The Snowflake and the Witness

One distinct memory from my childhood is from the days leading up to Christmas. It was snowing outside, the flurries rushing this way and that, riding the wind.

It was cold out there, but I was inside and warm. I had my nose pressed up against the window. 

Someone had told me that every snowflake was unique — all million billion trillion of them.

As I was thinking about that, wondering how it could possibly be true, or even how anyone could be sure about it, one tiny snowflake crashed into the other side of the window, and melted away right before my eyes.

As I watched its watery trail side away, I thought that if that snowflake was truly one of a kind, I had just witnessed its last moment.

But it turned out the snowflake wasn’t really gone. When I looked a little while later, it had joined together with the other snowflakes hitting my window to form an icicle.

HEADLINES:

• Trump Takes America’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ to a New Level (NYT)

• Zelensky moves towards demilitarised zones in latest peace plan for Ukraine (BBC)

• New Epstein files mention Trump (NPR)

• Trump’s Vanity Fleet (Atlantic)

• Controversial pulled CBS segment featured work from Berkeley research students (SFGate)

• Supreme Court Refuses to Allow National Guard Deployment in Chicago (NYT)

• ACA subsidies are expiring. Here’s who the lapse will hit hardest (CNBC)

• Why restricting graduate loans will bankrupt America’s talent supply chain (Fortune)

• Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026 (NYT)

• America’s hidden economic crisis (Business Insider)

• Attys Say ICE Won’t Let Them Talk To Detained US Citizen (Law360)

• Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported, can spend Christmas with family (AP)

• Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026 (NYT)

• TPUSA Turns Charlie Kirk’s Death Tent Into Selfie Station at AmericaFest (Daily Kos)

• J. D. Vance Cozies Up to Anti-Semitism (Atlantic)

• The Trump administration has a new target as part of its broader attack on government policies aimed at boosting underrepresented groups in the country’s workforce — blind workers. [HuffPost] 

• Poll: Major allies see US as unreliable and destabilizing (Politico)

• FCC blacklists foreign-made drones over security, spying concerns (The Hill)

• Oil Futures Slip With Venezuela, Russia-Ukraine in Focus (WSJ)

• US strikes another alleged drug-smuggling boat in eastern Pacific (AP)

• The U.S. economy grew robustly as Americans continued to spend (NPR)

• She thought a predator was grooming her daughter. It was an AI chatbot. (WP)

• Trump, 79, Rants Incoherently About Robots and AI (Daily Beast)

• America’s risky bet on hydrocarbons might hurt it in the AI race (Financial Times)

• A godfather of AI shares the career advice he’d give to his 4-year-old grandson as AI displaces jobs (Business Insider)

• Why the A.I. Rally (and the Bubble Talk) Could Continue Next Year (NYT)

• Report Finds More Americans Using GoFundMe For Basic Necessities (Onion)

 

Letter to Young Journalists

“I live my life in widening circles that reach out across the world.” —Rainer Maria Rilke

In the 1960s, like many of other young men, I was terrified at the prospect of being drafted and sent to Vietnam to fight in a war I didn’t believe in. And that prospect also made me very angry.

When I was a freshman in college, a small but insistent minority of students protested against the war and organized to convince more of us to join their ranks. At the same time, other students were joining in civil rights marches led by Martin Luther King and wanted to do something about racism in our society.

Our the four years I was in school, the ranks of students willing to join the antiwar and civil rights demonstrations grew considerably until it felt like we were in the majority, though mathematically that was never the case. We were, however, in the words of the writer Jack Newfield, “A Prophetic Minority.”

Other movements emerged, led by feminist, LBGTQ and environmental activists. Since we were young, we underestimated how difficult it would be to achieve the fundamental changes we sought. We met plenty of resistance, which made some of us angrier and more determined to fight for change.

During those years, I read everything I could find about all of these issues and participated in protests for a while, though as I was finding my way as a journalist, increasingly I began covering the demonstrations rather than take part in them.

Our generation didn’t necessarily see a conflict between activism and journalism at first, although as we grew older and more experienced our attitudes evolved. By twenty years after my graduation, many media executives were actively prohibiting student journalists and young reporters from even attending demonstrations —to avoid any appearance of bias or conflict on contentious issues.

Those with my type of history were not happy about this but we gradually adapted and recommended that our interns and students and new hires make a difficult ethical choice. We told them if they wanted to be successful journalists they had to guard their credibility by not participating in demonstrations. Otherwise they would be seen as partisans, which might end up hurting their careers.

Fast forward to today. We have a President who tries to intimidate and silence journalists at every turn. Major media institutions like CBS appear to be caving in to his threats to take away their broadcast licenses and worse. Therefore, this would not appear to be an ideal time for young people to be entering the field.

But I disagree. This is a good moment to become a journalist. Our society needs you — urgently. So what is to be done about remaining impartial under these circumstances?

There is no reason to be open-minded or neutral about something as critical as witnessing our democracy slip into an autocracy. This beyond any challenge to journalistic ethics my generation ever faced. If it comes to that, you’ll have to know where you stand. It will be critical to build close connections with other journalists, young and old, as we all work our way through the difficult period ahead.

But our role as journalists is clear.

To tell the truth no matter who tries to silence us.

