Crime Expert BURL BARER. Edgar Award Winner and NYT Bestselling Author

The DEADLY SINS of Manling Williams who killed her own kids and husband!

One of the most tragic and shocking murder cases I've ever seen is this one -- Manling Williams murdered her children in their beds, and then attacked her husband 97 times with a sword...but she took a break between murdering her kids and killing her husband to go our for drinks with some friends!

Frank GIrardot, award winning journalist, was on this case from day one, and when I proposed writing a mini-book about this case, he was eager to have this story reach a broader audience.  We suggested this case to the producers of DEADLY SINS on Investigation Discovery, and on February 1st, 2014, this story will be portrayed and discussed on national TV thanks to Darren Kavinoky and the entire DEADLY SINS production team.

Yes, Frank and I provide commentary for the episode, and yes, we have put together a special true crime ebook for those of you who want to know even more about this shocking story.  Both the ebook and the TV episode will debut Saturday February 1st, the same day that Frank is our guest on True Crime Uncensored on Outlaw Radio!

and guess what --CAITLIN ROTHER is also on Deadly Sins this season - check out the preview video  

 Here is what the website HELLBEAST wrote about the Manling Williams crime:

There are no excuses for Man-ling Tsang Williams’ actions. There are no good reasons either. Man-ling Tsang Williams defies understanding and logic. Unless of course one considers Man-ling Tsang Williams as a heartless, soulless and inhuman hellbeast. That is the only explanation I can come up with for the story I’m about to tell.

There once was a darling little family in Rowland Heights, California. The loving father was Neal Willliams, a sweet guy who met and fell in love with his Subway coworker Man-ling Tsang in 1999. He thought she was beautiful. On July 26, 2000 Neal and Man-ling’s baby boy Devon was born.

In 2001 Neal and Man-ling got married and the happy trio moved into a condo in Rowland Heights. In 2003 their second son Ian was born. And the family was now complete.

Devon and Ian were a delight to their grandmother, Jan Williams. She described Devon as silly, sociable and tolerant. He was going to study monkeys when he grew up.

Ian was the typical younger brother, pestering Devon and getting into mischief. “He threw himself into life with great abandon, and lived totally in the moment,” said grandma Jan.

Jan Williams said of her son Neal, “He was a great father who treated every child he met as though it was one of his own boys.” She continued, “Devon and Ian were his treasure, and he had no need of fancy cars or a big house. I am proud of that. Neal was a man of heart and integrity, and that means more to me than if he had become the world’s youngest millionaire.”

And as for Man-ling Tsang Williams, the wife and mother, well… everyone thought she was a good woman but for a few months in 2007 she’d begun to act “differently”.

What nobody knew, not Neal, not his mom, was that Man-ling had gotten back together with an old boyfriend — a fellow she’d had the hots for since high school. They had reconnected through the Internet (big surprise). Man-ling Tsang Williams, married mother of two, began an illicit affair with this man.

I guess she was thinking happily ever after, but the boyfriend was thinking not with a husband and kids hanging about. He wanted her to get a divorce. Fair enough. He probably urged Man-ling to leave the boys, then 7 and 3, with their daddy so he could have her all to himself.

So did Man-ling do the decent thing? Any decent thing? Like split up with her boyfriend and return to being a good wife and mom? Or asking Neal for a divorce? Hell no! Those things would be rational, logical, human.

Man-ling Tsang Williams chose instead the most evil course of action. Murder. Why? Because she’s a selfish, soulless, heartless hellbeast I guess.

In June 2007 Man-ling began to tell friends she had nightmares of Neal suffocating her sons and then killing himself. Why would she do that? She was planting the seeds.

On August 7, 2007, this bitch from the depths of hell put her two boys to bed. Ian was in the bottom bunk with the teddy bear blanket and Devon was on the top with the SpongeBob blanket. They were tucked up for the night, all snug as a bug in a rug.

When the boys were asleep, Man-ling the monster mom donned a pair of latex gloves and crept into the bedroom. She quietly took a pillow and held it over little Ian’s face. Did the poor little guy thrash about? Did he put up a fight? Only Man-ling knows.

Apparently, Ian hadn’t made sufficient noise in his death throes to awaken his brother. When the 3-year-old was finally suffocated to death, monster mom obviously felt no remorse, no grief. Instead, as planned, she stood on the rungs of the bunk bed ladder and coldly and calculatingly did the exact same thing to Devon.

Why? Why, why why? What was this evil bitch thinking that made her kill those precious boys? If she wanted her boyfriend she did not have to murder them!

