A Deadly Lapse In Judgement?

Jodi Wilgoren of the NY Times may have committed a deadly lapse of judgment in her moving account of execution-style slaying of the husband and mother of a Federal judge.

The gist of the story is this:

For Joan Humphrey Lefkow, the nightmare began shortly after her appointment as a federal judge in 2000, when an Oregon group's lawsuit to block white supremacists from using a name it had trademarked, World Church of the Creator, landed in her lap.

Soon, Judge Lefkow found her home address and family photographs posted along with violent threats on hate-filled Web sites. Last April, one of the Aryan movement's most notorious leaders was convicted of plotting her murder.

On Tuesday, Judge Lefkow was under armed federal guard in an undisclosed place, mourning the deaths of Michael F. Lefkow, her husband of 30 years, and Donna Humphrey, her 89-year-old mother, whom she found dead of gunshots to the head in their basement the evening before.

"I think she's very upset with herself, maybe, for being a judge and putting her family in this danger," said Laura Lefkow, 20, the third of the judge's five daughters, "but there's no way she should have known."

Local and federal law enforcement officials said on Tuesday they were investigating possible connections between the double killing and Matthew Hale, the white supremacist now in federal prison awaiting sentencing for soliciting Judge Lefkow's assassination, or his many sympathizers. Federal officials in Washington said agents were reviewing Judge Lefkow's caseload in search of suspects, with the main thrust on the hate groups that had focused on her before.

Now, the potentially deadly lapse in judgment is this: Ms. Wilgoren reports the name, age, and college of Laura Lefkow, who was quoted above.  That information is not clearly available by way of "Google", nor do any major news services other than those syndicating the Times story seem to be reporting it.

And why the Times would report this detail in a story suggesting that hate groups may be targeting a judge's family is beyond me.

Now, it is possible that the Times is, knowingly or not, presenting disinformation.  It is also possible that the proper authorities, such as the Federal Marshalls charged with protecting Judge Lefkow, have been alerted to this possible breach in their security.

And it is possible that more publicity is not the antidote to this unfortunate publicity.  Maybe the hate groups (if they are truly involved with this) missed the Times story, but will pick it up on the blogs.  I am at sea as to what the right thing is to do.

However, I am hoping that this post will call this point to the attention of the proper authorities.  I would also be delighted and reassured if some Net-Sleuths could track down the Lefkow daughters by other means.  I could not make a connection with Google, but even Google does not cover everything; perhaps these family details are more widely known than Google realizes.

Thanks for the help.

And Ms. Wilgoren did get a beautiful, moving quote from the daughter - is there a father anywhere who would not be proud to have this as his epitaph:

Mr. Lefkow met his future wife in the library of Wheaton College, where she was an undergraduate. "She was doing a paper on Indonesia, and he was doing a paper on Indonesia, and she had all his books," Laura Lefkow recounted of her parents' first encounter. "He used to say he was rich in daughters and not much else," she laughed. "He was just an optimist about everything, to the point where it was like, 'Oh, my gosh, Dad, come on,' and he would be like, 'It'll be fine,' and it was. It was always fine."

I would not want something to happen to this young woman as a result of this Times story.

MORE:  Other reactions at Memeorandum.

UPDATE: I am assured in the comments that (a) the daughter is not at school, but home for the funeral, and under protection; (b) the school sent an e-mail to the student body discussing the situation.  Based on (b), it seems fair to presume that any plans for the ongoing security for family members would incorporate the idea that her presence on campus and connection to the judge was not any kind of secret.

And I have no idea what to make of this, but Bill Keller, Exec Editor at the Times, is a Pomona alum and sits on their Board of Trustees.  Well, if this is eventually deemed to have been a faux pas, he will hear of it.

Comments

[Teresa]

Good heavens, why don't people think, especially in a case like this where the killers are still free! I hope your post wakes up a few people (at least, I don't think the reporters can be woken up, but maybe the authorities will guard her carefully until they find out what's going on).

I didn't read any more about the story today. I was still disgusted after Mayor Daley's press conference yesterday where he was already using the murders to push his gun legislation... sheesh.

[lilo]

as a local radio host used to say (extremely sarcastically) bout the hotshot press and newscasters
"Our right to know supercedes your right to exist."

