Roman Polanski attends a film premiere in Paris, France, in June 2009.

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
CNN Legal Analyst

CNN Legal Analyst Lisa Bloom will be on tonight with Jeffrey Toobin to discuss the implications of Polanski's arrest. Check out her Facebook posts on the topic.

Oh, the irony: Roman Polanski fled because he was afraid of being a victim in an American prison of the identical act he inflicted on the 13-year-old girl he drugged. Celebs now flocking to the defense of this rapist and fugitive. Would they support a statutory exception in our child rape laws for all rich and talented people? Or just for this one?

I'm covering Polanski on CBS Evening News and AC360° tonight. Here come all the excuses for the child rape: her mother let her go off with him; she was a few weeks from her 14th birthday; victim's forgiven him; he's talented, rich and famous; he's had a hard life; time has passed. Pul-ease. Why are we so willing to allow a man who drugged and sodomized a child to escape justice?

After 30 years as a fugitive from U.S. justice for luring a 13 year old girl to a hotel room and having sex with her, director Roman Polanski is arrested in Switzerland and can be extradited back here. Does it matter that the girl has publicly forgiven him? Hell no. I don't care how many glitzy awards you've won. Get back over here and face the consequences of your sick crime. Thoughts?

His 13 year old victim's chilling grand jury testimony from 1977: she said "no" and "stop" repeatedly to the vaginal and anal intercourse he insisted o...n, she could barely walk from the booze and Quaalude he gave her, she was scared and crying. He pleaded guilty, then fled and enjoyed 30 years of freedom. Justice is long overdue here. Thoughts?

AC360°

Erica and Anderson have been reminiscing about their first concerts. Anderson couldn’t remember if his was Grandmaster Flash, the Furious Five or Elvis Costello. Erica admitted she saw Peter, Paul, and Mary with her dad.

That got all of us thinking about our own first concerts. What was yours?

We asked you to guess the first concerts of AC360° Contributors.

Here are some answers.

David Gergen: "That was a long time ago - maybe the late 50s - and I can't remember whether it was Perry Como or Bo Diddley - or whether I was wearing white shoes or a bomber jacket."

Tom Foreman: "My first real concert was a whopper: Elvis Presley when I was 16 years old." Read Tom Foreman's post on his experience here.

Jeffrey Toobin: "I went to a Chicago concert at Madison Square Garden. At the end of the concert, everyone lit matches and held them in the air. I thought this was evidence that this was the greatest concert ever. (I didn't realize this was done at every concert, all the time.)"

Gloria Borger: "I remember my fist concert. It was Livingston Taylor, and I went with my (now) husband while we were in college. Too bad I was really disappointed because I thought he was taking me to see James Taylor, his brother. It turned out to be fine, although the only song I can remember now is "Carolina Day," which I would swear is a James Taylor song. But it's not; I looked it up. The next concert event was much better: The Chambers Brothers. I recall the only song they played was "Time Has Come Today." In fact, I think the set isn't over yet!"

Lisa Bloom: Eagles, Hollywood, 1979, under a hazy pot cloud wafting over the amphitheater. Lighters (before cell phones) dotting the darkness. Peaceful, easy feeling, dude. And can you guess David Gergen’s? Post your guess here and we’ll tell you the answer tonight.

Melissa Huckaby has been accused in the rape and murder of Sandra Cantu, above.

Lisa Bloom: Today is Melissa Huckaby’s arraignment, that’s where she would ordinarily plead guilty or not guilty. Her attorney may seek to delay that plea because they want a second autopsy to be done on the remains of Sandra Cantu and a further investigation.

How important is it to the defense to have the body exhumed?

Lisa Bloom: It’s very important to the defense to have the body exhumed because they want to do their own autopsy. They want to determine if there was a sexual assault on little Sandra and I suspect also toxicology results to see if there were any chemicals, any sedatives in her system.

What do you expect at the trial?

