Dimensions of Racial Profiling & Institutionalized Racism in the U.S.

Racial profiling is a law enforcement practice that refers to law enforcement officials substituting race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, to any degree, for probable cause in deciding whether to engage in enforcement. By this definition, and by its nature, racial profiling is a matter of ethics, at its core. In other words; discretion is the right to decide or act according to one’s own judgment. A person certainly has a right to make his or her own judgments. This is not the problem, however. The problem is deeper than that. If the person’s core beliefs and ideals are immoral or unethical then their judgment will be distorted, consequently.

Racial profiling is based on the invalid assumption that a particular race or ethnicity engages in misconduct more than other races or ethnicities. According to Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School, the practice of racial profiling exacerbates racism in society, and leads to the abuse and harassment of racial minorities. So, fundamentally, this practice tears at the very fabric of American ideals. Racial profiling is the product of unethical and immoral ideals and beliefs in action. It holds the belief that certain races are more prone to violence and criminal behavior without the actual science to back this up, which in many ways constitutes this belief as incoherent and invalid.

In fact, racial profiling has proven to be ineffective in the war on drugs. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that while officers focused on African American and Latino drivers in an effort to thwart highway-bound drug couriers, they found drugs more often when they searched whites (17 percent) than when they searched African Americans (8 percent). Similarly in the state of New Jersey, state troopers found drugs in vehicles driven by whites 25 percent of the time, by African Americans 13 percent, and by Latinos 5 percent of the time.

Most citizens expect criminal justice professionals to conduct themselves in an efficient and professional manner without expressing personal views and emotions. And because law enforcement is a profession, ethics and ethical conduct play an important role. Hence, this is why each of these professionals must adhere to a strict code of ethics and a code of conduct. The code of ethics states that an officer’s fundamental duty, among other things, is to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice. By conducting racial profiling, officers and authorizing departments are engaging in unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional behavior.

Racial profiling, in essence, is a result of beliefs, traditions, and stigmas that have been passed down through many generations. Racial profiling acts are not merely acts of profiling, but rather a testimony to the systematic racism that exists in America. For instance, simply stopping the practice of profiling would do little to change society’s underlying racist views and institutionalized racism that exists in America and thus does little to alter the attitudes that lead to police abuse.

American economist, Richard Zeckhauser, and Professor of Philosophy, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, identify racial profiling as a utilitarian issue (in terms of consequentialist and non consequentialist arguments). The utilitarian argument for racial profiling assumes certain crimes are committed disproportionately by certain racial groups. Kennedy argues that those who practice racial profiling have omitted the consequence of such a practice—the feeling of resentment among minorities, the sense of hurt, and the increasing loss of trust in the police (Kennedy, 1998). Most Nonconsequentialist arguments tend to enter the debate by way of rights and fairness-based objections to profiling.

The human mind was designed to fill gaps and make assumptions about the information coming into the brain. Our past influences the way we judge people; we relate people’s looks to their personality; we believe that others are like us, and our beliefs affects our judgment. It all starts with first impressions. People are forced to make snap decisions based on information that is coming our way. This is actually a defense mechanism that helps people stay out of harms way. However, this mechanism, much like any other, can steer people in the wrong direction when used incorrectly. When navigating this system people should understand and be aware that there are many things, such as stereotyping, that have the strong potential to highly affect our judgments.

According to a recent federal study, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be searched and arrested during routine traffic stops. Similarly, a 2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics study showed that police were much more likely to threaten or use force against blacks and Hispanics than against whites in any encounter, whether at a traffic stop or elsewhere. “The numbers are very consistent” with those found in a similar study of police-public contacts in 2002, by bureau statistician Matthew R. Durose.

White people between the ages of 18 and 25 use marijuana at a higher rate than their black peers, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; yet, blacks are arrested for marijuana usage at a much higher rate than Whites. For example, a 2010 report found that police in California’s biggest cities arrested blacks for possession at four-five, and even 13, times the rate of whites. Overall, research shows Black people in the U.S. are three times more likely than White people to be arrested and 10 times more likely to be jailed for drugs offenses, according to new research claiming to show the racial bias of the criminal justice system. What’s more disturbing is that there’s NO EVIDENCE showing that Blacks use or deal more drugs than Whites, which makes the war on drugs seem more like the war on Blacks.

