August 16, 2022

Wanda Sykes · Polygamy · Bodyguards

Plus: When a documentary snarls jury selection

the true crime that's worth your time

Can you advocate for dismantling traditional policing and still take a job where you normalize one of its most controversial tools? If you’re Wanda Sykes, the answer is apparently “yes.” The 58-year-old standup has been a vocal advocate against police abuse and overreach on social media and in media appearances, which suggests that she’d turn down a job offer from a surveillance device that’s worked hand-in-glove with law enforcement — to the point where advocates have petitioned the FTC to have it banned.

As unquestioningly reported by Deadline, Sykes will host an upcoming show called Ring Nation, a clip show of “viral videos shared by people from their video doorbells and smart home cameras.” It’s clearly an attempt to capitalize on the Tik Tok popularity of surveillance video, but this show promises a feelgood twist, as (per Deadline) the “series will feature clips such as neighbors saving neighbors, marriage proposals, military reunions and silly animals.”

But unlike its obvious progenitors, America’s Funniest Home Videos and its ilk, this show is produced by the same folks who own Ring, albeit a few steps away. For Ring is owned by Amazon, which also owns MGM Television and Big Fish Entertainment, the production companies behind Ring Nation.

Deadline calls the show an act of “corporate synergy,” but Vice — which has led the charge on reporting the alleged police overreach when it comes to accessing Ring footage of the non-marriage-proposal variety — calls it the online giant’s “newest effort to normalize its surveillance network.”

When you read past coverage of Ring’s relationship to law enforcement, it’s hard not to take the latter seriously. A quick primer:

• Police Are Tapping Into Ring Cameras to Expand Surveillance Network In Mississippi [Vice]

• Inside Ring’s Quest to Become Law Enforcement’s Best Friend [Vice]

• Amazon gave Ring videos to police without owners’ permission [Politico]

• Doorbell-camera firm Ring has partnered with 400 police forces, extending surveillance concerns [Washington Post]

• 48 Advocacy Groups Call on the FTC to Ban Amazon Surveillance [Vice]

• It’s the user’s fault if a Ring camera violates your privacy, Amazon says [Ars Technica]

So, that’s Ring. Now on to Ring Nation co-producer Big Fish…the company that’s also behind both the first version of deeply problematic copaganda series Live PD, and its revived iteration, now called On Patrol: Live, that recently landed at Reelz. So, yes, a vocal opponent of legacy policing methods is now in bed with a production company that celebrates and amplifies those same legacy policing methods.

Perhaps to Sykes’s credit, she did not provide comment within Deadline’s press release regurgitation, instead allowing Ring founder and inventor Jamie Siminoff to praise her. Siminoff, who said in 2019 that “My goal would be to have every law enforcement agency on [Ring’s] police portal,” said via prepared statement that “We’re so excited to have Wanda Sykes join Ring Nation to share people’s memorable moments with viewers.”

“Bringing the new community together is core to our mission at Ring,” Siminoff said, “and Ring Nation gives friends and family a fun new way to enjoy time with one another.”

It’s that last line that prompted my mother to text me that Deadline link at 4:16 this morning (7:16 her time, to be fair). “It says it’s a ‘fun new way to enjoy time with each other,’” she texted, terming the show “creepy” and “weird.” Will viewers agree with my mom? Will Sykes’s ambition continue to overtake her stated politics? Find out on September 26, when Ring Nation will appear…somewhere via the magic of syndication. — EB

How do you select an unbiased jury when your defendant is a massive star whose alleged crimes were the subject of a high-profile docuseries? We’ve seen the issue of unbiased juries before, when the case involved a notorious crime (the D.C. Sniper, for example) or the subject was wildly famous (Michael Jackson springs to mind). But the struggles of the prosecution and defense in a Chicago courtroom this week seem next-level in comparison.

That’s where the trial for musician R. Kelly is kicking off, and according to the Chicago Tribune, finding a jury made up of folks who know nothing about the singer, the allegations against him, or the TV show that attracted enough law enforcement attention to reopen the investigation against him might not be possible. From the Trib:

Some questioning revolved around the “Surviving R. Kelly” docuseries, which many potential jurors said they had watched or had at least heard of it.

One woman said she saw the whole thing, but it would not affect her ability to be fair — prompting some audible snickers from a few Kelly supporters watching from the courtroom gallery.

Another man said he watched part of an episode with his wife but didn’t remember anything substantive about it.

“I think I might have even fallen asleep before the end of it,” he said.

Anyone who’s been summoned for jury duty knows that one of the quickest ways to get bounced from a jury is to demonstrate substantial knowledge of the case, but that’s not the case here, as U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled early on that “a blanket rejection of anyone who had seen any part of the show would not be appropriate.”

Jennifer Bonjean is Kelly’s attorney, and the person who filed the motion to reject any juror who watched the show. In a document filed Sunday, she wrote:

This is an issue of potential jurors possessing a mountain of information about the specific allegations in this case and the witnesses’ stories that will play center stage at this trial and may or may not be admissible. Allowing an individual to sit on this jury who has seen ‘Surviving R. Kelly’ is no different than allowing a juror to sit on the jury who was permitted to preview the discovery in this case.