Lisa Bloom: At trial, I would expect it to be all about the science, they may claim that the prosecutions theory is incorrect. Either she was not sexually assaulted or they can’t link the sexual assault and the killing to Melissa Huckaby. The defense is going to be looking for any forensic evidence, any DNA, hair or fibers that might link this killing to some other perpetrator. They’re also going to want to disprove the sexual component of this crime.

What are the special circumstances in this case?

Lisa Bloom: The special circumstances in this case are there it’s not just a homicide, it’s a homicide accompanied by a rape and a kidnapping and also it’s a young child, just eight years old. This is a very shocking crime. In all my years of following horrifying crime stories, I have never heard a story of a woman allegedly acting alone, raping and killing a little girl, much less harming a child that’s not related to her. This is completely out of the ordinary.

The standard for legal insanity is very, very high, much higher than just ordinary mental illness. Her attorneys are going to have to show that she did not know the difference between right and wrong and she was not capable of conforming her conduct to the law. If she did it, she hid the body afterward, she lied about it afterward. Those are behaviors that would tend to show she knew that what she did was wrong and probably would bar a legal insanity defense.

Jurors really do not like the insanity defense, less than one percent of defendants who assert it at trial are actually acquitted by reason of insanity, so I would not expect that that’s going to prevail for Melissa Huckaby here.

Legal insanity in California is not knowing the difference between right and wrong and being unable to conform one’s conduct to the law, simple mental illness alone is not enough, millions of people in this country suffer from mental illness: depression, anxiety, stress. That’s not enough for the legal insanity defense; it’s a very, very high threshold to meet.

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

Editor’s Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”.

Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Anna Nicole Smith’s psychiatrist, has just turned herself in to authorities in Los Angeles on charges that she conspired to over-prescribe medications to Smith, knowing that she was an addict. Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, who allegedly prescribed thousands of pills to Anna Nicole in the final years of her life, and Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole’s boyfriend and lawyer, have also turned themselves in.

Relentless cable coverage of this story followed her death, but this time, in my view, it’s a story worth covering. Prescription drug abuse is a growing and real problem in this country. Many people feel, as apparently Smith did, that they are safe taking drugs as long as they have a doctor’s note and the drugs come from a pharmacy. Wrong. Forty-three percent of drug overdoses in America are from prescription meds. Far too many medicines are prescribed in this country, in my opinion, with little oversight as to their safety.

The complaint alleges that some good pharmacists refused to fill these doctors’ prescriptions to Anna, saying that they were dangerous. The state says the three conspirators then simply went to another pharmacy until they got the drugs they wanted to dispense to Smith.

Six hundred pills are missing from bottles prescribed to Anna Nicole in the five weeks before her death. Yes, she was an adult, responsible for her own actions, but those around her are responsible for their conduct too. Smith had said publicly years before that she was addicted to painkillers. After the sudden death of her son Daniel, in the hospital room where she had just given birth to her new daughter, Anna, understandably, was emotionally devastated. Her doctors had a responsibility not to hand out pills to her like Chiclets at such a delicate time.

Anna was cartoonish in life, but her accidental drug overdose death raises important questions, and I salute California’s attorney general for vigorously pursuing this case.

Police say Kenzie Marie Houk's daughter found her shot to death in her bed on Friday.

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

Another young child has been accused of picking up a gun and fatally shooting a member of his household. In western Pennsylvania, an 11-year-old boy has been charged in the murder of his father’s 26-year-old girlfriend, who was eight months pregnant.

As I read down the article yesterday, here’s the underreported fact that jumped out at me: the boy had a shotgun that was specially manufactured for children. Let me say that again. The boy had been given a youth shotgun, smaller than the adult version, but apparently, just as deadly.

Are we out of our minds? I have long been saddened, as I interview one grieving family after another, that we lack the political will to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, and even children, but now we’re making special kiddie guns?

This fifth grader, charged as an adult, faces life in prison without the possibility of parole. Pennsylvania, my beloved home state, has the shame of having the highest number of juveniles in the nation serving life without parole sentences. And now they want to lock up another kid and throw away the key.

