Letters to a Young Journalist

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

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

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 others 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 only made us angrier and more determined to fight for change.

In 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 openly demonstrating. Otherwise they would be seen as partisans, which might end up limiting their career options.

Fast forward to today when the partisan divide is much deeper and more fractious than it was in the past. In addition, the incoming President has made it clear that he considers journalists who do not support him as “enemies of the people.” This would not appear to be an ideal time for young journalists to be entering the field.

So what is to be done under these circumstances?

Trying to remain open-minded, unbiased, even neutral about something as critical as witnessing our democracy slip into an autocracy is beyond any challenge to journalistic ethics my generation ever faced. If it comes to that, we’ll have to know where we stand before the point comes when there will be no place left to hide. It will be critical to build close connections with other journalists, young and old, as we work our way through the difficult period ahead.

But our role as journalists is clear.

To tell the truth no matter who might try to silence us.

HEADLINES:

• Azerbaijan Airlines says plane crashed after ‘external interference’ as questions mount over possible Russian involvement (CNN)

• Putin apologizes for 'tragic incident' but stops short of saying Azerbaijani plane was shot down (AP)

• South Korea Impeaches Acting President (WSJ)

• Israel Loosened Its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians (NYT)

• Window closing for Gaza hostage-ceasefire deal before Trump takes office (Axios)

• China’s Xi orders a stop to a spree of mass killings known as ‘revenge on society crimes’ (AP)

• Panama's president calls Trump's Chinese canal claim 'nonsense' (BBC)

• As Mystery Drones Fill Skies, Police and Businesses Want Authority to Take Them Down (WSJ)

• Dollar Eyes Best Year in Almost a Decade (Bloomberg)

• US homelessness up 18% as affordable housing remains out of reach for many people (AP)

• A MAGA ‘Civil War’ on X between Musk and the far right over H-1B visas (WP)

• MAGA civil war breaks out over American "mediocrity" culture (Axios)

• A race is on to save the Everglades and protect a key source of drinking water in Florida (AP)

• Beyond excessive force: How police abuse women, the poor, the homeless (WP)

• OpenAI defends for-profit shift as critical to sustain humanitarian mission (ArsTechnica)

• How A.I. Could Reshape the Economic Geography of America (NYT)

• Horrified Taylor Swift Realizes Football Happens Every Year (The Onion)

 

Holiday Times

I’m on a short break, but will return soon. I wish everyone a safe, healthy and peaceful holiday period.

***

If you would like to send the ten-part series, “Who Killed Betty Van Patter?” to a friend, just copy the ten links below and paste into an email or text message:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

Part Eight

Part Nine

Part Ten

***

Holiday Special Offer: If you’d like, you can give a gift subscription to someone who might appreciate it at a 25% discounted rate. You do not have to be a subscriber to give a subscription. 

Trouble Returns

One of those bits of common wisdom that bears repetition is that history repeats itself, for better and for worse. Trump’s choice for FBI director is a case in point. Kash Patel has vowed to go after his boss’s perceived enemies, including members of the press. Doesn’t this ring a bell?

Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI conducted its notorious Cointelpro operations against activists and others Hoover deemed enemies of the state. Colbert King, writing in the Washington Post, advises us: As you consider Kash Patel, remember J. Edgar Hoover’s Cointelpro.

“Under Cointelpro, the FBI:

• Sent anonymous fictitious materials to targeted groups, designed to “create dissension and cause disruption.”

• Leaked informant-based or investigative materials to friendly media sources for the purpose of exposing the nature, aims and membership of those groups.

• Deployed informants to disrupt such groups’ activities by sowing dissension and exploiting disputes.

• Informed employers, prospective employers, credit bureaus and creditors of targeted people’s “illegal, immoral, radical and Communist Party activities,” aiming to damage their financial or employment status.

• Told people that the FBI was “aware” of their activity, with the goal of developing them as informants.”

• Attempted to persuade religious and civic leaders to exert pressure on state and local governments, employers and landlords to the “detriment” of the targeted groups.

• Sent anonymous letters, including one to a political candidate alerting him that a targeted group’s members were active in his campaign and warning him not to be a “tool,” and another to a school board official, “purporting to be from a concerned parent,” pointing out that some candidates for the school board were members of a certain group.