And of course Man-ling wasn’t done. With the boys dead in their beds, she checked out her boyfriend’s profile page on MySpace. And then Man-ling the monstrous POS left the house to have fun with some friends.

It takes a beast with a heart of stone to have a celebratory evening out after having murdered her babies. That is so cold.

And then Man-ling returned home. Neal, being a good dad, had probably been checking periodically on the boys and thought they were sound asleep. Neal himself was asleep in bed.

Man-ling decided to use the katana (samurai) sword Neal’s mother gave him as a gift. It was long and heavy and damned sharp. It was one hell of a weapon.

But hey! Wait a minute! Wasn’t the scenario supposed to be Neal killed the boys and then himself? Who the hell uses a sword to kill themselves, aside from samurai presumably? But hey, Man-ling had it all figured out I guess.

I don’t know if Neal woke up as she approached but what transpired was horrific. Man-ling Tsang Williams survived it and Neal alas did not.

The evil bitch managed to stab and slash her loving husband 97 times. Neal did not die in bed — he made it as far as the top of the stairs in his bid to escape this frenzied fatal attack. Ninety-seven wounds. That’s a lot of hate.

Neal begged for his life to no avail. The hellbeast had no mercy. Neal’s hands were mangled as he tried to fend off the blows. There was a huge X slashed on his torso. His blood saturated the carpet.

Monster Man-ling, now that the worst was over, got busy covering her tracks. She typed up a “suicide” note indicating Neal killed the boys and then himself. She posted the note on MySpace.

WTF? She still went with the murder-suicide crap? How the hell does somebody inflict 97 wounds upon their person when trying to commit suicide? There is absolutely no way that that could happen! After, say, the 14th jab a suicidal person would likely give up, acknowledge defeat. But no, Man-ling had her plan and so what if it went a little awry?

The bloody beast then cleaned herself up, gathered up the bloody clothing and left the house to dispose of it.

At 7:30 in the morning, August 8, 2007, Man-ling Tsang Williams ran outside her condominium screaming hysterically for help. Her neighbours could not help but notice. They came out to investigate the commotion.

Man-ling had her story ready. She told neighbour Francine Cerda she couldn’t sleep, she took a drive to “cool off her head”, she came home and everybody was dead!

The Los Angeles county sheriffs arrived soon after the neighbours called 9-1-1 and headed into the house of horrors. It was filthy btw. There were clothes and trash strewn about the living room, and unwashed dishes and more trash on the kitchen counters. I guess Man-ling had abandoned cleanliness along with faithfulness, compassion and love.

And there, at the top of the stairs, lay Neal Williams. And then the sheriffs found the boys. It must’ve ripped their hearts out.

Man-ling agreed to accompany the sheriffs to the police station. By the time she got there her story had changed a bit. She told the detectives that she’d been out doing some grocery shopping. She asked them, “Does anyone know if my husband is OK? … I want my babies. Please let them be OK.”

That fake show of concern was a mistake. She’d supposedly come screaming out of her house after finding Neal sliced and diced and she’s asking if he was OK?

But Man-ling carried on for hours feigning grief, sadness, bewilderment for the deputies’ benefit. They didn’t buy it.

See, telling a different story to the detectives than she told to the neighbour was proving to be a big honking mistake.


“She provided some statements that proved incriminating,” said Sgt. Bill Marsh, lead homicide detective in the case for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The investigators had also found something very interesting — a bloody cigarette box in her car. Betcha $10,000 that was Neal’s blood. And if she found the bodies after she’d been driving around/grocery shopping, why was anything bloody in her car?

The homicide detectives confronted Man-ling the monster with their discovery, and at that point she broke down and confessed.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s Detective Donald Walls said the killer was arrogant during her confession and even joked about being on CSI, the TV show. He said for the most part she was relaxed as if they were friends and having a lunch date.

Like I said, she was heartless.

Man-ling Hellbeast Tsang Williams was arrested and charged with three counts of 1st-degree murder. All well and good.

She went to trail in November 2010 with Pomona Superior Court Judge Robert M. Martinez presiding.

The prosecutor Deputy District Attorney, Stacy Okun-Wiese and Deputy District Attorney, Pak Kouch successfully argued that the murder of the boys and the husband was a ploy for Man-ling Tsang Williams to get back together with her former boyfriend.

The jury deliberated for 8 hours before coming back and finding her guilty on all three counts of murder in the 1st. The jury also found her guilty of the special circumstances of lying in wait and multiple murders.

Lying in wait is a new one for me, but upon reflection it certainly suited the crime. She waited until the boys and her husband were asleep and totally vulnerable before she killed them.

The jury, however, was hung regarding the death penalty versus life imprisonment. They were split 8-4 with more in favor of the death penalty.