What are we doing?

I have a simple solution: lock up guns, not kids. It’s so simple. Lock up guns, not kids. Let’s prevent these crimes, and stop throwing away chidlren’s lives.

Lock up guns, not kids. Can’t we all get behind that?

Editor’s Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Watch as In Session's Lisa Bloom interviews Drew Peterson's ex, Chrissy Raines.

Drew Peterson's behavior after his wife disappeared deepened suspicion, but he says she ran off.

Editor’s Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

Last week Chrissy Raines made news by leaving Drew Peterson, the man who is a suspect in the murders of his third and fourth wives. Twenty-four year old Chrissy Raines and her two children, ages 4 and 5, had been living with Peterson for three weeks. Her father, Ernest Raines, was distraught that his daughter and grandchildren were living with a man many people consider to be a dangerous double murderer. I had the privilege of meeting Ernest when we both appeared on the Dr. Phil show last Wednesday. During and after the show, Dr. Phil and I advised Ernie to stop making threats to Drew Peterson – “I’ll drive my Cadillac through his house!” – and to instead keep a friendly, close relationship with his daughter. Drew Peterson would win if he succeeded in isolating Chrissy from her family, which is what abusers always try to do. Don’t let that happen, I told Ernie. Keep the lines of communication open with your daughter. Let her know that while you don’t like your choice, you love her and are there for her, and will help her in any way you can.

The very next night, Thursday, Ernie called me to thank me for my advice to him, excited that it had worked – Chrissy had moved out! His beautiful daughter had reached out to his outstretched hand, and Friday morning, he arrived at Drew’s home, cameraman in tow, to help Chrissy retrieve her belongings. Drew refused, Ernie called the police, and Chrissy was able to get her belongings out without violence.

I was so pleased that my advice made a difference, and I never expected it to work so quickly.

Ernie has expressed his gratitude to Dr. Phil and to me repeatedly. He deserves the credit for courageously standing by his daughter in a difficult, stressful, emotional situation.

I had the privilege of interviewing Chrissy and Ernie this morning. It’s not often I am speechless on the air, but at one point, that’s exactly what happened.

Gov. Blagojevich appeared on CNN's Larry King Live Monday night.

Editor’s Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

Blago continues to misstate the law.

He’s a lawyer. He should know better.

Blago has steadfastly refused to answer specific questions from Larry King, CBS’s Maggie Rodriguez and others, including Jami Floyd today on In Session (is that you on the tapes? Did you say that? If it’s out of context, what was the context?) on the grounds that he is legally barred from commenting on a pending legal matter. No. Incorrect.

Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 bar attorneys in pending litigations from making certain extrajudicial comments. They do not bar defendants from speaking out in their own cases. Defendants, parties, and witnesses are always free to speak, under the First Amendment, unless there is a gag order in effect. There is no gag order in this case. I have also read the Senate Impeachment rules in their entirety, and nothing therein bars Blago from speaking publicly about the allegations against him.

Blago also maintains that “we” felt it was more advisable to do a media tour rather than assert his legal rights in the Senate hearing. As Mark Twain said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'." Blago is trying to sweep his lawyers into his defensive view that appearing at the hearing would be futile.

Yet his attorney, Ed Gensen, would surely like nothing more than a high profile fight for Blago’s constitutional rights played out before the Illinois Senate. A claim under the Illinois and federal constitutions that the limits on witnesses violate Blago’s due process rights would be highly likely to prevail, in my view. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Illinois, has so ruled in a similar case in 2004. This is the type of juicy claim any criminal defense attorney would enjoy asserting.

Gensen has publicly given one reason for withdrawing from Blago representation: because Blago is not listening to his advice. He must be stewing over Blago’s continued suggestions that Gensen condones this media tour and his failure to appear before the Senate. In fact, it may be the sole reason why he resigned.

Blago knows his attorney can’t say more publicly without violating attorney-client confidentiality. It’s a perfect media strategy: claim the lawyer, who can’t publicly contradict him, is advising him to behave this way.