In the 1970s, when racism was much more out in the open and some would say more prevalent, there were 133,226 Blacks in prison. Today there are nearly 1 million Blacks in prison (2010), (Approx. an eightfold increase). According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks comprised 12.6% of the US population, yet, account for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population. In 2009 Black males were incarcerated at the rate of 4,749 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of the same race and gender, while White males were incarcerated at the rate of 708 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. In fact, more Black men are in prison or in jail, on probation, or on parole than were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began. “Most of that increase is due to the War on Drugs, a war waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color,” said Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

On December 31, 2005, there were 2,193,798 people in U.S. prisons and jails. The United States incarcerates a greater share of its population (737 per 100,000 residents) than any other country on the planet, by far. The U.S. has more people in prison than some industrialized countries have people. But when we break down the statistics we see that incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment.

U.S. incarceration rates by race (June 30, 2006):

• Whites: 409 per 100,000
• Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000
• Blacks: 2,468 per 100,000

Gender (June 30, 2006):

• Females: 134 per 100,000
• Males: 1,384 per 100,000

Males by race (June 30, 2006):

• White males: 736 per 100,000
• Latino males: 1,862 per 100,000
• Black males: 4,789 per 100,000

Males aged 25-29 and by race (June 30, 2006):

• White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000.
• Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000.
• Black males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That’s 11.7% of Black men in their mid-to-late 20s.)

Or you can make some international comparisons:

South Africa under Apartheid was internationally condemned as a racist society.

• South Africa under apartheid (1993), Black males: 851 per 100,000
• U.S. under George Bush (2006), Black males: 4,789 per 100,000

What does it mean that the leader of the “free world” locks up Black males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world?

The War on Terror Becoming “War on U.S. Constitution”

While the headlines are dominated by the divorce of Kobe Bryant, the fake death of Jon bon Jovi, and of course the Kardashians; 95% of Americans are unaware of a bill that is so unconstitutional that it will allow the government to decide who gets an old fashioned trial (along with right to attorney and right against self-incrimination) and who gets detained without due process and put into a FEMA camp. On 15 December 2015, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 has been passed by both houses of Congress separately, and a final version was approved by the Senate by a vote of 93 to 7.

The dangerous bill will allow the military to detain American citizens on American soil without due process. For the first time in our history, if this Act is not vetoed, American citizens may not be guaranteed their Article III right to trial. President Barack Obama plans on signing the bill into law tomorrow, according to reports coming from the White House. The Act legislatively codifies the President’s authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1031(a-e) of the bill.

Congressman and Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul, said, “We have now institutionalized and codified martial law.” Mitt Romney was caught clueless at a New Hampshire Town Hall meeting and Newt Gingrich remains zipped on whether or not he supports this travesty to civil liberties of American citizens. The ACLU called it “an historic threat to American citizens,” and the bill was also criticized by the Directors of the FBI, the CIA, the National Intelligence Director and the U.S. Defense Secretary. Senator Lindsey Graham declared that suspected citizens open themselves up “to imprisonment and death. And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Just to be clear, this is not a republican vs. Democrat issue, as both parties almost unanimously passed this bill. Apparently, after all the gridlock in Congress, they can agree on at least one thing: taking more liberties away from American citizens. I don’t want to be put into a FEMA camp, so I will say that my last statement was just an attempt at being facetious.

Of course, the politicians will say we are just talking about a few cases. But in fact the sky’s probably the limit given the current legal ambiguity in the Patriot Act expansion of “material support for terrorism” to now include humanitarian aid and even mere advocacy speech without any need to prove an accused person intended to support any kind of terrorist violence. The Department of Justice has been currently using this ambiguity for over a year to investigate twenty three American citizens who are anti-war activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. Additionally, the "war on terror" will undoubtedly expand even more when it is de-linked from 9-11 -- see “The War on Terrorism Congress Never Declared -- But Soon Might” by Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor, expert on these issues and associate dean for scholarship at American University Washington College of Law:

...an individual may be detained for providing “direct support” (which, in the government's view, may be nothing more than minor financial or logistical assistance) in aid of “associated forces” that are “engaged in hostilities against...coalition partners.” Thus, the NDAA effectively authorizes the military detention of any individual who provides such assistance anywhere in the world to any group engaged in hostilities against any of our coalition partners, whether or not the United States is in any way involved in (or even affected by) that particular conflict.