Man-ling Tsang Williams had to go back to court on April 18, 2011 for a second penalty phase jury. Her defense attorneys Haydeh Takasugi and Tom Althaus did their very best to portray their client as worthy of being spared the death penalty.

Althaus told the court that the murders were not calculated executions, but a “sudden mistake.” *snort*

“There’s no basis for the prosecution’s contention that these murders were planned,” Althaus said. He went on to portray Man-ling Tsang Williams as being in a state of “extreme mental and emotional disturbance” when she killed her husband and sons.

“There’s no good explanation why it happened,” Althaus said. That is true. But then he continued to say that prior to the killings, Man-ling Tsang Williams was “a kind, generous, troubled woman who loved her husband and children.

I am sorry, but I simply cannot believe that a creature that smothered her boys to death and slashed her husband to death was kind, generous and loving. Can you? I can believe she acted kind, generous and loving, but it was all fake, just like her crocodile tears during her initial police interview.

The defense had called on friends and family to portray the murderer’s upbringing as full of “pain, heartache, and diminished dreams.” Man-ling’s father Kai Tai Tsang took the stand and heroically took the blame and apologized to Jan Williams.

“I feel really sorry. Please forgive me. As a father, I didn’t do good. That is why it happened. I am sorry,” he said, and then bowed with respect to Neal’s grieving mother.

Man-ling’s sister Shunling Tsang testified though that her memories of her own childhood included no mistreatment from her parents. She also stated that Man-ling had changed in the months prior to the murders, and she would call in the middle of the night just to talk.

The prosecutor scorned the defense’s strategy of using a bad childhood as an excuse. Okum-Wiese said, “When did it become OK in our society to commit three heinous crimes, kill your children and your husband and to blame it on your mom?”

Okun-Wiese added, “This case screams for the maximum punishment.”

The second penalty phase jury recommended that Man-ling Tsang Williams be put to death. Judge Robert Martinez concurred.

“It is the order of this court that you should suffer the penalty of death,” he told the monstrous killer.

Judge Martinez further said in court, “The evidence is compelling that the defendant, for selfish reasons, murdered her own two children.”

Her motivation, Judge Martinez said, was a “narcissistic, selfish and adolescent,” desire to start a new life with another man, free from the hindrances of family life.

The judge rightly pointed out that Man-ling Williams had plenty of willing family members who would have taken in the children had she decided to abandon them.

“It is not for me to forgive, because the ones in the position to forgive are not with us,” Martinez told Man-ling Tsang the POS hellbitch Williams. “I hope your families find peace.”

And I hope they find peace too. Jan Williams lost her whole family. And for the Tsang family’s grief, Shunling Tsang summed it up so well. “When (the boys) died, it was like the joy left the world,” she said. “Those kids meant the world to a lot of people.”

Man-ling the monster can whine all she wants about her “diminished dreams”. Those innocent boys’ dreams were snuffed out when she decided her potential life with her lover had more value than her boys’ lives. And poor Neal, a good man going about his life with real kindness, real generosity, real love — he and the boys deserved so much better.

So now Man-ling Tsang Williams is awaiting death. She and her lawyers will be fighting it, no doubt. But meantime she has lots of time to think, and I wish I could ask her, “Where’s the boyfriend now, bitch?”

Selfish, soulless, heartless creatures like this make me sick. She was blessed with the greatest of blessings but she wanted something else. And wanting it made it OK for her to kill to get it.

 

Whittier Daily News article
CBS Los Angeles News article
Huffington Post article

 

 

 

DEATH THREATS HAUNT TRUE CRIME AUTHORS.

More death threats. I get them every so often, but I don't take them too seriously. Mostly I get them from corrupt law enforcement employees who think I am going to expose their corruption. I don't do that. That's not my job.  I would rather expose the valor dedication and accomplishments of honest cops and compassionate detectives. Today, most of the death threats I get are not aimed at me, but at the guests on my radio show, True Crime Uncensored on Outlaw Radio.

About every few months, one or more of my guests is warned not to show up, not to speak, not to talk with me OR ELSE.   Or else what?   There were at least two real attempts on one guest prior to his interview, and I have received snarled warnings that a certain "crime bitch" should keep her mouth shut -- this coming of course from a man who was allegedly on the grassy knoll with a weapon the day JFK was killed.

Once again the threats are happening to a potential guest known for his life of crime, a stand up guy who considers himself a career criminal, not a gangster.  I guess old associates are afraid that he will name names or spill beans best left in the can.  