What is clear is that Blago stands alone in asserting that it is better for him to boycott a proceeding where his job is in real jeopardy and appear instead on television (where he then doesn’t answer any specific questions about whether he’s corrupt).

If he really had answers to the corruption allegations, wouldn’t a media tour be the time to offer them?

Editor’s Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Gov. Rod Blagojevich

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

Over and over again, Governor Rod Blagojevich has said that the Illinois Senate impeachment hearing is unfair because he is not permitted to call witnesses.

This is the same guy who’s compared himself to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. so his credibility is strained. Nevertheless, I will strongly defend anyone’s due process rights, so I decided to look into this claim.

It is false. Illinois Senate impeachment rule 15 states: “Requests of subpoenas for witnesses, documents or other materials may be made by the Governor or his counsel in the form of a verified written motion to the Chief Justice . . . “ As far as I can tell, that did not happen.

Blagojevich says that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the Senate have a “cooperation agreement” by which the Senate will not call certain witnesses who are needed for the criminal trial, such as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett or Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

First, under Rule 15, Blago could call witnesses on the many other articles of impeachment he faces that have nothing to do with these high profile witnesses. He hasn’t even tried.

Second, as a lawyer himself, Blagojevich should know that he could challenge any such agreement between the Senate and the prosecutor under Rule 15, as well as the state and federal constitutions, which give him the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, and also entitle him to due process of the law, including the right to call witnesses.

He has not done that. Instead, he’s using the petulant child approach: “I’m going to take my marbles and go home!” That is a lousy legal approach, because as any first-year law student knows, Blago must make his motions under the hearing rules, even if denied, so that the record is preserved for later appeal. It’s the use-it-or-lose-it approach to enforcing legal rights. Not showing up is the worst possible legal strategy.

Had he made the proper motion and argued that the Senate is trampling his rights, he might have garnered the right to call any and all witnesses he chose. Instead, he complains to non-lawyers like the ladies of The View that he can’t call witnesses, hoping no one will catch him.

Blago, you’re busted. You’re misstating the law. I’d stick up for the due process rights of even the most despised amongst us, even you, accused of withholding money for a children’s hospital and trying to sell Obama’s senate seat. But don’t make up phony claims. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald

Editor’s Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

Disgraced former Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred last year for, among other reasons, prejudicial pretrial public comments he made about three Duke University students he accused of rape.

This jumped to mind as I watched highly respected U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald make repeated comments about the evidence against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday at Fitzgerald’s press conference.

“The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave,” Fitzgerald said, in a comment that was widely quoted by news organizations today. And that was just the beginning. “Governor Blagojevich has taken us to a truly new low,” he said. The Governor embarked upon “a political corruption crime spree.” His conduct, prosecutor Fitzgerald said, was “appalling,” repeated three times, for emphasis.

If the allegations are proven, clearly so. But we are only at the indictment phase, and Governor Blagojevich is, at this time, a citizen of the United States, presumed innocent. And U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has an obligation to seek justice, not to seek a conviction by any means necessary.

Illinois ethics rules, which apply to federal as well as state prosecutors, permit public disclosure of the facts of an investigation and the allegations in an indictment. But when a prosecutor publicly discloses that a defendant has been charged with a crime, state law requires a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

I must have missed that part of Fitzgerald’s presser.

Prohibited, however, are statements which could be reasonably interpreted as threatening the fairness of a proceeding. Specifically, prosecutors may not publicly comment upon “the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party,” nor “any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant.”

Would Lincoln be rolling over merely from an accusation?

By the way, what terrible characterizations did Nifong make that led to the firestorm against him? Nifong said that he was "confident that a rape occurred," and he called the players "a bunch of hooligans" whose "daddies could buy them expensive lawyers."

Crime scene where 8-year-old boy allegedly killed his father and one other man

Editor’s Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

The debate over whether the eight-year-old Arizona boy should be prosecuted as an adult or as a juvenile misses the point entirely: he should not be prosecuted at all.

