which just coincidentally mimicked the unattributed report published last year by the Town of Cheverly, who had "over the last 10 days ... reviewed resident concerns and instituted an independent verification process."

Imagine that.

So here's a constructive criticism. If you are going to assure everyone that everything is okay, and you are going to rely on a supposedly "independent" analysis to do so, you should probably at least mention the name of the person or organization who did the analysis.

Let's continue.

HOW THE EQUIPMENT OPERATES:

The speed camera unit used by the Town of Forest Heights, supplied by Optotraffic, utilizes Lidar technology for speed detection coupled with a camera for capturing vehicle information. Lidar is a speed detection technology that utilizes a laser beam to determine the distance to the target vehicle by calculating the time it takes for the beam to reflect off of the vehicle and return to the unit. As a vehicle approaches the unit the distance changes, the change in distance and time are the variables used to determine the target vehicle's speed. In the case of Forest Heights’ Lidar, the equipment is recalibrated daily to ensure the equipment that makes this distance/time calculation is accurate.

Welcome to the world of half-truths. While it is true that the system fires lasers at cars and measures the time for the beams to return, the independent reviewer forgot to tell you that the system also works by attempting to detect changes in signal strength. I guess the independent reviewer didn't check the patent. I did. Here you go.

Using the recorded delay in conjunction with the signal strength, the presence/absence of a vehicle can be determined. ... If the recorded signal strength is different from the expected value, and/or the time delay is smaller than the one corresponding to the road surface, then trigger the timer to start .. or stop.

The laser ranging system clearly has a problem. That's why they augment it with  variable power detection. Sometimes the system will  rely on how bright something is rather than how far away it is. If you put such a system in a darkened cave and shine two lights at it from random distances, it will always think the 100 watt bulb is closer than the 60 watt bulb, because the detection system was made stupid by the variable-signal-strength feature.

If the system could depend on just its laser ranging capability, then it would. There would be no need to complicate everything with some sort of unproven "I have seen the light" system. Conversely, if the signal strength system was entirely dependable, there would be no need to augment it with the laser ranging system. The fact that they are using both methods tells me that they are not completely confident in either.

It's not that a laser system can't detect a variable signal strength, it's that it will be very difficult for the two lasers to detect within the same tolerance. One might trigger where the car is slightly reflective and the other might not. One might detect the car because the beam got brighter, and the other because the beam took longer to return. In that case, they would be looking at different parts of the car. That's bad.

Let's continue.

Lidar calculates the speed of an approaching vehicle beginning at a point 50 feet prior to the unit, where laser beams strike an approaching target vehicle at two defined locations.

That's incorrect. The laser beams look downward, not up or down the road. Once again, a peek at the patent would reveal that.  I'll include an image from the patent below, just in case anyone from the independent review team happens to read this post.

See. The lasers point down, not up the road. I suspect the well-informed independent review team was just confused because the system snaps images of "speeders" after they pass through the beams. I quote from the news article that first loosed me on this story.

Optotraffic representatives said the photos are not intended to capture the actual act of speeding, and are taken nearly 50 feet down the road from sensors as a way to prove the vehicle was on the road.

Oops. They can't even get their talking points straight. Oh well, back to Forest Heights' report of their independent review.

When the unit calculates the speed of a violator, and determines that the speed is in excess of 12 mph above the posted speed ...

Sorry. I didn't make it very far before feeling the need to interrupt again.

Is the unit calculating the speed only of violators? According to the sentence, the unit first calculates the speed of a violator then determines whether the speed was in excess of 12 mph. But the unit doesn't know if the person is a violator until after the speed has been determined to exceed the 12 mph threshold. It's a subtle point. I'll grant you that. It was an unforced error though, one that reveals a tendency to assume guilt and give a fair trail (or calculation) later. The sentence could have been more precisely written thus:

When the unit calculates a speed in excess of 12 mph above the posted speed, ...

See. Okay, I'll back up and let Forest Heights complete a paragraph before I interrupt again.

When the unit calculates the speed of a violator, and determines the speed is in excess of 12 mph above the posted speed, two different camera photographs are then made of the target vehicle after it passes the unit. These photographs are not used to calculate the speed of the vehicle, but are used for two essential purposes. The first is to capture the rear registration plate number of the vehicle (since not all States require a front plate) and the second purpose is to prove the vehicle was in motion at the time of the incident. Occasionally it is suggested by the violator that the vehicle is parked or standing. A citation is subsequently issued to the vehicle owner, as required by law, only after it is verified that there is direct visual evidence of the vehicle owner’s registration plate displayed on the vehicle.

