Christopher Paul Neil

Christopher Paul Neil was born on February 6, 1975. He is also called Mr. Swirl, Swirl Face, or Vico (nickname which he got after Interpol operation related to him). He is a convicted child molester. He molested at least 12 young boys and became the subject of a well- known Interpol investigation in Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand, primarily due to the worldwide broadcast of pornographic images showing the abuse. He got arrested by Thai police in October 2007.

Life

Neil was born in New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada. He was raised and educated in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. He continued his education and planned to become a Catholic priest. The Seminary of Christ the King in Mission, British Columbia did not allow him to become a priest, and he decided to join teaching instead.

Interpol search and capture

Neil appeared in over 200 photos showing the abuse on the Internet and led to a wide-reaching manhunt known as Operation Vico. Neil's face was covered by a digital swirl in the photographs, but German computer specialists at the Federal Criminal Police Office were capable enough to recreate the original photo, using procedures which they have not revealed but are believed to have been as simple as running the transformation in reverse (see Reverse swirl transformation below).

A number of these reconstructed photographs were posted on Interpol's website and led to over 350 people contacting the organization; five of them identified the man as Neil. Neil was employed as an English teacher in the city of Gwangju, South Korea, at the time but fled (with a one-way ticket) to Thailand when he was identified publicly. He was arrested in the Nakhon Ratchasima Province, on October 19, 2007. Thai police apparently located the escapee by means of a trace on the mobile phone of his 25-year-old gay Thai partner, who was himself recognized by transvestites in the beach town of Pattaya. As Neil reached the Royal Thai National Police Headquarters, he was met by around 300 journalists, which resulted in a panic.

The start of trial was set for March 10, 2008 on January 11, 2008. He appealed that he not guilty. A lawyer was assigned to him. He was sentenced on August 15, 2008 to 39 months in prison and $1,780 fine. On November 24, 2008, his sentence was extended by six years after his conviction for molesting a second child.

What is Reverse swirl transformation

In principle, the "swirl" operation was used by Neil to cover his face in photographs is lossless: that is, information of the original image is not lost and can be restored perfectly from the transformed version. In practice however both resolution and colour depth limitations in a digital image make the operation slightly lossy. Applying a second swirl operation with opposite rotational direction and same intensity as the first will recover most of the swirled images.

When starting with a "pre-swirled" image, the reversal may not be as easily finished as the settings of the initial swirl are not identified. The correct position, area of effect and intensity (angle) of the swirl must be determined in order to cancel the initial swirl successfully, possibly by trial and error, or with a live preview.

Neil Returns to Canada

After five years' imprisonment in Thailand, on September 29, 2012, Neil returned to Canada, as a result of which he was immediately arrested at Vancouver International Airport under a Criminal Code 810.1 warrant. On October 3, 2012, he was released from custody on strict conditions. On August 2, 2013, Neil was arrested at his home for breach of recognizance. He pled guilty in October. Child pornography was found on his laptop and his cell phone. His sentencing occurred on May 6, 2014, at which time he received three months' jail time plus three years' probation for breach of conditions. Neil was already under arrest, having been denied bail on April 10, 2014, pending a criminal trial stemming from additional child molesting crime which he is suspected to have committed in Cambodia. 

References

1.     http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/vico/NeilPassport_W500.jpg

2.     B.C. teacher sentenced to 6 more years

3.  Thai court jails "swirly-face" Canadian pedophile

4.  INTERPOL media release - 08/05/2008

5.  "Child sex offender in B.C. released on strict conditions". CBC News. October 3, 2012. Retrieved 2014-02-10.

6.  "'Swirl face' pedophile to appear in Richmond court today | CTV Vancouver News". Bc.ctvnews.ca. 2013-12-05. Retrieved 2014-02-10.

7.  "Child predator Neil to undergo psych assessment". Richmond Review. 17 January 2014. Retrieved 10 February 2014.

8.  "'Swirl Face' pedophile who breached conditions gets three months, plus probation | Yahoo News". The Canadian Press. 2014-05-06. Retrieved 2014-05-06.

The Prostitution of Children

“Some of our most vulnerable children also face the threat of being victimized by commercial sexual exploitation. Runaways, throwaways, sexual assault victims, and neglected children can be recruited into a violent life of forced prostitution.”
– Deputy Attorney General James Cole speaks at the National Strategy Conference on Combating Child Exploitation in San Jose, California, May 17, 2011.