By the end of Monday, Leinenweber had questioned 30 potential jurors and dismissed 16 of them, some for saying they didn’t think they could be unbiased, one because they were a children’s advocate, and one whose kids took Tae Kwon Do with Kelly’s kids. None, it seems, was dismissed solely for watching the popular Lifetime series about Kelly’s alleged abuses, which poses the question: How can you watch that series and still remain unbiased in the case? Is that actually possible or, in the words of Bonjean’s filing, is that idea “absurd”? — EB

Leave a comment

A docuseries I would eagerly watch is Hollywood Bodyguards. Before you get excited, this is a show I made up, not unlike my imaginary Palm Springs Airbnb Cops1. And as an LA Times article made me hungry for a series about keeping the poolside music down (or else), it’s a Hollywood Reporter story that makes me think it’s time for a real-life The Bodyguard, done behind-the-scenes style.

The piece is headlined “More Stars Are Hiring At-Home Bodyguards, Sparked by High-Profile Crimes in L.A.,” and based on the headline, I snickered. Like, seriously, is Samuel L. Jackson on his local Nextdoor and getting freaked out over so-called “porch pirate” posts?

But the piece is actually an interesting and detailed (maybe too detailed, I suddenly worried) look at the specific protection needs of the wealthy. Here’s a snip:

Residential security details may include one or several armed guards around a home who are skilled in defensive tactics, surveillance detection and security driving (which includes precision driving, accident avoidance and other skills) and will monitor a property around the clock. There also might be electronic security systems, barriers, alarms and, in some cases, drones. Moyer, who got his start doing security at the Playboy Mansion and was formerly head of security at ICM, says his team uses drones with thermal imaging cameras on celebrity estates that can detect people hiding in bushes during the day or night. They have speaker systems, as well, so “we can communicate with the bad guy and tell him to leave and the police are coming,” he says.

The drones also can capture 3D maps of a space, flying zigzags of an entire area so “we can find very easily the weaknesses in their property and security systems that they need to put in,” says Moyer. World Protection Group’s security system is monitored via a tablet, and when a sensor is set off, all cameras automatically focus on the suspect area, followed by audio and visual alerts.

Kind of makes that Ring doorbell camera look like bullshit, am I right?

The bodyguards are typically “former military or former police,” as well as “onetime NFL and NBA players, UFC fighters and, in one case, a high school principal.” (You can see the cast start to cohere, can’t you?)

One thing the industry needs, and lacks, are women, who will have an easier time accompanying their clients into places like restrooms, locker rooms, or fitting rooms. As in other professions, that might be because women are unfairly perceived by hiring managers as being less useful in tough situations. And even folks like Anton Kalaydjian, CEO and founder of Guardians Professional Security, admit that that’s unfair. “I’m 6-foot-4, 265,” he told THR. “They might feel safer with me around rather than Ronda Rousey; meanwhile, Ronda Rousey would beat the hell out of me in a fight in a second, but they don’t see that.” 

So maybe that’s the show’s angle: an up-and-coming, all-female bodyguard team that’s going up against the (literal) big boys in Hollywood. Think Selling Sunset meets La Femme Nikita meets a non-racist Dog The Bounty Hunter. Folks, I think we got us a show…but even if you don’t care to watch it, check out THR’s report on the profession for am engrossing, no B.S. read. — EB

In the journalism industry, we call them “curiosity gap headlines.” You know the ones: “Can the new COVID variant evade immunity?” “This new crime is on the rise” “This quick tip will help you drop body fat, fast.” But this recent hed from A&E got me, I have to admit: “Why Is Polygamy So Rarely Prosecuted?”

“Great question, A&E, why is it?” I thought, imagining a prison system where every victim of the war on drugs was replaced with folks convicted of marrying multiple people.2

Frustratingly, the piece does not answer that question, other than a passing link to a ten-year-old report on one county in Utah’s then stance that “it won't file bigamy charges against any consenting adult polygamists unless violence, abuse or fraud is involved.” It posits, however, that “Americans are becoming more accepting of polygamy because they’re more accepting of alternative lifestyles in general.” Snip:

According to the 2022 Gallup Values and Beliefs poll, a record percentage of Americans—23 percent—believe that polygamy is “morally acceptable.” Though far from unanimous, this stat is up from 20 percent in 2020, 16 percent in 2015 and 5 percent in 2006—the lowest percentage since the query’s introduction in 2003. (Interestingly, only 9 percent of those polled in 2022 found cheating on one’s spouse morally acceptable. This seemingly indicates that many of the Americans who accept polygamy view it like a traditional, monogamist marriage when it comes to “faithfulness.”

This was an argument I hadn’t considered, that the arguably rise in tolerance and opened-mindedness across the U.S. has made the population more accepting of what’s typically been a conservative religious value…and, as a result, it’s now considered “less” of a crime.

It’s a fascinating possibility, but now I feel like A&E kind of missed out with that headline. Instead, how about “Is Polygamy a Progressive Value?” — EB

Wednesday on Best Evidence: We’ll have our usual Wednesday discussion thread — why not get a jump on things by commenting on today’s issue?

What is this thing? This should help. Follow Best Evidence @bestevidencefyi on Twitter and Instagram. You can also call or text us any time at 919-75-CRIME.