Connection Failure


Weekend Report – Nov. 6 & Nov. 7, 2010

Lindell Kay | Weekend Report | Sunday, November 7th, 2010

- As I posted earlier, the information changes in the Hulsman homicide flew like crazy¬†beginning Tuesday. The¬†main thing that changed was the spelling of the poor woman’s name.

At first the Sheriff’s Office reported her name as Hulsman. Then¬†incident reports and a recheck of her mailbox had here name as Hulsmann. Then her obit was released and it had Hulsman. Which led to a¬†check with the¬†Register of Deeds, and yep,¬†Hulsmann again. The newspaper originally reported her name as Hulsman and with so many changes, even in between press times, we stuck with Hulsman, figuring it was better to be¬†consistently wrong¬† (or right, who’s to say?) than bounce around and make a tragic situation more confusing for readers.

Here are a few photos in from Friday.

Sheriff Ed Brown answers reporters’ questions:


Lead investigators, Sheriff’s Sgts. Tom Robinson and Kerry Gibson, listen during Friday’s press conference:


Daily News Chief Photographer John Althouse snaps photos for the newspaper:


In one of the incident reports, the suspect states he was friends with the alleged victim’s step son. Not the best character reference, considering this:

Craig Hulsman’s DOC record.

Notice how the state calls him Hulsman and Hulsmann.

- NCIS is taking an interest in an unsolved Onslow County homicide they haven’t previously investigated.¬†This is good news. NCIS was the first agency at the federal level to have a cold case squad and it has¬†resolved 60 deaths since its inception in the mid-1990s.

Investigative efforts¬†by NCIS special agents like Sam Worth – who interviewed George Hayden in 1998 and caught him in a big slip up – and Wayne Brown – who¬†labored over the case in his off time -¬†laid the ground work for Hayden’s¬†eventual arrest and conviction in the 1972¬†shooting murder of Marine Sgt. William Miller.

NCIS knows cold cases.

I hope they get to the bottom of this newest case they’ve tackled because I know the suspects and they need to be jailed.

- Friday¬†was the second late¬†Friday night I’ve had to work in a row.¬†Last week it was about pre-election stories. This¬†time it was all about post¬†election stories. Grab a copy of Sunday’s paper and see for yourself.

One lingering question, will Robert Grady announce his intention to run for another office or pay out of his own pocket the cell phone bill he has been charging to his campaigns since 2002?

Click to see a photo of Robert Grady at a Jacksonville park.

And in the interest of fairness, I know¬†FBI agents have been conducting interviews¬†recently¬†about Louis Sewell. I spoke to one of the people interviewed, but they wouldn’t say much.¬†I have heard from¬†reliable law enforcement sources that the U.S. Attorney’s Office is mighty interested in Sewell right now.


Sewell didn’t want to talk about the federal probe when I interviewed him in his riverfront office¬†behind his Anne Street mansion.¬†


- On Saturday, Mike McHugh ran into a firm believer in the Bill of Rights. His account of events follows:

Sometimes it’s painful to have to educate people–who should know better–about the rights afforded every American under our constitution, specifically that pesky First Amendment.¬†Case in point. I was shooting pictures of the Jacksonville Veterans Day parade along Western Blvd. Saturday and saw a scene that seemed ripe for illustration. What I saw was a long line of cars snaking around the drive thru of Starbucks and behind it the activity of the parade.¬†It was a great juxtapose of¬†beautiful pageantry–the Veterans Day parade–¬†and everyday pedestrian consumerism of $5 coffee to go.¬†I photographed the scene capturing the line of cars.¬†As I passed along side the cars, the driver of the Land Rover powered-down her passenger side window and pronounced, “I did not give you permission to take¬†my picture.” Upon which I politely informed the driver with the blue Camp¬†Lejeune sticker¬†affixed the vehicle’s front windshield that I did not need anyone’s permission to take a photograph since I was standing in a public area to which the driver said – noticing my press credential – if the picture was published she would take legal action. I informed her it would be on our website by sundown.Sometimes the there are a few – I’m not proud to say – Marines who believe their authority and the perimeter of the Camp¬†Lejeune extends into all corners of Onslow County. I’m saddened to think if this young lady is indeed a Marine officer – since blue stickers indicate the vehicle is that of an officer – why is she so naive as to the constitutional rights of the very citizens she’s been trained to defend.¬†Or is it just arrogance?


I think the main points in all of this¬†are: 1) There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. 2) We should all be a little nicer to each other. 3) Not every disagreement should be fodder for public display. 4) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD.


- Come to think of it, Mike McHugh can be annoying with his camera phone. Check out this photo he took of me praying at work the other day:


Anyone who claims I was sleeping is wrong. I often snore when awake.


  1. Chances are, this was an officer’s wife. I think I would be upset too if someone were standing right in front of my vehicle taking my picture. It would be one thing to get caught in there by accident but to purposely stand in front of my vehicle and take a picture…just don’t know about.

    Comment by AnnDaniel — November 7, 2010 @ 10:26 am

  2. On another note I forgot to mention…I had no idea the parade was this weekend. I wanted to go. Maybe next year.

    Comment by AnnDaniel — November 7, 2010 @ 10:27 am

  3. I agree with AnnDaniel that it was probably a spouse or other dependent rather than the actual service member. Unfortunately, though, most military members aren’t as law-conscious as one would like think.