It has been several years since I've actually seen a bullit with my name on it -- that was courtesy of Gary Friedman, and how the ATF found out about it I never  knew.  I was also threatened by a dirty drug cop with getting shot or busted if I didn't drop an investigation....I never would have known he had something to hide if he hadn't tried to hide it. 

To live outside the law you must be honest, said Bob Dylan.  I think that's true. Dishonesty is now so rampant that being a criminal isn't the career choice it used to be,  The honor among theives is an illusion, and finding someone who doesn't wear snow shoes when stepping on product is more rare than a pre -1945 Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey reunion concert. 

I don't know if other true crime authors get threats, or if it is just my winning personality.  It may be more safe to write fiction, and I love doing so, but when it comes to true crime, you never have to worry about how the story ends....conviction, execution or complete exhoneration,,, and because it is true, you don't get too many objections to the belevability of the plot.

 

 

HEART -- ROCK N ROLL HALL OF FAME!

Once upon a time, there was a litte band called "A Boy and His Dog" == they played at the Trolly Club in Seattle where I was the primary DJ.

Once upon a time, there was a new band called HEART. comprised of folks I knew from A Boy and His Dog. My pal Chet Tozer did roady work for them, and I did the very first radio commercial for their very first gig -- "The debut of Roger Fisher's new  band, HEART!"

That was back when steam was still rising from the surface of the planet, and dinosaurs were just hatching out of the primordial ooze. 

Tonight, HEART is being inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and they were kind enough to include me in the "thank you" section of their official HEART book.  I was tempted to attend the event...I could get a ticket up in the nosebleed section for a reasonable price -- but the view is better on the TV broadcast, and the reason for going in person would be to offer my personal congradulations. That, of course, would be next to impossible at that venue at that time and under those celebratory circumstances.  So, suffice it to say that I am very proud of Ann, Nancy and the whole band, past and present.  It does warm my heart to know that I, in some minor way, was able to contribute to their career path..their success on that path is because of their talent, skill and show-biz determination.

I'll bump into them again, sooner or later -- I always do -- and give them the same encouragement I did back when we were alll much younger, less lined, and not as famous. 

DEADLY SINS' DARREN KAVINOKY -- cool guy, great show!

I first met Darren Kavinoky about four years ago via our mutual friend, Leonard Buschel, co-founder of Writers in Treatment, where Darren serves on the Board of Directors, and I serve on the Advisory Board.  What a combination! 

Darren had a great idea -- a project based on the 7 Deadly Sins, each exemplified by a particular criminal case.  While we tossed around the idea of a book, or series of books, that didn't come to fruition. Instead, Darren tranformed it into a compelling television series, DEADLY SINS on Investigation Discovery, with him performing brilliantly as the insightful wise-cracking host.  

Darren and I occassionaly appear together at speaking engagements. It is always fun working with him, and I was delighted when DEADLY SINS approached me about adapting one or more of my true crime books for the series. 

"Mommy's Little Killers," based on the case I wrote about in MOM SAID KILL, debuted recently, and I couldn't be more pleased with their presentation of the case.  Apparently the crew of DEADLY SINS was equally pleased with my commentary, and we are discussing additional shows based on my other books.

As Darren was kind enough to have me on his show, I'm returning the favor this Saturday, April 6th, pm Pacific Time when Darren joins us on TRUE CRIME UNCENSORED on Outlaw Radio.  I'm sure it will be great fun as Darren hangs out with co-hosts Howard Lapides, Executive Producer of Celebrity Rehab, "fact checker" Mark Boyer and, of course, Burl Barer (that's me!).

 

FBI HAS A COMPLAINT ABOUT TRUE CRIME TALKING HEADS!

I do a live true crime talk show every Saturday on Outlaw Radio,  and we have our own approach to the topic, guests, and content. One thing we avoid doing is having a panel of talking heads offer their opinions and speculations on current high profile cases under investigation. . 

The reason for this policy isn't simply that there are other established shows both on radio and television that use that as their basic format, and there is no need to cover the same ground they already do so well, but because I have concerns about what can become "trial by talk show" and "indictment by sound bite."   That doesn't mean that I turn down guest appearances on some of these programs, but rather that I personally will not speculate on an ongoing investigation because of the concerns expressed by the FBI at an important symposium, and published on the FBI website.

The public’s interest in serial murder cases makes serial murder an attractive storyline for the media. To further the public’s interest in these cases, the media uses people who are willing to speak as experts on the topic of serial murder and more specifically, individuals willing to comment on the current, featured case. These commentators are commonly referred to as talking heads, and it appears that there is no shortage of people willing to do this.