Credits: Children at risk, Prostitution by simonwilchesc

The Prostitution of Children

          It is illegal to lure, transport, or obtain a child to engage in prostitution or any illegal sexual activity. Children involved in this form of commercial sexual exploitation are victims. Offenders of this crime, also commonly referred to as traffickers or pimps, recruit, entice, or capture children in order to sell them for sex in exchange for cash, goods, or in– kind favors. Under federal law, the prostitution of children is considered a form of human trafficking, also referred to as sex trafficking.   Sex trafficking is a lucrative industry, and criminals traffic children just as they would traffic drugs or other illegal substances.  This is a serious crime under federal law, and convicted offenders face serve statutory penalties. (For more information, see Citizen's Guide to Federal Law on the Prostitution of Children).

Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on the Prostitution of Children

18 U.S.C § 1591- Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
18 U.S.C. § 2421- Transportation generally
18 U.S.C. § 2422- Coercion and enticement
18 U.S.C. § 2423- Transportation of minors
18 U.S.C. § 2425- Use of interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor

The prostitution of children is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1591. This statute makes it a federal offense to knowingly recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, or maintain a minor (defined as someone under 18 years of age) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. “Commercial sex act” is defined very broadly to include “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” In other words, it is illegal both to offer and to obtain a child, and cause that child to engage in any kind of sexual activity in exchange for anything of value, whether it be money, goods, personal benefit, in-kind favors, or some other kind of benefit. Section 1591 also makes it a crime for individuals to participate in a business venture that obtains minors and causes them to engage in commercial sex acts.

Section 1591 is called “Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion.” Most people think of “trafficking” as involving movement across state or international borders. However, Section 1591 does not require proof that either the defendant or victim crossed state or international lines.

When the victim is a minor, Section 1591 does not require proof that the defendant used force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion, or any combination of those means, to cause the minor to engage in a commercial sex act.

Section 1591 applies equally to American children (U.S. citizens or residents) who are prostituted within the United States, as well as foreign nationals (persons not a U.S. citizen or resident) who are brought into the United States and are then caused to engage in prostitution. The law also criminalizes any person who conspires or attempts to commit this crime.

If the victim was under the age of 14 or if force, fraud, or coercion were used, the penalty is not less than 15 years in prison up to life. If the victim was aged 14-17, the penalty shall not be less than 10 years in prison up to life. Anyone who obstructs or attempts to obstruct the enforcement of this statute faces as many as 20 years imprisonment. Defendants who are convicted under this statute are also required to pay restitution to their victims for any losses they caused.

In addition, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421 – 2423 criminalize a variety of activities pertaining to the prostitution of children. For example, Section 2421 and 2423(a) make it a crime to transport an individual or a minor across state lines for the purpose of prostitution or any other illegal sexual activity. Unlike 18 U.S.C. § 1591, both of those statutes do require proof that the victim crossed a state line. If a minor is transported across state lines in violation of Section 2423(a), the penalty is not less than 10 years in prison, up to life.

Section 2422(b) makes it a crime to use the U.S. Mail or certain technology, such as the Internet or the telephone (whether mobile or a land line), to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in prostitution or any other illegal sexual activity. For example, it is a federal crime for an adult to use the mail, a chat room, email, or text messages to persuade a child to meet him or her to engage that child in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity. Under this statute, it is not necessary to prove that either the defendant or the victim crossed state lines. The penalty for this offense is not less than ten years in prison, up to life. Finally, 18 U.S.C § 2425 makes it illegal for any person to use the mail, telephones, or the Internet, to knowingly transmit the name, address, telephone number, social security number, or email address of a child under the age of 16 with intent to entice, encourage, offer, or solicit any person to engage in criminal sexual activity. This offense is punishable by up to five years in prison.

