BOSTON — A Boston-area man was sentenced Thursday to life in prison for the grisly murder of his wife, who disappeared nearly three years ago and whose body has never been found.
Brian Walshe, 50, was convicted Monday of first-degree murder in the killing of Ana Walshe, 39. The sentence carries no possibility of parole.
He pleaded guilty in November to misleading police and illegally disposing of a body after admitting he had dismembered her body and disposed of it in a dumpster. He said he did so only after panicking when he found she had died in bed.
Judge Diane Freniere called Walshe’s crimes “barbaric and incomprehensible” and she chastised him for “deceitful and manipulative behavior.”
Walshe showed no emotion as the sentence was read.
Children ‘without their mother’s hand to hold’
Before the sentencing, Ana Walshe’s sister Aleksandra Dimitrijevic told the court how the death has devastated her family, especially because they have no body to bury.
“I struggle with the grief that comes without warning, hoping every morning that this is just a terrible dream,” she said. “The most painful part of this loss is knowing her children must now grow up without their mother’s hand to hold. They now face a lifetime of milestones, big and small, where her absence will be deeply and painfully felt.”
The Walshe’s were married for about six years, and their three children are in state custody.
No chance to properly grieve
Walshe was also sentenced to 19 to 25 years for witness intimidation and two to three years for improper disposal of a body. Those sentences are to run consecutive to his life sentence, the judge ruled.
Walshe’s lawyer, Kelli Porges, described the consecutive sentencing — which prosecutors requested due to the severity of the crimes — as “excessive.” Freniere disagreed.
“You had no regard for the lifelong mental harm that your criminal acts inflicted on your then two, four and six year old sons, not only in taking their mother, but also, as is specific to this charge, and never being able to properly grieve that loss, to say goodbye to their mom,” Freniere said to Walsh during sentencing.
Assistant District Attorney Gregory Connor defended the sentence.
“When I looked behind me after the closing arguments, I realized that was the closest day that those people had come to a wake, because they never got together to mourn her. And that happened three years later,” Connor said.
“We recognize it’s harsh,” he said of the sentencing recommendation, ”but we think it’s appropriate based on the facts.”
Online searches reveal dismemberment and disposal plan
Ana Walshe, a real estate agent who immigrated from Serbia, was last seen early Jan. 1, 2023, after a New Year’s Eve dinner at the couple’s home.
When initially questioned by investigators, Walshe said his wife had been called to Washington, D.C., for a work emergency. But witnesses testified there was no evidence she took a ride service to the airport or boarded a flight. Walshe didn’t contact her employer until Jan. 4.
During the trial, prosecutors leaned heavily on digital evidence found on devices connected to Walshe, including online searches for “dismemberment and best ways to dispose of a body,” “how long before a body starts to smell,” and “hacksaw best tool to dismember.”
Investigators also found searches on a laptop that included “how long for someone missing to inherit,” “how long missing to be dead,” and “can you throw away body parts,” prosecutors told the jury.
Surveillance video also showed a man resembling Walshe throwing what appeared to be heavy trash bags into a dumpster not far from the couple’s home. A subsequent search of a trash processing facility near his mother’s home uncovered bags containing a hatchet, hammer, shears, hacksaw, towels, and a protective Tyvek suit, cleaning agents, a Prada purse, boots like the ones Ana Walshe was last seen wearing and a COVID-19 vaccination card with her name.
Prosecutors told the jury that the Massachusetts State Crime Laboratory examined some of the items and found Ana and Brian Walshe’s DNA on the Tyvek suit and Ana Walshe’s DNA on the hatchet, hacksaw and other items.
A failing marriage and a life insurance policy
Prosecutors floated several possible motives for the killing.
An insurance executive testified that Brian Walshe was the sole beneficiary of Ana Walshe’s $1 million life insurance policy, suggesting a financial motive. But prosecutors also portrayed a marriage that was falling apart; Brian Walshe was confined at their home in the affluent coastal community of Cohasset, about 15 miles southeast of Boston, awaiting sentencing on an art fraud case. Ana Walshe meanwhile commuted from their home to Washington, D.C., where she worked.
The year before she died, his wife had started an affair, details of which were shared in court by her boyfriend William Fastow. Brian Walshe’s attorney denied that his client knew about the affair.
In his opening, Walshe’s attorney, Larry Tipton, argued it was not a murder case but what he called a “sudden unexplained death.” He said the couple loved each other and were planning for the future.
But Walshe’s defense never called a witness and Brian Walshe declined to testify.
During the trial, prosecutors did an excellent job of introducing circumstantial evidence and providing the breadcrumbs that led the jury down the path toward finding premeditation, said Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University.
“Here, the evidence about dismemberment and improper disposal of a body was overwhelming, so I suspect the defense goal was to concede that through the guilty pleas, and make the case all about the murder and the absence of direct evidence about intent and cause of death,” Medwed said.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday unveiled a series of regulatory actions designed to effectively ban gender-affirming care for minors, building on broader Trump administration restrictions on transgender Americans.
The sweeping proposals — the most significant moves this administration has taken so far to restrict the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical interventions for transgender children — include cutting off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children and prohibiting federal Medicaid dollars from being used to fund such procedures.
“This is not medicine, it is malpractice,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said of gender-affirming procedures on children in a news conference on Thursday. “Sex-rejecting procedures rob children of their futures.”
Kennedy also announced Thursday that the HHS Office of Civil Rights will propose a rule excluding gender dysphoria from the definition of a disability.
In a related move, the Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to a dozen companies that market chest-binding vests and other equipment used by people with gender dysphoria. Manufacturers include GenderBender LLC of Carson, Calif., and TomboyX of Seattle. The FDA letters state that chest binders can only be legally marketed for FDA-approved medical uses, such as recovery after mastectomy surgery.
Proposed rules would threaten youth gender-affirming care in states where it remains legal
Medicaid programs in slightly less than half of states currently cover gender-affirming care. At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the care. The Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding Tennessee’s ban means most other state laws are likely to remain in place.
Thursday’s announcements would imperil access in nearly two dozen states where drug treatments and surgical procedures remain legal and funded by Medicaid, which includes federal and state dollars.
The proposals announced by Kennedy and his deputies are not final or legally binding. The federal government must go through a lengthy rulemaking process, including periods of public comment and document rewrites, before the restrictions becoming permanent. They are also likely to face legal challenges.
But the proposed rules will likely further intimidate healthcare providers from offering gender-affirming care to children and many hospitals have already ceased such care in anticipation of federal action.
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia recently went to court to prevent the Trump administration from obtaining the private medical records of youth who sought gender-affirming care.
Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the federal government’s largest health plans that cover seniors, the disabled and low-income Americans. Losing access to those payments would imperil most U.S. hospitals and medical providers.
The same funding restrictions would apply to a smaller health program when it comes to care for people under the age of 19, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to a federal notice posted Thursday morning.
Moves contradict advice from medical organizations and transgender advocates
Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, on Thursday called transgender treatments “a Band-Aid on a much deeper pathology,” and suggested children with gender dysphoria are “confused, lost, and need help.”
Polling shows many Americans agree with the administration’s view of the issue. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey conducted earlier this year found that about half of U.S. adults approved of how Trump was handling transgender issues.
Chloe Cole, a conservative activist known for speaking about her gender-transition reversal, spoke at the news conference to express appreciation. She said cries for help from her and others in her situation, “have finally been heard.”
But the approach contradicts the recommendations of most major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, which has urged states not to restrict care for gender dysphoria.
Advocates for transgender children strongly refuted the administration’s claims about gender-affirming care and said Thursday’s moves would put lives at risk.
“In an effort to strongarm hospitals into participating in the administration’s anti-LGBTQ agenda, the Trump Administration is forcing health care systems to choose between providing lifesaving care for LGBTQ+ young people and accepting crucial federal funding,” Jamila Perritt, a Washington-based OB/GYN and president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health, said in a statement. “This is a lose-lose situation where lives are inevitably on the line. “
Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, senior vice president at The Trevor Project, a nonprofit suicide prevention organization for LBGTQ+ youth, called the changes a “one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government” on a decision that should be between a doctor and patient.
“The multitude of efforts we are seeing from federal legislators to strip transgender and nonbinary youth of the health care they need is deeply troubling,” he said.
Actions build on a larger effort to restrict transgender rights
The announcements build on a wave of actions President Donald Trump, his administration and Republicans in Congress have taken to target the rights of transgender people nationwide.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that declared the federal government would recognize only two immutable sexes: male and female. He also has signed orders aimed at cutting off federal support for gender transitions for people under age 19 and barring transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.