 Individuals utilized by the media to comment on serial murder cases include both experts and pseudoexperts. Experts are identified as academicians, researchers, retired law enforcement officials,mental health professionals, and retired law enforcement profilers who have developed specific knowledge and experience in serial murder investigations. Pseudoexperts are self-proclaimed profilers and others who profess to have an expertise in serial murder, when, in fact, their experience is limited or non-existent. The media will recruit talking heads, whether true experts or pseudoexperts, to offer their opinions on current cases, when they have no official role in the investigation and no access to any of the intimate facts of the case.

When individuals appear in the media and discuss ongoing cases, they have an enormous potential to negatively influence investigations and may even cause irreversible damage. They often speculate on the motive for the murders and the possible characteristics of the offender. Such statements can misinform the public and may heighten fears in a community. They may contribute to mistrust and a lack of confidence in law enforcement and, more importantly, may taint potential jury pools. These statements may also impact the behavior of the serial murderer, because it is unlikely that an offender discriminates between a talking head and a law enforcement official actively involved in the case. When offenders are challenged by statements or derogatory comments made in the media, they may destroy evidence, or more tragically, react violently.

I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for violence or destroyed evidence in my quest for ratings or controversy.  

HOW TO BE A MODERATOR: Insights from the World Mystery Convention

I'm moderating a panel at Bouchercon 2012, the World Mystery Convention.  To help me out, they sent me this excellent document and said "This document grew (and grew and grew) out of a series of sober discussions and drunken rants at Bouchercon 2005.  Its authors are Donna Andrews, Robin Burcell, Dana Cameron, Judy Clemens, Reed Coleman, Barry Eisler, Bill Fitzhugh, Jon Jordan, Ruth Jordan, Laura Lippman, David Montgomery, and MJ Rose.  Please post it, forward it, and otherwise disseminate it to anyone you think it would benefit."  

 Hey, that's anyone who might ever have to moderate anything.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT

 Relax.  Being a good moderator is easy.  Start by understanding your role.  Your job as moderator is to help the panelists entertain and inform the audience.  This document will teach you how and help you avoid a few common mistakes.

 

PREPARATION

 

1.  Do Your Homework. You needn’t have read all the panelists’ books to moderate their panel (although reading the actual books is of course ideal).  But if you haven’t read their books, you will need to spend some time on their websites, reading reviews, reading sample chapters, and otherwise getting to know their work so you can ask intelligent questions (even if you have read their books, you should visit their websites.  You’re likely to find additional interesting information there).  This preparation should take at least several hours and will be worth the effort.

 

Prepare a list of scintillating questions for your panelists.  Here, “scintillating” means questions that are specifically tied to the panelists’ work – questions that are varied, insightful, and provocative (hint:  “Where do you get your ideas?” without more is not scintillating, nor is asking the same question of each panelist four times in a row).

 

Prepare more questions than you think you’ll need.  This way, if one line of questions isn’t working, you can move on to something else.

 

2.  Contact Your Panelists Beforehand.  Let your panelists know what to expect from you, and what you expect from them (hint:  a lot of those expectations are outlined in this Manifesto).  Ask what they would like to talk about (but it’s usually best not to tell them what your specific questions will be beforehand because too much panelist preparation spoils spontaneity).  For example:  which of their books they think you should read or at least read about?  What were some of the best and worse experiences they’ve recently had on panels?  What did they like style-wise in the past; what didn’t they like?  What do they like and not like about the topic assigned?

 

The panelists’ feedback will give you good ideas, and will also communicate to them that you’re serious about your role and committed to making all of you look good.

 

An unfortunate custom has developed wherein panelists bring their books to panels and stand them up on the table for the audience to see.  Most times, this odd gambit fails:  the audience can’t see the book well anyway, but the book does serve to block the audience’s view of the panelist’s face.  Encourage those panelists who insist on bringing books to leave them lying down on the table and to pick them up and wave them around only once (if they must).

 

If possible, get together before the panel, at least briefly, so everyone can get to know each other a little and the ice gets broken before you’re in front of an audience.  There is a green room available in the hotel (Humphrey Room) for your use.

 

3.  Go to Panels.  You can’t be a good moderator if you haven’t watched a few good (and bad) ones in action.  So go out of your way to attend some before your own gig.  See how different people moderate.  Learn what works and what doesn’t.  Improvisation, you’ll see, rarely works.  Planning and preparation do.

 

THE ROOM

 

4.  Panel Layout. The layout of the panel is important.  Different moderators have different preferences. Be aware of the pros and cons.  If you sit in the middle, it gives you equal access to the panelists left and right, but splits the panel in half and makes it harder for the panelists to interact.  Consider sitting on one side of the panel.  Some people even like to stand off to the side or wander, talk show host style (there’s a reason talk show hosts do it this way).  If you can, consider arranging the panelist table into a V shape so the panelists can see each other better than they will if they’re arranged in a straight line.