International Sex Trafficking of Minors

          One form of sex trafficking involves the cross border transportation of children. In these situations, traffickers recruit and transfer children across international borders in order to sexually exploit them in another country. The traffickers can be individuals working alone, organized crime groups, enterprises, or networks of criminals working together to traffic children into prostitution across country lines.
          This form of sex trafficking is a problem in the United States, and recovered victims originate from all over the world, including less-developed areas, such as South and Southeast Asia, Central America, and South America, to more developed areas, such as Western Europe. Once in the United States, a child may be trafficked to any or multiple states within the country. These victims are often trafficked far from home, and thrown into unfamiliar locations and culture.  They may be given a false passport or other documentation to conceal their age and true identity. They may also struggle with the English language. All these factors make it extremely difficult for these children to come forward to law enforcement.
          In addition, many foreign victims originate from nations that suffer from poverty, turbulent politics and unstable economics. Children from these countries are seen as easy targets by traffickers because they face problems of illiteracy, limited employment opportunities, and bleak financial circumstances in their home country. It is not uncommon for a foreign victim to be coerced by a trafficker under false pretenses. The child is told that a better life or job opportunity awaits them in the United States.  However, once in the United States they are introduced into a life of prostitution controlled by traffickers.

Domestic Sex Trafficking of Minors

          The United States not only faces a problem of foreign victims trafficked into the country, but there is also a homegrown problem of American children being recruited and exploited for commercial sex.  Under federal law, a child does not need to cross international or even state borders to be considered a victim of commercial sexual exploitation, and unfortunately, American children are falling victim to this crime within the United States.
           Pimps and traffickers sexually exploit children through street prostitution, and in adult night clubs, illegal brothels, sex parties, motel rooms, hotel rooms, and other locations throughout the United States. Many recovered American victims are street children, a population of runaway or throwaway youth who often come from low income families, and may suffer from physical abuse, sexual abuse and family abandonment issues. This population is seen as an easy target by pimps because the children are generally vulnerable, without dependable guardians, and suffer from low self-esteem. Victims of the prostitution of children, however, come from all backgrounds in terms of class, race, and geography (i.e. urban, suburban, and rural settings).
          Often in domestic sex trafficking situations, pimps will make the child victim feel dependent on prostitution for life necessities and survival. For example, a pimp will lure a child with food, clothes, attention, friendship, love, and a seemingly safe place to stay.  After cultivating a relationship with a child and engendering a false sense of trust, the pimp will begin engaging the child in prostitution. It is also common for pimps to isolate victims by moving them far away from friends and family, altering their physical appearances, or continuously moving victims to new locations. In many cases, victims become so hardened by the environment in which they must learn to survive that they are incapable of leaving the situation on their own.

Child Victims of Prostitution

          The term prostitution can delude or confuse one’s understanding of this form of child sexual exploitation. It is important to emphasize that the children involved are victims. Pimps and traffickers manipulate children by using physical, emotional, and psychological abuse to keep them trapped in a life of prostitution. It is not uncommon for traffickers to beat, rape, or torture their victims. Some traffickers also use drugs and alcohol to control them.
           Technological advances, in particular the Internet, have facilitated the commercial sexual exploitation of children by providing a convenient worldwide marketing channel. Individuals can now use websites to advertise, schedule, and purchase sexual encounters with minors.  The Internet and web-enabled cell phones also allow pimps and traffickers to reach a larger clientele base than in the past, which may expose victims to greater risks and dangers.
          In addition, many child victims suffer from physical ailments, including tuberculosis, infections, drug addition, malnutrition, and physical injuries resulting from violence inflicted upon them.  Venereal diseases also run rampant. Children may also suffer from short–term and long–term psychological effects such as depression, low self-esteem, and feelings of hopelessness. 

CEOS’s Role

         CEOS attorneys work with the High Technology Investigative Unit (HTIU), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Attorney´s Offices around the country, and other state and local parties to investigate and prosecute cases arising under federal statutes prohibiting the prostitution of children. CEOS works to not only punish and jail offenders, but to protect the rights and welfare of the children involved.
          In addition, CEOS maintains a coordinated, national-level law enforcement focus, and helps coordinates nationwide and international investigations and initiatives. CEOS attorneys travel all over the country to conduct trainings for investigators, law enforcement personnel and others involved in efforts to eradicate this crime. Moreover, CEOS designs, implements, and supports law enforcement strategies, legislative proposals, and policy initiatives relating to federal laws prohibiting the prostitution of children.

Source:
PROSECUTORIAL REMEDIES AND OTHER TOOLS TO END THE EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN TODAY ACT OF 2003

Humans hot, sweaty, natural-born runners

Hairless, clawless, and largely weaponless, ancient humans used the unlikely combination of sweatiness and relentlessness to gain the upper hand over their faster, stronger, generally more dangerous animal prey, Harvard Anthropology Professor Daniel Lieberman said Thursday (April 12).