Most of the civilized world recognizes that children are not criminally responsible for their actions until they reach a level of maturity such that they can clearly distinguish between right and wrong. In the United States, 37 states, including Arizona, have no minimum age at which a child can be prosecuted.

We thus treat our own children more severely than does Pakistan, Myanmar, or Sudan, which fix their age of criminal responsibility at seven. The age of criminal responsibility in France is 13; China, Germany, Italy and Japan, 14; in Scandinavian countries, 15; Brazil, Colombia and Peru, 18. And in most of these countries, young offenders are tried in juvenile courts and provided with social services upon conviction, with incarceration as a last resort.

In the United States, 25,000 young offenders are now serving time for crimes committed as minors but for which they were charged and convicted as adults. These young people are eight times more likely to commit suicide behind bars and five times more likely to become victims of sexual assault than their adult counterparts.

Read More...

Editor's Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

Marcello Lucero was walking to a friend’s house last weekend to watch a movie when his life came to a brutal end. The Ecuadorean native was allegedly beaten and stabbed by a group of teenagers who police said wanted “to beat up some Mexicans.”

Lucero’s death Saturday night on Long Island, New York was quickly labeled a hate crime by authorities. Unfortunately, it’s part of an underreported spike of hate crimes against Hispanics in the last few years. According to the FBI, Anti-Hispanic hate crimes have increased 40 percent since 2003.

Hispanic advocates blame a climate of harsh rhetoric surrounding the national immigration debate, and they surely have a point.

The Justice Department says that out of all bias crimes based on ethnicity, 62 percent target Hispanics, 38 percent everyone else. 62 percent! Though Hispanics are only 14 percent of the population. Those are some scary numbers.

Read More...

Editor's Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

In a new low point for the American criminal justice system, an 8-year-old boy accused of killing his father and another man living in his home faces two counts of premeditated murder in Arizona. Authorities are seeking to try him as an adult.

Police say the child confessed to shooting the two men with a .22 caliber rifle kept in his home.

The lawyer for the 8-year-old says police questioned the boy without a parent or attorney present and failed to notify the boy of his rights.

As if an eight year old would understand his Miranda rights.

Police are also investigating possible abuse of the boy, which they think may have lead to the shooting.

Hm. You think?

Read More...

Editor's Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

In this week of inspiring change, I want to give three cheers for a new California law that’s just been passed on a subject near and dear to my heart.

In what the Humane Society calls the most ambitious ballot measure for animals in this country’s history, California passed Prop 2 with 62 % of the vote. Prop 2 requires factory farmers to give animals a little extra room to stretch their limbs and to move like animals should. It’s cruel to force a hen to be confined with a half-dozen other birds in a tiny cage for her whole life.

It’s cruel to force a sow to live in a crate so small she can’t turn around. It’s cruel to chain a calf tightly inside a pen. Any pet owner knows that animals experience fear and suffering. This measure will provide them with some minimal creature comforts.

I’ve been a vegetarian nearly all my life because I can’t support an industry that causes so much suffering to animals. But you don’t have to be vegetarian to take a stand against cruelty, as millions of California voters demonstrated. Conditions in factory farms have to change, and it’s in our power to make it happen. Cruelty is out; compassion is in. Let’s hope this is a start of a nationwide trend.

Editor's Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

YES WE DID!, I wrote in giant letters on my Facebook page on election night, tears in my eyes as I watched Barack Obama’s inspiring acceptance speech. Every moment of it was so moving. And when I heard my African-American friends talk about the symbolism of this day, that they can look into their children’s eyes and honestly say that we are all now truly equal – well, as a lifelong civil rights activist, I thought, it has happened. We shall overcome, not someday, but today.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said the night before he was assassinated, “And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land.” Hallelujah, I thought, we have arrived. Free at last, free at last.