HEADLINES:

• The Economy Avoided a Recession in 2025, but Many Americans Are Reeling (NYT)

• Trump halts wind projects, including Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CNBC)

• CBS editor-in-chief Bari Weiss pulls 60 Minutes piece on Trump deportation policy hours before air (PBS)

• ICE agents in Twin Cities open fire after being hit by SUV (CNN)

• Trump’s Tariffs and the Secondary Global Damage (Asia Sentinel)

• Russian general killed by bomb under his car in Moscow (AP)

• Trump Appointment of Greenland Envoy Draws Angry Response From Denmark (WSJ)

• Denmark ‘deeply upset’ by Trump’s appointment of Greenland envoy who wants island to be part of US (CNN)

• Trump’s Venezuelan-Tanker Gamble (Atlantic)

• Japan took the final step to allow the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world’s largest, to resume operations with a regional vote, a watershed moment in the country’s return to nuclear energy nearly 15 years after the Fukushima disaster. (Reuters)

• ‘I want that escape route’: once a sign of disloyalty, Americans seek dual citizenships under Trump (Guardian)

• Vance refuses to set red lines over bigotry as conservatives feud at Turning Point (AP)

• Heritage staffers walk out amid latest strife at MAGA institution (WP)

• How Kash Patel Ordered Himself a New Fleet of BMWs With FBI Money (TNR)

• Proposal to declassify nursing as ‘professional’ threatens ability to secure student loans (PBS)

• How Willie Nelson Sees America (New Yorker)

• AI Is Testing What Society Wants From Music (Atlantic)

• The Race to Build the World’s Best Friend (NYT)

• U.S. Battles China In AI Race But American Firms Quietly Embrace Cheap, Powerful Chinese Open-Source Models (EurAsian Times)

• Aldi CEO Chased Off From Whole Foods Dumpsters (Onion)

Cold Case (Part 10)

One piece of evidence that lay unexamined in the Betty Van Patter case for decades was Betty’s note to herself on or about November 1st, 1974. It read: “[415] 644-6743 Police.” 

When I asked Tamara about it, she said the way her mother had circled and made a mark next to the notation was typical of how she doodled when listening to someone on the phone.

So we concluded that she must have made or received a call from that particular number on that occasion.

Tamara then located on the Internet a copy of an old police directory and was able to connect that number to a Berkeley Police Department Officer named Dave Frederick. Tamara then pulled out her own notes from December 19th, 1974, when she first contacted the Berkeley Police, and sure enough, Frederick’s name and extension showed up on that list as well.

In fact, Frederick had signed all the early “supplemental reports” during the extensive police hunt for Betty when she was missing. His notes indicated that the department had had only one contact with Betty in the past, during an arrest of a former boyfriend, when she was charged with disturbing the peace. But he did not mention the phone call from a few weeks before she went missing.

One of Tamara’s brothers, Greg Baltar, searched and found that Frederick had retired after 29 years at the BPD in 2002 and had died in 2004, at the age of 54. 

It was also clear from the files in 1974 that the Berkeley Police were in touch with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, which was looking into the Panthers’ financial irregularities. (Back in 1969, the IRS had begun targeting the Panthers for intelligence purposes and for uncovering evidence of violations of any tax regulations.)

On December 26, 1974, two weeks after Betty had gone missing, an entry in the police file noted that at least two agents from the IRS were investigating the relevant financial issues — a “Ronald C. Williams S/A (IRS) 273-7255 ‘has the case on the Lamp Post.’ And on March 3rd, 1975: “Fred Walter, IRS, said he was investigating the Lamp Post’s books and Jimmie Ward told him the 4th quarter payroll records were missing because they were in the possession of Betty Van Patter.” (The police noted this could not be true because Betty had disappeared before the fourth quarter books would have been closed.) 

So that brings us back to Betty’s mysterious notation. Is it possible that Dave Frederick had called Betty to see whether she knew anything about the Panthers’ financial irregularities and/or whether she might be willing to cooperate with the IRS in its investigation? 

Or could she have called him? Everyone who knew Betty says she would never have cooperated with any law enforcement agency against the Panthers so it seems unlikely that she called him. But it seems credible that the police would have called her, hoping to get help in probing the Panther finances. That would explain the note.

We know from multiple sources that Betty was increasingly upset in the weeks leading up to her disappearance and that she was trying to find someone she could talk over her “situation” with. We know she tried to find Tom Silk and that she did talk with Fred Hiestand, who were at the time two of the party’s attorneys. 

We also know that Hiestand told Elaine Brown just two days before Betty disappeared of her concerns about what she’d seen at the Lamp Post, with money taken out of the till and not accounted for.

Then there is the matter of Brown allegedly firing Betty. That Brown lied to the police about the date – claiming it was a week earlier – is obvious – but did she possibly also lie about firing her in the first place? According to Brown herself, Betty had left her a phone message threatening to quit.

It seems more than plausible that while she was sitting at the Berkeley Square on the night of December 13th, Betty thought she could still salvage her job and was waiting to meet someone connected with the Panthers in that effort. It could well have been Brown, or perhaps Jimmie Ward, the owner of the Lamp Post, whom she hoped to meet up with.

