REVIEW: The Tylenol Murders (Netflix) — A Chilling, Personal Descent Into America’s Perfect Crime

I’ve watched more documentaries than I can count, some routine, some riveting, but The Tylenol Murders on Netflix stands alone. It is a haunting, brilliantly constructed deep dive into one of the most terrifying unsolved mass murders in American history. And for me, it’s not just a story. It’s personal.

This horror story unfolded in a neighborhood I knew intimately. Years earlier, I lived near 1500 N. LaSalle Street in Chicago, the same building where Paula Prince, one of the victims once lived. Even after I moved downtown to Marina City, I remained closely tied to that area as the Democratic precinct captain for the neighborhood. It was my beat. I knew the streets, the shops, the people.

Paula Prince was a striking, graceful flight attendant for United Airlines. I remember her clearly. She bought a bottle of Tylenol from the Walgreens at North and Wells—a store I’d frequented many times. That bottle had been tampered with and laced with cyanide. Paula was found dead in her apartment.

Her friend and fellow flight attendant, Jean Regula-another striking young woman I also knew-was the one who found her. Watching Jean speak in this documentary, her voice heavy with the weight of what she witnessed, stopped me cold.

I also knew Richard Brzeczek, the Chicago Police Superintendent at the time. I had known him long before this nightmare began, from our mutual work in law enforcement and legal circles.

I also met former CNN reporter, Jeff Flock while I was doing Freelance investigative TV news producing.

This three-part Netflix series doesn’t just rehash the facts, it rips open an old, still-bleeding wound. It exposes the chaos, the confusion, and the catastrophic missteps that allowed a mass murderer to disappear into the night.

One of the greatest failures? Johnson & Johnson-the pharmaceutical giant whose product was weaponized-was allowed to conduct its own investigation. They cleared themselves of any wrongdoing, and the government let them. No charges. No consequences. Only public reassurances and empty condolences.

Then came the extortion letter-demanding $1 million or more people would die. But this wasn’t about greed. It was about revenge. The suspect, a dangerous and manipulative figure, used the threat of mass murder to frame a man he loathed. The cruelty of it is staggering.

The evidence against him-though circumstantial-was enough to keep him in the FBI’s crosshairs for decades. But never enough to prosecute. Justice, in this case, remains a ghost.

One element that chilled me most was what the documentary didn’t outright say: there were likely more victims. Elderly individuals who died suddenly and were never tested for cyanide. In 1982, a sudden cardiac death in an older adult didn’t trigger alarms. But we now know better. And we will never know how many souls were quietly taken.

If this crime were committed today, it would be solved within days. Cameras, digital receipts, GPS data, phone metadata-technolog- would have tracked this killer down fast. But in 1982, it was a different world. A world where someone could buy poison, slip it into a bottle, and walk away unseen.

The Tylenol Murders is now streaming on Netflix. Watch it. Let it disturb you. Let it remind you how fragile our sense of safety really is-and how sometimes the most horrifying crimes don’t come from shadows. They come from places we know, people we trust, and products we never question.

Attention Supreme Court Gun Case Watchers!

The clock is ticking, and the tension is mounting. Two major gun rights cases—Snope and Ocean State Tactical—have been relisted a jaw-dropping 14 times. The justices haven’t granted certiorari. They haven’t denied it either. It’s like we’re standing on the edge of a constitutional cliff… but don’t be fooled by the silence.

Here’s the truth: this is not over. Not by a long shot.

Granting cert would mean a full hearing—a showdown in the highest court of the land. Denial would leave the states free to keep banning so-called “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines. But with the conservative majority on the bench and the landmark Bruen decision of 2022 setting a bold new precedent, it’s highly unlikely the Court lets these cases drift into the black hole of legal limbo.

I believe the Court is gearing up for something bold—and unprecedented.

As the term closes in July, expect the unexpected: a summary decision, delivered with precision and finality, declaring that Bruen already settled this fight. No need to relitigate what’s already law. The Second Amendment means what it says—period.

If that happens? Expect political earthquakes. Liberal lawmakers and their loyal media mouthpieces will be stunned into silence. The ripple effects could redefine the national debate over gun rights.