[Mrs. Davis]

The young Ms Lefkow returned home some time ago and is probably under as much protection as her mother. I know because my daughter attends the same school and sent a copy of the e-mail that was sent by the administration to each student. Tasteless, perhaps; but deadly? I think not. I'm more offended that law enforcement officials are using innuendo instead of evidence to build a case.

[anonymous]

While it was a stupid and dangerous slip of the NYT, my guess is that all of the children are now in federal protective custody and so it is irrelevant. The question is whether or not it endangers anyone who knew those children, or whether the Feds had to take extra steps to secure those people BECAUSE of the NYT story.

I say this because I am peripherally aware of family members of one of Judge Lefkow's children. He was a co-employee of someone I know, and today, it was explained by company HR, that he is in federal custody.

Whatever that means, I've no idea. But the implication was that he is not returning to work. (ever? Who knows.)

[TM]

The young Ms Lefkow returned home some time ago and is probably under as much protection as her mother.

I assume they are all under lockdown right now, but had she been planning to go back to school at some point?

Still good point - there should be no grounds for immediate panic (so I will try to exhale...)

[DensityDuck]

Newspapers should not be allowed to obtain or publish any details about anyone, ever. It's clearly a threat to the public that the information contained in a common phone book should be bandied about so carelessly. I mean, everyone knows that the government's operations require a cloak of secrecy to be truly effective; if you let a flood of reporters in there it would screw everything up!

[Jay Manifold]

Oh, I don't know. I'd be satisfied with a ban on pseudonymous commenters on blogs, myself.

[Geoffrey Barto]

This is the same NYT that printed potentially deadly information about the anonymous Iraqi bloggers a month or two back.

I don't think the New York Times would ever let a little thing like the safety of a human being get in the way of their reporting. You have to remember what's really important, ya know? Mere mortals or the old gray lady? It's not even a close call.

[Mrs. Davis]

had she been planning to go back to school at some point?

I sure hope the Feds catch these guys before next semester starts. Somehow I have the feeling this investigation may get a very high priority, as it should.

But I'll bet its tough to go back to anything after something like this.

[TM]

It's clearly a threat to the public that the information contained in a common phone book should be bandied about so carelessly.

Well, the Yahhoo People Search for the USA gives me nothing for either "Laura Lefkow" or "L Lefkow", although one of the subscription services promises some hits.

So I am not sure what common phone book you might be looking in, or how you knew to pick the appropriate bok in California.

That said, it is possible that the (already planned) next step was going to be name and location changes for the judge's family members, so maybe this is info is soon to be passe.

[DensityDuck]

>Oh, I don't know. I'd be satisfied with a ban on
> pseudonymous commenters on blogs, myself.

OH SNAP!

>This is the same NYT that printed potentially deadly
>information about the anonymous Iraqi bloggers a month
>or two back.

Oh, right, you mean the same information that they themselves had posted on their own website, and that Jeff Jarvis had posted four months before the NYT article?

[Charles Pettibone]

"Hmm, I don't know if the hate groups will pick it up out of the article, or if blogs will point it out to them, just like I'm doing *right now*. I'm at sea as to what to do, so I'll go ahead and post about it instead of putting some thought into the matter before resorting to instant publication technology. I hope this post will bring the matter to the attention of the proper authorities, even though a simple phone call would accomplish the same thing in a secure and private manner, which would also be *guaranteed* success. Since blogging is touted as the cure for all evils, I'll post and rely on legions of ankle-biting pajama clad puppy-sippers to get the message out. That's the ticket!"

Edit your post to include the text provided above, 'tard.

[Beto Ochoa]

If someone who knows how to manipulate the Public Databases searches for you, you're going to be found. I do this on a regular basis and have yet to fail given enough time.
Regardless, this is an abuse by the press which is all about their own secrecy but your privacy be damned.
A local television station once filmed a friends house, complete with the name and address on the mailbox, in connection with a child molestation only they had the wrong house. My buddy wound up losing his job because the people he worked with were confused by the coverage and associated him with the case and he and his family finally had to move away but the mistaken identity follows him to this day.(18 years) Any background check on him turns up people who remember him as the pedophile in the news report.

[Patterico]

DenseDuck,

More people read the NYT than read Jeff Jarvis's site or the Iraq the Model site.

[TM]

even though a simple phone call would accomplish the same thing in a secure and private manner, which would also be *guaranteed* success...

Excellent idea - please leave me the appropriate phone number, and I am happy to call. Should be simple to find.