The identity of the man who came to the bar and spoke with her has never been established, although the police ran down several leads about who he might have been. Whoever he was, and whatever message he imparted, we know that Betty got up and left with him. Her next known location, from all the known evidence, was the Lamp Post, but that’s where the trail grows cold.

Tamara Baltar and I met with Alameda County D.A. Tom Orloff on October 22, 1991 to discuss his view of what happened. Orloff said he believed that Betty had gone from the Berkeley Square to the Lamp Post, where she was killed either as “a spontaneous event or it was planned from there.”

But Orloff said he did not have enough evidence to bring charges.

While considering the various scenarios, it occurred to me to be an odd circumstance that the Panthers had changed the lock on the door to the office where Betty had been working in the days after she went missing. Why would they do this if they already had her (and her keys) in their custody? It is noted in the police file that the Panthers knew that Betty had her office keys with her when she disappeared.

Yet the locks were changed anyway. 

So what if “they” (the Panthers) were not acting in concert? Consider another scenario, one that would explain this and some of the other inconsistencies. 

What if, as of the 17th, when Horowitz first contacted her, Elaine Brown did not yet know what had happened to Betty? Elaine Brown is very smart, smart enough to avoid incriminating herself on a phone call that might be (and in fact was) being taped. So her bitter comments about Betty, from one perspective so self-incriminating, might actually have indicated that she was out of the loop in this matter.

At the Lamp Post on the 13th, Betty would have been under the province of Jimmie Ward, a man well-known and feared by those who knew him. Especially women. There is evidence that among Ward’s businesses was a prostitution ring, no doubt generating much of the cash that to Betty’s dismay kept mysteriously finding its way into and out of the bar’s cash register.

Ward had plenty to hide, and Betty represented a potential loose cannon, given her expressed concerns about what she’d witnessed at the bar. What if he, and not Brown, had been the one to summon her that Friday night, possibly without Brown even being aware?

If that is what occurred, then it makes more sense that Brown would have had the locks to Betty’s office changed the following week. 

As she elaborated in her book, Brown believed that Betty knew too much and that she was raising her concerns with Hiestand and others. If she now was missing, she had with her the keys to the office where the party’s sensitive information was kept.

As for the forensic and anecdotal (via David Horowitz’s sources) evidence that Betty was held, and possibly tortured for as long as two weeks before being killed, this would rule out any personal motive and further tie the Panthers to her death. Only the Panthers had a known motive for holding and torturing her. A crime of passion (by her ex-boyfriend Ken Baptiste or someone like him) would have been spontaneous and would not have been carried out over an extended period..

As to who was calling the shots about her fate, Horowitz and reporters Ken Kelley and Kate Coleman, among others, came to the conclusion that it was Huey Newton from his base in Havana.

The chain of command could have been Newton to Ward, every bit as easily as it could have been Brown to a member of the ‘Squad,’ as the Panther security members like Flores Forbes were often referred to. That was what was suggested by the private investigator David Fechheimer to his mentor, Hal Lipset, and later to the family. In her book, Brown describes taking a phone call from Newton at the Lamp Post, just like the calls -- as she admitted to Coleman -- she received from him frequently at her home number.

Other sources have corroborated that Newton called the Lamp Post whenever he wanted to issue orders for “bad things” to be done. Ward was his cousin, the party funded the bar, Newton had killed one of Ward’s brothers in a dispute, and everyone feared the wrath of Huey P. Newton. Including Jimmie Ward, Flores Forbes and Elaine Brown.

But to this day, these various scenarios are just that — scenarios. The case has never been solved, and unless someone who knows the truth comes forward, it will remain a cold case mystery.

On the other hand, the statute of limitations never runs out on murder.

HEADLINES:

• How Trump and DOGE broke the U.S. government (WP)

• US moves to intercept third vessel near Venezuela (CNN)

• Blanche Says Mentions of Trump in Epstein Files Won’t Be Removed (NYT)

• Telemedicine abortion is winning — and that terrifies the right (The Hill)

• Blackout in San Francisco Litters Streets with Traffic-Blocking, Deactivated Waymos (Gizmodo)

• White House threatens Smithsonian funds in sweeping content review (WP)

• How the Supreme Court’s Mail-In Ballot Ruling Could Affect Voters (NYT)

• The Truth Physics Can No Longer Ignore (Atlantic)

• Too Early, Too Alone: France Prepares for Russia as US Withdraws (Politico Mag)

• US tech enabled China’s surveillance empire. Now Tibetan refugees in Nepal are paying the price (AP)

• How China Became a Superpower and What Comes Next for Its Economy (ForexFactory)

• Banned in 70 countries, pesticide remains legal in U.S. despite Parkinson’s concerns (MLive)

• Betty Reid Soskin, oldest National Park Service ranger, dies at 104 (NBC)

• China’s open AI models are in a dead heat with the West - here’s what happens next (ZDNet)

• Shadi Holiday Display lives on thanks to volunteers in El Cerrito (CCSpin)

• Study Finds Most Americans Can’t Find Where They Are Being Deported On Map (Onion)

 

Cold Case (Part 9)

Fourteen years after Elaine Brown’s book came Flores Forbes’ revealing memoir, “Will You Die With Me?” in 2006. While in prison serving time for second-degree murder for the Richmond incident, Forbes had started his college education, which eventually led him into urban planning and a job with the city of New York, as well as an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law position at Colombia University.