On Wednesday, a bill that would open transgender health care providers to prison time if they treat people under the age of 18 passed the U.S. House and heads to the Senate. Another bill under consideration in the House on Thursday aims to ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for children.
Young people who persistently identify as a gender that differs from their sex assigned at birth are first evaluated by a team of professionals. Some may try a social transition, involving changing a hairstyle or pronouns. Some may later also receive hormone-blocking drugs that delay puberty, followed by testosterone or estrogen to bring about the desired physical changes in patients. Surgery is rare for minors.
ROME — In his highest-profile move to direct the U.S. church since becoming pope, Leo XIV accepted the resignation of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the prominent archbishop of New York, replacing him with a 58-year-old Illinois native who “played in the same parks, went swimming in the same pools [and] liked the same pizza places” as the Chicago-born pope.
Ronald A. Hicks, currently bishop of the Diocese of Joliet, southwest of Chicago, is viewed as cut from the same theological cloth — as well as nearly the same streets — as the new pontiff. He will take over one of the most visible archdioceses in the Catholic world at a time when it is grappling with the serious financial fallout of the clerical abuse scandals.
The product and protégé of influential figures in the Chicago church, including Cardinal Blase Cupich, Hicks is widely seen as a mild-mannered moderate, observers say, who rarely delves into the world of divisive politics. That is likely to mark a tonal shift from Dolan, a charismatic conservative who delivered blessings at both of President Donald Trump’s inaugurations and compared slain activist Charlie Kirk to a saint, and whom the U.S. leader has described as a “great friend.”
“I believe the message from Leo is that he wants an archbishop of New York who can be less identified with one political party, with one platform, with one trench in this situation of polarization,” said Massimo Faggioli, a professor in ecclesiology at Trinity College Dublin.
“Hicks is not a woke liberal for sure, but I believe he is very different from Dolan, whose instincts were to very openly justify and excuse President Trump,” Faggioli said. “I don’t think that’s going to continue, honestly. This is a sign of change.”
At St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan on Thursday, Dolan introduced Hicks to the media as an “early Christmas gift.” Hicks thanked him and Leo and reassured New Yorkers that while he was a Chicago Cubs and deep-dish fan, he loved their pizza and would root for their teams.
He said he understood that these were “complex and challenging days.”
“I feel the hope that so many who came to our shores … came through this very harbor here in New York, including my own family” carried, he said. “I am committed to working … to make real the promise of the golden door by acting in mutual respect and working to uphold human dignity.”
Switching to Spanish, Hicks, who, like Leo, spent years serving the church in Latin America, expressed deep love of the “Latino culture” and “Hispanic people.”
In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Cupich compared Hicks in some respects to a fellow Chicagoan: the pope.
Both men, he said, emphasize “listening.”
Hicks would not hesitate to “speak out” when warranted, but “he’s not going to come at things in terms of an ideology,” he added.
“So he’s an individual who’s going to look at what the facts are and, and focus on how people’s lives can hear the truth of the Gospel. And walk with people in a very patient way.”
“I think he’s a balanced individual who knows and accepts the tradition of the church, but also is one who realizes, as Pope Francis put it, that realities are greater than ideas,” Cupich said of Hicks.
The decision — announced Thursday by the Vatican but widely rumored for days — places Hicks atop the Archdiocese of New York, second in size only to Los Angeles’ in the United States, at an age that is one year younger than Dolan when Pope Benedict XVI named him to the job in 2009.
In the Catholic Church, bishops and cardinals are expected to offer resignations upon turning 75 — an age Dolan reached in February. Acceptance is at the prerogative of the pope, and cardinals can and do serve longer. Leo has said he would like to make retirement at 75 the norm for the Catholic hierarchy, but he has also spelled out room for exceptions for some cardinals, who, he has said, could serve for up to an additional two years.
“We must all cultivate the inner attitude that Pope Francis has defined as ‘learning to say goodbye,’ a valuable attitude when preparing to leave one’s position,” Leo said in an address last month.
The appointment elevates an apprentice of Cupich — one of Leo’s staunchest allies and a cleric who has been criticized by some conservatives for showing leniency to politicians who support abortion rights and welcoming LGBTQ+ Catholics.
Both Leo and Hicks were Chicago Catholics influenced by one of the most important figures in the 20th-century American church — Joseph Bernardin, a former cardinal and archbishop of Chicago. Bernardin, who ordained Hicks, defended the changes of Vatican II in the 1960s and promoted the “consistent ethic of life” that sought to link views against abortion to opposition to the death penalty and nuclear weapons.
Some ultraconservative Catholics noted that Leo had appeared to seize an opportunity to replace Dolan, rather than permit him — as frequently happens — to serve beyond age 75. Some noted that Leo this week also elevated Bishop Ramón Bejarano, who has publicly apologized to LGBTQ+ Catholics for the “pain” caused to them by the church, to head the Diocese of Monterey, California.
In recent weeks, Leo — who has repeatedly said he does not want to exacerbate political divisions — has grown bolder about criticizing the policies of the Trump administration, describing its migrant crackdown as “inhuman” and taking aim at U.S. attacks against alleged drug boats off the Venezuelan coast.
Perhaps the highest-profile American Catholic cleric, Dolan is a media-savvy traditionalist who, ahead of the 2024 election, praised Trump — who is not Catholic — for taking “his Christian faith seriously.”
During a September appearance on Fox & Friends, Dolan called Kirk “a modern-day Saint Paul.”
“He was a missionary, he’s an evangelist, he’s a hero,” Dolan said. “He’s one, I think, that knew what Jesus meant when he said, ‘The truth will set you free.’”
As frequently happens with Catholic clerics, however, Dolan was not always easy to label — and was criticized by some archconservatives for permitting celebrations for LGBTQ+ Catholics in his archdiocese.
Some saw Hicks’s selection by Leo as one of balance. He is seen, for instance, as less “liberal” than, say, Cardinal Robert McElroy, who was named archbishop of Washington in January by Francis.
“I think that Hicks will be less vocal on political issues than Dolan and McElroy,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior analyst at the Religious News Service. “I think, especially at the beginning, he will focus on the pastoral. For example, on immigration, he simply endorsed and repeated what the [U.S. bishops conference] had said.”
Hicks mixes pastoral outreach with a more traditional focus on the Holy Eucharist and the role of Christ at Mass. His appointment comes after U.S. bishops named a noted conservative — Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley — to head their conference last month.
“Here we see the road map of Leo — which is to overcome polarization,” Marco Politi, a longtime Rome-based Vatican watcher, said of Hicks’ appointment.
Born in Harvey, Ill., Hicks was ordained to the priesthood in Chicago in 1994. Like Leo, he served the church for years in Latin America, in Hicks’ case, as director of an orphanage in El Salvador. Cupich appointed him vicar general of the Archdiocese of Chicago in 2015 and an auxiliary bishop in 2018. Pope Francis elevated him in 2020 to serve as bishop of Joliet.
Asked about Leo by Chicago station WGNTV after the pope’s May selection to replace Francis, Hicks said: “I recognize a lot of similarities between him and me. So we grew up literally in the same radius, in the same neighborhood together. We played in the same parks, went swimming in the same pools, liked the same pizza places to go to. I mean, it’s that real.”
That doesn’t mean they see eye-to-eye on everything.
Leo “is and always will be a [White] Sox fan,” Hicks said. “And, I grew up a Cub fan. I’m a Cubs fan because my father is a die-hard Cubs fan. He wanted us to know we were loved, but that we’d stay Catholic and Cubs fans. In my family, there was not getting around either of those things.”
At least two U.S. senators have put holds on the nomination of Adm. Kevin Lunday to lead the U.S. Coast Guard, citing concerns with a new workplace harassment policy that downgrades the definition of swastikas and nooses from hate symbols to “potentially divisive.”
The move upends Lunday’s confirmation, which the Senate was due to vote on this week, and raises new questions about the decision to implement the policy revisions after Lunday in November had forcefully denounced such symbols and declared a wholesale prohibition on them.
The holds on Lunday’s promotion were exercised by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) and Jacky Rosen (D., Nev.). They follow a series of Washington Post reports detailing plans to include the incendiary language within the Coast Guard’s new workplace harassment manual — and the policy’s quiet implementation this week despite the admiral’s explicit directive last month. The manual is posted online and specifies that the document’s previous version “is cancelled.”
In a statement, Duckworth expressed incredulity at the situation and questioned why Lunday would not update the policy manual “to delete the absurd characterization that clearly states a noose and swastika are merely potentially divisive symbols.” She said that the admiral had affirmed “directly to me” that both “are symbols of hate.”
“This shouldn’t be difficult,” Duckworth said.
