Why Democrats Are Against Term Limits For Congress

President Donald Trump has renewed attention around term limits for members of Congress. He is supporting the idea of restricting how long members of Congress can remain in office in Washington. Like many Americans, President Trump believes elected offices should not be in office forever. American should make it so that the Constitution determines when politicians leave office. Not politicians.

Trump originally proposed limiting House members to six years and senators to 12 years during his 2016 presidential campaign, arguing that career politicians and decades of special interest influence had contributed to corruption in Washington.
The idea gained renewed momentum in January 2025 when Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ralph Norman introduced a Constitutional Amendment proposing those same limits. If approved, House members could serve three (3) terms and Senators just two (2).

Let's make something really clear, this is something that an overwhelming majority of Americans support term limits for Congress. Americans are sick and tired of "Career Politicians." Americans overwhelmingly believe the partisanship is ultimately harmful for our nation. And yes, most Americans see most "Career Politicians" as crooked and serving their political party instead of the American people. 

In fact, a Pew Research Center survey shows that 87% of Americans favor term limits for members of Congress, with strong, equal support from both Democrats and Republicans. That's a huge significant majority of Americans across the political spectrum. That's something that Washington should not ignore. The people support establishing term limits for members of Congress. 

According to polling data from sources like the Pew Research Center and Gallup, public support for this policy consistently ranges between 80% and 90%.
The debate over congressional term limits involves several key perspectives on how they would impact the federal government:

The Constitutional requirement to make imposing term limits on Congress requires a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that individual states cannot place term limits on their federal lawmakers. 

As for support for Term Limits coming from lawmakers in Congress, while an entrenched power-hungry old Leftist like Bernie Sanders is against it, just as most Democrats are, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Republican Alabama Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) have introduced joint resolutions to limit Senators to two terms and Representatives to three terms, though these measures frequently stall in committee.

As for how it benefits Americans, reducing incumbent advantage means long-serving incumbents, those "Career Politicians" who have been in office for decades have a massive fundraising and name-recognition advantage over newcomers. In most cases, that makes elections unfair and uncompetitive. 

Americans are well aware that people enter Congress to get rich! 

Congressional tenure is all about increasing one's personal wealth. How else can they become Millionaires in a relatively short time while in Congress? 

Members of Congress earn a set annual salary, which is currently fixed at $174,000 for rank-and-file members unless adjusted by law. They also participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), where pension benefits increase based on years of service, though federal law prohibits members from collecting full pensions immediately upon leaving office without meeting age and service requirements.

So how do they become so wealthy? Well, members of Congress hard not afraid to leverage the inside knowledge that comes with their positions. That's why lawmakers frequently trade stocks and options. Because of their positions, they are offered book deals and with royalties that average people would never see. In fact, unlike standard outside employment, book royalties are not subject to the strict statutory income caps imposed on members of Congress. High-profile members frequently secure very lucrative publishing contracts, with some earning hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from book sales. Imagine that, and they get others to write their books. 

And no, let's not forget their speaking fees and media events. While outside earned income limits restrict certain types of professional pay, their public appearances are bring in a lot of money. They are highly compensated for their speaking engagements. Many of the members of Congress actually utilize their "Celebrity Status" to boost their personal income. 

As for other money that they get? Well, Congressional lawmakers establish "Leadership Political Action Committees" (PACs) to raise money to help elect other members of their party. That's the front in that con game. 

Since Federal election laws regarding how Leadership PAC funds can be spent are considered notoriously loose compared to standard campaign accounts, some lawmakers use these PACs to fund lavish lifestyles. In fact, that's partly how some of them afford five-star dinners, luxury resort stays, golf trips, and high-end travel. It's all under the guise of "political fundraising."

Many of us truly believe that Term Limits for Congress would curb corruption. Many of us believe that limiting terms would break up entrenched political networks and diminish the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists. 

If we can get those "Career Politicians" out of Congress, the people who own those "Career Politicians," might not be so fortunate to buy the next guy. And please don't fool yourself into thinking there isn't a lot of temptation out there from wealthy Special Interest Groups who donate millions to election campaigns. 

From Billionaire Climate Change donors who are trying to destroy America, to the Drug Cartels and the Human Traffickers who some lawmakers in Congress have actually defended when they are killed. Yes, the very people they kept in business by having Open Borders, the people at Big Pharma who pay millions of dollars to Congressmen and women to push harmful medicines on Americans, there is a lot of money out there to corrupt corruptible politicians. 

Did Democrat Sen Elizabeth Warren take Big Pharma money? According to sources online, yes. Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign committees have accepted money tied to the pharmaceutical and health products industry.
She has received corporate Political Action Committees (PACs) donations and contributions from individuals in the industry. 

Early in her Senate career, her committee accepted thousands of dollars from three specific pharmaceutical PACs. Later, her campaign accepted thousands more from a family member of the family who owned Purdue Pharma. According to tracking by an organization who tracks political contributions, Warren's 2020 Presidential campaign received over $600,000 from individuals in the "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products" industry. When including the broader health sector that total exceeded $5 Million. Depending on the election cycles pooled together, records indicate she has received between $800,000 and $855,000 from individuals associated with the pharmaceutical industry. 

Trump Administration's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace cite that Democrat Sen Elizabeth Warren received at least $5.2 million total from the Big Pharma. So to answer your question, from what I can figure out, yes, Massachusetts Democrat Sen Elizabeth Warren accepts Big Pharma money.

As for your question, have members of Congress received "under the table" money from the Drug Cartels and Human Traffickers in exchange for keeping the border open during the Obama and Biden Administrations? 

Well, besides Democrats fighting very hard to keep the border wide open to allow criminal illegals and Cartel Gangs to get a foothold in the United States during the Biden Administration, we know that Democrat lawmakers raised strong objections to President Trump using military strikes to target and eliminate Drug Cartel smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. 

I remember watching Democrats vehemently arguing to stop President Trump from stopping the Drug Cartels from bringing killer drugs into the United States. As crazy as it sounds. It's a fact that Democrats argued that the strikes are being carried out without proper Congressional authorization or consultation under war powers. Democrats said President Trump did not have legal justifications to stop those drug boats from bring in illegal drugs. 

Democrats Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine introduced joint resolutions to restrict President Trump from attacking those drug runners. Schiff and Kaine were suspiciously supported by Republicans Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski who also seem to have an interest in working for the Drug Cartels who were running illegal drugs into the United States on the boats that President Trump was sinking. Frankly, I remember how it really looked strange because it almost appeared as if there were members of Congress working for the Drug Cartels. 

President Trump ended up placing a "Terrorist Designation" on the Drug Cartels to defend his his operations against Democrats who really and truly were looking like they were working for the Drug Cartels. It was a very strange bizarre situation. 

On one hand Americans watched as President Trump had Drug Cartel drug boat blown up. On the other were Democrat leaders in Congress angry about it, and demanding that President Trump stop it. It was as if Democrats were angry that something real was being done about Drug Cartels drug runner boat. But they were even angrier that they couldn't help the Drug Cartels by getting President Trump to stop. 

When it was going on, I had reader writing to ask me if I thought Democrats were being exposed for being on the payrolls of the Mexican Drug Cartels. It's true. Some of my readers questioned if Democrats Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine, and Republicans Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, were getting paid by the Drug Cartels to keep illegal drugs coming into the United States -- while President Trump was trying to stop it. 

Democrats tried to say that their opposition to President Trump's attacks on Mexican Drug Cartels and their bringing drugs into the United States was over their concerns regarding "legality, war powers, transparency, and oversight." 

The problem that Democrats have with saying that is that they were not concerned at all with "transparency or oversight" when the Biden Administration's Open Border policy allowed Mexican Drug Cartels to get a foothold in many American cities while bringing in historically high amounts of illegal killer drugs. Democrats only seem to care when President Trump decided to stop the Cartels. And yes, that's why Americans were saying that it looked like Democrats worked for the Cartels, were getting paid by the Cartels, were getting paid by the Cartels to stop President Trump. The Democrat's "TDS" hatred for President Trump made them look like they were supporting the Drug Cartels.

Of course, no matter how bad it looked for Democrats attacking President Trump for trying to stop those Drug Cartel drug boats, or how bad it looked for Democrats Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine and Republicans Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, no one really knows if members of Congress have received illegal political "contributions" from Drug Cartels.  

As for illegal political "contributions" being made by nefarious elements or individuals, there are organizations that actually try to track those sorts of political contributions. Most of those organization argue that large donations from corporations like Planned Parenthood, and  industry groups such as pharmaceutical companies, and wealthy individuals like George Soros, lead to a system where members of Congress prioritize the interests of major donors over those of their own constituents. Their reliance on wealthy donors creates a wall for candidates without access to significant financial networks to serve the public. That's one way how the corrupt stay in office.

Congressional term limits restricts the number of terms a lawmaker can serve, and subsequently would reduce the power of entrenched "Career Politicians." So instead of owing their allegiance to whoever offers them more money for them to either push through or stall legislation, members of Congress would owe their allegiance to us the American people as it should be. Sadly, only a few look at it that way now.  

By encouraging "Citizen Legislators," something that our Founders envisioned, Americans believe regular turnover prevents entrenched "Career Politicians" and brings fresh perspectives aligned with everyday American citizens. By encouraging the right attitude toward public service through Term Limits, Americans can return to the ideal of a "Citizen Legislature" where individuals serve for a limited time and then return to their communities.