Though he has done well in New York, Flores Forbes has not always been able to contain himself as he attempted to deal with his feelings about some of his past actions. Sometime around the 25th anniversary of Betty’s disappearance, in 1999, a New York-based freelance writer, Scott Sherman, overheard Forbes bragging at a party about his past life as a Panther gunman.

That fed into Sherman’s work on an article for The Nation in 2000 about the Panthers’ role in David Horowitz’s conversion from a reliable friend of the left into an outspoken enemy.

In “Will You Die With Me?” Forbes provided an elaborate description of how he staged and executed the botched Richmond incident. That is the only criminal action he admitted to, although he stated there were others. In the book he indicated that he had come to genuinely regret the things he did as a security officer in the Black Panther Party.

“Shit, if there was a witness who had the courage to testify against us, we would bribe them. Or, as we’d tried to do in Richmond, take stern steps to ensure they didn’t show or testify.”

“There was still the shadow that my past casts over my life.”

“Upon close reflection, I realized that the passing of Huey P. Newton…meant that one less person was alive who actually knew what my past deeds were, and with each passing, that number would get smaller.”

These sound like the words of a man hoping to avoid paying any further price for his crimes beyond the time he had already served in California prisons.

Could the murder of Betty Van Patter have been one of those deeds? After all, he was the party’s head of security at that time, and therefore in charge of doing any dirty work required. Furthermore, legal investigator David Fechheimer told his mentor, Hal Lipset, that Forbes was responsible for Betty’s death.

As he toured the country promoting his book, Forbes visited Oakland, where he was politely received at a reading in a bookstore at Jack London Square.

During the question and answer period after his talk, Betty’s daughter, Tamara Baltar, raised her hand:

“Mr. Forbes, “You talked about the Lamp Post extensively in your book. My mother, Betty Van Patter, was the Panther bookkeeper who was last seen at the Lamp Post on December 13th, 1974, and then found murdered. Given your position in the Party, would you please comment on this?”

Forbes, clearly taken aback, could only mumble a denial/non-denial answer:

“I did not know who Betty Van Patter was.”

After the reading, as he was walking with his family nearby and saw Tamara approaching from another direction, Forbes steered his party aside to avoid encountering her a second time.

***

Over the half-century since Betty Van Patter was killed, her murder has been mentioned in news articles and books, as well as in academic writings that mainly focus on the historical significance of the Black Panther Party.

Driving much of the coverage during all those years has been David Horowitz, who used Betty’s case to argue that the Panthers were not a source of progressive change at all but essentially a gang of thugs. As more and more evidence has surfaced about the street brutality promoted by Huey Newton, Horowitz’s perspective gained a measure of credibility.

Even Elaine Brown, in her memoir, acknowledged the dark side of the Panthers: “Huey and his entourage of restless gunmen were prowling the after-hours clubs with no purpose other than to intimidate.”

Of course, Brown and others (particularly academics) who continue to defend the party’s legacy, argue that they were “armed revolutionaries” fighting repressive institutions, including police agencies that were targeting black people all over the country.

To a great extent, the Betty Van Patter case has been politicized by all sides, and rarely assessed simply as an unsolved murder, which is finally what the family asked me to do. It’s impossible to shed all personal bias, of course, but I’ve spent every bit as much energy looking for evidence of a counter-theory as for corroboration that the Panthers were at fault.

The family has pretty much given up hope there will ever be charges or a trial in the case, particularly since, as Forbes noted in his book, fewer and fewer people are still alive who know the actual details of this or any of the Panther-related crimes.

That the Panthers killed Betty is the only scenario that fits the known facts, but without definitive proof, it remains possible that someone else could have been involved.

An obvious suspect would have been an ex-boyfriend, like Ken Baptiste, the married man who was still emotionally entwined with Betty when she disappeared. The anguished entries to her private journal indicate that he was the source of some of what seemed to be troubling her in her final days. But he also appears to have cooperated with the police extensively, and to have made serious efforts to locate her when she was missing.

The police appear to have never really considered any theory other than that the Panthers were at fault. But they could not build a plausible case based on solid evidence – -everything was circumstantial. Elaine Brown’s statements over the years have done little to exonerate her and the Panthers from suspicion, however.

If anything, Brown has dug herself into a rhetorical hole around the case by strongly suggesting a motive – that Betty raised suspicions by asking too many questions at a time when the IRS was already actively probing the group’s finances.

In this context, it is not known whether Betty was even aware of law enforcement interest in the Panthers’ financial practices. The types of questions she was raising were simply the obvious ones any accountant or bookkeeper has to ask. Where was the money coming from and where was it going? Bookkeeping is all about keeping track – money in and money out.

Part of the confusion inside the organization may have been that Brown and others apparently knew very little about financial accounting themselves, so the straight-forward questions any scrupulous bookkeeper would have asked probably struck them as much more suspicious than they actually were.

Another factor here is the substantial and unrelenting pressure generated by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies on the Panthers. Could this have been a factor — directly or indirectly — in her murder?

(Part 10, which concludes the series, will appear tomorrow.)