Rosen, in a social media post announcing her decision to place a hold on Lunday’s nomination, said it appears he “may have backtracked in his commitment to me to combat antisemitism and hate crimes and protect all members of the Coast Guard.” She said her hold will remain in place “until the Coast Guard provides answers.”
It was not immediately clear why Lunday, who was named the Coast Guard’s acting commandant after the Trump administration ousted his predecessor, did not incorporate his November order into the manual before it took effect Monday, or to what extent the Department of Homeland Security leadership, which has authority over the service, was involved in the revision process.
Two people familiar with policy manual’s overhaul, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, sought to distance Coast Guard leadership from the controversy. “The policy rewrite was bad staff work,” one person, a Coast Guard employee, said. “But the Coast Guard’s hands were tied in how we were able to address the mistake.”
A spokesperson for Lunday did not respond to a request for comment, and the Coast Guard did not address whether Lunday, as acting commandant, had the authority to change the workplace harassment manual or if he required approval from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem.
A spokeswoman for DHS, Tricia McLaughlin, said that by placing a hold on Lunday’s nomination, Duckworth and Rosen were attempting to “extort” the Coast Guard to score “cheap political points.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem on Capitol Hill earlier this month.
“At a time when the threat of antisemitic violence is as widespread as it is right now, using this to politicize one of President Trump’s military nominations is simply disgusting,” McLaughlin said.
The issue has drawn concern from some Republicans, too. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R., Alaska) “has been clear with acting commandant Adm. Lunday since the story broke that the Coast Guard must clarify, in the strongest terms possible, that the Coast Guard does not tolerate symbols of hate, like swastikas and nooses,” his office said in a statement Wednesday.
Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) also registered disapproval. In a statement, his office said the senator was “provided assurances” the policy had been corrected. “There is no reason,” it says, “why there should be conflicting policies in place.”
Unless the holds are lifted, Lunday’s nomination will be sent back to the White House at the end of December, forcing President Donald Trump to renominate him or choose someone else for the job, according to a Senate Republican aide.
The Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy was an early focus of Lunday’s after the Trump administration, upon entering office in January, fired his predecessor, Adm. Linda Fagan — the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military. In announcing Fagan’s removal, officials cited among other things her “excessive focus” on diversity initiatives.
Within days Lunday ordered the suspension of the policy manual that, among its other guidance, said explicitly that the swastika was among a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.” Nooses and the Confederate flag also matched that description under the previous policy. Lunday was later nominated by Trump to lead the service as its commandant.
The policy manual changes reflect an administration-wide campaign to purge the federal of government of its focus on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). At the Pentagon, for instance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired multiple minority or female military officers in his ongoing effort to eliminate DEI initiatives. He has said, without offering evidence, that the prior administration’s focus on DEI harmed military recruiting.
At the same time, antisemitism is on the rise globally. At least 15 people were killed over the weekend at a Hanukkah celebration in Australia.
The Coast Guard’s new workplace harassment manual, beyond softening the definition of swastikas and nooses, also allows for supervisors to review how such symbols are used or displayed in the workplace instead of immediately prohibiting them.
After the Post in November revealed the Coast Guard’s plan to adopt the new language, Lunday reacted swiftly — stating in a memo to all Coast Guard personnel that his directive barring swastikas and nooses would supersede any other policy language.
Vincent W. Patton, who served as master chief petty officer of the Coast Guard — the highest enlisted position — from 1998 to 2002, on Wednesday cited Lunday’s memo in offering a defense of the admiral and the policy revision. The new manual’s wording gives the Coast Guard more latitude to make judgment calls case by case, he said, adding that Lunday’s letter to all personnel was “very, very clear that hate symbols are prohibited.”
The process and penalties remain the same — regardless of whether the word is “hate” or “potentially divisive,” Patton said in an interview.
Asked if he meant that there could be situations in which someone with a noose or a swastika flag or tattoo was not in violation of the harassment policy, he said “that’s possible.”
“I mean if it was a swastika, they should be out within a second,” Patton said, “but Confederate flags? There should be an open dialogue to determine or define if this person has the potential and willingness to do something hateful.”
At a crowded meeting Wednesday night — which at one point had residents yelling and prompted officials to call for a break — the board declined to move forward with the draft ordinance it had been penning for months that would govern data center development in the township. The draft ordinance came after the owner of the 125-acre historic Pennhurst site, which currently serves as a popular Halloween attraction, submitted a sketch to develop the land as a data center complex.
The application will now move forward, coming before the township’s planning commission over the next several months, before it eventually returns to the board of supervisors for a conditional-use hearing, which is slated for March.
“I understand it’s a very emotional issue,” the board’s chairman, Craig Damon, told residents. “I have to keep an open mind through all of this, so I don’t stand on one side or another, because I have to keep an open mind to this.”
Data centers are buildings or campuses that handle cloud-storage and computing needs of massive corporations, like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, or Meta. They require large-scale ways of cooling computing equipment and are often dependent on water to do that.
The potential data center in East Vincent would add to the more than 150 in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration has encouraged data centers to locate in the state and has developed a “fast track” program for permitting. Recently, the governor’s office announced Amazon would spend $20 billion to develop data centers and other artificial intelligence campuses across the state.
East Vincent officials had sought to impose restrictions on data centers by limiting building heights, mandating buffers, requiring lighting, and limiting the number of trees that could be cut down, among other rules. No one representing landowner Pennhurst Holdings LLC spoke Wednesday, but at a Dec. 3 meeting, an attorney for Pennhurst Holdings told officials the proposed ordinance had conditions that “appear reasonable and necessary on their face, but the struggle we have is when you put all of those together, they ultimately act as prohibitive to the development of the Pennhurst property as currently drafted.”
On Wednesday, the officials declined to move forward with the ordinance, after the township’s solicitor warned it could lead to a challenge.
Even with the ordinance shelved, residents in East Vincent and neighboring municipalities decried the prospective data center.
The sketch plan totals more than 1.3 million square feet, with five two-story data center buildings, a sixth building, an electrical substation, and a solar field. Pennhurst State School and Hospital — known as Pennhurst Asylum in its Halloween capacity — opened in 1908 for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It closed in 1987, after legal challenges to its abusive and neglectful treatment of those who lived there, and was turned into a Halloween attraction in 2008.
The property is situated near the Schuylkill and borders Spring City, which sits to the south. It is close to the Southeastern Veterans Center.
window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a){if(void 0!==a.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var e=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var t in a.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data[“datawrapper-height”][t]+”px”;r.style.height=d}}});
“These centers, as they’ve been built, have been nothing but trouble for the neighborhood,” said Tim Thorton, a Spring City resident who was handing out “No Pennhurst Data Center” yard signs to attendees. “They make noise, they use water. This thing would have to have its own generator.”
Residents pressed their concerns about noise, pollution, and exhausting resources like electricity and water. Veterans worried what the data center would do to their health and their quality of life in what is supposed to be a quiet, peaceful center.
“Would you want a data center in your neighborhood? Would you want a data center 500 feet from where you live?” one veteran, John J. Coyle, pressed the board.
Jason Cary, a union representative for local electricians, said members were scared to speak publicly in support of the center.
“While I think your township is beautiful, to stop a project like this stops high-paying construction jobs coming to the area,” he said, drawing an immediate negative response from the crowd, with people yelling at him to “go away” and “get out.”
The township’s planning commission will now weigh the application and will make its recommendation to the board of supervisors. Conditional-use hearings will be slated for early next year, an attorney for the township said.
In nearby East Coventry, the planning commission last week rejected a bid to amend the zoning code to build a data center on Route 724, sending it to the township’s board of supervisors for review, the Mercury reported last week. The planning commission said it could tee up a legal challenge.
This suburban content is produced with support from the Leslie Miller and Richard Worley Foundation and The Lenfest Institute for Journalism. Editorial content is created independently of the project donors. Gifts to support The Inquirer’s high-impact journalism can be made at inquirer.com/donate. A list of Lenfest Institute donors can be found at lenfestinstitute.org/supporters.
Peter Arnett was already an accomplished combat correspondent in 1966 when he embedded with an American infantry battalion tasked with routing out enemy snipers from a tunnel system near Saigon. Mr. Arnett was standing next to the unit commander when bullets tore through the map the officer was holding, hitting the colonel in the chest.
Medics ran up to bandage Lt. Col. George Eyster, a West Pointer who died the next day at a field hospital. Mr. Arnett wrote his obituary, which was among the scores of stories he filed from the humid jungle battlefields of Vietnam for more than a decade. He won the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting that year.
Mr. Arnett stayed in Vietnam beyond the very end. When Viet Cong guerrillas entered the Associated Press bureau during the 1975 fall of Saigon, his boss Nate Polowetzky told him to get out of there. Mr. Arnett refused. “He told me, in effect, to go screw myself,” Polowetzky said.