As for reducing partisanship, many Americans, including myself, believe that bringing in new legislators would bring fresh perspectives, potentially reducing the deep partisan gridlock often associated with long-tenured politicians who see their office as a "cash-cow" instead of a place to do "public service."

Opponents to Term Limits for Congress are many of the lawmakers themselves because Term Limits would severely limit their chance, or outright kill, their ability to become wealthy in Congress. The "Career Politicians" that we have in office today fight against Term Limits for themselves by trying to scare the American people into believing that a "forced turnover strips Congress of experienced lawmakers would shift real power to unelected staff members and permanent lobbyists who understand the legislative process." 

Democrats go on to say that "Seasoned Legislators" build cross-aisle relationships and have "expertise" that helps them negotiate and pass complex bipartisan legislation, and that constant turnover reduces these personal ties. That should aggravate you to no end. 

Politicians say such things thinking the American people is stupid and can't see the collusion, the corruption, and how unelected government bureaucrats in the Federal government are already in control of things behind the scenes. That's not a "conspiracy theory," that information in the news on a daily basis. 

Most Americans completely understand the benefit of how mandatory rotation would serve us well by weakening the relationships between long-tenured politicians, and by eliminating such conspiracies between cohorts. And example of that is what we all saw take place when a Democrat-controlled Congress waged its coup to impeach President Trump on charges that we later found out were criminally fabricated. 

Mandatory rotation after a few years would lessen the special interest control on Congress and hopefully stop some of the corruption and lack of respect for the American people. And frankly, that's why "Career Politicians" who are completely unwilling to do anything good for America are against term limits. 

But they are willing to shield fellow-Democrat politicians under investigation. That's exactly what's taken place today, October 27, 2026, when nearly 200 House Democrats moved to shield fellow-Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., from further investigation after federal investigators raided her Washington, D.C., home earlier this month.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., led 175 members of the House Democratic Caucus in a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Attorney General Todd Blanche, criticizing the probe into Omar's immigration history as a partisan attack and accusing them of trying to sway her bid for another term in Congress.

Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, whose name may be an alias and not her real name, is now under Federal investigation over allegations she lied on immigration paperwork to obtain her citizenship when her family fled Somalia in the late 1990s.

Her fellow House Democrats argue that the Department of Justice investigation are not "objective pursuit of justice." Others, however, like Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., have called for Omar to be jailed and deported if the accusations are proven true. And really, since Democrats like to say "No one is above the law," why not allow the administration of justice to run it's course. 

It Ilhan Omar, whose name may be an alias and not her real name, is innocent, then the Department of Justice investigation did it's job and conducted oversight into corruption in our government. Of course, if she is found guilty, then the Department of Justice investigation did it's job and conducted oversight into corruption in our government. Either way, it's a win for Americans who are tired of seeing politicians break the law without having to face any consequences. 

The point is, corrupt politicians from both sides of the aisle should be held to adhere to the law. And yes, I feel that those Democrats, those 175 House Democrats who came out "to demand" that their fellow-Democrat be exempted from "legality, transparency, and oversight" conducted by the Department of Justice, are using their power as members of Congress to violate the law. And frankly, I'm tired of seeing our laws applying to me and you, but not Democrats in Washington.

In August 2026, President Trump said he was comfortable with Congressional term limits but also warned that forcing experienced lawmakers out could leave Washington with inexperienced replacements. 

While I have a huge amount of respect for President Trump, and I fully support him, if what we see coming out of Congress is an example of how good things are with the "experienced" team in there, I say America won't be that bad off if they are replaced with novices. In fact, if it was in my power, I'd fire a bunch of them -- starting with those who are completely unaware of the fact that they really and truly are supposed to be working for Americans. Not globalists or the people of other countries, but for Americans. 

Do I think it can happen? Do I think Term Limits for Congress is possible? No. No, I don't. 

The proposal for Term Limits for Congress would require approval from two thirds of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states before becoming law. That means many of the Congressmen and women would want to consciously relinquish the power that they have. And really, would they want to consciously want to give up their ability to accumulate wealth?  And frankly, they would never let that happen. 

For example, Bernie Sanders was mayor of a Vermont town before entering Congress. He's served in Congress for 35 years both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Can I see that old Leftist Bernie Sanders relinquishing his power and standing in the Democratic Party, or give up the wealth that he has accumulated for himself since entering Congress, just to make way for a new member who might be from Vermont, possibly not a Leftist, and maybe even believe in prioritizing the needs of Americans first before helping the rest of the world? I don't. 

Bringing fresh voices into government is not easy because of the power and wealth of "Career Politicians" like Sanders. So no, I don't see such a thing ever happening -- especially if we left it up to Democrat members of Congress to limit their terms for the good of the nation. From what I can see, Democrats in Congress don't care about the good of the nation. In fact, I don't think Democrats like Americans. If they did, they wouldn't treat Americans with the disdain that they show us. 

Democrat leadership and their party's policies and legislative priorities are disconnected from the everyday needs of ordinary Americans. That's why the Democratic Party as a whole is more focused on consolidating party power, advancing federal oversight, and catering to specific interest groups rather than serving the public good. 

As for answering the question, why are Democrats so against mandatory Term Limits for Congress? They are against it because it would stop them from having power and wealth. And of course, they are against it because President Trump and a huge majority of the American people are for it. That's how Democrats roll. 

That's just how I see it.

Tom Correa

Wyatt Earp: The Buffaloing Lawman (1875–1878)

Wyatt Earp moved further west to Wichita and Dodge City, following his brother Virgil Earp. He was hired as a policeman, primarily because he took the job that others didn't want. And rather than participating in cinematic fast-draw shootouts, Wyatt Earp made his name by "buffaloing" drunk cowboys. 

He was known for sneaking up behind rowdy, intoxicated cowboys, and striking them over the head with the butt of his revolver to incapacitate. He was paid a bounty for as many drunk cowboy that he could jail.

The technique of "buffaloing" cowboys, striking a rowdy or intoxicated individual over the head with the butt of a heavy revolver, became Wyatt Earp's signature method of law enforcement during his time in Kansas.

In booming cattle towns like Wichita and Dodge City, local ordinances heavily restricted the carrying of firearms to prevent lethal violence. As a policeman, Wyatt Earp's primary duty was maintaining order among influxes of armed, transient cowboys who had just got paid after finishing long grueling cattle drives.

Rather than engaging in lethal, Hollywood-style fast-draw shootouts, Kansas lawmen favored non-lethal compliance methods for several reasons:

First, "buffaloing" cowboys were seen as a better alternative to shooting them. It was all about "preserving commerce." Dead cowboys were not only bad for business, but saloons, brothels, and merchants relied heavily on the money that live cowboys spent.

Second, "buffaloing" was seen as both intimidation and efficiency. Let's be really honest here, a heavy single-action revolver like the Colt Single Action Army functioned very effectively as a club. Using one instantly incapacitated a disruptive drunk without escalating a situation into a deadly gunfight. Some say, some officers delivered a sharp, overhand downward strike using the heavy barrel of the pistol or the side cylinder of the revolver, to smash it directly against the side of the target's skull.

Third, "buffaloing" involved sneaking up or stepping closely to a rowdy individual and delivering a swift downward blow to the side of the head, rendering them unconscious or compliant enough to be easily jailed. The problem is hitting the individual too hard and killing him. 

"Buffaloing," which was really the 19th-century term for pistol-whipping someone, was a notoriously common and a brutal tactic used by Old West lawmen. In frontier towns, officers like Wyatt Earp and Wild Bill Hickok and others frequently relied on this method to subdue rowdy, intoxicated, or uncooperative individuals without resorting to a lethal shootout.

While it was "culturally" viewed as a "more humane" and a non-lethal alternative to a gunfight, its most critical flaw was that it carried an incredibly high risk of accidental death or permanent brain trauma. Historically, the logistics and medical realities of buffaloing show why it was a dangerous practice.

While the intent was often just to "anesthetize" someone long enough to drag them to a jail cell to sleep it off, the margin of error was practically non-existent. Let's remember that the weight of the weapon came into play. A standard-issue firearm of the era, such as a Colt Single Action Army (Colt .45) or a Smith & Wesson Model 3, were pretty hefty pieces of solid iron and steel weighing over two pounds. 

A single hard swing with a revolver of that weight generates more than enough mechanical force to easily fracture a human skull, cause severe intracranial bleeding, or kill a person instantly.

What made the practice dangerous was the lack of control you had when doing it. Today, we understand concussions, traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), and internal hematomas. But, that wasn't the case in the 19th-century. In fact, while a 19th-century lawman may have assumed that what was to him a routine "knockout," may have in fact been a fatal brain bleed or coma.

Over time, as frontier communities established structured law enforcement and police forces became professionalized around the turn of the 20th century, the use of "buffaloing" shifted from being seen as a pragmatic necessity of rough frontier justice. In fact, it became more and more recognized as an unpredictable, highly illegal, form of police brutality.

As for compensation and the bounty system for "buffaloing" some drunk cowboy to an arrest judge for a fine? Wyatt Earp and other policemen of the time were financially motivated to jail as many cowboys as possible, drunk or not. That is true. And yes, it's true that not all were drunk and deserved "buffaloing." But, that's just the way things were. Some were ripe to make extra money off of, and the 19th-century municipal legal system was simply that way.

Being a lawman in the Old West was a difficult and dangerous job, often facing low pay, political pressure, and constant physical threats. And let's remember, while not very many people wanted that job because of many reasons, police officers in those frontier towns typically received a low base salary. That's what they were heavily incentivized through a system of fees and bounties.