Then I remembered my gay friends, who faced ugly ballot measures in four states. The California Supreme Court just last May issued a landmark ruling that gay people were entitled to equal marriage rights. My mother, Gloria Allred, was one of the lead attorneys in that case. I remembered Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons, together for 55 years, who were the first couple married after that decision, one in a wheelchair, the other walking slowly to the altar. “At our age,” they said, “we don’t have the luxury of time.” I remembered that on the day of that decision, citizens of San Francisco’s Castro District took down their rainbow flags and flew American flags. “For the first time in my life,” they told me, “I feel like a full citizen. I can tell my children that in the eyes of the law I am just as worthy as anyone else.” I remembered riding in Santa Monica’s gay pride parade alongside my mother in June, getting mobbed by thousands of ordinary people who were grateful that she had won for them the extraordinary privilege of simple respect.

Symbolism matters to disenfranchised people in a way that is hard to explain to those of us who always knew we could be anything we want to be in America. Forget president. Gay people can’t even be spouses, though Britney Spears could have her umpteenth marriage tomorrow just by stumbling into a quickie Vegas chapel. Scott Peterson has the legal right to marry on death row after murdering his wife and unborn child. No matter how undeserved, straight people never lose the right to marry; no matter how worthy, gay people cannot earn it. Except in Massachusetts and Connecticut which, bless them, seem to be sticking to their pro-gay marriage court rulings.

On Nov. 4, the legality of gay marriage was on the ballots in Florida, California and Arizona. Voters in Florida and Arizona passed similar measures specifying that only marriage between one man and one woman will be recognized in those states. It looks like California voters have amended the state constitution to, for the first time, take away constitutional rights granted by the courts. Arkansas voters banned gay people from becoming adoptive or foster parents. For gay people, it’s a return to the back of the bus. Especially for millions of gay Californians, this lurch backwards is a kick in the gut, because they had enjoyed six months of marriage equality. They had thought their time had come.

And so my celebration of Obama’s sweeping electoral victory is tempered by the reality that not all of us are considered equal in this country, not here, not yet. How sad that at this great moment of inclusiveness in American history, gay people are left behind. To my gay brothers and sisters, friends, neighbors and coworkers, I say, you are not forgotten. Keep fighting. Decent people stand with you. To gay teens I say, hold your heads high. To elderly gay folks I say, my heart breaks that you must continue to wait for the rights, the respect and common decency that should be yours now.

Obama’s victory is transcendent, but can we still do more to make include every American in the protection of our laws? Yes, we can.

Editor's note: See more of Lisa's posts at the In Session blog

O.J. Simpson arrives for the first day of jury selection

Editor's Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

O.J. Simpson walked out of court a free man after acquittals in his 1995 double murder trial and his 2001 Florida road rage case. Today jury selection begins in his Las Vegas robbery trial, where he faces a maximum of life in prison if convicted. Will he be 3-0?
Based on what we know now, it’s going to be a close call. The prosecution case is built on the testimony of a colorful band of O.J. cronies, including a stalker, an arsonist, a thief, and an alleged pimp. Notice that I have to say “alleged” only as to the maybe-pimp. The stalker also has a criminal history that includes receiving stolen property, assault and battery, and he’ll be hauled in from prison to testify. And he is one of the two alleged victims.

This caper may be the most-taped alleged crime in history. There are three secret audiotapes of the planning of the caper, a tape of the incident itself (sold immediately to TMZ.com for over $100,000, reportedly), recordings of phone messages after the incident, and a surreptitious audio recording of OJ and one of the co-conspirators at a bar that night. Even the “You Ring We Spring” bail bondsman had the presence of mind to stick a recorder in his pocket and capture O.J.’s words as he transported him. O.J. Simpson should buy stock in Radio Shack.

Read More...

Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, speaks during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Monday.

Editor's Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

The pundits applaud and cheer for the newly softened Michelle Obama after her speech. Flattened, more like it, by the American political machine’s insistent steamrolling of intelligent, accomplished women into one dimensional wifeys, apparently still the only mold of First Lady palatable to the electorate.