The New Zealand native would go on to cover more wars (15 to 20, he said), including the Gulf War. He was one of the few Western reporters in Baghdad in January 1991 when allied missiles started raining down, reporting live from the city for CNN. He interviewed Saddam Hussein in the second week of the war, and in 1997, Osama bin Laden.
When Mr. Arnett asked bin Laden about his plans, the 9/11 mastermind replied: “You’ll see them and hear about them in the media. God willing.”
Mr. Arnett died Wednesday at 91, in Newport Beach, Calif. The cause was prostate cancer, said his daughter, Elsa Arnett.
After arriving in Vietnam, Mr. Arnett was given lifesaving advice from one of his AP colleagues, Malcolm Browne: Lie prone under fire; look for cover and move toward it; do not get close to a radioman or medic because they are prime targets; and if you hear a shot, don’t get up to see where it came from because the second shot might get you.
Mr. Arnett, one of the most famous journalists of his era, wrote gripping battlefield stories that transported readers sitting in their living rooms to the scene of the news.
The stories that won him the Pulitzer included a dispatch about an Army captain who watched helplessly as a Viet Cong machine gunner kept pummeling the body of one of his men, rolling it over and over. In a story titled “Everyone Knew the Americans Were Coming,” Arnett wrote on a failed U.S. mission aimed at hunting down Viet Cong fighters who easily got away.
Peter Arnett walks in front of a U.S. tank in Vietnam in 1967.
Reporting on the Vietnam War forced Mr. Arnett to repress his human instincts. On one hot day at the Saigon market, Mr. Arnett watched a Buddhist monk squat on the pavement and douse himself in gasoline before flicking a lighter.
“I could have prevented that immolation by rushing at him and kicking the gasoline away,’” Mr. Arnett recalled. “As a human being I wanted to. As a reporter I couldn’t. … If I had stopped him, the [South Vietnamese] secret police who were watching from a distance would have immediately arrested him and carried him off to God knows where. If I had attempted to prevent them doing this, I would have propelled myself directly into Vietnamese politics. My role as a reporter would have been destroyed.”
Instead, Mr. Arnett photographed the burning monk and dashed back to his office to write his story.
But Mr. Arnett’s eagerness to report entangled him in controversy. In the Gulf War, as one of the few Western journalists reporting from behind enemy lines in Iraq, he was granted access by Hussein’s regime to what officials said was an industrial plant that produced milk powder and was the only source of infant formula in Baghdad. It had been hit by U.S. bombs.
Mr. Arnett reported on CNN what he saw and heard, and went to bed. The next day, he learned that he had reported on “one of the most controversial stories of my career.” U.S. officials disputed the claim that the factory made baby milk powder and instead alleged it was used for the production of biological weapons protected by the Iraqi military. White House officials called him a “conduit for Iraqi disinformation,” while Rep. Laurence Coughlin (R., Pa.) called him the “Joseph Goebbels of Saddam Hussein’s Hitler-like regime.”
Sen. Al Simpson (R., Wyo.) went so far as to accuse the brother of Mr. Arnett’s Vietnamese-born wife of being a Viet Cong operative. (Simpson later apologized, saying there was no evidence to prove that claim.)
Mr. Arnett kept reporting, showing the damaged buildings in the town of Al-Dour that Iraqi officials said had been hit by U.S. and allied bombs and had resulted in 24 civilian deaths.
“There was nothing in his tone that was judgmental, nothing that indicated sympathy for the Iraqis,” wrote Howard Rosenberg, the Los Angeles Times’s TV critic. “Without interpretation, he reported only what he said he saw, accompanied by the appropriate disclaimers regarding censorship.”
In 1999, Mr. Arnett left CNN after being involved in a story that alleged that the U.S. military had used deadly sarin nerve gas on deserting American soldiers during the Vietnam War. When a subsequent Pentagon investigation said there was no evidence of sarin gas ever having been shipped to Southeast Asia and disputed other key portions of the story, CNN retracted it.
Mr. Arnett faced further criticism in 2003, when he gave an interview to Iraqi state television.
“It is clear that within the United States there is growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war. So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces … help those who oppose the war,” he said.
The remarks sparked backlash from the administration of President George W. Bush and lawmakers from both parties. His employer, NBC, initially defended him, saying the remarks were “analytical in nature,” but eventually fired him, saying it had been wrong for Mr. Arnett to “grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV — especially at a time of war — and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview.”
Peter Gregg Arnett was born in Riverton, New Zealand, on Nov. 13, 1934.
He began his journalism career in his country of birth, writing for the Southland Times newspaper. Restless and bored, he left his home country seeking adventure. When he arrived in Southeast Asia, he decided to stay, enchanted by the “opium smugglers, revolutionaries and obscure little wars in obscure little kingdoms.”
He ended up reporting from Thailand and Indonesia before he arrived in Vietnam.
In Vietnam, he worked and competed with the other big-name journalists including David Halberstam and Marguerite Higgins.
He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the mid-1980s while CNN’s Moscow bureau chief. Mr. Arnett thought it was important that he should be an American citizen because he was representing an American news organization, according to his family. Mr. Arnett said in a 2015 interview that his U.S. citizenship “solidified my credentials to challenge American policy.”
“I was perfectly happy to be a New Zealander, and it wasn’t an issue in my work. The Associated Press and CNN were more interested in the journalism than the nationality,” Mr. Arnett said. He added, however, that there were “a lot of comments during the Gulf War” about his foreign origins.
“But the point was, I was an American. If I hadn’t been, it would have been a way to further discredit my journalism.”
He met Nina Nguyen Thu-Nga, a South Vietnamese woman, while covering the war. He married her and they had two children, Andrew and Elsa, before divorcing in 1983. His frequent and extended travels abroad were to blame, according to Mr. Arnett’s family. They remarried in 2006 and stayed together until his death.
President Donald Trump’s homeland security adviser, Stephen Miller, and other senior officials were looking for a fight.
In the first months of the administration, Miller, the architect of Trump’s anti-immigration and border policies, and his team discussed starting a new war on drugs by striking cartels and alleged traffickers in Mexico, according to one current and two former U.S. officials.
Reducing the power of cartels, an idea that dated back to the first Trump administration, would ease the flow of migrants and narcotics, creating early political wins. But as the administration surged thousands of U.S. troops to the southern border, increased U.S. surveillance flights and boosted intelligence sharing with its neighbor, Mexican military operations across the border curbed cartel action, the people said. That left Miller and his team looking for another target.
“When you hope and wait for something to develop that doesn’t, you start looking at countries south of Mexico,” said the current official, who, like nine others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
The campaign that emerged in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean is unprecedented in its use of lethal force by the U.S. military against alleged drug smuggling groups. These operations, which began Sept. 2, have evolved to embrace the Trump team’s long-running ambition to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whom the president has accused of overseeing “narco-terrorists” assaulting the United States.
A U.S. soldier is deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of the Joint Task Force Southern Border mission, in Sunland Park, N.M., on April 4.
Miller has been a driving force behind the administration’s counternarcotics campaign, pressing for results and fresh military options that could be turned into future operations, the current and former officials said.
“President Trump’s counternarcotics policies come from President Trump himself,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said. “All senior administration officials work closely together to carry out the agenda President Trump was elected to implement, including eliminating the scourge of narco-terrorism that takes tens of thousands of American lives every year.”
Miller could not be reached for comment.
Miller steered the drafting of a July 25 classified directive signed by the president that authorized the military to undertake lethal force against two dozen foreign criminal groups, said a former U.S. official familiar with the campaign and its evolution. The administration has labeled these groups “designated terrorist organizations,” accusing them of using drugs as a weapon to kill Americans, using a moniker that many experts say has no basis in law.
“The president’s memo is the original sin of the whole operation,” the former official said.
That presidential directive provided the foundational authority for an “execute order” that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued on Aug. 5 and that subsequently has been modified. The order, details of which were previously unreported, contains permissive targeting guidelines for lethal operations, current and former officials said. The presidential directive’s existence was first reported by the New York Times.
Together, these two documents guided a military campaign of lethal strikes against criminal organizations, grafting a wartime frame to what has been traditionally treated as a law enforcement problem. The execute order also contains targeting criteria lifted from the language of the counterterrorism campaign against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, which some current and former officials say give the Pentagon an overly permissive license to kill.
The department will treat suspected drug smugglers “EXACTLY how we treated Al-Qaeda. We will continue to track them, map them, hunt them, and kill them,” Hegseth said on social media last month.