For every arrest made that resulted in a conviction or a paid fine, the arresting officer received a percentage of the collection or a flat-rate bonus from the town council. This system directly rewarded high-volume enforcement of vagrancy, public drunkenness, and firearms ordinances. The system also rewarded corruption.

Historical records show that many town marshals and deputies earned very little base salary, often relying on small percentages of fines, fees, or bounty collections to survive. Lawmen were regularly subjected to intimidation, ambushes, and violent shootouts from outlaws and drunk disputants. Sheriffs had to handle tedious or unpopular county administration, such as collecting property taxes, taking the national census, or managing local jails, rather than just chasing criminals.

Town leadership changed frequently, and enforcing strict local ordinances, like bans on carrying firearms inside city limits, usually made local lawmen very unpopular with the community -- but especially with the rowdy locals To add to the problems, in many Old West towns, the roles of town marshals, county sheriffs, and federal marshals often left peace officers politically isolated or caught in local power struggles.

County sheriffs were elected officials chosen by the local population, meaning men actively campaigned for the badge rather than avoiding it. Sheriffs and Marshals often earned money through a fee system, collecting a cut from taxes, serving warrants, delivering legal papers, and making arrests. Many famous lawmen, such as Wyatt Earp, took on the job of policeman out of convenience to protect their personal business or mining interests in boom towns.

The reality of the job was not what Hollywood has painted it as. A lawman's job went far beyond gunfights, and included collecting taxes, acting as an undertaker or judge, serving process papers, and managing large, remote county territories. County Sheriffs had to balance the demands of powerful local figures with that of wealthy ranchers. Both groups expected protection for their specific interests.

As for how often Wyatt Earp "buffaloed" someone? Well, he was known for "buffaloing" so much as a policeman that someone being "buffaloed" by anyone was colloquially referred to in Dodge City as having an "Earp Knot" on your head. So yes, for him, "buffaloing" someone by sneaking up or stepping closely to a rowdy cowboy and delivering a swift downward blow to the side of their head was more his style. 

As for the Hollywood lawman myth, that is just a myth. While the job was dangerous and violent, constant high-noon gunfights and completely lawless, chaotic towns were frequently exaggerated by Dime Novels and fake claims. Of course, Hollywood created the myth when it sensationalized the lives of figures like Wyatt Earp. The irony for him is that he couldn't sell his dramatized life story, "buffaloing" and all, while he was alive. 

Tom Correa

How A Dead Man Was Able To Send His Killer To The Gallows 1910

According to sources, today Plush, Oregon, is an unincorporated rural community, a census-designated place, in the Warner Valley of Lake County. Today, Plush can brag about having a store, an elementary school, a Post Office, and a church. So for Plush, with a population of 39 as of the 2020 census, that's not bad at all. 

As for the name "Plush"? Supposedly, the name "Plush" is said to have derived from a mispronunciation of the word "flush" during a poker game that was played there in the 1800s. That area in Southern Oregon became a region of sheep grazing and cattle ranching by the late 1800s. In fact, according to sources, American settlers developed the community there around sheep grazing and small cattle ranches. 

Today, Plush School District 18 is one of five school districts making up the Lake County Education Service District. Plush School, grades K–3, shares students with Adel School District 21, grades 4–8. The two schools combined have about a dozen students. For grades 9–12, those students generally attend Lakeview High School or Paisley School. I read where that part of Lake County is not in any community college district, but the county has a "contract-out-of-district" (COD) with Klamath Community College.

So now, let's talk about a murder that took place near Plush in 1910, and how a dead man was able to send his killer to the gallows. 

In the middle of June of 1910, Plush, Oregon, was the site of an intense manhunt for a killer. In fact, it became the epic center of public panic for good reason. In June of that year, 1910, a double murder of brothers Walter and Herbert Newell took place just outside of Plush. And yes, he was on the loose.

Walter Newell, who was 21 years old, and his brother Herbert Newell, who was 24, were the sons of a prominent Lakeview sheep rancher. They were murdered near their sheep camp near Honey Creek, just outside of Plush, by a sheep herder that Herbert had just fired.

The following was published in the Alturas New Era newspaper, Volume 23, Number 16, on June 15, 1910:

A DOUBLE MURDER NEAR PLUSH, OREGON

Discharged Sheep Herder Shoots Walter and Herbert Newell From Ambush

PLUSH, OREGON. -- The following telegram, received here last Saturday, caused no end of excitement. "The murder of Walter and Herbert Newell, sons of J H. Newell of Lakeview occurred today, when they were shot from ambush by a discharged sheep herder named Boliver a few miles from Plush in Lake County.

Great excitement prevails and two passes of heavily armed men under Deputy Sheriffs Sniter and Arthur , went to the scene of crime. Since then a number of men have gone around the country on horses.

The boys 21 and 23 years of age, bore exemplative characters. There may be a lynching if sheriff posses fail to get the killer. First cause supposed to be temporary insanity while drunk. It seems that the young men mentioned. were running a band of sheep near Plush, and Bolivar was in their employ as herder. They found it necessary to discharge the herder, which enraged him. and he laid in wait, and when he found the two gentlemen at the camp ambushed them.

It is supposed he killed one instantly out side the tent. The other man was shot through the body, and crawled inside the tent. The fiend then followed him inside, and placing his rifle at the mans mouth, fired, blowing off the top of his head.

The shooting occurred a few miles from Plush, Oregon. and the victims were not found until eighteen hours after their death. Posses of men are searching every where for the murderer but as yet he has not been apprehended.

It is claimed that the fellow has a rifle and Luger pistol and 300 rounds of cartridges with his, and a desperate fight is expected if he is overtaken. It will probably go pretty hard with him, if he is captured. The Newell brothers were well known and very popular in Lake County, and by hard work had accumulated a nice band of sheep. Their parents live in Lakeview, and are highly respected.

-- end of news story

The murderer was initially identified in telegrams as Pat Boliver or Bolivar. It was soon learned that the killer's name was actually Ike Harrold. He was said to be a "disgruntled sheepherder" who had just been discharged by the brothers for leaving their flock unattended. 

When confronted about leaving the sheep unattended, Harrold drew a semi-automatic Luger pistol and shot Herbert in the head. He then shot and killed Herbert's younger brother Walter.

The murder was witnessed by a hired camp hand named Dick Allen. After he  witnessed the shooting take place, he rode into Plush to sound the alarm. Later during questioning folks, it was found out that before the townspeople fully realized the gravity of the situation or they had located the bodies, the murderer, Ike Harrold, is said to have calmly walked into a local Plush restaurant and ate breakfast. He did so completely unnoticed after just killing the two brothers.

Of course, once the crime was realized, Lake County Sheriff Dent and multiple heavily armed posses immediately launched a search for Ike Harold. In fact, while the pursuit was taking place, the Newell family and the state of Oregon got together to offer a massive $2,000 reward for Ike Harold's capture. 

That was a lot of money in 1910.  And yes, the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem even loaned out their bloodhounds to assist tracking the murderer when it was through that Harold had escaped through rugged terrain. 

As for the townspeople of Plush, the double murder left Plush in a state of alarm. In fact, it is said that that was so much the case that even local women began carrying firearms for personal defense until the threat was contained. 

Why was there so much of an alarm over this killer? It was because of what he did to Herbert Newell. Remember, he shot Herbert first. When Ike Harrold shot Herbert Newell, he shot him in the head before turning his pistol on Herbert's younger brother Walter. While the killer did in fact kill Walter instantly, Herbert was only stunned by the initial bullet. 

Then, while murder Ike Harrold temporarily fled the immediate scene, and actually went to Plush to have breakfast, amazingly the mortally wounded Herbert managed to crawl over half a mile back to his campsite and into his tent. When the killer returned to rob the camp and make his escape, he found that Herbert was still alive and had crawled into his tent. That's when Ike Harold entered Herbert's tent and found the dying young man still alive. That's when the killer placed the barrel of his rifle into Herbert's mouth, and fired, blowing off the top of Herbert's head.

The people of Plush knew that this killer sounds like as vicious an animal as one can find. They knew that anyone who was able to kill like that would not stop at killing anyone, man, woman, or child. 

Tensions were relieved when the killer was apprehended. In fact, the intense manhunt culminated a few days later when the murderer was captured. It was then that the people of Plush realized that the person known as "Boliver" was actually the sheepherder named Ike Harrold

They found out that Ike Harrold had been fired by his employers, young brothers Herbert and Walter Newell, because Harrold left their flock unattended. In retaliation, Ike Harrold drew a semi-automatic Luger pistol and shot both brothers at their sheep camp near Honey Creek, just outside of Plush. 

Following a major panic and a widespread manhunt which involved using tracking hounds, murderer Ike Harrold was cornered about six miles from the scene near Lakeview. Deputy Sheriff Charles Arthur and Creed McKenzie apprehended him after a brief gunfight in which the killer Harrold was shot and wounded in the leg. Upon his capture, Ike Harrold confessed to the Deputies and was taken into Lakeview to await trial. 

For folks around at the time, they just wanted to skip the trial and find a tree to lynch him. Maybe that's why the trial moved along so fast. It took only three weeks for the case to go to trial in Lake County. And from there, a jury swiftly returned a guilty verdict. 

Isaac Newton Harrold was sentenced to death. He was transferred from Lakeview to the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem, where the execution was carried out. According to local reports, he went to the gallows without saying a word. All in all, Ike Harrold was found guilty of murder and executed by hanging. 