Brace yourselves. The Court might just fire the next shot in the battle for the Constitution—without saying a single word in court.

It’s very possible for the Supreme Court to decide the re-listed gun cases—Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island—without hearing oral arguments, especially if the justices believe that the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision provides sufficient guidance.

Understanding Relisted Cases

When the Supreme Court “re-lists” a case, it means the justices are taking additional time to consider whether to grant certiorari (i.e., agree to hear the case). This isn’t uncommon and can indicate that the Court is seriously contemplating the case’s implications.

The Impact of Bruen

The Bruen decision established that any gun regulation must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This ruling has significantly influenced how lower courts assess Second Amendment cases.

In the case of Snope v. Brown, after Bruen, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban, leading petitioners to argue that this decision conflicts with Bruen’s framework. 

Possible Outcomes Without Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court has several options:

• Grant Certiorari and Decide on the Merits: The Court could agree to hear the case in full, including oral arguments.
• Deny Certiorari: The Court might decline to hear the case, leaving the lower court’s decision in place. 
• Issue a Summary Decision: The Court could decide the case without oral arguments, especially if it believes that existing precedents like Bruen provide clear guidance.

Given the significance of these cases and their potential to clarify the application of Bruen, it’s plausible that the Court might opt for a full review. However, if the justices feel that the issues have been adequately addressed in prior rulings, they might choose to resolve the cases without further arguments.

As of now, the Supreme Court has not made a definitive decision regarding these cases. Observers anticipate that the Court may act before the end of its current term in June 2025.

UPDATE;  The United States Supreme Court denied CERT on both cases.  Only they and God know what they were thinking,  

Welcome to America, Where You’re Guilty Until Searched

Since 1968, Americans have been obediently conditioned like Pavlov’s mutts, salivating not at the sound of a bell, but at the sight of TSA gloves and metal detectors. The trigger? Fear. The trainers? Politicians, bureaucrats, and their obedient media lapdogs, who whipped up national paranoia and sold it as “safety.” And like good little subjects, the public bought it. This is the period when our courts carved out every possible exception to our Fourth Amendment. 

Before this authoritarian makeover, only people entering prisons and jails were searched without a warrant. Today, your average law-abiding citizen can’t walk into a courthouse, city council meeting, or even an airport without being treated like a potential terrorist. Congratulations, America: you’re all inmates now, and every building is your warden.

Fast-forward 57 years and we now live in a country where the absence of TSA gropers and rent-a-cops at doorways would terrify people. God forbid you walk into a public building without being searched like a drug mule. Americans now feel safer being searched—fondled, scanned, and sniffed like contraband—than exercising their Fourth Amendment rights.

Remember those? The Fourth Amendment, a once-vital civil right that said:

“The right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Yeah, that thing. It’s now about as relevant as a Blockbuster card.

And just in case the “public safety” crowd still thinks they’re on solid legal ground, let’s talk about the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision—the one that obliterated the idea that constitutional rights can be casually “balanced” against vague notions of safety. As Justice Thomas wrote:

“The government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition…”

Translation? Public safety doesn’t magically cancel the Constitution—especially when that “safety” means strip-searching citizens with zero suspicion.

So here’s the question: When the hell do we take our rights back? When do Americans stop bending over for warrantless searches at every airport, courthouse, and government building like it’s just another part of life?

We’ve become so brainwashed that people now shrug and say, “Well, that’s just the world we live in.” Nonsense. We lived through a brutal Civil War, two world wars, and the Cold War without tossing the Bill of Rights in the shredder. Today’s dangers don’t justify the cowardice and compliance that have become our national pastime.

Wake up, America. If we don’t reclaim the Fourth Amendment now, we may as well stop pretending we’re free. The Founders didn’t risk everything so we could play security theater in the land of the frisked and the home of the scanned.

Why have Americans allowed their fourth amendment rights to be routinely violated by government?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This of course was the law of the land until about 1968.  Nearly every exception below spits in the eye of the fourth amendment.