Pursuant to these orders, the Trump administration has launched strikes on at least 26 boats, killing at least 99 people in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The Pentagon has not publicly identified those killed, and it is unclear whether it has collected the intelligence to do so.
“The administration appears to have authorized a campaign against civilians and alleged criminals that is now stretching the limits of international law so that it’s now totally unrecognizable,” said Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign and is director of the national security law program at Georgetown Law.
The White House’s early deliberations about the use of lethal force against cartels contemplated using covert action by theCIA. But as resistance emerged from lawyers and others over the ensuing months, Miller and his team turned increasingly toward the idea of using the military to pursue alleged traffickers.
Miller’s larger vision was to reduce the flow of drugs — and migrants — into the United States. He figured that attacking cartels would diminish their power and help stabilize Latin American countries, resulting in fewer people risking the trek to the United States, according to one of the former U.S. officials familiar with Miller’s deliberations.
As the summer progressed, the White House’s campaigns against narcotics and migration coalesced with a long-held desire of Secretary of State Marco Rubio to force Maduro from power. Rubio and the Justice Department in August doubled to $50 million the reward for information leading to the Venezuelan leader’s arrest, citing an indictment for corruption and drug trafficking during the first Trump administration.
Meanwhile, the White House found a willing partner in Hegseth, who had been knockedoff stride by several missteps and was eager to show he could deliver on a high-priority mission.
“Pete very much wanted to keep Stephen in his good graces and also the president,” said the former official familiar with Miller’s thinking. “And that was a motivation for him — getting behind this campaign in an aggressive way.”
The Defense Department declined to address questions about its operations to strike alleged traffickers and how the mission took shape. Elements of Miller’s leading role were reported earlier by the Guardian.
“This reporting is inaccurate and is built on a false premise that ignores reality,” Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. The department’s focus, he said, “is, and will continue to be, protecting the Homeland from any threat.”
Widening the scope
The Aug. 5 execute order,or EXORD in Pentagon parlance, stated that the campaign’s goal is to stop the flow of drugs by sea to the United States, two people said.
Initially, the order contained a geographic boundary that designated target areas in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, but it was modified about two months later to include the eastern Pacific area, one current and one former U.S. official said.It specified that at least for the initial strikes, Joint Special Operations Command would be in charge of operations, the two people said.
A still frame from a video posted on social media by President Donald Trump shows a boat allegedly transporting illegal narcotics after a lethal strike on Sept. 2, through U.S. military imagery.
Over the late summer and into the fall, lawyers and policy personnel raised concerns about the legality of the lethal force campaign that was taking shape. Administration officials sought to reassure them by saying that a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo was being drafted that determined that the lethal targeting of suspected drug runners was lawful under the president’s power to ascertain that the U.S. is in a formal state of war — in this case with alleged drug traffickers.
But the opinion was not signed until Sept. 5 — three days after the first boat strike — and some career lawyers were not permitted to read the draft OLC memo before the execute order was issued, said the former official familiar with the campaign’s evolution.
The OLC memo, signed by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, asserts that alleged drug trafficking groups are a threat to the United States akin to a foreign nation attempting to invade, Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.), who was allowed to read it in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Post in an interview.
The execute order contains targeting instructions that do not require positive identification of any individual but rather “reasonable certainty” that adult males are members of, or affiliated with, a “designated terrorist organization,” or DTO, according to five current and former U.S. officials familiar with the criteria. To mitigate civilian harm, the order requires “near certainty” that no women, children or civilians are present, they said.
The administration is using the phrase “designated terrorist organizations” to refer to 24 alleged drug trafficking groups whose activities it contends are killing millions of Americans.
The term, said Rebecca Ingber, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law and a former State Department law-of-war expert, “is entirely manufactured as a source of targeting authority with no basis in law.”
The list of 24 such groups appears in an annex to Trump’s July directive and also in the EXORD, according to one current and one former official.
The assessment of “affiliation” is based on a number of factors, including the presence of drugs on board the vessel and its route, as well as intercepts of communications, the current and former officials said.
As a result, the campaign may be killing individuals who in some cases have a tenuous link to any organized drug-running operation, said one of the former U.S. officials, who has read the execute order.
“When you define DTO and affiliate so loosely and you’re attacking boats, [the guidelines are] basically meaningless,” the former official said.
If the United States were actually at war, the reasonable certainty standard would be “perfectly reasonable,” said Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel who worked on counterterrorism targeting issues in the Obama administration.
“Not being in an armed conflict changes everything,” he said. “The idea that a government would kill people on the basis of ‘reasonable certainty’ that they’re a member of a drug cartel is beyond the pale. Any U.N. body would find that to be a gross violation of human rights.”
Identification and delegation
The targeting requirements, four former officials say, resemble the “signature strikes” of past global counterterrorism campaigns, in which the CIA and the military launched drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen on individuals or groups whose identities were unknown but who were targeted based on a pattern of behavior or other characteristics associated with terrorist activity.
The execute order, which sets the rules of engagement for the military, designates Hegseth as the “target engagement authority” — the official who can approve strike targets. It also stipulates that he can delegate that authority to others in individual missions.
“Now, the first couple of strikes … as any leader would want, you want to own that responsibility,” Hegseth said at a cabinet meeting this monthin response to questions about the first boat strike, details of which — including a subsequent missile strike to kill survivors — were first published bythe Post. “So I said I’m going to be the one to make the call after getting all the information and make sure it’s the right strike.”
Pentagon general counsel Earl Matthews — who had just been confirmed by the Senate on July 29 with a 50-47 vote — signed off on the Aug. 5 order, said a person familiar with the matter. Lawmakers have for weeks requested a copy of the order and related documents but have not received them. Matthews did not respond to a request for comment.
President Donald Trump signed a classified directive that authorized the military to undertake lethal force against two dozen foreign criminal groups.
Trump has asserted, without offering proof, that the U.S. troops know who they are targeting in every case. “We know everything about them. We know where they live. We know where the bad ones live,” he told reporters this month.
The military knew the identities of all 11 people killed in the first attack of the campaign on Sept. 2, Pentagon officials have said. But “they don’t know all of the individuals on many of the other boats” in subsequent strikes, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D., Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told ABC News on Sunday.
Trump posted on Truth Social the day of the first strike that the U.S. military had killed 11 “positively identified” members of the Venezuelan organization Tren de Aragua. He called them “narco-terrorists” operating “under the control of” Maduro, who has been condemned by both the Trump and Biden administrations for illegally retaining power after losing last year’s presidential election.
This week, the commander overseeing that operation, Adm. Frank M. Bradley, told lawmakers that the military knew one of the 11 was a member of Tren de Aragua and the other 10 were affiliates, according to three U.S. officials.
The U.S. intelligence community this year assessed that Tren de Aragua, a transnational crime syndicate, was not directed by Venezuela’s government.
Two family members of men killed on Sept. 2 did not deny that the boat was smuggling marijuana and cocaine. But they said Trump’s allegation the men had worked for Tren de Aragua was inaccurate.
“I knew them all,” one of the family members told the Post in October, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “None of them had anything to do with Tren de Aragua. They were fishermen who were looking for a better life” by smuggling contraband.
In some of the strikes, the targets who have been identified are not high-level operators or cartel bosses, lawmakers said. “It’s one thing to be a narco-terrorist and another thing to be a fisherman that’s getting paid a hundred bucks a couple times a year … to supplement his income” to ferry drugs, Warner told reporters at the Defense Writers Group last week.
Lifting language from the ‘war on terror’
The Aug. 5 execute order adopts the language of previous administrations in successive global counterterrorism campaigns after 2001, but the context is vastly different, current and former officials say.
The fight against ISIS in Iraq from 2014 on generally involved clearing terrain of fighters who often barricaded themselves in buildings in cities teeming with civilians, and U.S. troops were often firing in self-defense at militants shooting at them, former Special Operations personnel said.
In the drug boat campaign, the U.S. military is launching munitions from afar, more like the counterterrorism operations in Yemen and Somalia during the Obama and first Trump administrations.
Under President Barack Obama, outside areas of active hostility, the targeting guidelines required that lethal force be used only when capture was not feasible and only to prevent attacks against U.S. citizens or when targets posed a continuing imminent threat. They required “near certainty” that a target was a member of a terrorist organization.
“Generally you had people swearing allegiance” to a group like al-Qaeda as an indicator of membership, said the former U.S. official, who is familiar with the counterterrorism targeting criteria. “So you had the presence of weapons and good intelligence on planning you could point to, to link people to the group and say this person is a planner of attacks, this is the money guy, this is a recruiter, etc.”
The standard was changed to “reasonable certainty” under the first Trump administration. But for all practical purposes, said a former senior military officer involved in special operations and battle in the Middle East, the military was applying the “near certainty” standard in these areas. The standard was returned to near certainty under Biden.