She came to us in last night’s speech, she said, as a daughter, a sister, a wife and a mother: identities in which she exists only in relation to family members, identities which have defined women for centuries. The first two require only birth. The third and fourth define women solely in relation to our husbands and children.

Are these identities important to strong women? Of course, just as they are for men. Our identities as children and siblings and parents and spouses are key parts of who we all are. But can we imagine a successful man introducing himself on a national political stage as a son, a brother, a husband, a father, and devoting his speech exclusively to these roles? Can we imagine him omitting his work entirely?

There was one drumbeat in Michelle’s speech, surely carefully vetted by the campaign strategists: family, family, family. Breaking news: she loves her daughters, she loves her husband, she loves her mother and her deceased father. Family values are important to her. Of course they are.

When she talked about work at all, it was Barack’s, not her own. She waxed eloquent for hundreds of words about her husband’s work on the South Side of Chicago, but not about her own career in the Chicago mayor’s office, or in public interest programs. There was just one brief throwaway line about how she left a big law firm job for community service, and how she loves America because a working class girl like her got into law school (just as girls are accepted in law schools now around the globe).

Uh, she didn’t just get into law school, she graduated from Harvard Law School. After graduating cum laude from Princeton University. She was then snapped up by the prestigious large law firm Sidley Austin, a plum job, even for an Ivy League grad. She was assigned to mentor Barack Obama when she was senior to him, she a practicing attorney while he was still a law student.

I am sure Michelle Obama’s parents were strong role models who encouraged both their children to study seriously and develop their minds. Michelle did that, to an impressive degree. What a shame that she must downplay her brains and hard work, and that it’s considered a resounding success that she has now successfully positioned herself as a warm and fuzzy potential First Lady because she can speak enthusiastically about being a daughter, sister, wife and mother.

As feminists said a generation ago, “a man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality.” Barack Obama picked an intelligent, hard working, strong, high-achieving woman to marry, a big plus in my book in assessing Barack. Just as it says a lot about a man when he chooses a bimbo (Elliot Spitzer and the teenaged hooker, feh, that’s all I need to know), a man’s choice of a bright, opinionated woman says that he doesn’t just endorse women’s equality, he enjoys it at home. What a shame that the Machine decided, probably correctly, that the rest of us are not as highly evolved.

The International Criminal Court filed genocide charges against the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Monday.

Editor's Note: You can read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

Lisa Bloom
AC360° Contributor
In Session Anchor

There are always arguments to be made against war crimes tribunals.

Cambodia: too little, too late? The Cambodian people have waited 30 years for the leaders of the Khmer Rouge, which starved and slaughtered nearly two million men, women and children, to be brought to justice. A hybrid international/Cambodian tribunal, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), which I visited last December, is holding five geriatric Khmer Rouge leaders now, awaiting a trial that has been in the works since it was authorized a decade ago. Speak to any Cambodian and you’ll get the same answer: “They killed my parents.” “My sister.” “Right before my eyes.” “This is the tree they swung children against until they were dead.” It is heartbreaking stuff. Let’s move this tribunal along, can’t we?

The ECCC is moving slowly in part because it’s breaking new legal ground by giving a significant role to victims, allowing them to be present as parties to the action, allowing them to ask questions of the perpetrators directly or through attorneys, and to seek compensation. It is also in desperate need of funding. Japan and many European countries have donated millions; the United States, which contributed to the rise of the anti-American Khmer Rouge by its bombing of Cambodia in the early 1970’s, nothing.

Darfur: too much, too soon? The sitting president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, faces an arrest for genocide and war crimes in connection with the genocide currently under way in Darfur. Already China and others have criticized the move as having the potential to cause further unrest. When a quarter of a million people have already been killed and over two million displaced, when rape of women and girls is widespread, not acting for fear of causing “unrest” is a sick joke.