The plain language of the fourth amendment does not allow for interest balancing for things like public safety. Most all of these things should not exist without properly amended constitutional provisions.  The SCUTS Bruen case talks about the interest balancing tests by courts as being absolutely unconstitutional.

Interest balanced exceptions to the Fourth Amendment – 

Case Law Unlawfully Balancing Public Safety vs. Individual Rights

While the Fourth Amendment is foundational, courts have carved out exceptions in balancing government interests, especially in law enforcement and public safety. Here are key U.S. Supreme Court cases with notable exceptions and the Court’s reasoning:

1. 

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Exception: Stop and frisk without a warrant

Holding: Police may stop and frisk a person based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and involved in criminal activity.

Quote:

“A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed… but where a police officer observes unusual conduct… he is entitled for the protection of himself and others… to conduct a carefully limited search.”

2. 

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)

Exception: Search of vehicle incident to arrest

Holding: When an officer has lawfully arrested a vehicle occupant, they may search the passenger compartment without a warrant.

Modified by: Arizona v. Gant (2009), which limited vehicle searches unless the arrestee can access the car or there is reason to believe it holds evidence of the offense.

3. 

Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Exception: Sobriety checkpoints

Holding: DUI checkpoints are constitutional because the state’s interest in preventing drunk driving outweighs the minimal intrusion on drivers.

Quote:

“The state’s interest in preventing drunken driving is substantial, and the intrusion on motorists is slight.”

4. 

Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)

Exception: Information-seeking roadblocks

Holding: Brief highway stops to seek information about a recent hit-and-run were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Key Point: The purpose was not to detect crime in those stopped, but to get help solving a specific incident.

5. 

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006)

Exception: Exigent circumstances – emergency aid

Holding: Police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened.

Quote:

“The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order… the Fourth Amendment does not bar entry and search in such situations.”

6. 

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013)

Exception: DNA collection upon arrest

Holding: Collecting DNA from arrestees charged with serious crimes is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and serves legitimate state interests like identifying the individual.

Dissent (Scalia):

“This search invades the dignity and privacy of the individual… it is a suspicionless search.”

7. 

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

Exception: Good faith exception to exclusionary rule

Holding: Evidence obtained through a technically invalid warrant is admissible if the officer acted in good faith believing the warrant was valid.

Quote:

“The exclusionary rule is not a personal constitutional right… but a judicially created remedy.”

There is no single Supreme Court ruling on TSA or modern airport searches, but lower courts have upheld their constitutionality based on the administrative search doctrine, balancing minimal individual intrusion against immense public safety interests.

Performers, Athletes, and Other Overpaid Complainers: Keep Your Politics in Your Locker or Dressing Room

There was a time—not that long ago—when art, music, theater, and sports brought people together. These were our common escape from the insanity of politics and division. But now? Every performance risks being hijacked by some overpaid, self-obsessed narcissist using their spotlight to shout political slogans instead of doing the job they’re paid handsomely to do.

Want a history lesson in how it should be done? Look no further than Jesse Owens—the ultimate class act. In 1936, he walked into Nazi Germany, stood in front of Adolf Hitler and a roaring crowd cheering for the so-called “master race,” and then systematically dismantled their propaganda by winning four Olympic gold medals. No protests. No drama. Just raw American excellence that shut down racism and fascism with a pair of track shoes.

Owens didn’t need a microphone—he had greatness. He didn’t throw tantrums, kneel, or scream about injustice. He let his performance do the talking and humiliated Hitler in his own backyard. That’s what real heroism looks like.

Compare that with today’s crop of political performers and athletes who can’t get through a single show or game without making it about them. Nobody bought a ticket to hear you cry, rage, or deliver your “brave” political TED Talk. We came to see you perform, not preach. If you want to be an activist, run for office. If you’re on a stage or a field, do your damn job.

Theaters, sports leagues, and concert venues need to put their foot down. Enough with the political sideshows. There are thousands of hungry, talented people who would give anything to stand in your shoes—and they’d do it without turning every spotlight into a campaign rally.

So here’s the deal: be like Jesse Owens. Rise to the moment. Represent with excellence. Leave the drama in the dressing room and the whining on Twitter. If your politics are more important than your performance, don’t expect an audience to stick around.