Given this expansion of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force contained in the 2012 NDAA to encompass undefined “associated forces,” we could witness the US government targeting a large range of political dissidents, human rights activists, humanitarians, and maybe even “occupiers.”

One thing is for sure, though: the political, military industrial, corporate class in Washington DC continues to re-make our constitutional republic into a powerful, unaccountable Military Empire, which could now officially turn U.S. “emergency war powers” into those that trump the Constitution. After years of the rants from conspiracy theorists, it appears that they were correct: Martial Law is coming to our country.

Amanda Knox Hires Superlawyer: Looking for Book Deal

The Amanda Knox PR machine, headed by the Marriott Group, is still in full swing. This time, David Marriott announced that Knox has hired D.C. superlawyer, Robert Barnett "to represent her in discussions with various book publishers who have expressed an interest in Amanda writing a book.” Although Barnett does not call himself a literary agent, he knows his way around seven-figure deals (he’s also repped President Barack Obama, former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Rosie O’Donnell and Barbra Streisand) — and the Knox family liked the fact that he’s a lawyer with a powerful firm behind him. Barnett is charging a hefty hourly fee instead of the standard 15 percent commission.


“The thing about Bob is not only does he know how to negotiate on behalf of his clients, but he’s very well-connected in the media world and can help create the perfect launch for the book,” said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster, who’s worked with Barnett for decades. Marriott did not elaborate on those additional opportunities but said few details of a potential book had been yet decided by Knox and her family, including an advance or the possibility of co-authors.

“This is a case I have followed from day one and never, not even for one moment, have I doubted the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox,” said Seattle-based literary agent, Sharlene Martin, in a recent statement.

Sharlene Martin has certainly been on the Knox bandwagon from the beginning. In a response to my query back in January 2011, Martin snippily replied to me, “It seems to me that it is YOU who is trying to cash in her [Knox’s] misfortune by writing a book for which you have NO inside knowledge or cooperation.” Apparently Martin must not have been aware of the plethora of official information made public about the case, including Judge Massei’s 427-page summation of the original trial, Judge Micheli’s extensive report, and my affiliation with www.truejustice.org. In any event, Martin appears to believe that cashing in on the case is ok as long as you believe what she does.

Moreover, it appears that Martin is inferring that she knows more about the exclusive details of the case because she has spoken to the Knox family, as she also indicated in her response. I am assuming that by this she believes that this exclusive inside knowledge makes her an expert on Knox’s innocence; even though I have yet to find any credentials that she has any qualifications to analyze evidence or the like, and she has never publicly engaged in any discussion of why she believes Knox is innocent. Surely Knox’s parents have never twisted the facts in any way?!?!


Knox certainly has many questions to answer, as she was unable to truly clarify during the trial or otherwise. So it seems as though she may be willing to roll the dice and try to fool us once again with “the real” version of events in return for some much needed funding. Curt Knox and Amanda’s mother, Edda Mellas, who are divorced, have each said they’ve drained their retirement funds, taken out second mortgages and accrued credit card debt to pay for Amanda’s defense. The Knox family also have hundreds of supporters who have dug deep into their own pockets to support her, and some of them are now asking questions like: Why hasn’t she come clean as to exactly what was her role, how did things actually unfold, and what really happened?

In another related story, ANSA News has reported that Knox prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini’s, conviction has been reversed. Those who have been proclaiming Knox’s innocence have always used Mignini’s conviction to paint the prosecutor as crooked, and they used this as another reason for Knox’s innocence. Yet, surely there will be those who believe in Knox’s innocence that Mignini is still guilty, just as there are those who believe that Knox is still guilty even though her ruling was reversed.

Amanda Knox is still facing legal action for criminal slander brought by those she claimed maltreated her at an interrogation (not at the hands of Mignini). The next hearing on this case will take place in mid-May 2012. Meanwhile, we all anxiously await Judge Hellman’s sentencing report (which will detail Knox’s reversal), due out very soon. And of course, we also expect the prosecution to file an appeal (on Knox’s reversal) to Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation—to take place probably soon after Hellman’s motivation report is released.

Amanda Knox Dressed as Burglar for Halloween

Less than one month after her release from an Italian prison, Amanda Knox was spotted in Seattle heading to a Halloween party dressed as a cat burglar on the eve of Meredith Kercher’s murder. Meredith Kercher’s father, John, slammed the Knox saying, “I think it’s very insensitive of Amanda Knox, especially considering it is the fourth anniversary of Meredith’s death.” The reason for his comments is that Knox was originally convicted for the murder of his daughter, and the prosecution posed the theory that she and then boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito simulated a burglary at the cottage to throw police off and make it look as though someone had broken in rather than had the keys and walked casually through the front door to commit the murder.