• Furnished background on a candidate for public office, including arrests and questionable marital status, to news media contacts; furnished information concerning arrests of an individual to a court that had earlier given him a suspended sentence and furnished this same information to his employer, which later fired him.

• Made “an anonymous telephone call to a defense attorney, after a federal prosecution had resulted in a mistrial, advising him (apparently falsely) that one of the defendants and another well-known group individual were FBI informants.”

• Put out disinformation over “citizens band” radio, using the same frequency as demonstrators.

• Obtained tax returns of suspect group members, reproduced a group leader’s signature stamp and investigated a group leader’s love life.

This ugly history is why we should pay attention to Patel’s vow to “go after” people. It’s been done before and recovering from those violations of our civil rights took decades. Among the many troubling aspects of the incoming Trump administration, turning back this particular clock is near the top of the list.

**********************

Holiday Special Offer: This newsletter relies on paid subscribers to keep going. Please consider giving a gift subscription to someone who might appreciate it at a 25% discounted rate. That is roughly 14 cents per daily edition.

*************************

If you want to send the entire ten-part series, “Who Killed Betty Van Patter?” to a friend, just copy the ten links below and paste into an email or text message: 

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

Part Eight

Part Nine

Part Ten

***

HEADLINES:

• Trump threatens to take back Panama Canal over ‘ridiculous’ fees (Guardian)

• Trump suggests U.S. should take ownership of Greenland (Axios)

• What Trump’s decision to wade into spending fight tells us about the next 4 years (AP)

• He’s anti-democracy and pro-Trump: the obscure ‘dark enlightenment’ blogger influencing the next US administration (Guardian)

• ‘They were prison camps’: At least 3,100 Native American students died at U.S.-run boarding schools (WP)

• Deception and Betrayal: Inside the Final Days of the Assad Regime (NYT)

• The Enigma of Bob Dylan (NYT)

• Groundbreaking 21-Million Cell Study Revises Our Understanding of Aging (SciTechDaily)

• The Race to Translate Animal Sounds Into Human Language (Wired)

• AI predicts Earth's peak warming (Stanford)

• Data-Driven Predictions of Peak Warming Under Rapid Decarbonization (AGU)

• OpenAI trained o1 and o3 to ‘think’ about its safety policy (TechCrunch)

• New Trump Ad Shows Montage Of People He’ll Kill If Elected (The Onion)

Who Killed Betty Van Patter? (part 10)

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

When I spoke to Tamara about it, she noted the way her mother had circled and made a mark next to the notation. She pointed to other examples of this and said it was the way her mother doodled when listening to someone on the phone.

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

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

In fact, Frederick signed all the early “supplemental reports” during the extensive police hunt for Betty as a missing person. He noted that the department had 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, or any other recent contact with Betty. 

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 suddenly in 2004, at age 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 could 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? Those who knew Betty well maintain that she would never have cooperated with any law enforcement agency against the Panthers so it seems inconceivable that she called them. But it seems quite credible that the police would have called her, hoping to get help in probing the Panther finances. So does that explain her note?

We know from multiple sources that Betty was increasingly upset in the weeks leading up to her disappearance and that she was seeking 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 Fred 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 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.

Betty’s daughter, 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 in their custody? Also, 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 not have been carried out in such a fashion.

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. Evaluating all of the evidence, I agree with them.

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 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, dispensing orders for “bad things” to be done. Ward was his cousin, the party funded the bar, Newton 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 that way.

The statute of limitations never runs out on murder.

Afterward

When Betty Van Patter disappeared in 1974, her daughter, Tamara Baltar, was in her early 20s. They’d been very close — losing her mother created a giant hole in Tamara’s life. Even though Betty’s body was eventually recovered, identified and buried, in Tamara’s mind, her mother was still simply missing. There was no closure, no resolution. Just the ongoing anguish of not knowing what exactly had happened or why.

The families of murder victims often feel this way, and it is one of the terrible consequences of unsolved cold cases. And it is why, even after all of these years, if one of those who knows what happened to Betty would come forward, some good could still be done in this tragic matter.

As the decades have passed, Tamara has systematically collected and catalogued every document, report and mention of her mother’s case and organized them into a series of binders. She has generously shared that evidence with me, which has made this 10-part series possible. 