As for local reaction, the folks in Plush were not too happy about him being hanged in Salem. In fact, the decision to carry out the execution in Salem rather than locally in Plush is said to have caused a great deal of anger among the Lake County residents. They were deeply upset by the murders and preferred that the punishment take place within the community where the crime occurred. They wanted his to hang near Plush. 

So now, let's talk about how Herbert Newell sent he and his brother's killer to the gallows. 

Yes, it's true. Herbert Newell provided the evidence that it took to move the trial along so quickly, and put a noose around his killer's neck. 

That part of this story has to do with a note that was found by Deputies. During the investigation of the crime scene, Deputies found a note that was left written by one of the victims, Herbert Newell. Remember, while his killer Ike Harrold temporarily fled the immediate scene and went to have breakfast, the mortally wounded Herbert Newell managed to crawl over half a mile back to his tent. 

Well, believe it or not, while Herbert knew he was dying, he used his final moments to write a brief note that served as a direct message to authorities. The note was a dying declaration written by Herbert Newell that named Ike Harrold as his killer. And more so, the note detailed the attack on his brother. 

Herbert explicitly named Ike Harrold as the killer. He explained that the shooting occurred while he was attempting to write a check to pay Harrold off after firing him. Herbert documented that his brother Walter had been shot down while bravely running to his brother's assistance.

Tragically, after writing the note, Herbert Newell was still lying there dying in his tent when his killer Ike Harrold returned to the camp for food and supplies. The killer found Herbert was still breathing, and shot him again to finish him off.

The circumstances surrounding the note was seen as both tragic and remarkable. You see, despite the killer's attempt to cover his tracks, the note remained hidden in the tent and was only found later when it was recovered by deputies. That note from Herbert Newell provided the crucial indisputable evidence that sealed the fate of Ike Harrold at his trial. So yes, that note was what got Ike Harrold hanged. 

Tom Correa

My Education In The Early 1980s

Going to back school a few years after spending 4 years on active duty in the Marine Corps wasn't easy. But really, I needed to do it. The fact is, my formal education was not the greatest and I knew it. 

That's why in 1981, I decided to put in a few classes at a local Jr. College in Hayward, California.  I had already attending that Jr. College while in High School in 1973 taking Welding classes to get certified as a Welder. 

In 1981, after a few years off of active duty, and after working a few jobs such as being a mechanic with Western Pacific Railroad and working in a machine shop, with the economy so bad that a lot of people were out of work at the time, I found myself working as a Security Field Supervisor for a large security company. In fact, it was the second largest security company in the world at the time. 

So, in 1981, I decided to take a few classes in subjects that would help me at work. To do that, I started out by taking classes in Report Writing, Investigation Techniques, Evidence Collection, Patrol Procedures, and a few other courses. 

Soon, I found myself carrying a full-load of classes while working 60 plus hours a week at my job. Though, as a Security Field Supervisor, I was an operational leader responsible for managing security personnel and ensuring daily protocols are executed, it was during that time that I also started contracting out my services as a Security Consultant. It was all about freelancing to make money.  

As a Security Consultant, I evaluated an organization's risks, determined what it would take to protect its physical assets, and I designed strategies to secure businesses and executives. The mission was to block threats.  

As for identifying vulnerabilities, I had to find and analyze weaknesses in the security layouts of businesses and residential properties. I conducted penetration testing to figure out what it would take to breach their security. That meant that I had to perform authorized simulated incursions to test the reliability and resilience of security systems before and after they were improved. 

As for responding to incidents, I found myself investigating security breaches and I had to build remediation plans. And yes, I found myself creating compliance standards that my clients could afford. My clients were well aware of the cost of a long-term security investment. And frankly, it wasn't cheap. But, looking back at those days, the cost was small compared to later when computers and cameras were introduced and becoming commonplace.

It was interesting days for me. As a Security Field Supervisor working for the security company that I did, I never had to wear a guard's uniform. In fact, none of the Field Supervisors wore guard uniforms. And no, our patrol vehicles were not marked. And yes, there were reasons for that. First, we worked in the San Francisco Bay Area and my district office was in Oakland. It was a very hostile place. It was a very violent place. Second, we didn't wear uniforms or have marked cars so that the hoods in Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond wouldn't shoot at us or our cars. And yes, it happened. 

As a Field Supervisor, I was responsible for overseeing a security staff during my shift. I coordinated daily shifts. I handled local incidents. I drove all over the East Bay to inspect plants and other facilities who were our clients. I went to wherever we had guards posted. And, if you were wondering, that company had over 800 guards employed at any one time. And as for me as a Field Supervisor, I had to go into areas that were not the nicest places to go into. 

But, during a shift, that was my job. I checked on guards wherever they were posted, I responded to locations that the police told me they would not go into without backup, and I also found time to do routine investigations of incidents and crime scenes. I supervised guards. I solved problems, and I reported to our district office manager. 

As a Security Consultant, that was an easy job in comparison to supervising guards. As a consultant, I diagnosed security risks, advised executives, and designed security policies. I was an independent contractor. I didn't hardly ever come into contact with guards, because I mostly interacted directly with business executives such as CEOs, CSOs, or business owners in meetings.

The fundamental difference between a Security Field Supervisor and a Security Consultant is that as a Field Supervisor, I was in on the execution of the day-to-day hands-on security operations. As a consultant, I was seen as an outside expert hired to analyze risks, discover vulnerabilities, and design security strategies. I advised businesses, evaluated infrastructure, conducted risk audits, and drafted security strategies while working as an independent contractor, a freelancer. It took a lot of communication, along with project management and planning skills. 

In contrast, as a Security Field Supervisor, as an operational leader responsible for managing security personnel and ensuring daily protocols are executed, life was all about managing employees, enforcing established protocols, doing conflict resolution, and doing investigations. And yes, there were times that also meant investigating the police and their response to incidents. 

As a Field Supervisor in the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, I enjoyed managing and overseeing security officers. I liked dealing with mobile patrol units. I liked having input in the security of facilities to protect people, property, and assets.  I had to assign shifts, monitor security officer performance in the field, and ensure posts were continuously covered in accordance to our contracts.  I conducted routine patrols and spot-checks of facilities and events, and inspected gear, cameras, alarm systems, fire equipment, and even inspected firearms of armed guards to make sure they functioned properly. Frankly, it was never boring because there was always something to do.

When I'm asked which one did I enjoy more, consulting or field supervising, I have to admit that while consulting paid a lot more money, I really enjoyed the hands-on work of doing security with a team to keep people safe. 

When I left working for that security company, it was because I found myself making more money working for myself. And yes, there was a point when I was being hired by companies, including some security companies, including my former employer, to take care of problem situations. In some cases it was to supervise guards and get a situation under control. In other cases, it was to do what law enforcement was restricted from doing. I did what needed to be done to keep people safe. And frankly, I didn't mind doing it. It paid well.  

In fact, I had an old boss who liked the way I worked, that he hired me on contract, and put me in charge of coordinating the security for facilities and businesses that were targets of labor strikes in Alameda and San Francisco counties. In those situations, my life was all about hands-on security, dealing with rowdy Union strikers and their attacks on people, buildings, and equipment. 

During strikes, I supervised guards, set up command posts, dealt with traffic and crowd control issues, dealt with threats, a lot of threats, dealt with guards and others being attacked, and dealt with companies who in some cases stubbornly refused to take the precautions that were prescribed to them. 

Providing good security for facilities that were targets of labor strikes and violent Union workers was challenging and dangerous. I did background investigations of members who made threats against people, their employers, and the businesses they were striking. I've seen Union workers set fire to the places that employed them. I've seen cops stand by and do nothing as guards were beaten. I've seen Leftist crazies come out of the woodwork in places like Berkeley because they were told that "Capitalists were exploiting Workers." I've seen those same tolerant crazies assault innocent senior citizens for no reason. 

In those days, Union workers, strikers, and their hired picketers, threaten me and my family with great harm. I was shot at on a couple of different occasions. And yes, there was that time when I was in an unmarked car and drove up to a blocked picket line at the entrance of Golden Gate Field Race Track. My car was surrounded by Union strikers and Berkeley Leftists who decided to turn over my car -- while I was in it. And yes, I was run off the road and followed home a few times back then. It was a real education. 

As for training both new and older security personnel on security protocols, I enjoyed training guards to have people skills for better customer service, what to do in an emergency, the proper response protocol for fires and medical emergencies, and I taught a First Aid / CPR class. Basically, it was a lot of what I learned in the Marine Corps. And yes, as for responding to incidents, I've had my share of apprehending and evicting trespassers, looters, and vandals. And yes, I've had to hold offenders for the police. 

Of course, over the years, I've had to coordinate security situations with local police and fire departments. And yes, you learn which police departments are better to deal with than others. Most are alright. Then again, there are those who call you a "Rent-a-Cop" or a "Wannabe," and you learn pretty quickly that they are the ones that you can't depend on when you need them.

I look at my prior security experience in the Marine Corps, including my background as an Instructor at Correctional Custody in the Marine Corps, as being a help back in the day. The Marine Corps taught me leadership, conflict resolution, risk assessment, familiarity with security protocols, and resilience. 

The Marine Corps demanded that Marines have verbal and written communication skills. That all came in very handy when I had to write reports. And since documentation is so important, I wrote a lot of reports. In fact, I'd have to say that to do that job, you had to know how to write reports and maintain records for management and your clients. But just as importantly, you had to know how to write extremely detailed incident, accident, and shift reports.