And perhaps you would be kind enough to call ahead and explain to them that I have an important point that they really ought to think about.

Thanks very much.

[Note: On another day, I might edit the T-bone post for language, but I find it makes a useful point when the critics meet their lowest sterotypes.]

[TM]

As to the Duck, with this:

Oh, right, you mean the same information that they themselves had posted on their own website, and that Jeff Jarvis had posted four months before the NYT article?

Actually, lots of people meant the unresearched, rumor-mongering speculation that they were CIA stooges, with which the Sarah Boxer story led.

[Charles Pettibone]

Well, since she's under the protection of the US Marshals, you'd probably want to contact them. Since you're asking me to do your research for you, I'm reasonably sure you won't condescend to follow the links, so here you go:

Robert J. Finan II
Assistant Director of Investigative Services and Witness Security
202-307-9707

Or, you could call the Illinois branch directly:
U.S. Marshal Kim* Richard Widup
219 S. Dearborn Street Room 2444
Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-5290

[*I'd also like to take this opportunity to appeal to your gentle readers: Kim is no kind of name to saddle a man with. It's just wrong. Wrong like rain on a wedding day.]

"And perhaps you would be kind enough to call ahead and explain to them that I have an important point that they really ought to think about."

Oh puh-lease, you're the one that is "hoping that this post will call this point to the attention of the proper authorities." I've already done enough of the legwork for you by locating the proper contact info. If you're really interested in bringing the issue to the proper authorities' attention directly instead of relying on the collective power of the blogosphere, you don't need me to serve as your vanguard. Pick up the phone. I'll check back later to hear how it went.

"[Note: On another day, I might edit the T-bone post for language..."

What, "'tard" too hot for you? Widdle feewings huwt? Sorry you can't take a joke. I'll make a deal with you: don't post retarded articles complaining about how the NYT might have outed one of the judge's family members and worrying about how the blogosphere might bring it to the attention of the assassins if they didn't pick up on it themselves and I won't call you 'tard.

"...but I find it makes a useful point when the critics meet their lowest sterotypes.]"

They're my ankles! They're my aaaaaaankles!!!

;)

[TM]

What, "'tard" too hot for you?

Just rude; we try to maintain standards here.

Feel free to maintain your own standrds elsewhere, thanks.

[Jay C]

I am assuming that the rationale behind the focus of this post (and so many others) being on the awful failings of the New York Times in identifying one of Judge Lefkow's daughters is that there is unanimous agreement about the even worse awfulness of this heinous political crime (for that it what it is). That the posters and commenters who are eagerly jumping on the NYT-bashing bandwagon are doing so out of the sort of unconscious reflexes triggered by reading too many blogs too often, and not out of ignoring the implications of this terrible crime.
Yes, I know there might be some slim chance that Dr. Lefkow and Mrs. Humphrey were simply offed by a couple of random burglars: but what, in all reality, given the Judge's well-documented connections with Matthew Hale and his scumbags, what, in reality are the chances of THAT?
C'mon folks, if the NYT (or for that matter, you or I) can find out the locations of the Lefkow sisters via a quick Googling, why wouldn't a gang of fanatical criminal terrorists (for that is what they are) be able to do the same?
Yes, it's not good journalism, but get a grip, guys: there are more important issues here to get incensed over.

[TM]

C'mon folks, if the NYT (or for that matter, you or I) can find out the locations of the Lefkow sisters via a quick Googling, why wouldn't a gang of fanatical criminal terrorists (for that is what they are) be able to do the same?

Hmm, my point was that I, at least, was *not* able to track down the daughter via a quick googling.

As to your point that there are other, larger outrages in the world and in this story, well, I expect we all agree, and a number of bloggers discussed them (follow the Memeorandum link). Sometimes I veer a bit from the well-beaten path.

And, since I was atleast as curious as the rest of you - aided by the phone number provided by the ill-mannered yet oddly helpful earlier commenter, and after gettng past the receptionist, I chatted with a "Shannon Metzger" (sp?) in media relations of the Chicago office of the US Marshalls Service.

Her gist - thanks for the tip, and she will pass it along. The family has been advised that loose lips can sink ships, but waddya gonna do?

[Charles Pettibone]

We? This turn into a group blog or are you having delusions of grandeur? Will you start referring to yourself in the third person, next? George is getting upset.