HEADLINES:

• U.S. Coast Guard Boards Tanker Carrying Venezuelan Oil (NYT)

• In rare public comments, career DOJ officials offer chilling warnings about online network 764 (ABC)

• 9 killed, 10 wounded in South African pub shooting (NPR)

• Four people die in ICE custody (Reuters)

• Sister of Epstein victim reported him in 1996, but FBI failed to investigate, files reveal (Guardian)

• What’s inside the Epstein files released by the Justice Department (CNN)

• 3 police officers injured after being shot ‘at close range’ (USA Today)

• Hegseth reverses land mine policy to allow use of controversial weapon (WP)

• Jordan says air force took part in US-led strikes on ISIS in Syria that killed at least 5 (Times of Israel)

• What does Putin really want? (Reuters)

• Food becoming more calorific but less nutritious due to rising carbon dioxide (Guardian)

• Why Trump Deemed Basic Sanitation Illegal DEI (Reveal)

• Gen Z feels weird talking about alcohol (Business Insider)

• Section 230 fight is back (The Hill)

• Are these AI prompts damaging your thinking skills? (BBC)

• This Is What the World’s Smartest Minds Really Think About AI (WSJ)

• What If Readers Like A.I. Fiction? (New Yorker)

• Why Do A.I. Chatbots Use ‘I’? (NYT)

• Blue Drew Barrymore Could’ve Sworn She Saw James Cameron On Schedule (Onion)

 

Cold Case (Part 8)

By 1977, when Huey P. Newton returned from his exile in Cuba, the Black Panther Party was in tatters. Newton was frequently sighted drunk and/or high on cocaine and seemingly could turn violent in a flash, reacting to minor perceived insults. He had always bragged to his Panther security contingent that he was the baddest of the bad-asses on Oakland’s tough streets, even as he presented himself to others (including me) as a soft-spoken, charming intellectual.

My earlier experiences with him were memorable for conversations ranging from poetry to philosophy to politics and beyond. Newton was the party’s main theoretician, extremely well versed in Marxism, even though he claimed that he had been illiterate until his junior year in high school. 

I found that particular claim hard to believe, probably part of the myth he and others had constructed about his rise to fame. But up until to this point I had only experienced Huey’s charming and brilliant side when meeting him in person. Then came the occasion when I witnessed what the angry Newton could be like.

It was soon after the “Richmond incident.” On October 23, 1977, the Panthers head of security, Flores Forbes, led a contingent of Panthers in the dead of night to a house where they thought a woman lived who was scheduled to testify against Newton in the murder of a prostitute, Kathleen Smith.

In his 2006 memoir, “Will You Die With Me?” Forbes wrote: “I was not bothered by the fact I was on my way to assassinating someone.“ He continued, “In the final analysis, what I really believed was that Huey P. Newton was my ‘prince.’ I would kill or die for him at the drop of a hat.”

But in Richmond, Forbes and his team got the address wrong and as they were attempting to break into the house, they awoke a middle-aged woman who heard her screen door being ripped off its hinges and then a shot outside. Thinking whoever was out there was trying to shoot off her lock, she grabbed her .38 revolver and fired.

When a hail of return fire came slamming back through her door she ran to another room and hid. When police arrived, they found a pool of blood and a shotgun. Following that trail of blood they found a dead man, but the trail continued, indicating a second assailant had also been hit. 

The police also found more abandoned weapons and ammunition. It didn’t take them long to figure out that the intended victim was a prostitute who rented an apartment behind the middle-aged woman’s house and who had seen Huey Newton shoot her friend, Kathleen Smith.

The dead man was a Panther squad member, and team leader Flores Forbes was the other wounded man. He’d been shot in the hand and, with a third Panther, had fled to Las Vegas. Forbes was eventually convicted in the case and sent to prison. 

Not long after this bloody event, Paul Avery and I interviewed Newton in a house in the Oakland hills as he sipped a glass of cognac. Newton’s lawyer, Sheldon Otis, was also present.

Newton denied any involvement in the Richmond incident and tried to convince us that Forbes and the other assailants had been only loosely associated with the Panthers, which was patently absurd. He then claimed that they all had quit the party some weeks earlier. As he kept drinking during our interview, his speech was becoming somewhat slurred and erratic.

As part of the interview, I carefully repeated step-by-step the chain of events and the trail of evidence leading back to the Panthers for a second time. At this point Newton completely lost his temper. He jumped up and stalked out of the room.

His lawyer, Otis, murmured an apology and then followed him into an adjoining room. For an extended period of time, Avery and I could hear Newton shouting in the other room, “I’m gonna kill him! I’m gonna kill him!” 

Avery and I debated whether it might be wise to make our exit but we calculated that Otis would probably be able to calm Newton down. Eventually he did and Huey returned to finish the interview, still denying any knowledge of what the assassination squad had been up to that night in Richmond. He was subdued and no longer drinking the cognac, and he seemed emotionally flat and remote.

Many years later, when Forbes published his memoir, he took personal responsibility for the botched assassination attempt in Richmond, saying that he did it without Newton’s involvement or knowledge. That prompted me to wonder whether in fact Newton’s anger at my questions that day had been because he was indeed out of the loop on the assault after all.

***
In the early morning hours of August 22nd, 1989, a coked-out Huey Newton was shot and killed by a low-level crack dealer, Tyrone Robinson, on the streets of Oakland. By then, the Black Panther Party had long since ceased to exist. Virtually every leader, from Bobby Seale to Elaine Brown to David Hilliard had fled from Newton’s side during his reign of terror.

