A true patriot speaks: I just read Stephen "Fat Boy" Lemon-head's blog about the counter-demonstration at the Beaner rally downtown the other day, and I'm sick and tired of him maligning true patriots who're defending this country from the invasion — and I do mean the invasion — of wetbacks from our south.
Lemons slams car dealer Rusty Childress, who out of no profit to himself helps keep the movement going. And he makes a big deal out of some so-called skinheads that may or may not have been present that day. Personally, I don't care how someone cuts their hair, as long as they're defending America. Come to think of it, the Marines cut their hair pretty short. Does that make them Nazis too? Lemons probably thinks so.
He even has the gall to make fun in his blog of Buffalo Rick Galeener, a wounded veteran, whom he should get down on his knees and thank for fighting for this country's freedom overseas. If I ever meet up with Lemon-boy, I plan to give him a little history lesson on what men like Buffalo have done for their flag. I'm sure he'll find it very educational.
Dan Bunker, Surprise
OUTRAGEOUS JUSTICE
Crying and screaming: I just read for the third time Sarah Fenske's outstanding, yet unbelievable, article about Cindy Monkman. I'm shocked! I'm so angry! I'm sitting here, wanting to cry and scream at the same time ("Sympathy for the Devil," April 26)! I totally agree with Sarah's opinions, and I share her emotions about what these two bastards are now trying to get away with.
I am so saddened by what Cindy Monkman's family must go through now, having to return to court and relive the pain and that hell, after Cindy was murdered by these monsters.
Cindy's so-called retarded husband manipulated, married, and murdered her with the help of his brother. These men, supposedly with low IQs, carefully and intelligently thought out, planned and performed what they did to Cindy . . . and everything they did before, during, and after!
And now it seems they've successfully conned a judge and possibly the judicial system? Give me a break! And please, please put tax money to better use!
Thank you, Sarah, for your powerful story. Thank you for informing the world of the details of this case. My sympathy and prayers go out to Cindy's sister, Kathy, and the rest of the Monkman family. I pray that you are resting in peace, Cindy darling.
Deanna G. Barton, Fairfield, Connecticut
Judging Sylvia: I think Judge Sylvia Arrellano is looking to make a name for herself via the Monkman case. She knows everything that was written in this article by Sarah Fenske, and more. Yet she continually sandbags the attorney general's office.
She tried to rule out any testimony about Michael and Rudy Apelt after they were adults, when deciding if they were mentally retarded or not.
She has thrown Cathy Hughes, the original prosecutor who convicted the killing duo, off the case. She has also overruled her own decisions. Recuse this judge!
Wendy Rodriguez, via the Internet
Whos the real con here?: I am sickened and appalled to learn what a mockery this murderer from Germany is making of the American justice system. The current judge in this case is an embarrassment to our system.
I am surprised to learn she is on the bench in the same county as "America's toughest sheriff." Judges like this one undo and/or undermine all the hard work of prosecutors everywhere with their asinine decisions.
Politicians and voters, please take note! Be very careful about who you put on the bench. It appears there are con artists from all walks of life.
Paula Gordon, via the Internet
The real question: I wasn't going to read your article, but then I gave in as I wanted to see what this was all about. It sickens me that perpetrators have more rights that the victims. How could people who are mentally retarded have the smarts to conjure up this whole scheme?
And you are right: Why do we give in to this?
Craig Benner, via the Internet
Spare us another tragedy: Reading the article about Michael and Rudy Apelt and how they methodically plotted and killed Cindy Monkman, after satisfying their greed for money, brought me back to the chilling reminder of events that occurred more than 15 years ago.
As a business owner, I had hired an Arizona State University student who had recently graduated with an engineering degree. He saw Cindy frequently. On one occasion, she visited my business. I enjoyed talking with her very much, and she was absolutely full of life.
It was a very dark day for many of us when the chain of events unfolded as you have detailed in your article. To this day, I still have a heavy heart from the grief that so many people close to Cindy endured.
My sincere wish is to see the Arizona justice system step up to the plate and block the plea of mental retardation. Even though there is no act that can bring Cindy back, declaring Michael Apelt mentally incompetent would make a mockery of justice.