 

5.  Lighting and Temperature.  Also pay attention to the room’s lighting and temperature.  Is the lighting too dim, especially early in the morning or right after lunch?  Get those lights turned up.  Is the room too warm?  Find someone who can turn up the air conditioning (unless it’s really frigid, you needn’t worry about things being too cold.  Cold keeps people alert and heat makes them drowsy). There will be a volunteer assigned to your room to help you with this.

 

6.  Bonus Points.  Make sure your panelists have water.  This might mean clearing and replacing the used glasses from the previous panel.  Your panelists will appreciate it. There will be a volunteer assigned to your room to help you with this.

 

If the room is too big, encourage the audience to sit towards the front, or in the center.  People will comply, and the atmosphere will be better because of your efforts.  Don’t be afraid to do this:  audiences like their moderators friendly and confident.

 

Hint:  to take care of these matters, you’ll need to arrive at your room early.

 

SHOWTIME

 

7.  Who Are You?  Start by briefly introducing yourself.  Just tell the audience the minimum it needs for it to know why you’re moderating this panel.  “Hello everyone, welcome to The Bad Guy as Hero.  My name is Jane Smith, and I write a thriller series about a contract killer named Joe Killjoy.  Killjoy certainly qualifies as a bad guy hero, and that’s why I’m moderating today.”

 

8.  Don’t Do Introductions.  Or rather, don’t do them as introductions.  Introductions are to moderating what exposition is to novels:  necessary information that, if presented straightforwardly, is invariably boring.  Instead, weave your introduction into your questions:  “Lee Child, you write a series about an ex-military cop named Jack Reacher who’s got terrific investigative skills.  He uses those skills to solve problems, which sounds like a formula for mystery.  And yet your books read more like thrillers.  How do you see your books?  Are they mysteries, thrillers, or both?”  (This was in fact David Montgomery’s introductory question on the thriller panel at Bouchercon 2005).

 

At the outset, look around to ensure the audience can hear.  If at any time you have doubts, ask, “Can everyone hear?”  Get your panelists to talk closer to the mike if it’s necessary.  It often is.  And it might be necessary for you, too.

 

9.  Depart from Your Script.  Realize your script, your prepared questions, is only a guideline.  Ideally, your questions will provoke the panelists to riff on each other’s responses.  When this happens, you won’t have time to get to all the questions you prepared.  Recognize that this is a good thing.  Forget the prepared questions and use the material that emerges during the panel to get the panelists to interact.

 

Interject if a panelist is faltering.  Fade into the background when the panel is humming along without you. 

 

Some panelists are Chatty Kathies; others are shrinking violets.  Intervene as necessary to ensure the panelists are getting equal airtime.

 

Pay attention to the audience throughout.  Learn to look for glazed eyes, stupefied expressions, nodding heads, fidgety bottoms, and bodies heading for the exits.  Adjust your approach if the one you’re using isn’t working.

 

If you’ve been blessed with good comic timing, by all means use it.  An audience enjoys nothing more than a laugh.  But remember to use your wit in the service of the panel (hint:  if your comedy routine is pre-scripted, it will probably bomb.  If you’re riffing on material that arises spontaneously during the course of the panel, you’re probably doing it right). 

 

10.  Be Professional.  You’re going to be up there in front of a room full of people.  It won’t hurt to dress well and to take care of any necessary grooming.  The audience will interpret your squared-away appearance as a sign of respect.  The opposite is also true.

 

Even if you can’t stop yourself from using “like” and “you know” in conversation, find a way to not use them when speaking in public.  There’s no excuse for imprecision when you’re moderating, and besides, do you really want to sound like that when you’re, you know, in front of, like, 300 people?

 

11.  Questions From The Audience.  Remember to leave time for questions from the audience.  If you’re in a big room, not everyone will hear the questions when they’re asked, so remember to repeat them.  If an audience member starts to drone on, politely interrupt and ask him or her to state a question.  Don’t be afraid to restate for brevity and clarity.  If an audience member asks a question that’s overly specific to a single panelist or otherwise not particularly relevant to the concerns of the wider audience, don’t be afraid to say, “That’s an interesting question, and perhaps better addressed in depth by Panelist A after the wider Q&A we’re doing now.”  Warn the audience of these ground rules before you start taking questions and things will go more smoothly.

 

A small thing:  when repeating a question, it’s more polite, and sounds more professional, to say, “The question is…” than it is to use a pronoun, such as, “He asked…”.