That's why when I went back to school, as I was also taking the perquisite General Education courses in Math, English, Humanities, and so on, I started out by taking classes in Report Writing, Patrol Procedures, and a few other courses. And yes, after taking those classes, I soon realized that I put in enough classes for a degree in the Administration of Justice (ADMJ). Yes, that's how I got my first degree. 

What I found is that Administration of Justice courses provided vital foundational knowledge for me as a Security Consultant by bridging the gap between public law enforcement principles and private security risk mitigation. I didn't want to be a law enforcement officer because I found them restricted and not pro-active. 

In fact, that's the key difference between security and law enforcement. By the nature of what they do, security is pro-active while law enforcement is reactive. While private security is primarily proactive and preventative, public law enforcement is fundamentally reactive and responsive. Of course, both sectors utilize both proactive and reactive strategies depending on the situation. 

The primary objective of private security is to prevent an incident from occurring in the first place. By maintaining a visible presence, implementing access control, monitoring surveillance, and mitigating risks, security personnel aim to deter criminals so that no crime is committed on the property they protect. In contrast, police departments and sheriff's offices are structurally designed to respond after a law has been broken. They answer 911 calls, investigate committed crimes, gather forensic evidence, and apprehend suspects. 

Is there overlap? Yes, "Proactive Policing" is when law enforcement agencies employ proactive strategies, such as hot-spots policing, community outreach, and targeted deterrence, to disrupt crime patterns before they manifest. And as for "Reactive Security," if a breach occurs on protected property, private security must react. Of course, when a security guard reacts, their reactive authority is limited. They can typically detain suspects, document the event, and preserve the scene until the police or the sheriff's office arrives.

While taking course in the Administration of Justice, I knew very well that traditional criminal justice programs focus heavily on policing. But, I also knew that taking specialized security administration modules directly addressed the legal frameworks, asset protection tactics, and investigative techniques required in the private consulting sector -- all which helped me in my job.

Since I was introduced to security in the Marine Corps, I found that some of the courses were almost too basic for someone with experience. But, even though they taught basic functions, operational procedures, and business structures of private security, I looked at those classes as great refresher courses. Besides, I found that as a Security Consultant, the classes were important since they addressed how private firms operate differently from law enforcement and the military -- which was what my experience was based on. 

Learning the California Penal Code, Crime Scene Investigation Techniques, rules of evidence, courtroom procedures, studying the elements, classifications, and definitions of crimes, and the difference between crimes against persons versus property, all helped me a great deal in my work. Of course, learning how the U.S. Constitution governs investigative conduct, arrests, and evidence collection must operate within parameters to avoid legal liability was extremely important. 

Looking back on what was covered while getting my degree in the Administration of Justice, I enjoyed learning how to gather investigative details, the proper protocols for preserving evidence, how to preserve physical evidence and a crime scene. Of course, in that field, it is vitally important to write clear, concise, and legally binding professional logs and survey summaries. 

For me, learning how to do that easier and more efficiently help me provide my clients with quality reports. So yes, it was something that I found useful in the security field -- as well as in my life later when I left the security field and entered the inspection industry.  

As for conflict resolution, de-escalation, and defusing a potentially volatile situation, I appreciated what I was taught in that Administration of Justice program in regards to functional strategies for mediating disputes, managing risk situations, and navigating tense environments safely. But being frank, while I appreciated what I was taught in that Administration of Justice program, all it did was reaffirm what I was taught in the Marine Corps in leadership classes. 

Of course, I've found that my training in the Marine Corps and the Corps' focus on leadership, the Marine Corps training in general, has given me resilience and management skills that I believe have been invaluable. So yes, there are reasons why companies respect what the military teaches Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen. Most of us who served understand being responsible team players while also having people skills. 

I supervised a lot of guards at various types of facilities and businesses, at a lot of events, as well as for a lot of strike actions back in those days. While I was being educated in what to expect from the worst of society, my education regarding what to expect from people didn't stop at work and dealing with people who I'd never be friends with. 

I thought about this for a while, and I didn't know if I was going to include this in this article. But since we're talking about different forms of education, here goes. 

All of us come in contact with a lot of people in our lives. I'm sure you'll agree when I say that knowing some of them was probably not the greatest experience that we've had in our lives. While it's a part of life to meet and interact with a wide variety of people, I think it's completely natural that not every encounter or relationship is a positive one. Some are difficult, draining, and frustrating. Of course, dealing with different personalities can be a challenge. It's something we all deal with. 

I see gauging who we like being around as something that's normal. For me, I like people who have similar values as me. I like people who believe in honor and whose word is good. I like people who prioritize family, and have a handle on their moral compass. I can usually sense someone who is condescending a mile away. In fact, in my personal life, I learned that there are people who profess to be good people, when they aren't. They are akin to con artists, just morally bankrupt people who just want to use you for whatever they can get.

When you deeply value honor, integrity, and family, encountering people who use "goodness" as a mask to manipulate or exploit others feels horrible. And yes, it is incredibly frustrating to realize that someone you trusted, and may have cared for, was lying about who they are. 

Sadly, there are people who put on a grand performance of morality while acting out of pure self-interest, all the while using the trust of others as a way to manipulate them. They are shallow people, extremely superficial, and they will do anything to get close to people for their own gain. 

Being able to sense condescension and identify such people is healthy. Good character isn't found in what people profess about themselves. It shows up in their actions over time. Morally bankrupt people need to actively construct an image. People with a solid moral compass let their behavior speaks for itself. A "moral con artist" usually believes the rules don't apply to them. 

Since I was asked to explain more about this, let me just say that while I've known a few men and women who fit the bill of being a "moral con artist," there was one person in the early 1980s who did something that taught me volumes about how some people are worst than others. 

That person tried to get me to take her to a gun range to learn how to shoot. I knew when I talked with her that something wasn't right. She was an ardent anti-gun Liberal Democrat. I knew she would never accept the fact that target shooting is a fun sport. So yes, knowing this, I waiting for my friend, her husband, to get home from a sabbatical so that I could talk with him about it. 

Come to find out later, he told her that he was at a teachers' sabbatical which is an extended intentional break from a routine job "to rest and focus on personal and professional growth." In reality, he had a mistress. Instead of being at a retreat for teachers, he was sacked up with his mistress over that weekend. I had no idea that that was going on. 

When I found out about it, I figured that she suspected it and may have wanted to learn how to use a gun to shoot him. What I found out later was much worst than that. 

Later, I found out that he told his wife that he was spending a lot of time supposedly helping me with something or other. It was all a lie. In fact, I was so busy that I hadn't seen my friend in months. But, that didn't stop him from telling his wife that he was spending time helping me -- when he was in fact spending time with his mistress. 

His wife's plan was not to shoot him. Her plan was for me to readily and willingly take her to a gun range, load a pistol, and hand it to her. Her plan was to shoot herself in front of me to have the most impact on my life as she could. She wanted to do that because she felt that I was covering for her husband -- even though I was completely in the dark about what he was doing. 

She and her husband were extremely "educated" people. When I learned the truth of what was going on, I told them that I used to admire their knowledge of things. And while I didn't agree with or understand their fondness for the Democrat Party, or their hatred for people like me who are Republicans, I told them that I tried to ignore that about them because I though they had some sort of redeeming quality that I might have missed. But I was wrong. They had no redeeming value at all. And yes, I told them that. I also told them that I didn't want to hear or see them again.  

It was sad to find out how manipulating and toxic she was. And yes, it was very say to find out how out and out destructive, how calculating and cruel, my friend was. He had no respect for his wife and family, or himself. And yes, I'm sure people understand why I cut my contact with them. It was a learning experience. 

So yes, besides attending Jr. College classes and getting some good from that, most of what I learned back then was about the worst in people. That was my real education back in the early 1980s. And for a while, I believed that the worst in people was easier to find than the best of us. Thankfully, over the years, I learned that we are better than that. 

It takes a lot of resilience to hold onto that shift in perspective, especially when your "real education" has given you so much evidence to the contrary. The early 1980s were not a good time for some folks. In my case, I saw the worst in people at work and in my social life. And yes, I learned that it is incredibly easy for a person's worldview to get permanently locked into that survival-mode mindset because of dealing with people who lack a moral compass.

When you spend a chapter of your life witnessing the worst in people, cynicism starts to feel like realism. It feels safe because it ensures you are never surprised or let down. But as time goes on, thankfully we realize that humanity is fundamentally capable of being better than what we give it credit for. 

My education in the early 1980s, both in working in security and dealing with "friends" like the ones that I mention above, made me understand that it isn't about being naive to the bad in the world. It's about actively choosing not to let the bad blind you to the quiet consistent good that exists. And yes, it does exist. 

Tom Correa

Wyatt Earp In San Diego 1885 - 1896

The Louis Bank of Commerce building at 835–837 Fifth Avenue

Wyatt Earp moved to San Diego in 1885 during a real estate boom. He leased and operated multiple gambling halls and saloons in San Diego's Stingaree District. His most famous venture was "The Oyster Bar," which occupied the first floor of the Louis Bank of Commerce building at 835–837 Fifth Avenue. The building served as a hotspot for high-stakes gambling and drinking. 

He opened up a few saloons, gambling houses, and brothels in San Diego’s notorious Stingaree District -- which is now the historic Gaslamp Quarter. He operated them between 1885 and 1891. 

The Oyster Bar & The Golden Poppy were in the same building. Wyatt Earp ran the Oyster Bar saloon and gambling hall, but he did not own or run the Golden Poppy brothel upstairs. The Golden Poppy was owned and managed by a famous local madam and fortune teller known as Madame Cora. Though Wyatt Earp is said to have worked as an "enforcer" or "pimp" for her from time to time, he had no ownership stake in her brothel.