Journalist Ken Kelley, who at one point or another was friends with virtually everyone involved in this case -– Betty Van Patter, her daughter Tamara Baltar, David Horowitz, Huey Newton, Kate Coleman and also me -- published the first of two articles about his relationship with Newton, including having acted as his de facto PR man for a while in the late ‘70s.

The first piece appeared in the East Bay Express soon after Newton’s death. The second came sometime later in California magazine, where I was working as Northern California bureau chief. I edited that second article.

In both pieces, Kelley claimed that Newton confirmed that the Panthers had killed Betty Van Patter, and had told him: “They never should have found her body.”

Other memoirs from significant players would soon follow. First up in 1992 was Elaine Brown’s “A Taste of Power.” Brown opened her book by reprinting the speech she gave in August 1974, when she assumed control of the Black Panther Party in the wake of Newton’s escape to Cuba to avoid facing murder charges.

“I have control over all of the guns and all of the money of this party. There will be no external or internal opposition I will not resist and put down. I will deal resolutely with anyone or anything that stands in the way.”

Throughout the book, Brown recounted numerous violent acts she witnessed, including some that she ordered. “It is a sensuous thing to know that at one’s will an enemy can be struck down,” she writes at one point after describing how she threatened to blow a woman’s office “off the map.”

“We Black Panthers disregarded the law. We were, indeed, as newspaper headlines frequently suggested, outlaws.”

Brown said she “endorsed” the “kicked-in doors or shot-up facilities” of those business owners in Oakland who resisted the shakedown demands the Panthers made in order to get the funds needed to run the party’s programs.

When it came to Betty Van Patter’s case, Brown offered the following version of events. “The body of Betty Van Patter had just been found in San Francisco Bay. She had been reported missing for some time, during which, through Charles Garry’s office, I had to answer police questions about her disappearance. I had no idea where she was.”

Brown indicated that she also was concerned at the time of “intensified Internal Revenue Service surveillance of our bank accounts.”

“Betty (asked) Norma (Norma Armour, who also worked on the Panthers’ books), and every other Panther with whom she had contact, about the source of our cash, or the exact nature of this or that expenditure. Her job was to order and balance our books and records, not to investigate them. I ordered her to cease her interrogations. She continued. I knew I had made a mistake in hiring her.”

Brown stated, “There was no question that many of our money transactions could be ruled illegal.”

“Our accountants and tax lawyers could hold off the IRS,” Brown continued. “It was for the party to keep our affairs in order. Betty Van Patter was showing herself useless in that endeavor, her nose in our business more than our books.”

Then, in a curious entry, Brown wrote this: 

“Moreover, I had learned after hiring her that Betty’s arrest record was a prison record – on charges related to drug trafficking. Her prison record would weaken our position in any appearance we might have to make before a government body inquiring into our finances. Given her actions and her record, she was not, to say the least, an asset. I fired Betty without notice.”

This was an entirely false allegation – Betty had no such arrest record and was never involved in any drug trafficking activity. Her only arrest ever was a minor “disturbing the peace” citation many years earlier. 

So after receiving a letter from the Baltar family’s attorney to that effect, Brown’s publisher removed Brown’s statement that Betty had a prison record for drug trafficking from subsequent printings of the book.

Still, it was an odd and gratuitous decision by Brown to include the false charge in the first place.

Brown claimed in her book that, after Betty’s body was found, many white supporters of the Panthers started to fear for their own lives and told her they’d heard she was under investigation for involvement in Betty’s murder. “All I could do was say, over and over, that while it was true that I had come to dislike Betty Van Patter, I had fired her, not killed her.”

(Part 9 tomorrow)

HEADLINES:

• Justice Department releases files tied to Jeffrey Epstein case (CNN)

• U.S. strikes ISIS targets in Syria, after 2 soldiers and interpreter were killed last week (CBS)

• A US military command reshuffle as ISIS threats loom (The Hill)

• This Report Should Be Setting Off Alarm Bells in the Pentagon (Slate)\

• Conservatives clash at Turning Point USA conference over MAGA movement’s direction (AP)

• Tech moguls close to Trump see the midterms as a path to long-term power (WP)

• Health care rises sharply as a concern for Americans ahead of 2026, AP-NORC poll finds (AP)

• Suspect in Brown and M.I.T. Killings Is Described as Brilliant but Bullying (NYT)

• Tipster using Reddit was key in cracking Brown University shooting case, police say (CBS)

• She was caught with her boss at a Coldplay concert. Now, she’s ready to talk. (NYT)

• ByteDance's deal to hand control of TikTok’s US operations to investors (Reuters)

• Pakistan accuses India of ‘weaponizing water’ and threatening stability (AP)

• The rare sight of a mother polar bear adopting a cub was captured on camera (WP)

• The scientist who helped create AI says it’s only ‘a matter of time’ before every single job is wiped out—even safer trade jobs like plumbing (Fortune)

• Student Who’s Been In 3 School Shootings Starting To Think This Might Be About Him (Onion)

 

Cold Case (Part 7)

Four days after Betty Van Patter’s body was identified in January 1975, Berkeley Police Officer Dave Frederick contacted John Conomos of the U.S. Geological Survey in an attempt to understand the probable drift of the body in the bay.