Included in those binders is the autopsy report on her mother’s body. Tamara had never wanted to look at it but a few years ago she finally summoned the courage to do so. What she encountered was a confusing jumble of pages, possibly out of order, filled with technical jargon and containing grainy photographs of what seemed like some sort of design element on the coroner’s forms, possibly Indian artwork — dark, twisted images, vaguely humanoid, from various angles and perspectives.

One image in particular caught her attention and as she stared at it, she very slowly realized that it was a human skull. As the realization washed over her as to what —and who —she was gazing at, she smiled and said softly, “There you are! I’ve finally found you.”

The End

______________________

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

Part Eight

Part Nine

**********************

Holiday Special Offer: This newsletter relies on paid subscribers to keep going. Please consider giving a gift subscription to someone who might appreciate it at a 25% discounted rate. That is roughly $5 per month. 

*************************

HEADLINES: 

• As you consider Kash Patel, remember J. Edgar Hoover’s Cointelpro (WP)

• The Father of Chinese Authoritarianism Has a Message for America (New Yorker)

• Musk Expresses Support for Far-Right Party in Germany’s Election (NYT)

• Despite missing deadline, Congress avoids government shutdown by passing spending bill without Trump’s debt ceiling raise (Fortune)

• Congress avoids a shutdown but leaves 'a big mess' for Trump and Republicans in 2025 (NBC)

• Trump’s claims of a mandate run into reality of narrow majorities (WP)

• US debt ceiling debate rages ahead of looming shutdown (BBC)

• The G.O.P.’s Elon Musk Problem (New Yorker)

• What we know about the suspect behind the German Christmas market attack (CNN)

• How Syria’s rebels overcame years of a bloody stalemate to topple Assad (WP)

• Rickey Henderson, Major League Baeball's all-time base stealer, dies at 65 (NBC)

• Older Americans have so much to give. We should use their talents. (WP)

• OpenAI’s GPT-5 reportedly falling short of expectations (TechCrunch)

• Humanoid Robots Being Mass Produced in China (Newsweek)

• OpenAI Unveils New A.I. That Can ‘Reason’ Through Math and Science Problems (NYT)

• Environmentalists Warn U.S. Running Out Of Small Wooded Areas Where Buddies Can Smoke Up (The Onion)

 

Who Killed Betty Van Patter? (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 onto urban planning and a job with the city of New York. Today he is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law 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 Fechheimerindicated to his mentor, Hal Lipset, that Forbes was the Panther 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 Black Panther Party.

Driving much of the coverage during all those years has been the tortured figure of 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 herself even was 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?

I’ll examine that angle at length tomorrow.

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

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

Part Eight

**********************

Gift Subscriptions: Holiday Special Offer: Please consider giving a subscription to someone who might appreciate it at a 25% discounted rate. That translates to roughly the cost of a cappuccino per month. Thank you. Those paid subscriptions help make this newsletter possible.

***********************

HEADLINES: 

• Elon Musk Suddenly Realizes He Has No Clue How to Govern (TNR)

• Elon Musk’s X Endgame (Atlantic)

• Government funding bill clears Congress and heads to President Biden, averting a shutdown (AP)

• What is the debt ceiling? Inside Trump's unprecedented demand to eliminate it. (NBC)

• With speakership on the line, Johnson is ever more reliant on Trump (WP)

• Drones spotted on America’s east coast highlight a bigger problem (Economist)

• The FAA temporary banned drone flights in parts of New Jersey. (WP)

• At least 2 dead, nearly 70 injured when car plows into German Christmas market: Officials (ABC)

• France’s military is being ousted from more African countries. Here’s why (AP)

• Russia struggles to tame inflation in ‘overheating’ war economy (Financial Times)

• China Unsheathes Its Doomsday Artillery (National Review)

• Why sea level rise is skyrocketing across the U.S. South (WP)

• AI Chatbots Can Be Jailbroken to Answer Any Question Using Very Simple Loopholes (Gizmodo)

• Is the Tech Industry Already on the Cusp of an A.I. Slowdown? (NYT)

• Ukraine's vast war data trove to train AI models (Reuters)

• OpenAI announces new o3 models (TechCrunch)

• Faded Outline Of Ex-Girlfriend’s Name Still Visible On Stocking (The Onion)

 

Who Killed Betty Van Patter? (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 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 Nine will appear tomorrow.)