Last Sunday Knox was seen walking arm-in-arm with new love, James Terrano, headed to Seattle’s Asian market Uwajimaja to pick up some food. Knox, 24, wore a black coat and light khaki pants, shooting a sullen look to photographers on the scene. Terrano, also 24, is studying classical guitar at the University of Washington; his brother William confirmed to Mirror News last week that they’re dating. The couple is also reportedly living together in an apartment in Seattle’s rundown Chinatown area. Knox’s new boyfriend is from a middle-class New York family. He is studying classical music, specializing in guitar, at Seattle’s University of Washington.


In his interview with Italian television (before Knox was seen with new boyfriend), Raffaele called his love with Amanda “a seed that had been planted in the earth.” He continued saying, “The problem is that someone took that seed and crushed it.” Interestingly enough, he never mentions who that someone is or who he thinks crushed it, per say, and he makes no reference there to Rudy Guede. Raffaele hinted that they could soon be reunited and that he can’t wait to “look into her eyes.” Raffaele also spoke about the chance of he and Knox rekindling their love affair: “It’s all over between us. I still have a great affection towards her but nothing else. I wish her all the happiness in the world.” Knox's slander trial in Italy has been postponed until 5 February 2013, because the judge was busy with another trial.

One of Hollywood’s Most Enduring Mysteries Back in News

At age 43, world renowned actress, Natalie Wood, was found drowned in the waters off Southern California on 29 November 1981. Immediately, speculation of possible foul-play circulated regarding the mysterious nature of Wood’s death. Her body was found about a mile away from the boat by the Coroner’s Office with two-dozen bruises and she had a facial laceration. Some of Wood’s friends in particular were confused and questioned the accidental circumstances of her death, proclaiming that she couldn’t swim and was afraid of the water.

Wood and her husband, Robert Wagner, were partying on their yacht (Splendour) anchored off Santa Catalina Island near Los Angeles with Captain Dennis Davern and her “Brainstorm” co-star Christopher Walken. The official police report said that Wood disappeared along with the boat’s dinghy. Her death was ruled an accident and it was determined that she had been drinking. The report explained that Wood was “possibly attempting to board the dinghy and had fallen into the water, striking her face.” Moreover, Wood had allegedly disappeared while Wagner and Walkin were arguing—apparently Wagner was admittedly jealous of Walkin and Wood’s relationship.


In a press conference today, Lt. John Corina of the L.A. County Sheriffs’ Department said that they had “new information” that they “deemed substantial.” However, Corina has not made public this new information nor have investigators contacted Christopher Walkin, Robert Wagner, or Dennis Davern. Word has it that police were prompted to look into the case after Davern’s recent comments in an interview with Vanity Fair and the television series “48 Hours Mystery,” which both focused on Wood’s death.

“We didn’t necessarily lie, we just didn’t tell everything,” Davern said in the interview. “It was agreed by all three of us what we were going to tell investigators.” Davern said that once Wood was missing, it was understood that they were not going to look too hard for her; they were not going to use their search light; they were not going to notify anyone right away. Davern said that he agreed with Wagner to tell a story he wanted to tell and not the truth. Davern also said that Wagner waited 4 hours after Wood’s disappearance to notify the Coast Guard and that the altercation between Wagner and Wood may have turned violent. Davern said that before she went missing Wood and Wagner were arguing in the state room and he heard what seemed like violence. He then said the argument moved to the deck area, and then there was an immediate silence. Police, however, say that Wagner is not a suspect at this time.


Wagner released a statement saying that he has not been contacted yet, but fully supports the efforts of police, and he hopes that no one is trying to profit from the 30 yr anniversary of this tragic event. Laura Wood wrote in a biography on her sister, “What happened is that Natalie drank too much that night.” Wagner wrote in a 2009 autobiography that he blamed himself for his wife’s death.

Davern wrote a book about the case that was published in 2009 in which he basically explained these details already. So what has prompted the re-opening of the case? In the original investigation there was also a woman on a boat nearby who insists that she heard a woman’s cry for help. There has also been a petition from Wood’s fans—who are dissatisfied with the original investigation—to have the case reopened.