    Comment by Thomas Brock — November 7, 2010 @ 11:23 am

  4. Mike McHugh said

    I hope she uses better judgement when she’s in uniform than she displayed Saturday.

    Unfortunately, Mike, probably not. In my experience, at least…

    Comment by Thomas Brock — November 7, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

  5. Mike,

    Have you ever thought that just some people don’t want their picture taken? Regardless if it was a public area and you had that right…doesn’t she likewise have the right to not have her picture taken? Perhaps, she didn’t know why it was being taken espec ially since you were wearing a press badge as I honestly don’t see how at that angle it even relates to the parade. I can imagine her taking an attitude with you…as I probably would have as well. Just because one acts one way at one moment in time does not define how that person is all the time. If you were having a bad day and snapped at someone–as we all have–does that mean you are always a nasty person? No, it does not. And at this moment in time, you don’t know what was going on with her that day.

    Comment by AnnDaniel — November 7, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

  6. Mike,

    You were well within your rights to take the picture of the woman. However, now that the picture has been published, she is right. You can tell by clicking on the picture that she has her hands up because she is expecting her privacy and doesn’t want her picture taken. You also admit that she wanted her privacy and told you not to publish the picture. Now you’ve made your own comments and Lindell has posted your comments with the picture which put her in an unfavorable light. All she needs is one good lawyer and she can sue both you and jdnews.
    I understand its easy to get into a pissing contest and I would probably do it just to spite her but it would’ve been the polite thing to not take the picture. Normally, photographers at events would ask me if they could take a picture first. I think you were both being jerks that day.

    Comment by Hawley — November 7, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

  7. Off the subject – but Lindell I think you stepped on my foot at the Lynyrd Skynyrd concert!

    Comment by Hawley — November 7, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

  8. Hawley,

    Sorry about stepping on your toes. I thought those big clown shoes were mostly empty.

    I’m kidding.

    Man, I enjoyed Skynyrd so much more than I thought I would. I have been a fan since I was born, but I thought seeing them (or one of them surrounded by old dudes) was sure to be a let down. Boy was I wrong. When they kicked off the show with “Working for MCA,” I knew we were in for a ride.

    Speaking of rides, I’m just along for one with Mike’s latest adventure. You said I was being a jerk “that day.” If by posting Mike’s opinion, maybe. But to be clear I wasn’t there. I was buying furniture with the wife when Mike was defending the constitution. I wasn’t there and I am just allowing him to convey what he experienced.

    As for you armchair lawyering, don’t commit any crimes anytime soon, because you’re defense attorney (to wit: you) might drop the ball.

    What I am saying is this:

    First, you said the woman in question in the photo above “is expecting her privacy and doesn‚Äôt want her picture taken.” The courts have upheld since long before any of us were born that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

    This woman is in Jacksonville, in the middle of the day at Starbucks with a parade in the background. That is the opposite of private.

    Second, you said we paint her in an unfavorable light. She is anonymous in this photo. Only a very select few people would even know who she is based on the photo and the information provided. And Mike is simply voicing his opinion. Something he does every week in the newspaper.

    Third, when a photographer asks you whether he can take your picture, what they are really saying is – “I’ve already taken your photo as you were in a public place, but my editor will want a name to go with it so I need your name and as a politely sly way to get it I will ask if I can take your picture.” That doesn’t go over as well as, “Excuse me, can I take your picture? Can you spell your name for me?”

    Think I full of it? Next time compare angle and position you are in the photo of you that is printed with your pose you were in after you give your “permission.”

    Whew. What all this means is people should just be nicer about things. Mike is an extremely polite person. All anyone would have had to do is ask him politely, “sir, why are you taking my picture?” Then he would have said “For the newspaper,” along with a bunch of McHughesque gibberish. Then that person could say, “please don’t publish it.” Then, if the photo wasn’t an award-winning crime scene photo (i.e. the person asking for his or her not picture not to be taken was standing over a body with a smoking gun), Mike – like most decent people – would say: “You sure? Okay.” But when people are rude and abrasive then things turn out differently.

    In the interest of fairness, Mike and I spoke about the photo situaton and if the woman was clear in the photo then we wouldn’t have posted it – BECAUSE WE ARE NICE GUYS.

    Time to put the younguns on the school bus…

    Comment by Lindell Kay — November 8, 2010 @ 7:54 am

  9. It was awesome! Next year time though we need more beer tents (I brought a DD for a reason)!
    I actually meant Mike and the woman in the car were both being jerks that day, not you. And, I can easily understand how its easy to get in a pissing contest and do it out of spite b/c if she had been snotty to me, I would’ve done the same thing.
    I know you can take the pictures whenever you want but my Google lawyer led me to believe there are cases where you can’t always publish them. Its an interesting topic and I will have to look into it more. Although, I’m sure being in journalism – you guys know better. But, I mean..a woman sued for spilling hot coffee on herself so…

    Comment by Hawley — November 8, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security text shown in the picture. Click here to regenerate some new text.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word