After Cindy was taken from us by Michael and Rudy Apelt's brutal actions, the final horror of this situation occurred when my employee, who had been close to Cindy, returned from an out-of-town trip and heard the devastating news.
Reluctantly, he volunteered to help identify the body, and was told by authorities that they appreciated his coming forward but the body had already been positively identified. Then, they relayed to him that she had been so brutally murdered that it would not be in his best interest to see what had happened.
I sincerely hope that Michael Apelt will not be spared his rightful dues for yet another con.
Harvey B. Jansen, via the Internet
ASU INC.-LINGS
Trouble in Crows nest: I read what you wrote on Arizona State University and Michael Crow and would like to commend you on an excellent article ("ASU Inc.," Megan Irwin, April 26). I have lived in Tempe for 30 years and have seen many changes, both good and bad.
The university experience is quickly fading from what was once a great campus, and the biggest losers are the students.
I worked on campus in the comptroller's office when John Schwada was president and also was athletic business manager for the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics for seven years during the tenure of Frank Kush and Fred Miller.
I have not been a fan of Michael Crow since the first day he was hired and the first time he opened his mouth. It was evident to me that changes were on the horizon, and they were not, in this man's opinion, heading in the right direction.
I am not the least bit surprised that Michael Crow would not meet with you. Why should he? You could not enhance his agenda. Remember, this is all about him and his ego. I am angered by his style, direction and intimidation of the university population.
The sooner he goes the better the state of Arizona and Arizona State University will be. I would like to see ASU once again be Sun Devil Country, not a Crow's nest.
Shelly Gerard, Tempe
ASU on right track: Your article on Michael Crow further proves New Times is good for only two things: finding something fun to do on the weekend and laughing at the bizarre sexual ads in the back of the issue.
When you write an article, do you sit down and say to yourself, "What is the most obtuse and bizarre position I can take?"
Michael Crow is running ASU like a corporation; how is that a bad thing? He's been given incentives to do his job well, which sounds like an excellent thing to me. Would you rather have him paid a flat salary with no motivation to make things better other than to do the bare minimum to keep his job? Financial incentives for quality work are a wonderful way to get good production out of anyone.
Furthermore, either your article didn't clearly explain the situation with Kathryn Milun, or it really is as stupid as you make it sound. ASU had a rule, she had to do X in Y amount of time, she didn't do it, and she was let go. Where is the crime here?
Furthermore, no one cares about your writer's quixotic heroics when she was at the State Press. This article was a completely inappropriate place to go into that matter. If you want to pen an autobiography, please do so, but don't bait a reader with one thing and then trick them into reading part of your life's story.
The fact that Michael Crow is seeking a lot of private investment for ASU is a fantastic thing, and I can't see how anyone would be upset about it. You mean Michael Crow is decreasing ASU's need to ask for more and more tax money each year by getting private donors? How horrid! The scandal!
Will Novak, Phoenix
First mistake: first person: This article on ASU was informative and meaningful, until the author starts talking about herself. Megan Irwin serves to discredit her article when she goes into an immature and egotistical rant on her personal experience with Michael Crow, which is a shame, considering all that her article could have exposed.
She writes, "Unlike thousands of my classmates, I met face to face with the president several times." Well, good for her, but what does this have to do with a tenure-track professor? She even continues to boast her self-importance on ASU's campus in a vain attempt to paint herself as some sort of Michael Crow martyr: "There was even a petition circulated on campus to have me resign and (so I heard) have me kicked out of school."
That rant sounded more like that of a woman scorned than of a professional journalist. I am surprised and disappointed that this got past the editors at New Times.
Lea Rae, Tempe
Academic Indonesia: I, too, was a student at ASU, my younger sister is currently attending, and my mother has been a nurse there for almost 30 years. We speak constantly of the almost-daily changes on campus and the frustration almost everybody seems to feel with Michael Crow.
Your article was extremely well-researched and informative, and I hope it will inspire many people who have kept their frustrations private to speak out. That way, maybe we can keep our university out of the hands of the private sector and special-interest groups. Otherwise, our learning institution turns into academic Indonesia with an autocratic ruler.
Adam Dahlberg, Chandler