I'll withhold comment on the photos, for now.

SYSTEM IS ACCURATE
CALIBRATION:
The Optotraffic equipment runs a self- calibration test every morning. An Optotraffic Technician and a Forest Heights Police Officer meet daily at the unit to review the results. Therefore, as standard practice, the equipment is verified every day.

I include one of their calibrations below, for your perusal at their distress. Click to enlarge. Click twice to enlarge even more.

Try not be be unduly impressed by plots, colors, and jargon. This is a public relations report. It's intended to look impressive and it's intended to give them cover. It identifies the unit, gives dates and locations, and lets the reader know that the battery was working. It shows a GPS satellite map because that's really, really impressive. The meat of the calibration, to the extent there is any meat on that bone, is the second plot from the bottom. It shows that the lasers are firing at 10,001 hertz. That means you are being lased 10,001 times per second by two lasers as you pass beneath this unit.

The nominal beam rate is 10,000 hertz. The allowable rate is anywhere within 2 hertz (cycles per second) of 10,000. The unit being calibrated is within 1 hertz, based on pulses being transmitted by our GPS satellites.

The bottom most plot converts the 1 hertz error into an mph error. That's all. It shows that a one hertz error is equivalent to an error around 0.1 mph, if the car is going 35 mph.  That's pretty impressive accuracy. That's why they show this plot.

This isn't even a half-truth, however. It's closer to a one-tenth truth. The fine folks at Optotraffic, and Forest Heights, and the Town of Cheverly, and those who did the independent review, never mention that there are many other possible sources of error in the system, sources that are not addresses in the shiny plot.

I discussed (in painful detail) eight possible sources of error in Automating Wrongful Convictions: Lasers Gone Wild. I'm independent. I'm (unfortunately) uncontaminated by money for my writing on this blog. I published the results of my independent survey on 28 April, just about the time the Forest Heights "town officials" were looking for an independent reviewer.

I suspect, though, that the "town officials" have never heard of me or this blog. I'm guessing even if they had, they would not want me explaining to them how their units may have a problem. I'm certain they wouldn't want to hear that they probably have a bendy pole problem. I mean of course, that their unit sways in the wind. That corrupts the reading.

They might also have a cross-eyed laser problem. I'm surprised the independent review team didn't mention it, given that the issue is mentioned in Optotraffic's brochure.

Each lane sensor is third party calibrated annually (by Maryland law) to verify the beam distance.

The beams must be parallel. The uproad / downroad distance between the beams at the road must be the same as the uproad / downroad distance at the laser mount. If the lasers are 35 feet from the road and 24 inches apart at the mount, and if they converge by only 1 degree, the beam distance at the road will be only 16.67 inches. That will cause a serious error in the speed calculation. If you were traveling 35 in a 35 zone, you would get a ticket for traveling 50 miles per hour.

Optotraffic should show the yearly beam distance calibrations for each unit. They should also address the other multiple sources of potential error for their system, particularly the problem of poles swaying in the wind. To repeatedly spout the limited mantra about being GPS calibrated, and to consistently suggest that it is the entire story, is to be patently dishonest.

OVERALL PROGRAM RESULTS:
Since its inception the speed camera program "Operation Get Home Safe" has issued a total of 72,808 tickets, for an average of 5 days a week during the 12 month period it has been in operation. Based on previous measures, more than 10,000 cars travel north and south bound each day on Hwy 210. This means that less than .03% of cars have received tickets exceeding the posted speed limit of 35 mph by more than 12 mph.

Now this is simply pathetic.  From this point on, I'm going to have to speak to Forest Heights' "town officials" directly.

Listen up: 10,000 cars a day, 5 days a week for 52 weeks is 2,600,000 cars. 72,808 tickets divided by 2,600,000 cars is 0.028, which is definitely less than 0.03 which is definitely NOT 0.03%. It's 3%, you dimbulb.

Jeez!

Now assume someone drives your road both directions, five times a week for 52 weeks. That's 520 one-way trips. Now, 3% (not 0.03% you dimbulb) of 520 trips is 15.6 tickets per year per driver, on average. You are ticketing each driver at an average rate of approximately 1 ticket per month. Seems like a lot to me.