Because we’re not clapping for your opinion. We’re clapping for greatness. Either deliver it—or step aside.

Locked and Loaded at the Supreme Court: Snope v. Garland and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island Set to Explode into Landmark Second Amendment Rulings

Let me predict that the Supreme Court’s ultimate gunfight is set to restore the Second Amendment. 

The United States Supreme Court has a habit of saving its biggest constitutional thunderclaps for the end of term—and this year is no exception. Two high-stakes Second Amendment battles—Snope v. Garland and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island—are locked in at SCOTUS, and the justices are not letting them go quietly.

Rather than issuing a routine denial or grant of certiorari, the Court has relisted these cases again and again in conference—an unmistakable signal to seasoned court watchers that the justices are circling something explosive. This pattern strongly suggests that the Court may be preparing to grant certiorari and use these cases to reaffirm and perhaps expand on the principles it laid down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).

In Bruen, the Court made it abundantly clear: the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Any law that restricts firearm possession must be deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. That precedent alone puts state bans on so-called “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines on thin constitutional ice.

Now, in Snope, which challenges federal bans and interpretations under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act, and Ocean State Tactical, which attacks Rhode Island’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, the stakes could not be higher. These cases may answer the critical question: Can governments ban the most popular arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?

The Court’s extended deliberation and repeated relisting of these cases strongly suggest that a majority is weighing how best to write the next chapter in Second Amendment jurisprudence—a chapter that may strike down broad weapon bans and reaffirm that the right to keep and bear arms includes arms that are effective, reliable, and widely owned.

Unfortunately, unless the court decides very quickly to grant CERT and fast track this case which is very unlikely we are going to have to wait at least a year for the Supreme Court to deal with the briefing schedule and oral arguments it’s doubtful we are going to get any relief until 2026

Watch this space—because when the Court finally pulls the trigger, it could redefine the limits of state and federal power over armed self-defense in America.

Arrested? Smile Like Your Future Depends on It—Because It Probably Does!

So, you’ve just been arrested. Great. Welcome to what is likely not going to be the best day of your life. But hey, this is exactly why you need to flash those pearly whites like you’re posing for a toothpaste commercial—because your booking photo is about to go public, baby!

We’ve all seen those glorious mugshots on TV—faces contorted in despair, rage, or just plain confusion. Some look like they’ve just seen a ghost, others are doing their best “Don Corleone” impression. It’s like a sad talent show for the emotionally wrecked.

Back in the day, booking photos came with that charming slate of police info—height, date, maybe a fun alias. But no more! The cops got tired of being sued because those CSI-style headshots made people look guilty, even when they were just misunderstood lovers of chaos.

Now? Booking photos look like they were snapped between chemistry and gym class. No police info, no context—just you and your “Why me?” face. And trust me, nothing screams “I probably did it” more than a pouty mug or a smirk that says, “Catch me if you can.”

And let’s not forget—if your arrest makes the news (bless your dramatic soul), your mugshot is going viral faster than your aunt’s meatloaf recipe. So do yourself a favor: look cheerful, look innocent, look like you’re on your way to brunch, not jail.

Bottom line: No matter what chaos led to this moment, smile like your lawyer’s retainer depends on it. Because it just might

Film Review: “September 5” - A Gripping Journey Back to Munich, 1972

Los Angeles, CA—One of the perks of being a Screen Actors Guild member is exclusive access to film screenings. This time, it was at the stunning theater at Paramount Studios, where not only did I see the film, but I got to meet the talented cast and the young visionary Swiss director, Tim Fehlbaum.

“September 5” transports viewers back to the Munich Olympics of 1972—a global celebration of athleticism that quickly spiraled into a nightmare. The world watched in shock as Palestinian terrorists, under the name Black September, launched a calculated attack, kidnapping and brutally murdering 11 Israeli athletes and coaches, along with a German policeman. Helping orchestrate the horror were infamous German radicals Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof, making the tragedy even more chilling.