Anyhoo, I'll do my best to keep you from turning my rude behavior (says you) into a strawman. Let's focus on the real issue: are you going to call the Marshals? Or were you being less that perfectly truthful when you earlier said you would? I mean, I gave you the contact info you requested. I'd hate to think I took time away from organizing my booger collection to dig up info that would languish, unused and disregarded, in the comments thread.

;)

[TM]

Will you start referring to yourself in the third person, next?

Pretty much always have - one of the long-standing jokes here that regular readers are probably sick of, but of which we never tire.

...are you going to call the Marshals? Or were you being less that perfectly truthful when you earlier said you would?

Hmm, see above. Comments crossed in the night, apparently.

[Jane J]

The Times also printed a picture of the judge's house on page one that clearly showed the street number. Leaving aside the fact of the murders there, I don't see how the judge can ever go back home now that the house and the exact street address have been broadcast all over the world.

[Forbes]

Having some familiarity with the Marshal's Service guarding Federal judges, since the WTC I trial in NYC, circa '95, I wonder about certain implications of many of the commenters herein. (I've become personally acquainted with a few of the Deputy Marshals.)

The original threats were considered to be against the judges themselves. 24/7/365 protection requires approx. 5 full time body guards. Are we now to suppose that the protection is to be extended to children (this judge has 5 daughters, with two older than age 20) and parents? Married children and their spouses? Grandchildren? Brothers and sisters? Their families? How far does the threat to kidnapping and murder extend?

Do we presume that the college age daughter (and all her siblings) quoted has been, or should be provided (or subjected to) round the clock armed, government-provided security, stalking her to academic classes, the library, sorority meetings, and overnights with the boyfriend? Do we provide her, or the Marshal, with a car to facilitate transportation for the two of them?

There are a couple thousand federal district and appellate judges. How far do we go in creating a class of citizens that are entitled to a level of security not provided to the rest of us? And at what cost?

I ask this because the knee-jerk reaction to such media exposure is: more security, more laws and regulations, more cost (and most fairly ineffectual, e.g. see airport security). Yet, the threat assesment seems entirely lacking (at least in the public dialogue), as the real threat seems no more than a high profile anomoly--as every fews years there is a violent incident, e.g. the Unabomber.

The Marshal's Service web page states 21 security details with 6 round the clock in 2002--though I doubt the numbers are individual details, as I'd guess the Southern District of New York is run as one detail.

As regards criticism of the NYTimes in choosing to report personal details as such--well, the Times deserves the criticism, if only as the "leading light" of mainstream media. This is not Times-bashing, as one commenter put it, IMO. (Such characterizations are best left for criticizing the editorial page regarding differences of politics.)

Rather, I think the MSM has invaded a zone of privacy that far exceeds what is necessarily newsworthy. This invasion occurred long ago, and it is only now with the arrival of widely available internet-based communications media that such legitimate criticism can be aired.

The privacy invasion that the MSM regularily practices is a voyeurism well beyond the self-selection that necessarily occurs for guests appearing on trashy daytime television.

And while alluding to where the MSM should draw the line, one could say draw it anywhere, for now, there is no line. But an interview of a blood relative of murder victims, all who are apparently under the threat of such violence, and then provide identifying details of said relative--whether such details are widely known, or not--adds no news worthy of publicity.

The power of the MSM is its influence upon society at large, and that influence is obtained by acting responsibly towards the subjects of its news stories, as well as its readership. Such responsibility is carried out by editors exerting news judgement--including details that are central to the news report, and ommitting information that is secondary to the story.

Television and print media regularly interview relatives of the passengers aboard airline disasters, and neighbors of murder perpetrators or victims, none of which serves any news value.

Blah, blah, blah, (sorry TM, I should get my own blog).

[TM]

Forbes, I see part of the problem right away - the Federal Marshalls are wimps when it comes to providing security.

In his latest instructional video, Tommy Lee Jones shows how one Texas Ranger can protect a whole group of young women all by himself, thereby embodying the famous Texas Ranger motto - "One sorority house, one Ranger."

Seriously, there is obviously no way they can have five marshalls on every family member for the next few years. An obvious alternative would be name changes and college/location changes (sort of like the Witness Protection program, which does not guard folks 24/7).

How this would work for the kids who still live with the judge, I have no idea.

[sophy]

Please do not hesitate to have runescape gold . It is funny.

[eve isk]

When you have eve isk, you can get more!