Just days before Monday’s 111th running of the Boston Marathon, Lieberman presented his theories of the importance of running to ancestral humans to explain why we’re the only species that voluntarily runs extraordinarily long distances, such as the 26.2 miles in the marathon.

The talk, “Why Humans Run: The Biology and Evolution of Marathon Running,” was delivered at the Geological Lecture Hall as part of the Harvard Museum of Natural History’s spring lecture series, “Evolution Matters.”

While more than a million humans run marathons voluntarily each year, most animals we consider excellent runners — antelopes and cheetahs, for example — are built for speed, not endurance. Even nature’s best animal distance runners — such as horses and dogs — will run similar distances only if forced to do so, and the startling evidence is that humans are better at it, Lieberman said.

Modern humans and their immediate ancestors such as Homo erectus sport several adaptations that make humans, instead of some ferocious, furry, or fleet creature, the animal world’s best distance runners.

“Humans are terrible athletes in terms of power and speed, but we’re phenomenal at slow and steady. We’re the tortoises of the animal kingdom,” Lieberman said.

That evidence belies the long and firmly held belief that humans are the animal world’s biggest wimps and, if not for our big brains and advanced weapons, we’d be forced to subsist on fruits and vegetables, always in danger of being gobbled up by fiercer predators.

The problem with that theory, Lieberman said, is that we began adding meat to our diets around 2.6 million years ago, long before we developed advanced weapons like the bow and arrow, which was developed as recently as 50,000 years ago.

While some of our ancestors’ meat-eating may have been due to scavenging, Lieberman said the appearance about 2 million years ago of physical adaptations that have no impact on walking but that make humans better endurance runners provide evidence that early scavengers became running hunters.

Specifically, we developed long, springy tendons in our legs and feet that function like large elastics, storing energy and releasing it with each running stride, reducing the amount of energy it takes to take another step. There are also several adaptations to help keep our bodies stable as we run, such as the way we counterbalance each step with an arm swing, our large butt muscles that hold our upper bodies upright, and an elastic ligament in our neck to help keep our head steady.

Even the human waist, thinner and more flexible than that of our primate relatives allows us to twist our upper bodies as we run to counterbalance the slightly-off-center forces exerted as we stride with each leg.

Once humans start running, it only takes a bit more energy for us to run faster, Lieberman said. Other animals, on the other hand, expend a lot more energy as they speed up, particularly when they switch from a trot to a gallop, which most animals cannot maintain over long distances.

Though those adaptations make humans and our immediate ancestors better runners, it is our ability to run in the heat that Lieberman said may have made the real difference in our ability to procure game.

Humans, he said, have several adaptations that help us dump the enormous amounts of heat generated by running. These adaptations include our hairlessness, our ability to sweat, and the fact that we breathe through our mouths when we run, which not only allows us to take bigger breaths, but also helps dump heat.

“We can run in conditions that no other animal can run in,” Lieberman said.

While animals get rid of excess heat by panting, they can’t pant when they gallop, Lieberman said. That means that to run a prey animal into the ground, ancient humans didn’t have to run further than the animal could trot and didn’t have to run faster than the animal could gallop. All they had to do is to run faster, for longer periods of time, than the slowest speed at which the animal started to gallop.

All together, Lieberman said, these adaptations allowed us to relentlessly pursue game in the hottest part of the day when most animals rest. Lieberman said humans likely practiced persistence hunting, chasing a game animal during the heat of the day, making it run faster than it could maintain, tracking and flushing it if it tried to rest, and repeating the process until the animal literally overheated and collapsed.

Most animals would develop hyperthermia — heat stroke in humans — after about 10 to 15 kilometers, he said.

By the end of the process, Lieberman said, even humans with their crude early weapons could have overcome stronger and more dangerous prey. Adding credence to the theory, Lieberman said, is the fact that some aboriginal humans still practice persistence hunting today, and it remains an effective technique. It requires very minimal technology, has a high success rate, and yields a lot of meat.

Lieberman said he envisions an evolutionary scenario where humans began eating meat as scavengers. Over time, evolution favored scavenging humans who could run faster to the site of a kill and eventually allowed us to evolve into persistence hunters. Evolution likely continued to favor better runners until projectile weapons made running less important relatively recently in our history.

“Endurance running is part of a suite of shifts that made Homo [the genus that includes modern people] human,” Lieberman said.