 

Audience Q&A is important and, when done well, can give the audience a lot of satisfaction.  But remember:  even during the Q&A, it’s still your job to moderate.

 

FOLLOW-UP

 

12.  One More Round of Emails.  When it’s over, write your panelists and thank them for doing such a great job.  Ask them if there was anything they would have liked you to do differently so you can do a better job next time.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS

 

If you know you’re shy or don’t present well or are otherwise not going to do a good job, don’t take the moderator gig.  It’s not fair to the audience, to the panelists, or to you.  There’s no shame in declining, only in doing a poor job.

 

But here’s the great news:  if you do a terrific job as moderator by bringing out the best in the panelists, the audience will appreciate you.  They’ll remember your name and buy your books.  Being a moderator is actually a great sales opportunity – but only if you do it right.

 

This document grew (and grew and grew) out of a series of sober discussions and drunken rants at Bouchercon 2005.  Its authors are Donna Andrews, Robin Burcell, Dana Cameron, Judy Clemens, Reed Coleman, Barry Eisler, Bill Fitzhugh, Jon Jordan, Ruth Jordan, Laura Lippman, David Montgomery, and MJ Rose.  Please post it, forward it, and otherwise disseminate it to anyone you think would benefit.  Thank you.

Rhonda Glover/Jimmy Joste case on SCORNED:Love Kills

I.D.'s excellent series, SCORNED: Love Kills, features an exceptionally accurate adaptation of the strange case of Rhonda Glover, the beautiful but deranged woman whose picture adornes the cover of my best-selling true crime book, FATAL BEAUTY.

 "Edgar award-winning author Burl Barer succeeds once again in engaging the most discerning true crime readers, captivating and compelling them with a writing style and journalistic force that has no equal. Fatal Beauty is a soon-to-be true crime classic." -- Dan Zupanski, author of TROPHY KILL: The Shall We Dance Murders. 
-----------------------------------------------------
 "Fatal Beauty is excellent true crime -- excellent investigation, excellent story-telling, and exceptionally thought provoking."   

---------------------------------

Rhonda Glover is as crazy as she is beautiful and deadly. Burl Barer is as brilliant an investigative journalist as you're going to find anywhere.  Disturbing and heartbreaking, FATAL BEAUTY will certainly keep you from being envious of the looks and wealth of others -- you never know what their lives are like behind their eyes and behind closed doors. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you already have FATAL BEAUTY, don't overlook the brand new edition of HEAD SHOT -- updated with new information about the killers who are now out of prison!

------------------------------------

Listen to Burl Barer's TRUE CRIME CLASSICS every Thursday 10am PT/1pm ET on HereWomenTalk.com 

True Crime Uncensored airs LIVE every Saturday 2pm PT/5pm ET on OutlawRadio.tv

TRUE CRIMES TV is every Tuesday 7pm in July on the AMERICAN HORRORS Network on Filmon.com

Here is a sneak peek at the new cover for BODY COUNT!

 

12-Step Non-Medical Rehabs Kill Thousands While Making Millions.

The “Recovery” industry is killing thousands while making millions. Most 12-Step rehabs provide no medical diagnosis or medical treatment for what is a proven medical condition.  No honest treatment center has a treatment plan in place before you arrive. That is a medical impossibility and a violation of the most basic of medical ethics.

Only a medical doctor can diagnose a chronic medical illness. Addiction is no exception, yet every year thousands of Americans are told that they have the disease of addiction or alcoholism by people with no medical credentials whatsoever. This unethical and perhaps illegal diagnosis is based on nothing more than behavioral symptoms.

There are numerous medical conditions other than addiction and/or alcoholism that have heavy drinking or drug use as behavioral symptoms.  It requires a comprehensive medical diagnosis to determine what true medical issues are present, and what the appropriate treatment is for the individual patient. Despite this obvious fact, people are still being sent, often against their will, to so-called “treatment centers” where they are told that they have a disease, but are denied any comprehensive medical evaluation or professional medical care.  This is a multi-million dollar “Rehab Racket” that is costing lives and making con men rich.    NEVER send anyone to a rehab that evaluates your insurance but does not offer complete medical diagnosis prior to forming a treatment plan.

REMEMBER: If they have a treatment plan in place for you before you arrive, DON'T GO TO REHAB!   It is impossible to form a treatment plan for any medical condition without a medical diagnosis.

 If all you do is make someone stop drugging or drinking but don't diagnose the medical reason why they were doing so, you may be responsible for their death. The real first step is CALL A DOCTOR, preferably an addiction medicine specialist.