Penn State Sex Scandal Sparks Child-sex Reporting Debate

Click (HERE) to sign petition to make it a Pennsylvania state law for witnesses of sex crimes against children to notify police immediately

In light of the recent Penn State scandal, featuring child-sex-predator, Jerry Sandusky; a new dialogue and debate has be introduced to the public about obvious changes that need to take place in our criminal justice system, particularly in regard to reporting child sex crimes. Many are now speaking out, calling for Pennsylvania to toughen their law on reporting these crimes. In more than 40 U.S. states, the law requires these reports be made to police or child-protection authorities swiftly and directly, with no option for delegating the task to others and then not following through. Many are asking to make it a Pennsylvania state law for witnesses of sex crimes against children to notify police themselves rather than pass their information on to superiors at work; this includes school and hospital employees.

Yet, the real dilemma of child-sex crime reporting over the years lies within the laws of the Catholic Church, and many states have recently revised their mandatory reporting laws to include clergy as mandatory reporters. There are currently 26 states that include members of the clergy, among other professionals, who are specifically mandated by law to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect; eighteen of those states, however, only appear to include clergy in their “all inclusive” language, but may be interpreted otherwise (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2010). Not only is it troubling that all states do not make it a requirement for anyone to report such heinous acts, clergy included, but the states that do “mandate” such reporting need to be more clear in their words.

As a doctrine of most faiths, clergy must maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications. Yet, the ethical goal of protecting our children appears to clash with the pastoral ethic of confidentiality. Nonetheless, in the case of mandatory reporting of child abuse, this should not be seen as a challenge to the principle of pastoral confidentiality. Likewise, secrecy may also support, maintain, or even perpetuate the secret of child abuse. As Sissela Bok, prominent professor and Senior Visiting Fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, pointed out on the matter, “The premises supporting confidentiality are strong, but they cannot support practices of secrecy—whether by individuals clients, institutions, or professionals—that undermine and contradict the very respect for persons and for human bonds that confidentiality was meant to protect” (Bok, 1983).

All 50 states have passed some form of mandatory child abuse and neglect reporting, under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA – Jan. 1996 version), 42 U.S.C. 5101, and the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L.108-36). The controversial exclusion comes by many states leaving out clergy members from mandatory reporting. This fight goes all the way back to our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson was the first to raise the concept of separation between church and state in his letter to Danbury Baptists Association in 1802 (Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter, 1802). The phrase was adopted and quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878, and later in a series of cases starting in 1947 (Hall, 2000). This fight still goes on today and is the reason why some states do not have mandatory reporting for clergy.


The media is an essential component to growing public knowledge of child abuse and neglect; through ongoing news and feature reporting of specific cases, the media can instantly bring cases to public attention in mass—making a story water-cooler-talk almost instantaneously or through a constant barrage of stories and keeping child abuse and neglect on the political agenda. The death of eight-year-old, Sarah Payne, from the United Kingdom in 200, prompted the News of the World to start a campaign called “Named and Shamed” (Goddard & Saunders, 2001). The campaign vowed to name all 110,000 sex offenders in Britain in order for people to keep track of sex offenders living close by. In the case of Megan’s law, Megan Kanka’s parents received 430,000 signatures to change the existing Wetterling Act of 1994 (Fenton, 2000).

The great majority of those signatures came from those who had heard about the story through constant media attention. In this way, the media can affect change in these states by calling people to write letters to their congressman or go online and sign a specific document prepared beforehand that calls for change of law. Another great way for the media to intercede is for them to do several investigative—Geraldo-type—pieces in which they name several congressman and parishes who are against this mandate and expose them, even rushing them as they go to their offices and asking them pointed-questions. This would put public pressure on these individuals to come up with a solution.

Even though California has mandatory reporting, they still have a huge problem when it comes to clergy child abuse. In California more than 850 civil cases are pending against Roman Catholic dioceses filed by plaintiffs who allege they were abused by priests and other church officials; with some cases dating back more than 70 years (AP, 2004). The first child abuse reporting law in the state of California was enacted in 1963, and only required physicians to report physical abuse (California Department of Social Services, 2003). Over the years there have been several amendments, which expanded the definition of child abuse and the persons required to report it (California Department of Social Services, 2003). Today, Clergy members are among the professionals required to report child abuse. According to current California law—Article 2.5., of California’s Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (2009) 11165.7(a)(32)—“clergy member” means “a priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization” (Article 2.5., 2009).