After the horrors of the Holocaust became known throughout the world, the rallying cry of “Never again!” has been repeated often. Unfortunately, we have not lived up to it. Genocide did happen again, in Cambodia, and the world knew and did nothing. Again, in Iraq, again, in Bosnia, again, in Rwanda.

Perpetrators of genocide can’t be brought to justice too quickly. Every victim deserves to see the world community join together to stand with them in support of war crimes tribunals. They are in their infancy, and imperfect. But they beat the alternatives, brutality, war, and unredressed injustice.

Read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

It must be excruciating for Silda Spitzer to wake up to today’s news coverage:  Photographs and the life story of her husband’s prostitute plastered all over the New York tabloids and cable television.

Having endured the public humiliation of literally standing by her man twice in the last three days as he confessed to betraying her, now she can see the 22-year old face and bikini-clad body of the Ashley Dupre, for whom Eliot Spitzer paid thousands of dollars for sex in the Mayflower Hotel the day before Valentine’s Day.

It’s far more than any of us wanted to know, that our Harvard Law-educated middle-aged governor turned away from his loyal, attractive, Harvard Law-educated middle-aged wife and was willing to risk his career and his family’s dignity for sex with a young woman only a few years older than his teenaged daughters.

Eliot Spitzer had only one year ago wholeheartedly supported and signed into law a tough new law against the sex trade.  Advocates of the law say that they believed that Spitzer “got it,” that prostitution exploited vulnerable women, and that prosecuting johns was the most effective way of cutting off the demand. 

Ashley Dupre says on her MySpace page, with a 21st century young person’s typical nonchalant attitude about personal revelations on the internet, that she was abused as a child, that she’d been homeless.  If so, she’s a typical profile for a prostitute, 50 to 70 percent of whom were abused as children.  One study found that sexually abused children were 27 times more likely to be arrested for prostitution than nonabused children.

This is the kind of thing Eliot Spitzer knew.  Yet he chose to be part of the demand side, part of the economy that offers up prostitution to Dupre as a better option than singing, what she really wanted to do.

He had to turn off his brain to not only the fact that he was cheating on his wife, breaking the law, and exposing himself to public humiliation, but economically fueling an exploitive industry that preys on abused young people.  He had to not think about her as a full human being who had to pay the rent, with hopes and dreams and a history, but instead, just size her up like a commodity:  5' 5", brunette, petite, 105 pounds.

He had money to spend, she had a body to sell, and that had to be the end of the thinking for him, as for all johns, because if they think too hard on the question of why she’s there, it’s would be the ultimate turn off, wouldn’t it?

- Lisa Bloom, “In Session” Anchor/360° Contributor

Read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”

New York State Gov. Eliot Spitzer is joined by his wife Silda as he makes a statement to reporters during a news conference following a report that he was involved in a prostitution ring

It is time to do away with the wronged wife standing mute next to her man, as he publicly humiliates her and confesses to cheating on her. 

Let him stand alone and apologize. 

She is not a potted plant.  She is not an object, an accessory to his political career.  She is a flesh and blood human being who was disrespected once during her husband's cheating, and now is victimized a second time by being made to stand silently by him.

I watched Dana McGreevey speak movingly on Larry King Live last night of why she made that choice.  She loved her husband.  She was not in on all the closed door meetings leading up to the press conference.  She was asked to appear at his side, and she did, because she continued to want the best for him and for the marriage.

I get that, and my heart goes out to Dana McGreevey.  As a personal choice, I respect her decision. 

But political spouses have a vital public role too, and they know their appearances and choices matter enormously, which is why they carefully choose what causes they'll support and what they'll wear to state dinners.  

What political wives choose to do about their marriages once their husband is caught in a sex scandal is a private matter. 

But appearing right next to their husband days after he's been caught with his pants down is a public humiliation, unworthy of women in public life in 2008. 

I'm sick of watching the Stepford Wife gaze, sick of explaining to my daughter that women deserve better.

A doormat is not a role model.

- Lisa Bloom, “In Session” Anchor/360° Contributor

Read more Lisa Bloom blogs on “In Session”