Don't let some old drunk practice medicine without a license.Only a medical doctor can diagnose medical conditions. 

12-Step and other "recovery" programs can be excellent life-enhancing support groups, but they don't treat any medical condition.  If you or someone you love is having issues with alcohol or drugs, the real first step is to contact an addiction medicine specialist.  

In California, call (800) 444-1838  or to find the medical professional near you who specializes in addiction medicine, click this link, or cut and paste into your browser.  http://www.healthline.com/doctors/addiction-medicine-specialist 

I'm in love with Stevie Cameron, and her husband and kids don't mind, honest!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...a serial killer in Vancouver, BC who, by any stretch of the imagination, is horrifyingly disgusting in demeanor and deed.  

Covering the case of one of North America’s most prolific serial killer gave Stevie Cameron access not only to the story as it unfolded over many years in two British Columbia courthouses, but also to information unknown to the police – and not in the transcripts of their interviews with Pickton – such as from Pickton’s long-time best friend, Lisa Yelds, and from several women who survived terrifying encounters with him. You will now learn what was behind law enforcement’s refusal to believe that a serial killer was at work.

Stevie Cameron first began following the story of missing women in 1998, when the odd newspaper piece appeared chronicling the disappearances of drug-addicted sex trade workers from Vancouver’s notorious Downtown Eastside. It was February 2002 before Robert William Pickton was arrested, and 2008 before he was found guilty, on six counts of second-degree murder. These counts were appealed and in 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its conclusion. The guilty verdict was upheld, and finally this unprecedented tale of true crime can be told.

Cameron has built her solid reputation on several blockbuster investigations.  When On the Take came out in 1994, it made author Stevie Cameron a household name in Canada. Her book’s revelations about the rampant corruption and petty greed of Brian Mulroney’s decade in the prime minister’s office reverberated for many years in the Canadian political landscape and helped destroy his Progressive Conservative Party. (The party, one of Canada’s most venerable, never recovered from Mulroney’s stewardship and eventually merged with the Canadian Alliance Party.)

Cameron, one of the country’s leading investigative reporters, was one of the few reporters to consistently question and probe the corruption of the Mulroney years. She has a wonderful ear for storytelling, which helps make On the Take a page-turner.

It should be obvious why I love Ms. Cameron, and I'm sure her husband and kids don't mind my admiration.  Stevie Cameron joins me Saturday for an hour on True Crime Uncensored. Listen!

 

Las Vegas Gangs, Decapitation, Deception and Media Manipulation

I am an investigative journalist who writes books about what I investigate. I also spill the beans here on this blog. The first rule (according to me) is ascertain the facts. Not opinion, just raw data. When the Governor of Arizona was talking about all the crime in the border towns, and the decapitated bodies, people talked about it as if it were true -- it wasn't true at all, and the truth was easily available. All it would take is a most a telephone call to Arizona law enforcement and ask, "is this true?" or go to the Department of Justice or FBI web sites and look at the hard data crime statistics. The border towns in Arizona have lower crime rates than five cities in Ohio and are among the safest towns in America, but you wouldn't know it if you didn't LOOK IT UP.  Of course it turned out that the Arizona politician had financial interest in private prisons...but that's another story.

How about gang violence and the need for more cops to protect us from them damn gangs? Las Vegas had some real anti-gang panic attacks in the 1980's.  The cops insisted the needed more manpower to fight this dreaded invasion of latino gangs! It was a hot topic in Las Vegas and the cops told the press that there was a 400% increase in gang activity -- through this campaign of "concern" and "fear" of this "evil" enemy,  a study revealed that in 1989 almost 90% of Las Vegas residents believed that Las Vegas had a serious gang problem. The gang tast force went from two to sixteen members. The Governor put forth anti-gang legislation and law enforcement was praised for erradicating the gang problem.

The truth? There never was a significant minority gang problem in Las Vegas. LOOK IT UP. The violent crimes linked to gangs stayed a consistently low 3% before during and after the gang "crises," and drug crimes linked to gangs also stayed low and consistent at 4%.  No big increase, no big decrease. Panic over bullshit with the media again complicit in misleading the public. 

Here is another very short and simple example: most people believe crime is on the increase, and has been increasing over the years. The truth, however, is that crime in America has been on a 35 year decline.

One more: people believe most acts of violent terrorism on American soil are by so-called Islamic Terrorists. The truth? Those nut cases commit about 6% of terrorist acts. The Jewish Defense League gets 'credit" for 7%. Most violent acts are committed by ecoterrorists, hate groups such as Christian Identiy Movement, and the largest amount--- Puerto Rican separatists.   LOOK IT UP.