However, under section 11166(d)(1) the law exempts clergy members from reporting known or suspected child abuse when the knowledge is acquired during “penitential communication,” which is defined as “a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of his or her church, denomination, or organization is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenet, customs, or practices of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has duty to keep those communications secret” (Article 2.5., 2009). The main organization in California helping in the fight against child abuse is the Child Abuse Prevention Center, which provides training and resources, and an administrative facility that is home to numerous non-profit agencies all working collaboratively to prevent child abuse.

Back in 2004, the Diocese of Orange in Southern California was ordered to pay 87 victims—who were molested by 43 Catholic priests, nuns, teachers, even a choir director—$100 million, the largest payout so far in the Catholic Church's abuse scandal (Griffin, 2004). I agree with the decision to give the victims money, but I think that the Diocese of Orange in Southern California should have been ordered to close-down immediately. This church clearly has a culture of this type of abuse, and was not just seen in isolated cases. As Ray Boucher, lead attorney for the victims, stated, “No amount of money will replace their lost childhood and teenage years” (Griffin, 2004). The media was involved in the case, such as CNN and others, but they applied no pressure—i.e. they didn’t call on the public to protest the decision to keep the church open. The media simply stuck to straight reporting of the statistics, identifying other diocese who shared this problem.

Amityville Realtor Speaks Out on “Horror House” Experience

After exiting the infamous Horror house in Amityville in May 2010, realtor James Smith gave a brief interview to a Channel 4 News reporter who was standing outside the house. In his brief statement, James Smith re-opened a 30-plus year can of worms, claiming that he “got an eerie feeling” while in the home. “It felt like something was there,” James said, referring to the evil, unseen resident that has allegedly roamed these grounds for many years. In haste, James told Channel 4, “We took off and got out of there.”

For more than a year James Smith has remained silent about the matter. Although he has been contacted by a plethora of news organizations asking him to relay his story; he did not want the publicity. But now he believes that he has a story of importance to tell the world; one that he can no longer keep to himself. Several weeks ago Mr. Smith contacted me and agreed to provide an exclusive taped interview in which he revealed his entire experience in the house that day.

James Smith and his family moved from Manhattan to Amityville in 1978, just down the street from the infamous horror house on Ocean Avenue. James recalls immediately hearing about Ronald DeFeo Jr., killing his entire family in the house and about the family that moved in after the DeFeo’s (the Lutz family) having fled from the home after only 28 days, fearing that it was haunted. One night—in a display of anger—young James and his friends decided to go and throw rocks at the house. He also remembers the circus-type atmosphere that followed rumors that the house was haunted.

James became a real-estate agent in 2003, doing a lot of work in the Amityville area. As a licensed agent, James had the opportunity of not only hearing about listings before the general public got wind of them, but he was also able to view any house that was on the market. On 25 May 2010, James got the news that the Amityville horror house (108 Ocean Ave.) was holding a broker open house.


The broker open house was being facilitated by Laura Zambratto of Daniel Gale Sotheby’s International Realty—the firm listing the property. James arrived with his female co-worker (who asked to remain anonymous – we will call her Jane for the purposes of this article). As they entered the home and climbed the stairs to the second floor, Jane said to James, “Something feels weird, doesn’t it?” James looked at her and said, “Yeah, it does.” However, he was placating Jane at that time; he didn’t feel anything. He simply wrote her comments off as angst, on her part, over being in the horror house. They continued previewing the house along with two other agents from another realty company and Laura Zambratto.

Their final previewing destination was the basement area. When they reached the cellar area, where the oil burner is, Jane again got spooked, this time even worse then before. “Did you feel that?” she asked James. “OMG,” James relied, “yeah, I did!” James felt the temperature in the room drop suddenly. He looked up and saw a hole in the wall and felt a very eerie feeling that he still has a hard time describing: he says that this hole was emanating freezing cold air.

James Smith: There was a hole there. It was about 15’ by 15’ and, hey, Will, I can’t even describe it, but it was such an eerie, eerie feeling. Cold air was coming out of this hole…it was very cold, very, very cold. Now we are in the summer, it was the summer; it’s probably 90 degrees outside, and the air that was coming out of that hole was like someone opened their freezer door.