But I digress. Back to your defense of your Optotraffic system.

Clearly this does not very the results of a specific ticket, but it does indicate that the equipment is not generating an abnormal number of tickets.

I'm sure you meant "verify the results," not "very the results." If you are trying to make a case that you could not have made a mistake with the tickets, you are doing a bad job.

Furthermore the average number of tickets per month have dropped from 16,575 per month initially to 4,892 recently, average speed of violators has dropped from 57 mph to 50.

By recently, do you mean after Will Foreman's employees (and others) decided they could avoid tickets only by driving around, rather than through, your town. I notice that you earlier wrote "based on previous measures, more than 10,000 cars" traveled north and south each day. I wonder how many cars pass that way now, now that your street has become known as the Forest Heights Toll Road.

Clearly you didn't intend for the number of tickets to drop off. That wasn't your hope or expectation, was it? I mean, after all, you budgeted more for tickets in your FY2011 budget than your entire FY2010 budget. You budgeted more than $1000 in speeding tickets per each Forest Heights' resident. Come on, admit it. It's not about safety. It's about money. Isn't it?

Also suspicious is your claim that the average speed has dropped from 57 mph to 50. Let me check my math. I'll be back in a moment.

Yep, 57 mph is 22 mph greater than the 35 mph speed limit you mentioned earlier. You allegedly put these things in school zones, though that term seems flexible when you want to collection traffic fines improve safety. Anyway, last I checked, 22 mph above the speed limit is more than the 12 mph threshold. So why is the average person not getting a ticket?  How can the average speed be between 50 and 57 mph in a 35 mph zone, and you ticket only 3% (not 0.03%, you dimbulb) of the drivers? Something seems wrong here.

If you sense that I am getting frustrated with the crappola, you're right. I run into this kind of crappy work all the time when I am looking at how someone got put away for life, or how someone got lethally needled by the State. It bugs the hell out of me.

But I digress.

The number of accident reports for the intersection of Hwy 210 and Livingston Road has also dropped significantly. Overall this shows that the program is working and drivers are reducing their speed in this particular school zone.

Perhaps the accidents dropped because people stopped driving down your toll road. Perhaps the intersection is the only place where traffic accidents dropped while all other locations showed substantial increases. If you can show that accidents consistently dropped in those locations where the devices operated, when the devices operated, and the accidents consistently did not drop in other locations, you might then be able to make a case that the devices reduce accidents. Simply claiming that they reduce accidents on one corner, without providing any data whatsoever, is just more of the same crap. You ask that everyone to simply trust you, at the same time you are giving people reason not to trust you.

By the way, even if the devices do reduce accidents, that is no excuse for wrongfully ticketing the citizenry.

TICKET PHOTOS DO NOT SHOW SPEED:
One citizen argued that his own tickets images were evidence that proved the equipment was operating incorrectly. According to his measurements the photos indicated his car had only travelled 24 feet between the first and second photo. He erroneously claimed that the elapsed time between the photos was .461 seconds indicating that the car was travelling at approximately 36MPH based on his calculation of velocity as a function of distance over time. Response: The photos generated by the camera and printed on the citation are never used to determine the speed of the vehicle. As stated above, the photos are taken after the vehicle passes the device in order to capture the license plate of the vehicle, and to prove the vehicle was actually moving if it is needed in court. The speed of the vehicle is calculated by a “laser” not a photo as the vehicle approaches the unit, 50 feet prior to passing the unit.

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that the system is calculating their speed based on the photo. If  the system did, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, your victims are using the superimposed images as a means of showing that your system is calculating their speed incorrectly.

You don't have to be Einstein or Sherlock Holmes to know, to absolutely know, that the photos show your camera system is failing.  Check the two composite images below. They are from tickets you sent Will Foreman for his company vehicles.

The trucks in the two composite photos are the same length. As it turns out, the time between the images in each composite photo is 0.363 seconds. The trucks are separated by nearly the same distance. They must be going nearly the same speed if they cover nearly the same distance in the same time. If anything, the truck in the upper image is traveling slightly faster than the truck in the lower image. However ...

You claim the truck in the upper photo is going 56 mph. You claim the truck in the lower photo is going 76 mph.

It can't be. It simply can't be. Fire your independent experts, and look at the photos yourself.  Look. LOOK! LOOK AT THE PHOTOS!