“In places like Yemen, whether it was under Obama or Trump,” the retired officer said,“we knew who we were going after. We knew what their place in the network was. We knew what the effects of removing them would be on the network. I don’t see that in some of what [the U.S. is] doing right now.”
One major contextual difference in the current operations against seaborne narcotics is the lack of congressional authority. In the battles against al-Qaeda and associated forces, Congress explicitly authorized the campaigns, giving the president permission to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
The execute order and subsequent targeting guidelines were grounded in the 2001 congressional authorization to use military force.
In 2013, during the Obama administration, the “near certainty” standard typically required confirmation via two sources of intelligence, said Huntley, the former military lawyer for Special Operations forces.
A combination of intelligence tools — signals intelligence, eavesdropping, human spies, and drone surveillance — would contribute to a “positive identification of the individual,” Huntley said. To get to “near certainty” that civilians were not present, the attack location was usually a remote area or a place known to be frequented by only members of the terrorist organization that Congress had specifically authorized as a viable target.
If U.S. officials know the identities of who they are striking, as Trump and Hegseth maintain, then they should release them, the former senior military officer said. “It would help build the case,” he said, that the military is acting to protect civilians according to the law of war.
‘Anybody … is subject to attack’
Though the administration’s charges against Maduro have merit, its claims that Venezuela is sending massive amounts of drugs to America do not, analysts and officials have said.The main domestic drug scourge is fentanyl, a synthetic opioid produced in Mexico, not Venezuela.
Many strikes taken have been in the Pacific, the main sea lane used by traffickers from Colombia and Ecuador. Drug running in the Caribbean focuses mainly on non-U.S. markets, such as Europe. The lethal strike on Sept. 2, for instance, targeted a boat carrying cocaine ultimately bound for Suriname, officials have said.
That absence of information has prompted speculation that the larger buildup of U.S. forces in the region is a preparation for an attack on Venezuela. Miller has indicated to colleagues that a strong reaction from Caracas could provide the reasoning to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants from the United States, the former official noted.
This month, Trump suggested that he wanted to go after Colombian targets. “I hear the country of Colombia is making cocaine,” he said. “They have cocaine manufacturing plants. And then they sell us their cocaine. … Anybody that’s doing that and selling it into our country is subject to attack.”
He also has stepped up the pressure on Venezuela, seizing an oil tanker last week off that country’s coast.
“He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” Trump’s chief of staff, Susan Wiles, told Vanity Fair in an article published this week. “And people way smarter than me on that say that he will.”
On Tuesday, Trump announced in a social media post a “total and complete blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela, further ratcheting up the pressure.
On Wednesday, Miller amplified Trump’s post, commenting: “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela. Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property. These pillaged assets were then used to fund terrorism and flood our streets with killers, mercenaries and drugs.”
Trump, meanwhile, has been signaling that the campaign is widening.
“We knocked out 96 percent of the drugs coming in by water,” he told reporters Friday in the Oval Office. “And now we’re starting by land, and by land is a lot easier, and that’s going to start happening.”
Craig Kellem, 82, of Philadelphia, former talent agent, celebrated TV producer, show developer, writer, longtime script consultant, author, and “comedic genius,” died Monday, Nov. 24, of complications from dementia at Saunders House assisted living in Wynnewood.
Born in Philadelphia, Mr. Kellem moved to New York as a teenager and, at 22, burst onto the entertainment scene in 1965 as a talent scout and agent for what was then called Creative Management Associates. He rose to vice president of the company’s TV Department and, over the next 30 years, served as director of development for late night, syndication, and daytime TV at 20th Century Fox Television, vice president of comedy development at Universal Television, and executive vice president of the Arthur Co. at Universal Studios.
He worked with fellow TV producer Lorne Michaels at Above Average Productions in the 1970s and was a popular associate producer for the first season of Saturday Night Live in 1975 and ’76. He was quoted in several books about that chaotic first season, and his death was noted in the show’s closing credits on Dec. 6.
At Universal Studios, he created and produced FBI: The Untold Stories in 1991.At Universal Television in the 1980s, he developed nearly a dozen shows that aired, including Charles in Charge andDomestic Lifein 1984. In 1980, he developed Roadshow for 20th Century Fox Television.
Mr. Kellem worked for years in New York and Los Angeles.
“He had a lot of energy and ideas,” said his wife, Vivienne. “He had a creative spirit.”
His producing, creating, developing, and writing credits on IMDb.com also include The Munsters Today, The New Adam-12, Dragnet, and What a Dummy. He produced TV films and specials, and worked on productions with Eric Idle, Gladys Knight, Sammy Davis Jr., and the Beach Boys.
“He loved working with writers,” his daughter said. “He was super creative. It was part of his essence.”
Mr. Kellem enjoyed time with his daughter Joelle (left) and his wife Vivienne.
As an agent in the 1960s and ’70s, Mr. Kellem represented George Carlin, Lily Tomlin, and other entertainers. His eye for talent, dramatic timing, and sense of humor were legendary.
“My dad’s humor opened hearts, tore down walls, and allowed people to connect with each other’s humanity, vulnerability, and spirit,” said his daughter Joelle. His daughter Judy said: “He was a comedic genius.”
His wife said: “He was a fascinating, funny, loving, and sensitive man.”
Craig Charles Kellem was born Jan. 24, 1943. He grew up with a brother and two sisters in West Mount Airy, played with pals in nearby Carpenter’s Woods, and bought candy in the corner store at Carpenter Lane and Greene Street.
Mr. Kellem and his son, Sean.
“Craig was like a father to me,” said his brother, Jim. “He helped guide my children and was always there for the whole family.”
He graduated from high school in New York and moved up to senior positions at Creative Management Associates after starting in the mailroom. He married in his 20s and had a daughter, Judy.
After a divorce, he met Vivienne Cohen in London in 1977, and they married in 1980, and had a son, Sean, and a daughter, Joelle. He and his wife lived in California, Washington, New Hampshire, and New Jersey before moving to Fairmount in 2017.
Mr. Kellem enjoyed movies, walking, and daily workouts at the gym. He volunteered at shelters, helped underserved teens, and routinely carried dog treats in his car in case he encountered a stray in need. “That’s the kind of man Craig was,“ his wife said.
Mr. Kellem and his daughter Judy operated their own writing consultation business together for years.
His son, Sean, said: “My dad’s personality was big, and he was deeply compassionate toward other human beings.” His daughter Joelle said: “He was an open, sensitive, warm, and passionate human being who believed deeply in the work of bettering oneself and taking care of others.”
His daughter Judy said: “They don’t make people like my dad.”
In addition to his wife, children, and brother, Mr. Kellem is survived by four grandchildren and other relatives. Two sisters died earlier.
A Malvern man who brought a gun and other weapons to a “No Kings” protest in West Chester over the summer — and who was rearrested days later after police found homemade bombs at his house — pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday morning.
Kevin Krebs, 32, said little while pleading guilty to a charge of possessing an unregistered firearm or explosive device. Krebs had been taken into federal custody this fall, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office charged him earlier this month by information, a process that typically indicates a defendant plans to plead guilty.
The charges against him relate to his conduct in West Chester six months ago. On June 14, Krebs was arrested by local police after other attendees at a “No Kings” protest in the borough told authorities they thought they had seen Krebs carrying a gun.
When police stopped Krebs and searched him, they found a loaded Sig Sauer handgun along with extra rounds of ammunition, a knife, a bayonet, pepper spray, and other weapons, prosecutors said. He also had an AR-15 rifle in his car nearby.
Krebs did not have a concealed carry permit for his handgun, and he was charged with illegal gun possession.
Two days later, police searched his home on Conestoga Road and found 13 homemade pipe bombs, prosecutors said, as well as components used to make detonators, tactical vests, and bullet-resistant armor. Some of the bombs had nails and screws inside, which are often added to improvised explosive devices to increase the amount of shrapnel they can generate.
Krebs was initially charged by Chester County prosecutors, who said his political beliefs or potential motives were not straightforward.
Krebs was a registered Democrat but had previously been registered as a Republican and said online that he voted for President Donald Trump. In online postings, he later said he came to regret that vote, and in the weeks preceding the “No Kings” protest he had been posting violent rhetoric aimed at Trump and police officers.
Before his arrest, Krebs was a licensed electrician and onetime Home Depot employee. His attorneys and relatives previously said he had been diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome.
Krebs is scheduled to be sentenced in March by U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Costello. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
Over the span of nearly a decade, the State College Police Department underreported hundreds of rapes in the central Pennsylvania community, leading to highly inaccurate publicly reported crime statistics, Spotlight PA has learned.