In describing the hole a bit further, James said that there was a concrete wall with a square hole in it, as if someone had purposely took out these brinks. He said that he could see inside the hole only about 12 inches, and he noticed dirt, but it was pitch black otherwise. As he descried the air coming out of the hole, he made it a point to inform me that it wasn’t just rushing out of the hole; it was more like someone had just opened up the freezer door of a really big freezer. He said that he immediately got goose bumps and everyone in the basement was experiencing something similar, from his point of view.

James Smith: The room just felt like…I’m trying to describe it exactly. You know that feeling when you are sleeping and you can tell someone is looking over you, someone is standing there before you even see them, and then you open your eyes and you see someone standing there? That’s what it felt like. So, we all looked at each other and we took off!

James then says that the entire group decided to leave the house at that time, in a hurry. As they exited the house, a reporter from Channel 4 News scurried over to James—apparently she could see by the way they exited the home that something out of the ordinary was occurring. “What happened, what’s going on?” she asked him. Jane was clearly shaken up, and she hurried to the car to gather herself. She didn’t move for a few minutes; she just sat in her truck. According to James, the other two agents, who he had never met before that day, said aloud, as they exited the house, “I am not going back in that house!” And they got in their cars and sped off. He says that they were visibly shaken as well, but did not speak to the media. James then proceeded to give the reporter a brief interview.

James Smith: I am the biggest skeptic that there is, and if I was by myself, I would have just thought that maybe I have too much of the Amityville Horror movies in my head. But because I was with other people and we all were having the same feelings, it legitimized the experience.

James further described the basement experience as feeling as though he was at a high altitude, such as up on a mountain. He said that he didn’t get shortness of breath or anything, it just felt like he was high up, as if his ears were going to pop. He also explained that it was not like they just walked into the basement and it was cold. It wasn’t until they were down there for a few minutes that they all noticed the drastic temperature change, “as if the ambient temperature just dropped suddenly.”

Laura Zambratto also spoke to Channel 4 News, but she gave a different account. “The house is so spectacular—the warmest, most beautifully done, charming house I’ve been in,” Zambratto says. “There’s not one thing about the house that makes you feel uncomfortable.” She also denied any haunting activity. To this James replied, “Of course she is going to downplay or deny anything that happened; she is trying to sell the house, and there was a lot of money at stake for her in the deal.” James swore to me that he is telling the truth about his experience in the house and he sounded very convincing.


Will Savive: So you think that the owner of the house at the time, Brian Wilson; he had to know that there was some occult activity occurring there?


James Smith: [chuckle] Hey, listen, let me tell you something: it’s one of those things where, you know how, for example, like a crime will happen in a neighborhood and the police don’t know anything about who did it, but everyone in the neighborhood knows who did it? [lol] You know what I mean?

Will Savive: [lol] Right

James Smith: Let me tell you: just living in that area for so many years, everyone was just very hush, hush that whole incident, because nobody wanted the frenzy. I can tell you back in the 80s, it was just horrendous in that area! The media attention, I mean, there were people coming like trying to pick the shingles off of the house, and camping out. It was to the point where they had the streets blocked off, and if you didn’t have ID [identification] you couldn’t even go down the block.

Will Savive: Wow!

James Smith: It was so crazy that people didn’t want to give a statement. And I know what they mean, Will, because I did that one interview for that woman, and I tell you, I probably…I don’t know how people got my cell phone [number], but my cell phone, I had about, at least 16 different news organizations contact me. And my office phone would ring non stop. I mean people from newspapers in other countries were calling me. Of course, all the local news papers were calling me: Newsday, Daily News, the New York Post, they were all calling me to get this story, and I’m like ‘Are you kidding me?’ People were showing up at my office looking for an interview.


In August of 2010, Cars lined Ocean Avenue and surrounding blocks and hundreds of people lined up outside 108 Ocean Avenue, as the owner of the home at the time, Brian Wilson, held a moving sale. Caution tape and bodyguards helped to keep the sale under control, and it was announced that only 20 people at a time could enter the home. No one reported any strange activity on that day; however, the basement and the upstairs rooms of the house were not open for viewing. After originally going on the market with an asking price of $1.15 million, the home was sold to David and Caroline D’Antonio for $950,000 in September 2010.

Mentally Ill in Amityville 2nd Ed (Kindle Book Available Now - $5.99)

MIA (2nd Ed)