Sorry I went all caps-lock on you.

Not only can the photos be used to assess the speed, that is one of the benefits claimed by your accommodating contractor, Optotraffic. In case you have yet to read their brochure, I quote from it again for your benefit.

While the primary evidence for issuing a speeding citation is the calibrated lane sensor, the two photos provide secondary evidence of speeding ...

See?

Now back to your report.

The Town’s officer in charge of the program has re-reviewed many of the tickets issued and has noted that many of the vehicles have applied their brakes by the time they have entered the picture zone. This is one reason the pictures cannot be used to determine the speed of the vehicles.

If you look at the photos just presented, you will note that the brake lights on Will Foreman's trucks are not lit. You might also check with your independent review team to see if it is physically possible for a truck such as Will's to decelerate from 76 mph to 35 mph in 50 feet.

(I'll save you the trouble. It is not possible. It would require braking at 3g's. Maximum braking is around 0.7g's. Professionals and top-notch equipment can reach perhaps 1g. To reach 3g's or more, you have to hit something head on.)

Not only that, you can see whether the car was decelerating as it entered your kill zone, assuming the driver managed to see your "automated speed enforcer" at the last moment. This time, I'll quote from Sigma Space System's patent, referenced previously.

The acceleration/deceleration of a moving vehicle can be estimated by comparing the speed estimates for the front and the rear of the moving vehicle

See.

I think you should check these things out before suggesting that citizen Foreman is trying to deceive you, and the judge, and everyone else with his speeding ticket images. To suggest that citizen Foreman's analysis is incorrect because one of your fellow "town officials" saw some brake lights on some photos is a bit over the edge.

BRENTWOOD ISSUES:
Some citizens raised the fact that Brentwood had rebated all tickets issued between June 24th and July 13th. Many believed this was due to a problem with the Optotraffic equipment.

We have checked with the Chief of Police of Brentwood and there was an administrative issue with the handling of tickets by the Brentwood staff. This was not a systemic 

Oops. Another mistake. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to end the sentence with the word "systemic" and no punctuation. That's okay, though. I have no doubt you will find typos and grammos and other such mistakes in this post. I understand.

You failed to mention, however, that the systemic problem in Brentwood was the approval of 3,500 citations by someone who was not authorized to approve the citations, by someone who was not even an employee of the city at the time, by someone who should have known better. That person was in fact Brentwood's unemployed ex police chief.

INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION:
In order to provide a completely independent verification of the Optotraffic unit’s calibration, Chief Webb has instituted a verification process where he has had officers drive cruisers through the equipment at set speeds. The speed of the vehicle is verified by both the car’s odometer and a hand held radar/laser gun. This process will be repeated at a regular basis. We have the results of the Chief’s first test and it verified that the hand held radar/laser speed gun is in sync with the laser being utilized by the photo enforcement program. The Town’s hand held radar/laser speed guns are calibrated annually in order to be valid in any court appearance, and were used to show the town’s speed cameras are accurate

And that's how you end your report? Without punctuation. My oh my. I'll just make this obvious comment, then I'll let you be. Having one of your employees check the system a couple times with his speedometer (not odometer, Jeez!) and his a radar gun is not an independent verification.

So that's it for now, Forest Heights town officials. Keep up the good work.

The Impending Execution of Jeffrey Motts

This Friday, on 6 May 2011, the people of South Carolina will execute Jeffrey Motts. Motts admits his crime and he wants to be executed.

Jeffery Motts was serving a life sentence for binding and shooting two elderly victims, one of them his great-aunt. He was sharing a cell with Charles Martin, who was just three weeks away from completing a 5 year sentence. 

Motts believed Martin told lies about Motts stealing headphones and planting a knife in a gang member’s cell. Motts beat Martin and tied him to a bed with a torn bed sheet, “to have some fun with him.”  Though Martin begged him to stop, Motts strangled Martin and stuffed his body under a bed. After eating breakfast, Motts dragged the body to a prison common area known as “The Rock.” There he kicked the lifeless body “to make a statement to the other inmates,” about snitches.

Though Motts has appeals remaining to him, the South Carolina Supreme Court allowed Motts to drop them. Since the day after his conviction, Motts has written the Supreme Court saying that he deserves and wants to die.

Regarding the execution of Jeffrey Motts, I stand mute.