His Oyster Bar saloon and gambling hall, and the Golden Poppy brothel were only one of hundreds of saloons and brothels in San Diego's Stingaree District. At its peak, the Stingaree District housed over a hundred brothels, including Ida Bailey's famous Canary Cottage, Madame Cora's Golden Poppy, opium dens, and more than 90 saloons and gambling halls. 

What exactly was the Stingaree District in San Diego, and why did they call it that?  Well, the Stingaree District was the home to San Diego's first Chinatown, which was alongside dense blue-collar residential blocks. It was more famous for its notorious red-light district in downtown San Diego, California, that came out of the 1880s real estate boom. 

The Stingaree District occupied a more concentrated 12 to 16-block area bounded by First and Fifth avenues, and Market and K streets. However, the broader Red-light District defined by San Diego's Health Department, which included the Stingaree, encompassed about 100 city blocks. The larger vice zone stretched north to F Street, just south of Broadway, east to 16th Street, and south to the waterfront. Supposedly, it was named after comparing the danger of being "stung" by its gambling and prostitution vices to getting stung by stingrays in San Diego Bay. 

San Diego's Stingaree District, like San Francisco's more famous Barbary Coast, got its reputation by being the home to the city's undesirable criminal element of prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, thieves, and gamblers. Of course, during Wyatt Earp's life, he was no stranger to running saloons in such areas. So he was right at home when he operated his oyster bar saloon and gambling hall on the ground floor while dealing Faro. And no, he was no stranger at being a Pimp while Madame Cora operated her brothel known as The Golden Poppy upstairs from his oyster bar saloon and gambling. In fact, some of Wyatt Earp's earliest arrests were when he was arrested as a Pimp in Illinois before ever coming West.

The Panic of 1893 was a severe national economic Depression that devastated what was left of San Diego's real estate market. It's said that Earp was still operating his Oyster Bar inside the Louis Bank of Commerce building on Fifth Avenue as late as 1893, right in the thick of the crash. But that seems odd since he's said to have relocated to San Francisco by 1891. Local historians say that while Wyatt Earp was already living in San Francisco in 1891, he sold his last holdings in San Diego in 1896 when the local real estate market finally went under. 

Why did he leave San Diego? Well, between the real estate market crash and the fact that San Diego's Stingaree District was being closed down, the result of a new city administration that promised to get rid of the gamblers, prostitutes, and pimps, Wyatt Earp wasn't welcomed there anymore. 

What became of San Diego's Stingaree District? During the Progressive Era (roughly 1900–1920), California underwent a massive political and social transformation. Rather than a single, unified movement, California Progressivism was a collection of overlapping campaigns led by anti-railroad Republicans, women’s clubs, labor unions, and moral reformers. 

Those Progressive Era anti-vice moral reformers were responsible for targeting San Diego's Stingaree District ahead of the 1915 Panama-California Exposition. They got the city to raid, clear out, and demolish around 100 blocks of San Diego in 1916. Today, the area is known as the Gaslamp Quarter. Of course, if the reports are correct and they did demolished 100 blocks, I don't understand how they missed the Louis Bank of Commerce building at 835–837 Fifth Avenue. That building is there and it is a San Diego tourist attraction because of its connection to Earp. 

Let's look at something else for a moment, gambling and prostitution were made illegal in California in 1872. In fact, both gambling and prostitution were heavily restricted by the enactment of California's first formal Penal Code in 1872. 

But, while that was the case, the 1872 Penal Code did not outlaw all gambling outright. Instead, it targeted specific types of gaming. For example, the 1872 California law explicitly prohibited house-banked games where players bet against the venue rather than each other. And yes, it banned several casino games by name, such as faro, roulette, fan-tan, and rondo. California's 1872 code conspicuously left poker untouched because draw poker was legally viewed as a game of skill rather than pure chance. That's how cardrooms continued to operate throughout the state. 

None of that stopped Wyatt Earp from opening gambling halls that offered house-banked games where players bet against the house rather than each other. And yes, he offered banned games such as faro. Of course, since dealing and playing them, or operating them for money or value is classified as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and/or county jail time, who knows how many people cared about the law -- especially when those breaking the law can easily afford to pay the fines to keep operating.

All in all, during his time in San Diego between 1887 and 1891, Wyatt Earp was highly active in the real estate boom and vice. He leased and operated saloons and at least four different gambling halls, all illegal like everyone else, in the surrounding Stingaree District. 

He offered games like faro, poker, blackjack, and keno. And no, there's no telling if they were on the level of not. My knowing that he would be arrested for running a crooked faro game to bilk a sucker out of a lot of cash in 1911 makes me wonder if Earp ever ran an honest faro game.

In San Diego, it is known that several of his illegal gambling houses shared buildings with, or sat adjacent to, red-light brothel operations like the Golden Poppy brothel situated directly upstairs from his Oyster Bar. Some sources say he got a cut of their action, while others sources say he only worked for them as an "enforcer" and "pimp" when asked.

In the 1887 San Diego City Directory, Wyatt Earp formally registered his occupation as a "capitalist." And yes, he made a lot of money. In fact, at his peak, Wyatt Earp reportedly pulled in up to $1,000 a night from his illegal gaming operations. Let's put that in the perspective of looking at how $1,000 in 1887 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $35,261.05 today. Can anyone imagine making $35,000 a night today?

Now add that alongside his other vice operations, such as refereeing boxing matches, judging local horse races, including at the 1889 Escondido County Fair, and racing a horse named Otto Rex. From what I can tell by looking at all of this, he must have been a wealthy man when he left San Diego.

While the names and locations of all of his specific properties are not fully documented in surviving city registries, he is well-recorded as a regular fixture at nearby historic watering holes like the Tivoli Bar and Grill. 

As I said before, with the real estate boom going bust, and gambling drying up, there wasn't any reason for Wyatt Earp to stay there. That's why he left San Diego for better gaming opportunities in San Francisco.

Sensing the end of the boom era, Wyatt Earp began selling off his properties and shifting his focus toward Northern California and other Western boomtowns. In San Francisco he pursued horse racing, boxing refereeing, and new gambling ventures. 

In the San Francisco Bay Area, Wyatt Earp was initially seen as a local gambler, a "Sporting Man," someone who walked the edge of the law. He was well known among the criminal element as someone who successfully evaded arrest and never stood trial for the murders of Frank Stilwell and Florentino Cruz who was commonly known as "Indian Charlie."  

By the end of 1896, Wyatt Earp's name would be known across the nation as the boxing referee who was the key figure, the actual lynchpin, in the biggest sports swindle of the 1800s. That was when Wyatt Earp's life took a notoriously dark turn on December 2, 1896, when he refereed the highly anticipated Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Tom Sharkey heavyweight prize fight in San Francisco. 

Up to that point, Wyatt Earp was largely a regional figure known primarily in Arizona and Southern California. That all changed when the fallout from his actions had national newspapers across the country branding him a notorious desperado, a crooked gambler, con artist, and "Bad man." It was then that he became a household name for all the wrong reasons.

Tom Correa

Mothers Who Kill Their Children

Maternal filicide which is the term used for "Mothers who kill their children" occurs roughly 200 times each year in the United States. That accounts for approximately 40% of the nearly 500 total Parental Filicide arrests annually.

As shocking as it might be, parents are arrested for filicide around 500 times a year in the United States. And while fathers account for about 54% to 58%, mothers commit roughly 40% of these horrible crimes.

Parental Filicide and Maternal Filicide are considered rare if we compare how many times that takes place with the entire population of the United States. Because the nearly 500 total Parental Filicide arrests annually taking place are happening in our population of approximately 342.6 million people, that's considered something extremely rare.

Of course, that 500 figure is probably low because it's a crime that's likely underreported. And then there's this to think about, when a crime is severely underreported, its presence in official police registries or databases can make it appear deceptively rare, unusual, or virtually non-existent, when it shouldn't be.

Other categories of crimes that are considered rare in official datasets primarily because they are heavily underreported are "Corporate and White-Collar Fraud" like embezzlement, insider trading, corporate fraud, and wage theft appear to happen infrequently. They seem rare because victims are often completely unaware they have been defrauded, such as in the case of identity theft or small, incremental financial skimming.

Another reason that they are unreported has to do with settling such matters privately or terminating the employee without involving law enforcement to avoid public embarrassment, stock drops, or damage to their brand reputation.

Another heavily underreported crime is "Labor Exploitation and Modern Slavery."
Official reports of human trafficking, forced labor, and modern slavery are relatively low, that masks the fact that they are actually taking place. The reasons that go unreported has to do with victims often being physically or socially isolated, and they have problems speaking English. Some victims suffer such crimes because they had their identification documents confiscated by the very people who are exploiting them.

Another reason that many victims don't say anything has to do with them being threatened, blackmailed, are coerced into believing that contacting the police will lead to their own arrest or deportation rather than them receiving justice. That all helps the modern-day Slave Traders to keep their crimes almost entirely invisible to local law enforcement.

Fear is one way of keeping their victims silent. Victims fear retaliation from the perpetrators within their own neighborhoods or assume the police will not take the crime seriously.

I was told many years ago that "Domestic Abuse and Violence" was only second to Rape when it comes to unreported crimes. While violent offenses like commercial robberies or vehicle thefts have higher tracking, non-fatal domestic abuse, coercive control, and stalking appear disproportionately lower in baseline arrest statistics than they are in anonymous household victimization surveys.