From 2013 to 2021, State College police reported a total of 67 rapes in crime submissions to Pennsylvania State Police, when in fact there had been 321 — a 254-case difference — according to a 10-month Spotlight PA investigation.
Those missing cases were instead classified as sex offenses, a category with lower penalties and one that is treated with less urgency by law enforcement. In response to Spotlight PA, the department conceded it had been using an outdated definition of rape until late 2022 — despite the federal government announcing a change to it in 2012, and that update being subsequently implemented by thousands of police agencies across the U.S. in 2013.
Under the old definition, “a vast array of violent, degrading, abusive sexual assaults were excluded from the data that are used to inform the public about the prevalence of rape,” said Lila Slovak, director of the Women’s Law Project’s Philadelphia office.
Crime statistics in a place like State College, nicknamed “Happy Valley,” are particularly important because it is a college town. Most Pennsylvania State University students live off campus, and federal law requires the school to report only crimes that occur on its premises, on its property, and in public places right next to it.
State College Police Chief John Gardner told Spotlight PA that he was not aware until 2022 that the FBI had updated its definition of rape. He learned when a department records supervisor that year completed a training and implemented the change. Gardner’s predecessor, Tom King, who retired from the department in 2016, said he learned about the incorrect reporting only when contacted by Spotlight PA this summer.
But the department had never acknowledged the longstanding error or disclosed it to the public until approached by Spotlight PA about potential data discrepancies. The department calculated the number of affected cases after Spotlight PA requested a review.
“The inaccurate reporting was not done intentionally,” said Gardner, who is retiring at the end of this year. “The minute we found out about it, we made the correction, and we’re open to sitting down and talking to you about it. We owned it.”
“We want to make this community safe and want people who live here to feel safe,” he said.
The police department is located on the first floor of the borough building in downtown State College.
Pennsylvania State Police share crime statistics from local departments, including State College, with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, known as UCR. Those figures influence numerous aspects of life in a community and help governments decide where to deploy resources and direct public funds.
Criminologist Eli B. Silverman, professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said accurate data are also key to good policing and maintaining trust with the community.
“When crime statistics lose their credibility, the public loses confidence in the police and is less inclined to report crime,” Silverman said. “This, in turn, further diminishes the effectiveness of [a] police organization.”
Over the course of Spotlight PA’s investigation, the newsroom found other potential issues with the department’s handling of reported rapes.
For years, rape cases were habitually described as “assaults” in internal police records, Spotlight PA found. The newsroom also questioned whether factors other than the new definition made previous rape numbers appear low, especially as top officials in the department did not seem clear on how crime reporting works, and at times offered confusing or incorrect information.
Additionally, Spotlight PA identified a case in which two victims reported rapes and the police recorded only one. One police official told reporters that rapes are counted by incident, not by victim — going against well-established FBI rules and indicating a violation separate from underreporting.
Police appear to be “trying to minimize the extent of sexual assault in State College,” Cassia Spohn, a criminologist and professor at Arizona State University, told Spotlight PA. “Doing so can produce a false sense of security among potential victims, leading eventually to an increase in victimization and a decline in public safety.”
Before this investigation was published, Spotlight PA sent a detailed list of findings to police officials and State College borough.
In response, the department offered a joint statement from Gardner, King, longtime State College Borough Manager Tom Fountaine, and State College assistant police chief Matthew Wilson, expressing “a great level of dissatisfaction.”
“The information presented appears to be more representative of an op-ed article than an objective reporting piece. The information you provided for our review is largely misleading and omits perspectives from community stakeholders,” the statement said in part. Read the full response here.
‘I don’t recall’
For more than 80 years, the FBI defined rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That meant only forced attacks involving penetration of the vagina by a penis were considered rape.
This left out things like forced oral or anal sex, and sex acts that were committed against someone’s will but without force. Attacks on men or boys were also not counted.
That longstanding definition was “narrow, outmoded and steeped in gender-based stereotypes,” the Women’s Law Project wrote in a 2001 letter to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller.
In 2012, the FBI announced it would broaden its definition of rape to “ensure justice for those whose lives have been devastated by sexual violence,” then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said at the time.
“This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes,” Holder added.
Leading national organizations for police and sheriffs backed the change, as did women’s organizations and anti-rape groups.
Under the new definition, rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
John Derbas, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI, told Spotlight PA that by 2015, 15,000 law enforcement agencies across the nation had adopted the reform.
David Hendler, who oversees records at the Abington Township Police Department in Montgomery County, said both he and his predecessor knew about the change when he started working in the department in 2013. Officers talked about it among themselves, he told Spotlight PA.
“Every cop I knew knew about it,” Hendler said.
Yet King, who led State College police from 1993 to 2016, said word never reached him. He was not aware that State College police were incorrectly reporting rapes until Spotlight PA contacted him this summer, he said.
“I don’t recall it. In 2025, as we sit here talking about it today, I don’t recall,” King said in an August interview. He questioned who within the department might have been contacted by Pennsylvania State Police, which ensures that law enforcement agencies across the state submit crime data that go to the FBI.
“Whoever they addressed it to, I don’t recall ever seeing any direction from the State Police to make a change, or being aware that it was changed,” said King, who became the interim police chief in neighboring Ferguson Township in October. “That doesn’t mean they didn’t. We’re talking about 12 years ago.”
A spokesperson for Pennsylvania State Police told Spotlight PA the agency alerted local police departments about the change. A December 2012 notification “outlined the new definition and instructed agencies to report offenses accordingly, starting in January 2013,” Myles Snyder wrote in an email. After that, “the responsibility for ensuring correct and timely reporting lies solely with contributing agencies,” he added.
A five-paragraph notice was sent via the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network, or CLEAN, a platform police departments use to communicate with other agencies, on Dec. 27, 2012 — less than a week before the new requirement took effect, according to a document obtained through a public records request.
State police have “the highest level of confidence in this communication system,” Snyder said when asked if the notice reliably reached all of the roughly 2,000 local law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania.
Agencies like the State College Police Department have to acknowledge receipt of every message sent over CLEAN, he said. It is not optional, and “lives depend on it.” The messages are kept for 10 years, Snyder told Spotlight PA, so Pennsylvania State Police cannot verify who, if anyone, confirmed receipt of the notice.
In 2014, statewide data showed a 12% increase in rapes for the 2013 annual report, Snyder said. That indicated that submitting agencies were recognizing and using the new offense classification rule.
No one from Pennsylvania State Police or the FBI told the department it had missed the memo and was reporting erroneously, Gardner said in a joint interview with King and Fountaine.
State police are legally bound to collect data from local departments, and those agencies must use the FBI’s definitions for crimes. The agency checks on two things for UCR compliance: that a police department submits data, and that the numbers add up, Snyder said.
Between 2016 and 2023, Pennsylvania State Police logged 65 instances of local departments being out of compliance. The agency did not provide information on why, but two chiefs told Spotlight PA it was because their departments did not submit any numbers. The violations, which came with the threat of losing some state grant funding, were deemed fixed by state police as long as the departments began filing monthly.
“Submitting agencies are solely responsible for the accuracy of their information,” Snyder told Spotlight PA.
Both State College police chiefs told Spotlight PA that they did not intentionally disregard the FBI mandate to report rapes accurately. “I know with absolute confidence that had I received that notification … we would have made the change,” King said.
“When crime statistics lose their credibility, the public loses confidence in the police and is less inclined to report crime,” Criminologist Eli B. Silverman told Spotlight PA. “This, in turn, further diminishes the effectiveness of police organization.”
A late revelation
The department, with 53 sworn officers today, serves over 57,000 residents in State College and neighboring College and Harris Townships. Its jurisdiction borders Penn State’s University Park campus, which has its own police force. However, many of the university’s nearly 49,000 undergraduate students live, work, and recreate off campus — so State College police regularly interact with students.
During a typical academic year, 75% of rape victims are Penn State students, Lt. Chad Hamilton, State College police detective supervisor, said.
For years, rape numbers reported by State College police were consistently low, hovering in single digits for the most part. When the department reported its 2021 crime statistics to UCR, police claimed that there was not a single rape that year.
It turns out that there were at least 30.
But instead of rapes, those cases were submitted to the Uniform Crime Reporting system as sex offenses. These are considered a “part two” crime, a category that the FBI collects less information about and rarely mentions in its regular announcements about crime in America.
In police speak, part one crimes are the most severe offenses: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, human trafficking. They are high priorities for law enforcement, often bringing with them pressure to make arrests and clear cases. These are considered indicators of the level of crime occurring in the country, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook.