Source:
The Human Body Is Built for Distance
Born To Run
Distance running 'shaped human evolution'

A Remorseless Murderer Goes Free After Seven Years, Refusing to Promise That He Won't Kill Again

Classification: Murderer

Characteristics: He explained that the murder was his dramatic way of protesting the university's decision not to grant him a Ph.D. after 16 years of study

Number of victims: 1

Date of murder: August 18, 1978

Date of arrest: Same day (surrenders)

Date of birth: 1936

Victim profile: Professor Karel de Leeuw (his former faculty advisor)

Method of murder: Hitting with a small sledge hammer

Location: Stanford, Santa Clara County, California, USA

Status: Convicted of second degree murder. Sentenced to seven years in prison in 1978. Released in September 1985

Polite, patient and with the same deathwatch calm he had brought with him seven years and 20 days earlier, Theodore Streleski emerged last week from the California Medical Facility in Vacaville and prepared to resume an unexceptional life on the outside. The State of California and everyone in it presumably hope he succeeds, but Streleski, 49, is making no promises. He is a man who is capable of being provoked. On Aug. 18,1978, fed up with the years of quiet desperation to which he had apparently resigned himself as a graduate student, Streleski packed a two-pound sledgehammer into a small flight bag, left his apartment in San Francisco for the campus of Stanford University and there murdered a mathematics professor he felt had belittled him. He believed then, and does now, that he was making a morally justifiable statement. "I feel regret, but no remorse," he says. "If you regret something, you say you see the tragic consequences; but if you had to make the decision again, you would do it the same way. That's what I feel." 

Certainly Streleski cannot be faulted for lack of consistency. He spent eight years contemplating his grievances against Stanford and plotting a murder, systematically drawing up a short list of candidates. It seemed clear in his own mind that he had no choice but to do what he did. "The essential thing was to be able to bad-mouth Stanford and do it with some impact," he says. "I considered other alternatives. I considered going to the alumni or students. I thought about trashing the place. I considered going to the media directly." He rejected the last option as simply impractical. "I realized that I had no leverage," he explains. "Television and the media don't cover struggling graduate students. But they do cover murderers." For Professor Karel W. deLeeuw, 48, a former Fulbright scholar and the father of three children, that dispassionate rationale was a death sentence. 

For his killer, however, it would mean no great inconvenience in prison. Because of what a jury determined to be his "diminished mental capacity" at the time of the crime, Streleski was sentenced to a modest eight years. Offered parole three times last year, he at first promised to violate its conditions, then simply refused to accept it. His sentence was expiring, and he wanted freedom with no strings attached. He offers only qualified assurances that he won't kill again. "I have no intention of doing it, but I don't promise," he says. "I haven't promised anything about my future." Prosecutor Alan Nudelman, who presented the state's case against Streleski, is not reassured by such frankness and bluntly calls the man "a time bomb." 

If that is so, Streleski is chillingly deliberate in his mode of explosion. On the morning of the deLeeuw killing, he traveled to the Stanford campus, walked to the mathematics department and waited. When the professor arrived at his office, the murderer hesitated only a moment at deLeeuw's door, took a deep breath to keep his composure and stepped inside. "He was sitting with his back to the door," Streleski recalls without apparent emotion. "I walked up directly behind him. I hit him squarely on the top of the head with the hammer and then administered two or three of what I call 'insurance blows' to the right of the temple. There was nothing violent to the action at all. He rolled back to the storage cabinet in a rather graceful motion. At some point I heard what I assume was a death rattle. I covered him with a clean garbage bag like a shroud to save the feelings of the janitor who would probably find him." 

The killer's surrender too was carefully planned. After taking a train to San Francisco, where he phoned his ex-wife's family to warn them that there might be "some legal problems," he returned to Palo Alto, had a beer and a slice of pizza and waited in a bus shelter reading a Western novel until 3 the next morning. Then he walked to the police station and turned himself in, handing over the bloodied hammer in a clear plastic bag. 