The problem is that victims are frequently financially, emotionally, or socially dependent on the abuser. And yes, the fear of escalating violence, retaliation, or a sense of deep personal shame prevents victims from bringing law enforcement into their private homes.

 
As for the crime of "Rape (Sexual Assault)" being seen as the most underreported violent crimes in the United States and globally, that's just a fact. In fact, it is believed that between 65% and 80% of all sexual assaults go unreported to law enforcement.

Estimates indicate that only 20% to 37% of sexual assaults are ever formally reported to police, which means that that's only a fraction of actual occurrences. Just on college and university campuses also, studies show that more than 90% of survivors do not report the assault to authorities. The result is that because of underreporting and barriers within the legal system, it is estimated that only about 5 to 6 out of every 1,000 perpetrators (less than 1%) will ever face prison time.

Why not report the crime? The process of reporting, and undergoing invasive forensic medical exams, and navigating the legal system often causes survivors to fear secondary victimization or re-traumatization. And really, the culture of "Self-Blame" has many survivors falsely blaming themselves for the assault.

Another reason for Rape going unreported has to do with survivors fearing that they won't be taken serious of believed. The fear of not being believed, and facing social stigma is very real. Of course, victims of Rape also stay quiet because there's the very good probability that they will experience some sort of physical retaliation from the perpetrator.

Let's remember that in approximately 80% of Rape cases, the victim knows their attacker. He is usually an acquaintance, family member, or intimate partner, which of course makes the decision to report what happen even more complicated as well as traumatic.

As for Parental Filicide, which is "child murder by a father," and Maternal Filicide which is "child murder by a mother," they are significantly underreported because in many cases their were inaccurate Coroner rulings, concealment of pregnancies and births, and the misclassification of fatal abuse as accidental deaths.

The majority of homicides in very young children stem from severe domestic violence. Sometimes it's physical discipline that "goes too far". Because parents often claim the resulting trauma was an accident, such as a fall down the stairs, choking, or "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome," Medical Examiners and Coroners usually have a hard time distinguishing between intentional physical abuse and accidental injuries. That's one reason why without definitive proof of intent, many of these deaths are ruled accidental rather than homicides

Then there's what's called the "Extended Suicide Phenomenon." That has to do with when a severely depressed or psychotic parent believes they are saving their child from real or imagined suffering by killing them. The act of killing their own children is immediately followed by the parent's suicide.

Because the perpetrator is deceased, these cases don't usually result in a criminal case. In fact, when a parent kills themselves and their child, the incident is often coded differently in medical or localized databases. In some cases, they are coded as a "double suicide" or an "unspecified murder-suicide" rather than explicitly indexed under standard criminal filicide arrest statistics. That in itself screws up the statistics of how often such a crime occurs.

And there's this, because filicide takes place entirely within the private domain of the home, there are rarely outside witnesses. Victims are highly dependent on their caretakers, and children under the age of five often do not have regular contact with school systems or mandatory reporters who might otherwise notice signs of danger.

In fact, when a child disappears from an isolated household under the guise of "moving away" or "being sent to live with a relative," the crime can go unnoticed for years.

As for mothers killing their children? And no, I'm not talking about mothers who kill their unborn babies. Actually, mothers who kill their children under "Maternal Filicide" does not generally apply to the killing of an unborn fetus, as legal and clinical definitions restrict filicide to a child who has been born alive. 

The distinctions are subtle. Filicide is the murder of a born child (infant, child, or adolescent) by a parent. Neonaticide is the killing of a newborn within the first 24 hours (or up to 28 days in some definitions) following a live birth. Infanticide is the killing of a child within the first year of life. 

As for the termination of a pregnancy and the destruction of an unborn child, that falls under separate legal frameworks such as abortion, feticide, or homicide statutes, instead of filicide or neonaticide because the legal system still fights over when life begins. Of course while there are people like me who believe life starts at conception, there are others who see an unborn child as nothing but a "clump of cells" that they can kill even up to the day of birth. 

Frankly, I go by "Cowboy Logic" when understanding when life begins. As a boy, I was thought that cows are considered "carrying a calf" or "carrying a life" when they get pregnant -- either naturally or by insemination. Today, a cow is still considered "carrying a calf" as soon as she becomes pregnant. That is a fact of life regardless of whether she was bred via artificial insemination or being serviced by a bull.

A cow "carrying a calf" means that cow is "carrying a life." In livestock and veterinary terms, "carrying a calf" refers strictly to bovine pregnancy (gestation). Because a live developing fetus is inside the cow's uterus, it is biologically and functionally considered carrying a life. 

That's what I was taught as a boy, and it still holds true today. Biology is biology. In livestock production, once a pregnancy is successfully established and confirmed, which is typically through ultrasound or rectal palpation, the cow is referred to as "bred," "pregnant," or "carrying a calf." The method of conception does not change her pregnancy status, the biological gestation process, or how she is managed leading up to her calving. That's why I see women as "carrying a child" if she was "bred" via artificial insemination or a husband. 

Of course, if a woman carrying a child is not considered carrying a life, then why is it that someone who kills a pregnant woman can be charged as a double homicide? 

In fact, under the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, harming or killing an unborn child during a federal violent crime is recognized as a separate distinct offense. The penalty matches what the punishment would be if the same harm happened directly to the pregnant woman. More than 30 states have laws that allow prosecutors to charge a suspect with two murders, or a separate fetal homicide offense, if a pregnant woman is killed during the commission of a crime.

So now, while I'm almost certain that I'm going to get hate-mail saying that I'm comparing women to cows, let's remember that biology is not that hard to understand as far as when life begins. In all honestly, the same people that can't tell us when life begins -- are the same people who believe gay men should be considered women and can't define what a woman is. 

 

As for mothers who kill their children even after years of giving birth to them? Mothers are statistically responsible for a higher share of infant homicides and younger children. Fathers are known to more frequently kill older children. Over 70% of all Maternal Filicide victims are age 6 or younger, with about one-third being under 1 year of age.

What are the common motives for Maternal Filicide? Mental illness and psychosis are blamed a lot for mothers killing their children. In fact, a significant portion of Maternal Filicides involve severe "Postpartum Depression," "Postpartum Psychosis," or some other supposed mental illness. 

But does "Postpartum Depression" and "Postpartum Psychosis" make mothers want to kill their children? And really, since some mothers who kill their children even after years of giving birth -- how long is that "postpartum" excuse good for? 

How long does "Postpartum Depression" last? Supposedly, experts say it can last anywhere from several months to a year or more if left untreated. But, treatment can help symptoms improve within weeks or months. As for "Postpartum Psychosis." experts say with prompt medical treatment, the acute symptoms of Postpartum Psychosis typically resolve within two to 12 weeks, though a full recovery can take six to a year. 

From what I've read, both of these postpartum issues are rare medical conditions that occur shortly after childbirth. It is believed that mothers can experience hallucinations, severe confusion, and extreme paranoia. 

Do women who suffer for that mental illness lose the ability to function as "normal"? Believe it or not, according what the research says, a mother "suffering" from these postpartum issues is still able to function in every way that's "normal." 

But at the same time, experts say she can still "lose the ability to understand the consequences or wrongness of her actions, and be detached from reality." 

Wow, I find that incredible. And frankly, I find it completely unbelievable. To me, to say that postpartum issues still enable someone to function in every way that's "normal" but they would still "lose the ability to understand the consequences or wrongness of their actions" and are somehow "detached from reality" is not only unbelievable -- I see it as someone's attempt to use a mental issue to excuse doing wrong. 

Think about it, we're to believe that a mother with mental health postpartum issues, knows enough to understand that it's wrong to get scalded with hot water in a shower; knows enough to understand that it's wrong to go out of the house without dressing first and not naked; understand why is is wrong to drive on the wrong side of the road into on-coming traffic; understand what wrong means in every aspect of life -- except when it come to killing her children? 

Supposedly, she didn't understand that it was wrong to kill her children because of postpartum issues. That sounds like bullshit. And yes, it goes to my question: Do mothers who kill their children know what they are doing?

I'm told that whether a mother knows what she is doing when she kills her child depends entirely on her mental state. But the fact is that most perpetrators act with clear awareness and malicious intent, and have specific motives at the time. They want to kill their children and do it as if they know what they are doing.

Frankly, everything that I've read on postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis all say that neither mental illness automatically turns women into killers. In fact, research shows that the overwhelming vast majority of mothers who experience these mental health conditions never harm their children at all. And really, only a tiny percentage voice wanting to harm their newborns after giving birth.

Here's something else, while severe psychiatric emergencies can distort reality, today we live in an era where mental illness is treatable. I know for a fact that PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), depression, and anxiety are all mental health issues that are treatable. Not curable, but treatable.

As for the excuse that "Postpartum Depression" and "Postpartum Psychosis" made a mother kill her children? That is proven false by research that shows that neither mental illness is considered a blueprint for violence. In fact, research and medical experts indicate that neither Postpartum Depression (PPD) nor Postpartum Psychosis (PPP) functions as a blueprint or predictable pathway for violence. While both are serious mental health conditions that occur after childbirth, the vast majority of women who experience them do not harm themselves or others.

The idea that a person can murder someone and claim insanity, while still being cognitively able to handle basic daily routines like getting dressed and not driving in the wrong lane is hard to accept. Frankly, the excuse of being driven by intense or some fixed delusions to commit murder, but being able to "function normally in every other way," sounds like someone is trying to use an insanity plea as an excuse to avoid prison.  