Rape cases should never go into part two crime counts, Spohn, the criminologist, told Spotlight PA. Sex crimes under the part two category include acts like fondling or indecent exposure, she said. The category does not include sex crimes involving penetration. “The UCR handbook is pretty specific,” she said.
But by its own admission, the State College Police Department did exactly that — incorrectly reporting at least 254 part one crimes as part two ones.
“It’s not like we weren’t reporting,” Wilson told Spotlight PA in a February interview. He said the police department was not calling these incidents rapes, but it was calling them sexual offenses. “I don’t see it as a huge deal,” he said.
Three years ago, a longtime staffer, Alecia Schaeffer, took over as records supervisor. That is the position ultimately responsible for reviewing each incident, ensuring the coding follows the rules, and submitting monthly reports to the state.
Schaeffer — who was trained and certified on Uniform Crime Reporting in 2002 — got a refresher course in December 2022, bringing back with her an urgency to update the police department’s practice.
Spotlight PA repeatedly requested to interview Schaeffer. The borough and department refused, saying they generally do not make staff available to the media.
Gardner said he was in the conversation following Schaeffer’s training but remembered “very, very little” about it — “other than the fact that she learned through training that … all these offenses were to be coded as rapes,” he said.
Fountaine, who oversees State College police in his role as borough manager, said he became aware of this change when the department was first contacted by Spotlight PA.
Experts told Spotlight PA that the way rapes are labeled matters for victims and communities.
“It’s not just about how it shows up in statistics, it’s about how people think about what’s happened to them, how other people think about what’s happened to them, how the community thinks about what’s happened to them,” said Anne Ard, former executive director of Centre Safe, a State College-based organization that supports survivors of sexual violence.
Department officials say the way the cases were coded had no impact on how police handled them.
However, between 2013 and 2023, State College police’s rate of arrests for rape was double that for sex offenses, according to a Spotlight PA analysis of data submitted to UCR.
State College police said that driving any investigation is the strength of evidence, the victim’s wishes, and input from the district attorney’s office.
“It doesn’t matter to us what is coded. It’s going to be thoroughly investigated to the best of our abilities,” Wilson told Spotlight PA.
Other potential issues
King, the department’s former police chief, told Spotlight PA that incidents of sexual violence were “very, very, very high priorities for the department.”
King said that the department applied for grant funding to address sexual violence, and that it created specialized investigative units and response teams as far back as 2006. Officials communicated with the public “over and over again” on the significance placed on these crimes, King said.
The department, with 53 sworn officers today, serves over 57,000 residents in State College and neighboring College and Harris Townships.
But throughout its investigation, Spotlight PA identified other potential issues with the way State College police handled rape cases.
One issue is the accuracy of State College’s rape numbers unrelated to the definition change.
Because the new rape definition was broader, the FBI anticipated a rise in reported rape figures nationwide — as much as 41.7% in 2013, it said. In State College, however, it saw a 222% increase for 2013. Between the years 2013 and 2020, the revised definition produced an average annual increase of 384%.
Spotlight PA asked the department about the discrepancy, whether factors other than the new definition affected the low 2013 rape count, and if the inconsistency raised concerns about previous UCR reporting.
Both chiefs emphatically defended those figures.
Spotlight PA asked the department to review cases between 2005 and 2012 to ensure compliance with the FBI’s legacy rape definition; to allow the newsroom to do so; or to make the records supervisor available for either an interview or written responses to questions. Officials declined.
Without an independent review of investigative files and records, questions about the department’s crime reporting accuracy could not be fully answered.
But one case sheds light on the long-term consequences of the department’s errors.
‘I was raped’
Standing in a parking lot by her dorm building on a summer night in 2019, Lexi Tingley, barely a freshman at Penn State, texted her mother. It was 2:44 a.m., and the worst had happened.
“Mommy.”
“I think I need to go to the ER.”
“I was raped.”
“I’m scared.”
Tingley’s mother knew the lot; she had dropped her daughter off there recently for summer sessions. Frantically, she drove Tingley and her friend, who had also been raped that night, to Mount Nittany Medical Center. Tingley was examined, was tested for sexually transmitted diseases, and met with a State College police officer at the hospital.
Tingley’s statements became the experiences of “victim 1” in the police report. Her friend, Hanna Friedenberger, was victim 3 in the report. Another friend, victim 2, witnessed the crimes and had a panic attack, but was not assaulted. (Both Tingley and Friedenberger spoke to Spotlight PA and agreed to be named.)
Both Tingley and Friedenberger said they were raped at the Legend, a student rental complex three blocks from campus. Police took both their statements.
But State College police records show that one of the rapes was not accounted for.
Lexi Tingley, left, and Hanna Friedenberger, right
The department keeps an internal crime log, a set of records detailing every call it responded to in the last 20 years. It’s the first draft of crime statistics that would be reviewed, cataloged, and corrected if needed before submitting to the Uniform Crime Reporting system. The log contained one rape for the day that Tingley and Friedenberger were attacked.
Wilson, the assistant police chief, said in an August email that rape cases are counted per incident, not per victim — although FBI rules say cases should be counted by the number of victims. Wilson, whose responsibilities include overseeing the department’s records operations, did not respond when Spotlight PA sought additional clarity. Wilson will become the police chief for State College’s neighboring Ferguson Township in 2026.
UCR data for that month, August 2019, show three rapes reported by State College police.
However, Gardner said in an email that there were two other rapes that month that were not related to Tingley and Friedenberger. That means the department should have reported four rapes to UCR.
In an interview, Gardner told Spotlight PA that the UCR data for August 2019 included both Tingley and Friedenberger. “You report victims to UCR, OK, we don’t do it by incident. Do you understand?”
Gardner insisted the department handled the case properly, and said he did not know the source of the discrepancy.
There is another notable problem.
The internal crime log reviewed by Spotlight PA contained four pieces of information for this incident. The time the call was received was 3:49:44 a.m. on Aug. 1, 2019. The outcome of the incident, called disposition, was “ECA” or exceptional clearance of an adult — commonly used for when prosecutors declined to file charges, as happened in the women’s case.
Additionally, there was a description and a code.
When State College police officers file incident reports, they describe the calls they respond to — for example, “burglary” or “traffic stop.” The actual criminal violation that resulted would be recorded as a four-digit code. In State College’s system, for example, 0210 is code for forcible rape. Coders in the records department — not officers — are responsible for doing that.
In Tingley and Friedenberger’s case, the report was coded 0210, referring to rape. But the description — crucial for any layperson not familiar with State College police coding to understand the nature of a case — said “assault earlier.”
For at least a quarter-century, State College police have held daily media briefings where reporters were handed daily law incident summaries, or what the department calls a press log. These documents include the description, but not the case code, of each incident.
Between 2005 and 2021, State College police in these logs described 110 cases that were ultimately classified as rapes as “assault” or “assault earlier.” That is four out of every five rapes recorded by the department during that period.
window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a){if(void 0!==a.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var e=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var t in a.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data[“datawrapper-height”][t]+”px”;r.style.height=d}}});
Asked how residents or reporters who attended these briefings would be able to distinguish rape cases from physical fights because they were lumped together under the title of “assault,” Gardner said the officers in charge would note if any case was sexual in nature.
“It’s serious,” he said an officer in that situation would say, arguing the vagueness protected victims’ privacy.
That approach leaves the quality of State College crime data to chance.
This happened when the department provided its 2009 crime log to an open-records requester this February, which was later posted online. The requester asked for the type of crime for each incident and received the crime log with the incident description listed but not the numeric case code.
No rapes were listed in the 161 pages that State College turned over. If incident codes had been included, the log would show two cases of rape that year.
Gardner serves as the police department’s Right-to-Know officer. He told Spotlight PA that the code was not given to the requester because the person did not specifically ask for it.
Spotlight PA submitted a Right-to-Know request asking for the same information as the original requester, and did not ask for the 4-digit code. But police provided both the data and the code to the newsroom.
An open records request for 2009 State College police data posted online (top), and an open records request made by Spotlight PA for the same information (bottom).
It is impossible to determine if Tingley and Friedenberger’s case was unique. The newsroom cannot determine if undercounting rape victims by using the incident count was an isolated incident or a more prevalent problem. State law does not allow public access to police investigative files, and State College police refused Spotlight PA’s request to review them.
Tingley and Friedenberger, already heartbroken over the outcome of their case, would not find out until contacted by Spotlight PA that State College police had undercounted their rapes in public crime data.
Tingley, now 24, said it is hard to separate the rape and what followed. The treatment she received from law enforcement — a “false promising,” as she called it — was “equally painful” as the worst thing that has happened to her.
SUPPORT THIS JOURNALISM and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results.