Conomos told Frederick that the average net drift of anything caught up in the tidal action from the central bay region, which would include Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco, would be about a mile and a half to a mile and three-quarters a day south towards San Jose.

That Betty’s remains were found near Foster City was therefore consistent with her body having been dumped somewhere in the central bay region.

Within days of identifying Betty as a murder victim, the Berkeley Police held an interview with Elaine Brown and Joan Kelley of the Black Panther Party, as well as their lawyer, Charles Garry.

Kelley was the EOC official who supervised Betty’s work and issued her paychecks. She told police she generally saw Betty about once a week at the Panther school when she was dropping off or picking up papers related to her work.

For her part, Brown insisted to the detectives that she fired Betty a week before she disappeared, on December 6th. The police noted in their files that this was contradicted by all known evidence. Strangely, Brown then added that she ran into Betty unexpectedly at the Lamp Post and spoke “briefly” with her “one weekend evening” after December 6th.

The evidence indicated that Elaine fired Betty on the 13th, not the 6th. And it seems most likely, though not conclusive, that the night of December 13th was the time that Elaine would have seen Betty at the Lamp Post and spoken with her. It also is logical to think that Betty would have gone there to meet Elaine, courtesy of the note handed to her by the man at the Berkeley Square.

These details matter. We believe Betty was at the Lamp Post the night of the 13th. That is the last place she was seen. But we don’t know why she went there.

Before the police got an opportunity to ask Brown more questions that might have shed light on these matters, her attorney, Charles Garry, terminated the interview.

And that effectively concluded the most active part of the investigation into the murder case by the Berkeley Police. They did not have enough evidence to arrest anyone for the murder of Betty Van Patter. They suspected Elaine Brown knew more than she told them, but they couldn’t force her to talk. But it is reasonable to say that she at least could have been much more helpful in solving the case had she wanted to be.

Over the weeks and months to follow, police did track down and interview many of the people who had known Betty over the relevant time period. The consistent picture that emerged was that she had seemed excited to be working for the Panthers, admired Brown, but was concerned about some of the financial irregularities she witnessed, especially at the Lamp Post, and was trying to get things cleaned up to save the party from possible legal troubles.

The police did not seem to delve very deeply into any alternative scenario – such as her love life or a stranger killing. They did follow various leads that went nowhere, such as the identity of the man who talked to Betty and handed her a note at the Berkeley Square the night she disappeared. Despite numerous conversations with witnesses, rumors and leads, they were never able to identify this man.

As the months went by, new entries to the case file started tapering off, and eventually all activity on the case ceased completely. Thus it joined the many other cold cases that remain unresolved year after year, decade after decade, perhaps forever.

David Horowitz, meanwhile, publicly completed his odd personal transformation from a prominent leftist into an outspoken advocate of ludicrous right-wing ideas, and in interviews, said that Betty’s murder had been a major precipitating factor behind his political conversion.

Perhaps he had good intentions, but Horowitz’s protestations hardly helped solve the case. Rather, he only succeeded in politicizing the matter.

Then again, almost single-handedly for decades, Horowitz kept Betty’s case from fading completely from the limelight. He mentioned it in his speeches and articles. And significantly, in 1995, he published a long article by Kate Coleman in Heterodoxy, a journal of his non-profit Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

In that article, Coleman named who she believed ordered the murder and who did it. She also described attending a bookstore reading in Berkeley, when Elaine Brown was promoting her autobiography, “A Taste of Power.” During the question period, Coleman asked Brown whether she was in touch with Newton while he was in exile in Cuba, including the period when Betty was killed.

“Quite a bit, in fact,” Brown answered after an initial hesitation. “And I have the phone bills to prove it because he would call collect. It was costing me three and four thousand dollars a month!” Coleman surmised this was a highly relevant admission when it came to who within the Panther hierarchy might have ordered Betty to be killed.

Given her statement, Coleman knew that it had to be entertained that perhaps it was Huey Newton who had ordered Betty’s murder. But Newton couldn’t be questioned because he was dead, having been gunned down in 1989 by a young man trying to impress the Black Guerrilla Family, a narcotics prison gang, on the streets of Oakland.

(Part 8 tomorrow.)

HEADLINES:

• Suspect in Brown University Shooting Is Found Dead in New Hampshire (NYT)

• A Reddit postappears to have been key in the police's days-long search. An investigation of the motive behind both attacks is ongoing. Meanwhile, the Trump administration seized on the news that the suspect was a Portuguese national to intensify its effort to crack down on immigration. [HuffPost]

• Trump administration prepares sweeping crackdown on leftist networks (WP)

• Trump signs order to reclassify marijuana, ease research restrictions (Al Jazeera)

• Band-Aid Solutions (Atlantic)

• Europe Agrees to $105 Billion Funding Plan for Ukraine (NYT)

• Kennedy Center to be renamed Trump-Kennedy Center, White House says (BBC)

• This Is What Presidential Panic Looks Like (Atlantic)

• Trump’s Claim That Venezuela ‘Stole’ U.S. Oil Fields Touches Nationalist Nerve (NYT)

• How Stephen Miller’s hard-line Mexico strategy morphed into deadly boat strikes (WP)

