The Star's Mary Beth Schneider is reporting late this afternoon that Rep. Julia Carson first raised the issue of her Republican opponent's 1991 arrest on domestic violence charges during an interview with the newspaper's editorial staff. Schneider writes, "The incident was raised by Dickerson's Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Julia Carson, during a meeting with the Indianapolis Star editorial board." She adds, "Carson later said she had learned of the incident from a neighbor of Dickerson. She brought up the case, she said, because she was discussing issues important to her and 'my mother was a victim (of domestic violence).'"
Schneider's report notes the discrepancy in Dickerson's claim that he did not strike any family member and the assertions in a police report on the incident which indicate otherwise. She also notes that the charges were dropped against Dickerson, but the court records which would explain what transpired in the case no longer exist. "Court records about the case, which would show why charges were dropped, were purged at least four years ago," she writes.
Schneider doesn't give a date on when Carson made the allegation to the Star's editorial staff. She also doesn't say whether the Star obtained the Indianapolis police department report, which others say they weren't able to locate when they attempted to find the record, from police department records, or from Democratic operatives who lay in wait with the 15-year old report as Dickerson spoke out publicly on the issue for the first time on WXNT's Abdul In The Morning radio talk show this morning. Schneider says she was unsuccessful in her efforts to reach Dickerson's estranged wife, Paula, or his daughter to discuss the charges.
It is interesting that the Star chose not to write about the charge after Carson first raised it. Is this because they couldn't find public records which would rebut Dickerson's claim that he had not physically harmed a family member? It's hard to believe the newspaper would choose to ignore such serious allegations of a sitting member of the U.S. Congress about her Republican opponent if they had been able to obtain a copy of that police report before today when it was first posted on Taking Down Words shortly after comments were posted on this site by Carson supporters alluding to the damning evidence. It just adds further to the intrigue to it all. But it remains a very sad story all around.
UPDATE: WTHR is reporting that Dickerson will conduct a press conference with his wife at his side soon. The television station reports, "Dickerson says he'll address those 1991 charges, which were all dismissed, in a news conference with his wife by his side soon." This could get interesting.
9 comments:
Timing is everything in a campaign. Carson's camp had to slow Dickerson down. They have been sitting on this information until closer to the campaign.
The sins of Julia Carson have not been exposed yet. They had to use it today with 7 weeks to go.
What else does Carson have on Dickerson that she plans to use?
Maybe she should talk about her own turbulent marriage and divorce.
She can't play the race card, her opponent is a black man.
She has shot her best shot.
Now the campaign can get down to the real issues at hand.
New leadership in the 7th Congressional District.
She will have to show up for the debates with him when they are scheduled.
She should be made to swear under the penalties of perjury that her statements are true.
Carson's campaign has set the standard. Old police records, regardless of how old, proven or unproven, are fair game. Let's see how Carson fairs under this standard. Turnabout is fair play.
House Passes Bill to Protect Babies Outside the Womb
Protection for infants who survive abortions draws 380-15 approval.
By Tom Strode | posted 9/28/00
The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation Sept. 26 to provide legal protection to all newly born infants, including those who survive abortions.
The House vote was 380-15 on a pro-life measure that was extremely difficult even for abortion-rights advocates to oppose, especially in an election year. Although a Senate version has not been introduced, supporters are hopeful senators will take up the House bill before adjournment, which is scheduled Oct. 6.
The Born-alive Infants Protection Act, H.R. 4292, would establish in federal law that a baby living outside his mother's womb is legally a person. Though the long-standing principle in law has been that born-alive infants are entitled to legal protection, the legislation is necessary because of recent developments in law, academia and medicine, supporters say.
The developments calling that principle into question include the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June striking down a state ban on partial-birth abortion, which involves the killing of a nearly totally delivered child. The bill's backers also point to a July opinion by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel struck down New Jersey's pan on partial-birth abortion, saying the procedure could not be a "partial birth" because a "woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give birth," according to the National Right to Life Committee.
In addition, some in American academia, including Princeton University professor Peter Singer, contend parents should be able to kill newly born babies who are handicapped or unhealthy.
Also, babies who survive abortion are being allowed to die without care and are being targeted for such deaths. At a July hearing before a House subcommittee, two nurses testified babies, some who might be able to survive with proper care, are being left to die when they survive abortions at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. The abortion method used at Christ Hospital is known as induced-labor, or live-birth, abortion, testified Jill Stanek, a registered nurse. The goal of the procedure is to cause a woman's cervix to expel a premature baby who dies in the process or shortly after departure from the womb. One of the babies who was born alive survived for nearly eight hours without medical care, she testified.
The bill would not affect any abortion procedure or require medical treatment on an infant where it is not currently administered, said the measure's chief sponsor, Rep. Charles Canady, R.-Fla.
Shannon Royce, legislative counsel of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, noted, "This bill affirms what we thought was settled law until the disastrous Supreme Court decision this summer, and that is a child who is born alive is deemed a person under the 14th Amendment and deserves all the protections of any other person. The fact that the House vote was so overwhelming demonstrates an appropriate understanding of what human life is."
The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposes the legislation.
The 15 House members who voted against the bill were Reps. Julia Carson, D.-Ind.; John Dingell, D.-Mich.; Chaka Fattah, D.-Pa.; Benjamin Gilman, R.-N.Y.; Charles Gonzalez, D.-Texas; Alcee Hastings, D.-Fla.; Jesse Jackson Jr., D.-Ill.; Nancy Johnson, R.-Ct.; Barbara Lee, D.-Calif.; Nita Lowey, D.-N.Y.; Carolyn Maloney, D.-N.Y.; Cynthia McKinney, D.-Ga.; Nydia Velazquez, D.-N.Y.; Maxine Waters, D.-Calif., and Melvin Watt, D.-N.C.
The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill in July with a 22-1 vote. Watt was the lone member to oppose it.
Copyright © 2000 Baptist Press
Baptist Press? huh? Care to reprint some of their antigay propaganda too? Ms.Carson also voted against their Anti-Gay-Marriage Amendment too. Gonna excoriate her for that?
Wilson, she should've passed on the latest abortion bill. She looks ridiculous.
But back to the original topic:
Unless the police report I've seen, and which was read on Amos Brown's show this afternoon, is fraudulent, Mr. Dickerson has a lot of explaining to do. Like bruise marks on his wife's throat, a bloody eye, etc.
One of the officers who signed the report in 1991 was Vince Huber, now president of the FOP and a man who stands firmly against All Things Peterson. He's as big a goof as you'll find in those circles...a blatantly partisan Republican.
I wonder if he'll endorse or refute the report he signed 15 years ago?
I am interested in why reports are/are not available.
But if this report is even 25% true, ED is dead in the water.
And The Star has some 'splaining to do, too, Lucy.
Interesting the link to the STAR Aricle is no longer active ?
Does the Star feel like they have been used by Julia Carson ?
FYI on the court file.
It would not - as the story said - provide why a case was dropped. A court file is little more than the official record - i.e. the pc affadavit, basics on the accused, witness list and motions/orders to dismiss. Every motion to dismiss I've ever seen - and it's a lot - says "in the interest of justice" the state moves to dismiss. No discovery between the sides would be in it.
The file that might indeed have info is the internal prosecutors file or internal police file - but those aren't public record because they are considered "investigatory."
The file can produce this information: the name of the deputy prosecutor involved, who had to agree to the dismissal.
TALK TO THE REPORTING OFFICERS.
Post a Comment