Theodore Landon Streleski was born in Breese, Ill. and grew up in nearby Carlyle, the only child of a mother who was a schoolteacher and a father who, after their divorce, went to work for Caterpillar Tractor Co. "I left home when I was 19," says Streleski, "and I haven't been back since. I haven't seen my mother since 1959. In general we don't get along." The son was closer to his father ("I've always said he was the only person I ever met who could read my mind"), but the older man died of a brain tumor in 1956. After graduating from the University of Illinois, Streleski was admitted to Stanford in 1959 and three years later was awarded a master's degree in electrical engineering. Then began a traumatic 16-year quest for his doctorate, a time of frustration and personal slights, during which Streleski labored slavishly over his studies, struggled to survive financially and searched in vain for several years for a professor willing to be his thesis adviser. 

Through it all Prof. deLeeuw, apparently unaware of the effect he was having, began to emerge as the rock on which Streleski's hopes were repeatedly dashed. Early on, says Streleski, the professor told him he would have to give up his part-time job at the Lockheed Corporation because it was against departmental policy. Later, he says, deLeeuw answered one of his questions cuttingly during an algebra examination, once made fun of Streleski's highly polished Florsheim shoes (deLeeuw himself preferred sandals) and reacted scornfully when the student asked him for help. When Streleski complained to him about his difficulty in finding an adviser, deLeeuw allegedly called him a "schoolboy" so vehemently that he sprayed spittle in Streleski's face. 

Temporarily discouraged Streleski took a year off in 1967, spent some time in San Francisco and married an airline stewardess and part-time secretary named Merrily Merwin. Optimistically he returned to Stanford the following year. "You still here?" asked deLeeuw one day, spotting his former student in the halls. For Streleski it was a crushing rebuke. "For the first time," he says, "it occurred to me that there was a question about my getting a Ph.D. at Stanford. I dwelled on the incident. I thought I had better start paying attention to some people instead of equations." 

By 1970 things began to look up. Streleski was awarded a $2,000 fellowship after complaining to the dean. But he and Merrily seemed always to be living on the edge, barely scraping by on her uncertain income and whatever Streleski could earn on the side. "We qualified for welfare and food stamps," Merrily would testify at his trial, "but he didn't believe in asking for assistance from anybody. As the pressures increased he felt he couldn't just drop the degree. He had spent too many years [trying to get it]." 

By early 1973, Merrily said, Streleski was no longer the man she had married. He punched her sometimes, once sending her to the hospital emergency room. He forbade her to answer the telephone and took her on walks so they could talk, he said, without being overheard. "He began to feel that maybe there was a conspiracy against him," said Merrily, "and that he would have to work harder.... Toward the end he got very tense. He broke things occasionally. He didn't understand why Stanford had ignored him. He kept saying that it would be over shortly. It was only a short time now, he would say. But it never was a short time. It just went on and on." Merrily left him in 1974, and nearly four years later came the divorce. By that time Streleski had lost his last job and had been living for a week on Rice-A-Roni. Finally he was ready to act. 

At his trial, in March 1979, Streleski refused to allow his attorney to plead him not guilty by reason of insanity. But a defense psychiatrist did characterize him as a paranoid psychotic, and the jury, convinced that the killing was not the coolly rational act that Streleski claimed, found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree. Under current California law Streleski could have been sentenced to from 15 years to life in prison. But a state law in effect at the time and repealed eight months later, set the maximum sentence for second degree murder at only seven years. (Streleski received an additional year for using a weapon.) The killer was not displeased. "My feeling for the jury is mellow," he says, "because they gave me the use of the word 'murderer' at the cheapest possible cost. I wanted that buzz word to play with. There are other students who have encountered the treatment I did, but who has ever heard of them? The publicity has been used as a weapon against Stanford. I think I got out of the murder what I wanted." 

That may be so, but others take a more rational view. "The problem was with the law, not the verdict," says prosecutor Nudelman. "The law we had then was an unconscionable expression of an inept legislative process. It was a scandal." DeLeeuw's widow, Sita, is still distressed but says she harbors no bitterness. "I just know that things happen for reasons we don't know anything about," she explains. "I don't know if forgiveness is the right word or simply choosing not to hold anger because anger destroys people." As for the man who might benefit most from that credo, Theodore Streleski plans to return to San Francisco and look for a job. "Probably some normal introverted thing," he says quietly. "I'm an incorrigible technician personality." Though many Californians are not nearly so confident, he does not regard himself as a threat. "I killed for notoriety," he explains one more time. "If I kill again, it weakens my argument." 

Sources:
Ex-student Who Killed Professor Says He Might Strike Again
Killer's Return .Murderer's Parole Terrifies A Campus.