Mothers Who Kill Their Children Usually Commit Suicide

Between 16% and 29% of Maternal Filicides end with the mother completing suicide or attempting suicide. While we will probably never understand it, some mothers abuse and neglect their children to the point of killing them. Some mothers view their children as burdens and unwanted. Some mother kill their children as spousal revenge. And sadly, some mothers kill their children because they wanted to. 

Below are some news reports over the years of mother who killed their children. Everyone of them did so for unknown reasons. There was speculation on the part of some after the fact, but no one knows for sure why they did what they did.

The following was published in the Los Angeles Herald, Volume 33, Number 35, on November 5,1905:

MOTHER'S TERRIBLE CRIME

Kills Two Children, Wounds Two, One Fatally, and Then Kills Herself

By Associated Press.
MINNEAPOLIS, Nov. 4, 1905 — Mrs. James D. Brennan of this city quarreled with her husband last evening and after he had gone to work attempted to kill her four children and herself. She shot and killed two of the children and wounded the other two. One of these died at the hospital and the other cannot live. The mother shot herself in the left breast and it is believed will die.

The dead: LIZZIE, aged 15, shot through temple. ALICE, aged 6, shot back of right ear. ARTHUR, aged 13, shot in the head. Other child, Thomas, aged 13, also shot in the head, will die. Appearances indicated that the boys had struggled desperately to escape.

___________________

The following was published in the Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 209, Number 30, on July 30, 1919:

Mother Kills Self and Seven Children

NELSONVILLE. Ohio, July 29, 1919 — Several hours before authorities were to take them to the Athens County home today, seven children ranging in age from six weeks to ten years, were found with their mother, Mrs. Tony Stravisar burned to death or asphyxiated in their home at Kimberly, a small mining town near here.

The children were tied to their beds and coal oil had been sprinkled over the room. It is supposed that worry over the separation caused the mother to destroy herself and the children.

___________________

The following was published in the San Francisco Call, Volume 111, Number 69, on March 27, 1922:

Mother Kills Her 3 Children, Suicide  

GREENWICH, Conn.. March 27. — Mrs. Henry Barker. 32, wife of a carpenter, killed her three children. Margaret, 5, Johanna, 3, and Henry, 18 months, in her home here late last night, and then took her own life. The three children were killed with a knife and the mother took her own life in the same way.

___________________

The following was published in the Imperial Valley Press, Volume 36, Number 216, on November 1, 1937:

Mother Kills Five Children, Herself

NORWALK. Iowa. Nov. 1 (UP)— Mrs. Elma McAninch. 35. and the five children she killed will be buried as she requested, without an inquest, Coroner C. H Mitchell said today. "There is no doubt that the five children were murdered and the mother committed suicide.” Mitchell explained.

___________________

The following was published in the San Pedro News Pilot, Volume 11, Number 157, on September 8, 1938:

Fearful Mother Kills Children

OLD WESTBURY, N. Y. (JP)—A mother who feared her two small children might inherit her ill health was said by Police Inspector Harold I. King to have stabbed the children to death today and then plunged a carving knife into her own body four times. The woman, Mrs. Helen Novinski, 27, wife of the chauffeur for Karl H. Bissell, New York broker, was critically wounded.

___________________

The following was published in the Imperial Valley Press, Volume 38, Number 122, on July 10, 1940:

MOTHER KILLS SIX IN SUICIDE PLOT

NEW YORK. July 10. (UP) Police smashed the lock of a flat in the Bronx today and found six children dead on the floor and their mother unconscious from gas fumes. Investigators said Mrs. Louis Nickosia apparently had killed her children because, as a note indicated, she was “disgusted with life."

___________________

The following was published in the Desert Sun, Volume XXXIII, Number 76, on November 11, 1959:

Mother Kills Three Children

ROCKY HILL, Conn. Mrs. Norma Grimes, described by neighbors as a model mother, strangled three of her five children late Monday with a bathrobe cord.

___________________

The following was published in the Napa Valley Register, Volume 163, Number 90, on March 9, 1954:

Mother Held For Drowning 3 Tots 

WATERVILLE, Maine  A distraught young housewife who wrote a message that "God told me," today faced a murder charge in the bathtub drownings of her three children. County Atty Joseph B Campbell said Mrs. Constance Fisher, 24, would be arraigned in Municipal Court. 

Richard Fisher, 6, his brother Daniel, 4. and their sister Deborah, 1, were found dead in their home yesterday by their father Carl Fisher, 33, who smashed a door to gain enhance.

___________________

The 1950s case of Constance Fisher from Waterville, Maine, is being compared to the recent case of Lindsay Clancy who confessed to strangling her three young children in January 2023.

Constance Fisher drowned her three young children (Richard, Daniel, and Deborah) in a bathtub and left a note saying she did it to "Save them from evil". Fisher attempted suicide after the killings by drinking shampoo. Fisher was declared legally insane. She supposedly suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. 

As for parallels to Lindsay Clancy? Both cases involve a mother killing multiple young children while her husband was away. Both multiple murders were followed by a failed suicide attempt by the mother. Both legal defenses centered heavily on severe debilitating mental illness which they said made the mothers detached from reality. 

As for Lindsay Clancy having a "debilitating mental illness which made her detached from reality," she knew enough to use her exercise bands which is an ordinary household item that she kept in her family's home gym. She couldn't have been that detached from reality if she knew to take the cylindrical, loop-style resistance bands that she used in her Beachbody workout videos to kill her children. 

She maintained a home workout area in their basement. She knew enough to supposedly plan for the children to be in the basement when she strangled them using the exercise band. Because these items were readily accessible within the household, they did not have to be purchased or sought out specifically for the crime -- but she knew how to use readily available items to kill her kids. 

Her attorney argued that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. Her defense presented testimony stating that Clancy claimed to hear a "male voice" commanding her to kill 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. Her defense asserted she lacked criminal responsibility due to a complete break from reality. 

But, to me, just my opinion, it seems her supposed "break from reality" was very selective since she functioned fine putting her crime together. And yes, her actions were methodically planned out. 

She deliberately sent her husband out of the house on specific errands, to pick up a prescription and food, to make sure she would be left alone with the children. She made sure he was not there and unable to stop her. If that's not premeditation, I don't know what is. 

Because of her planning it out, to me, it certainly looks like Lindsay Clancy was aware of the wrongfulness of her actions. It certainly looks like she acted with deliberate intent to commit murder. Researching mothers who kill their children shows the common thread that they all planned their murders. 

To prove Lindsay Clancy planned it out, authorities have cellphone records showing she timed the killings by sending her husband, Patrick, away to pick up dinner and a prescription. They know she used that time, when he was away and unable to stop her, to use the bands as a continuous-pressure mechanism to ensure the act was finalized before attempting to end her own life. That's why I say her supposed "break from reality" appeared to be very calculating and selective. 

As for her suicide attempt? I'm not saying that Clancy faked it to go along with her sanity plea later. I'm just asking if a woman "suffering" from mental issues can fake a suicide attempt? 

Research says the answer is yes. While postpartum psychosis is said to involve a break from reality, including hallucinations, delusions, or severe confusion, experts agree that an individual experiencing postpartum issues can engage in behaviors that appear to be, or are classified as, "feigned" or "faked" suicide attempts to be deceptive. 

In Constance Fisher's case, she drank shampoo to try to commit suicide. But, for someone like me who questions details like that, I wondered if drinking shampoo is lethal. Frankly, drinking shampoo can make you sick -- but it's generally considered relatively non-toxic. That's not to say it can't make you sick, and extremely uncomfortable, but it has to be taken in very large quantities to be considered dangerous. That's why some people speculated that Fisher was trying to fake a suicide attempt. Some say she mimicked a suicide attempt without the genuine intent to die.

So as for Constance Fisher, instead of seeing what Fisher did as calculated malice, her defense convinced a jury to see as a victim of mental issues. That's why she was committed to an insane asylum instead of going to prison. It was the believe of the people who ran the asylum that she was "cured" at some point. That's why Fisher was declared "cured" and released in 1959. Yes, just a few years after killing her children.

It was after her release that Constance Fisher remarried Carl and that had three more children. Then, in 1966, she murdered those three children too in the exact same way that she killed the first three. 

She used the same insanity defense at her second trial. As a result, she was recommitted Augusta State Hospital again. It's true. Following her drowning her second set of three children on June 30, 1966, she was hospitalized at Thayer Hospital, held for legal deliberations, and eventually deemed competent to stand trial. 

In January 1967, a jury took 20 minutes to formally find her "innocent of murder by reason of mental disease." This resulted in her being recommitment to the state psychiatric facility.

In October 1973, she escaped from the Augusta State Hospital in Maine, where she had been confined following the second set of child murders. While some sources say she died of suicide, Constance Fisher died by drowning in the Kennebec River after escaping from that state hospital. 

In fact, duck hunters found her body days later in the river, approximately seven miles downstream from the mental institution. Officials officially ruled her death as an "accidental drowning." Constance and second husband Carl are buried in the same family plot as the six children who she murdered twelve years apart. Richard, Daniel and Deborah in 1954, and Kathleen, Michael and Nathalie in 1966.

So rather than facing a traditional murder conviction each time and being placed behind bars in prison for life without the possibility of parole, a place where she could have only hurt herself, she was committed to the Augusta State Hospital both times. As a result of that decision by a judge and jury in the 1950s, she was set free when she was deemed "cured" by Psychiatrists in 1966. It was because she was set free that Constance Fisher was able to kill her second set of 3 children. 

Tom Correa