Wrote Annalisa Quinn, in 2022 in the Boston Globe, "Frank Smith was locked up for eight decades. At 98, what would it mean to be free? Likely the longest-serving prisoner in America, he’s been paroled into a Connecticut nursing home. But he’s still not out."
That article is linked in this NYT obituary from a few days ago, "Frank Smith, Who Served 70 Years for Murder, Dies at 101/One of the longest-serving prisoners in American history, he was sent to death row in 1950 before his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment."
The Times obit doesn't mention Smith's affinity for Tucker Carlson... perhaps to maintain the Times reader's empathy for the ancient convict.

२२ टिप्पण्या:
"They send you to prison for life...and that's exactly what they take." - Shawshank Redemption
Good. Kill someone in the 1st degree and we'll snatch the life out of you. We may even drag out the process.
I suspect the NYT does not bother mentioning those who were murdered.
Hasn't the Times become an admirer of Carlson's worldview? Expressed or implicit, it sure seems so.
Whenever asked for an odd fact about me, I tell the story about how my grandfather owned the first electric chair ever used (at Auburn Penitentiary in NY). An attorney and inveterate collector, he had bought the contents of a local museum, and the chair was kept in his basement party room My sibs and cousins played in it as kids, and called it "The Throne". My wife thinks this explains a lot about me...
He apparently was paroled in 1975 but repeatedly violated the conditions of the parole (he was 51 at the time) and had it revoked.
Interesting case. He maintained his innocense, yet declined parole at least twice.
He was only innocent in the sense that no one can be sure which among Smith and his accomplices to the robbery actually fired the shot that killed the guard.
I'm glad Shawshank Redemption has been already mentioned. It's a conflicting scenario, but if someone is in prison for murder, then lets not loose sight of that fact.
(Shawshank is a great movie, probably among the best, but it's a movie).
It looks like he had been paroled, but reimprisoned for parole violations. He had also escaped once. Eventually he gave up trying for parole. He had become institutionalized.
BTW, bear in mind that the dig is at Tucker 1.0, not the current incarnation.
Why he refused parole:
“In prison, he also had an established routine and community of sorts—he became known as the “Birdman” for caring for pigeons—and by later life he was reportedly content in a prison medical ward with a bed, television, and close access to a bathroom.”
Yup, close access to a bathroom becomes of paramount importance later in life.
Whenever we went visiting, my mom coached me to ask where the bathroom was - she was too embarrassed to ask herself and I didn’t mind. My standard greeting: “Hi, where’s the bathroom?”
He made a catastrophic mistake when he was young and suffered for it. Still he got a better deal than his victim.....You always read about some judge sentencing someone to life imprisonment, but it rarely happens-- at least for standard issue murderers. If you kill a celebrity or murder someone in a spectacular way, you might truly get life, but I think 15-25 is the usual sentence, and sometimes a lot less.
...his victim(s) still serving their sentence...
If you read the article you'll see how the NYT's misleads and misstates the facts, in order for us to believe Smith was somehow innocent. And that somehow those cruel people back then didn't let him go.
In summary, a Yacht club was robbed and a nightwatch man murdered by bullets from 2 guns. The police found a car with Yacht club stolen goods and traced it to smith. They picked up Smith hiding in the woods. Smith's partner testified against him in return for a 2nd degree murder charge. Smith was also a jailbird.
Later, another man who had been convicted for several armed robberies said he did it, not Smith. But this man had refused to testify at the trial, got a lot of details of the robbery wrong, and had several witnesses who testified they were with them on the night of the murder.
So, there's no real doubt Smith killed the watchman. Unfortunately, when 2 people kill someone in commission of a crime, its difficult to know what to do. Letting them both escape severe punishment because they said "it was the other guy" is just an incentive for murders to be committed by 2 or more people.
Here are the details https://law.justia.com/cases/connecticut/supreme-court/1954/141-conn-202-1.html
"He made a catastrophic mistake when he was young and suffered for it."
The record indicates that he was a habitual criminal before the murder. It was a lifestyle, not a "mistake".
And I love the way the far-left NYT's says this:
"He was paroled in early 1975 but returned to prison late that year after being arrested for larceny and possession of dangerous weapons."
Okey dokey. "Returned to prison". Not arrested and convicted. And I would bet they had Smith for other crimes but decided to give him a plea deal because they needed another conviction.
Anyway, he lived to 2026. His victim died over 75 years ago. He should have been executed in 1955. I wonder how the family of the nightwatchman feels about the killer of their son/Father/Brother living to 101.
This reminds me of another "Smith". Edgar Smith. He murdered and raped a girl in the 50s and was sentenced to death. Somehow William F. Buckley made the case he was innocent and some Leftwing judge used a technicality to get Smith released from Prison.
And you know the rest of the story. He kidnapped another woman, stabbed her in the chest, and she was thrown from the car - with the knife still in her chest. Incredibly, she survived, and Smithe went back to prison. He died in 2017 at 83. Like the first Smith, he should have executed in the mid 1950s instead another women had to undergo a massive traumatic experience.
He entertained abortive ideation and took affirmative action for causes other than self-defense . His "burden" was a burden of the deceased and society. He should have been sent to Planned Perphood, aborted, and sequestered for crimes against humanity.
Back in the 60s and 70s one thing celebrities did was campaign to get "Innocent" men released from prision or off death row. Norman Mailer getting jack abbott out of prison so could kill again, is probably the most famous example.
Of course today thats unneccessary. The leftwing judges just let the killers off. Short cuts the whole process.
Somehow the Times never has biographical information about the people the convicted people killed.
That’s good evedence that longevity is genetic and not environmental.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.