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

**********************

Gift Subscriptions: Holiday Special Offer: Please consider giving a subscription to someone who might appreciate it at a 25% discounted rate. That translates to roughly the cost of a cappuccino per month. Thank you. Those paid subscriptions help make this newsletter possible.

***********************

HEADLINES:

• Mangione faces federal murder and stalking charges over UnitedHealthcare CEO killing (NPR)

• US government shutdown looms after House rejects Donald Trump-backed funding bill (Financial Times)

• Republicans scramble to avert shutdown after Trump scuttles spending deal (BBC)

• Musk’s dangerous, exaggerated conflation of social media and democracy (WP)

• Elon Musk Flexes His Political Strength as Government Shutdown Looms (NYT)

• Johnson’s speakership in doubt as possible government shutdown looms (WP)

• Trump calls for abolishing the debt ceiling (NBC)

• Immigration drives US population growth to highest rate in 23 years as residents pass 340 million (AP)

• Will The U.S. Ban TikTok? Here's The Latest—And What We Know (Forbes)

• US life expectancy rose last year to highest levels since pandemic (The Hill)

• Fani Willis disqualified from Trump election case by Georgia appellate court (WP)

• How the Assads used a civil war to turn Syria into a narco state (NPR)

• President Joe Biden's administration has set a new target under the Paris climate agreement to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 61%-66% below 2005 levels by 2035. Officials called the goal achievable by states even if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on vows to reverse federal policies. (Reuters)

• Majority of Americans oppose Trump’s proposals to test democracy’s limits (WP)

• UK arts and media reject plan to let AI firms use copyrighted material (Guardian)

• Google reveals AI ‘reasoning’ model that ‘explicitly shows its thoughts’ (Verge)

• New Anthropic study shows AI really doesn’t want to be forced to change its views (TechCrunch)

• Biden plan would encourage AI data centers on federal lands (WP)

• How OpenAI Hopes to Sever Its Nonprofit Roots (NYT)

• How AI Can Read Way Better than Humans Ever Will (Medium)

• Clarence Thomas Torn Over Case Where Both Sides Offer Compelling Scuba Trips (The Onion)

Who Killed Betty Van Patter? (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 Eight will appear tomorrow.)

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

**********************

NOTE: Holiday Special Offer: Give a gift subscription to this newsletter to a loved one at a 25% discounted rate!

***********************

HEADLINES:

• Elon Musk leads charge to kill spending bill meant to avert government shutdown (NBC)

• CNN commentator Scott Jennings received swift backlash after he went on a tirade about Caitlin Clark's recent comments about white privilege. But why are conservatives so angered by the WNBA star's remarks? Experts weigh in. [HuffPost]

• Fed cuts interest rates a third time, points to inflation as challenge for 2025 (WP)

• Disney’s Decision to Settle Trump Defamation Suit Prompts Backlash at ABC News (WSJ)

• This year’s school shootings in numbers: 31,000 children affected across 21 states (WP)

• Key takeaways from MLB report on pitcher injuries (MLB.com)

• In reversal, key House panel votes to release Matt Gaetz ethics report (CNN)

• Trump pushes for FBI probe of Republican Liz Cheney over Jan. 6 panel (Reuters)

• Supreme Court to hear challenge to banning TikTok in the United States (WP)

• Behind Germany’s Political Turmoil, a Stagnating Economy (NYT)

• China’s Slowdown Has Changed the Trade War (Foreign Affairs)

• Russia detained an Uzbek man who had confessed to planting and detonating a bomb which killed a top general, Igor Kirillov. In a video, the unnamed suspect is shown saying he had come to Moscow at the orders of Ukraine's intelligence services. (Reuters)

• Does Trump want Putin to get Ukraine’s $26 trillion in gas and minerals? (WP)

• A third of psychologists won't take insurance: survey (Axios)

• ‘He kept going until he couldn’t’: why do boomer men refuse to slow down? (Guardian)

• OpenAI brings ChatGPT to your landline (TechCrunch)

• X Rolls Out Updates to Its Grok AI Chatbot (SocialMediaToday)

• CEO Motivates Self By Keeping Own Photo On Desk (The Onion)