• Noem says Coast Guard will remove divisive language on hate symbols from policy (The Hill)

• Trump administration moves to cut off transgender care for children (AP)

• California’s ‘Twilight Zone’ of Endless Fog Is Finally Clearing (NYT)

• Generative AI Is Revolutionising Virtual Try-On. Will Shoppers Use It? (Business of Fashion)

• Trump Announces New ‘Dodger Dividend’ For Anyone Who Avoided Military Service (Onion)

 

Cold Case (Part 6)

On December 20, 1974, one week after Betty went missing, the Berkeley Police Department issued the following APB:

MISSING PERSON. BETTY LOUISE VAN PATTER, AKA BETTY LOUISE BALTAR, WFA, 10-12-29, 5-3, 116, GRN, BRN, 2009-HASTE ST. APT-E, BERKELEY, CALIF. LAST SEEN WEARING DARK CLOTHING, POSSIBLY DARK COAT AND DARK GLASSES. HEAVY DRINKER. REPORTED MISSING ON 12-19-74.

The BPD also conducted an extensive search for Betty’s whereabouts. One of the investigating officers was named Dave Frederick. In his first report, dated December 20th, Frederick stated that he had checked all of the apartments in and around Betty’s building at 2009 Haste Street, “with negative results.” He also visited four nearby hotels, and found no trace of her.

Officer Frederick filed his second report the next day, December 21st. In it he described having conducted a further check of houses in Betty’s neighborhood, as well as calls to five taxi companies, Highland Hospital and Alcoholics Anonymous. He also interviewed two people who were associated with Betty professionally, and learned, apparently for the first time, of David Horowitz.

In his next report, Frederick described what he learned from interviewing Horowitz, which was that Elaine Brown claimed that she had fired Betty. But, Frederick added: “Horowitz stated to this officer that Elaine Brown and several other people were not telling him the complete story and that he is extremely upset over the matter.”

Later in the report, Frederick wrote: “He (Horowitz) states that she (Betty) is basically an honest person, but if she found some shady or underhanded dealings with regards to the Lamp Post or the EOC organization, she would probably have quit or requested to have a different job with the organization. He stated that probably the last thing she would do would be to expose the organization to any police agency.”

Finally, there is this: “I asked Horowitz point blank if Van Patter might have come to some harm within the organization. He stated he did not believe so and Elaine Brown was desperately trying to run for Oakland City Council. He states that the last thing she would need would be any sort of implication in the disappearance of a white female.”

Throughout the rest of December and January, the Berkeley police continued their extensive search for Betty Van Patter. Besides routine steps like dusting her car for fingerprints, putting stops on her bank accounts, and obtaining her telephone records, they continued to interview people, sometimes multiple times, about what they knew.

On January 3rd, they noted information from a confidential source (labeled CS-3) that Betty had “discovered irregularities in the form of ‘kick-back’ payments to Jimmie Ward…CS-3 stated that the victim had arranged to get an appointment to see Elaine Brown on 12-13-74 [the day of her disappearance] and that the issue to be discussed was the victim’s reluctance or refusal to misrepresent items on the Lamp Post account.”

Three weeks later, on the 20th, the BPD heard from Foster City Police that a Jane Doe whose body had been floating in the bay a few days earlier was Betty’s, based on positive identification from 34 points of comparison of “bite-wing” dental x-rays.

The missing person case now turned into a homicide investigation.

(Part 7 tomorrow.)

HEADLINES:

• GOP centrists help Dems defy Mike Johnson on ACA in stunning revolt (Axios)

• Citizen journalist documents ICE activity around the Twin Cities all from his phone (CBS)

• Federal agents arrest citizen observer watching ICE detain neighbors on her north Minneapolis block (MPR)

• China banned it, but still sells controversial weed killer in America (MLive)

• Senate Passes Defense Policy Bill, Clearing It for Trump (NYT)

• The Most Powerful Politics Influencers Barely Post About Politics (Wired)

• Americans Are Turning Hard Against Trumpism (The Bulwark)

• Outgoing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said Trump’s grip on the GOP may be loosening ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. “I think the dam is breaking,” she told CNN. [HuffPost]

• Susie Wiles Gets in Trouble for Saying What Everyone Knows (Atlantic)

• US economy flashes warning signs in new data, some analysts say (ABC)

• US military build-up in Caribbean has shadows of the past - but differences are stark (BBC)

• Venezuelan Navy Escorts Vessels After Trump’s Blockade Threat (NYT)

• Sen. Chris Murphy after boat strike briefing: There’s ‘no fentanyl’ and ‘no legal justification’ (The Hill)

• The plastic chemicals in our food (WP)

• New Yorkers Back Mamdani’s Push for Free Child Care, Poll Shows (NYT)

• Jack Smith tells lawmakers his team developed ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ against Trump (AP)

• Canada sees large drop in population amid international students crackdown (Guardian)

• Warner Bros favours Netflix offer over $108bn Paramount bid (BBC)

• What Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer told friends after the attack (WP)

• Rob and Michele Reiner’s son makes first court appearance after being charged with their murders (CNN)

• The real reason for the white-collar bloodbath (Business Insider)

• Worried about the AI spending boom? Here’s some historical context. (WP)

• Campbell’s Unveils New Line Of Self-Defense Soups (Onion)