What sets this film apart is its unique perspective: we experience the horror through the eyes of ABC News sports reporters and producers, who were on-site in Munich, covering the Olympics. Imagine using the “cutting-edge” equipment of 1972—now laughably outdated by today’s standards—to broadcast a massive international story. The pressure was relentless; these were sports reporters suddenly plunged into a global crisis well beyond their usual scope. Yet, through their determined reporting, they became the eyes and ears of the world.  Nearly 1,000,000,000 viewers watch this unfold worldwide on live television. 

Sean Penn produced this film, and regardless of personal opinions on his politics, there’s no denying his extraordinary talent. The acting is powerful, the cinematography innovative, and the experience immersive. Watching, you feel as though you’re right there in the cramped, chaotic makeshift studio alongside the reporters, experiencing every tense moment as they grapple with a breaking tragedy.

As the story unfolds, you already know that history won’t deliver a happy ending. Yet, the intensity never lets up. This is a film like nothing you’ve ever seen before. “September 5” will keep you on the edge of your seat, captivated by the courage, humanity, and tragedy of that day in Munich. Don’t miss it.

The film opens in select theaters November 29.  It opens nationwide on December 13.  

How big city politicians kill crime to bullshit to public.

Chicago, IL – You’ve just heard your local news anchor confidently tell you that despite how it may seem, crime in the Windy City is actually on the decline. But you have to ask yourself, is crime really slowing down, or is someone massaging the numbers with a pencil?

I don’t care what your mayor or the news media says, especially in large cities – the police chief or superintendent does not set policy. Mayors never give up that control. The police brass get their marching orders and either follow them or get replaced. Statistical deception is only limited by the creativity or lack thereof by those in charge of presenting the numbers.

The term often thrown around is “killing crime.” Here’s how it works: police reports are categorized on forms generated by the department. The system, created by the FBI, divides crimes into Part One offenses (the most serious) and Part Two offenses (less serious), all under the Uniform Crime Reporting system (UCR).

Take burglary as an example. A burglar breaks into a home to steal property or commit another crime. If the police make an arrest and clear the crime, it’s reported as a burglary. That crime is then cleared by police efficiency stats. But when they can’t make an arrest, police bosses don’t want it reported as a Part One burglary. So, officers are instructed to categorize it as vandalism and simple theft instead. It’s a clever way to cheat—by not reducing the burglary rate but showing an artificially high rate of solving crimes.

And what happens to officers who don’t play along with this bullshit? For starters, they’re reassigned to districts far from their homes. Their chances for promotion evaporate, and their efficiency ratings tank. You get the picture.

Now, how do they cover up homicides? As an investigative TV news producer, I got a tip from a Chicago homicide detective who spilled the beans. He explained that certain cases, like a murdered prostitute estranged from her family, get dumped into a special file labeled “pending death investigations.” The trick is that since these deaths aren’t officially classified as homicides, they never make it to the UCR system.

I asked the detective how I could get the numbers on these death investigations to expose the system. He told me what I already suspected—it would require a mountain of research, and I’d get no help from the department.

So, I took a different route. I filed a public records request with the Cook County Medical Examiner and got access to their case database. I compared the homicides listed in the city of Chicago with what city officials were claiming. The results were shocking: Chicago police had concealed over 350 murders. I passed this information to retired CBS2 reporter Pam Zekman, who confronted former Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline with our findings. That story won an Emmy.

If you’re a mayor and don’t like your crime statistics, don’t worry—you can always cheat. Below is a brief rundown of the Uniform Crime Reporting system. Anyone with half a brain can figure out a way to bullshit the public.

The UCR system is a national crime data collection program managed by the FBI. It classifies crimes into two categories: Part One Crimes (the serious stuff, like violent and property crimes) and Part Two Crimes (less serious offenses). Part One Crimes are what most jurisdictions use to gauge the overall crime rate, and these are the numbers the public hears about the most.

Part Two Crimes, on the other hand, cover a broader range of offenses but don’t carry as much weight when calculating crime trends or shaping public perception.

Now that I’ve told you how officials hide or kill crime, here’s the flip side: some jurisdictions over-report crime to snag more federal funds.

So, how trustworthy is the UCR? About as trustworthy as your local politicians!