Larry: Where did the article you posted on 15 Oct 02 - 07:46 AM come from? I couldn't find any such article with a Google-search.

You posted: "A quote from you, Sharon...'I'm a white Anglo-Saxon, not a member of an ethnic culture!'... hmmm." I posted that on 10 Oct 02 - 05:05 PM as part of an attempt to point out the fallacy of using the excuse of a "cultural naming tradition" for submitting aliases to police when one is arrested. First you used that statement to tell me that I can't possibly understand prejudice because I'm white, and now you're using it to tell me... what, exactly? What's your point?

As far as your post of 14 Oct 02 - 07:34 PM (" 'What else do I need to say about my family before Larry's convinced that I wasn't raised in an ivory tower?' ... perhaps understanding that prejudice exists for others?") is concerned, of course I understand that prejudice exists for others. What I've been trying to say in many posts to this thread is that prejudice against a person is no excuse for that person to cry foul when he or she is arrested, convicted and punished for his or her criminal activity. My family members could easily have considered themselves victims of prejudice but they have not. They could have reacted to prejudice by victimizing others but they did not. They could have engaged in home-repair scams or shoplifting scams to "achieve" what the rich folks down the street "enjoy" but they did not. Instead, they made an honest living. So I have sympathy and understanding for others who experience prejudice, but I have no sympathy or understanding for those who try to blame their own bad behavior – and the resultant distrust of those individuals – on prejudice. Likewise, I have no sympathy or understanding for those who attempt to gain preferential treatment – by police, by the court system, by child protective services, by any local, state or federal authority – because of their ethnic origin, no matter what that origin is. Equal treatment, yes. Preferential treatment, no.

Now, as others have pointed out on this thread, legal authorities in Indiana have given no indication that they are treating the Madelyn Toogood battery case any differently than such cases would be handled for anyone else with the same criminal record that Madelyn has, nor that they are treating the Martha Toogood custody case any differently than such cases would be handled for anyone else with the same criminal records that her parents and other relatives have. Ethnic prejudice simply is not a factor here. Even the article you posted on 15 Oct 02 - 07:46 AM, Larry, does not mention Toogood's ethnicity, only the investigation into the incident on September 13th and the conflicting accounts of the physical and emotional harm it may have caused. For the authorities NOT to have considered indefinite custody would have been irresponsible of them.

As for the investigation of the doctor in New Jersey, it was begun because he had his photos of Martha Toogood (taken of her in the nude) developed at a photo lab which, of course, has to report to authorities when anyone gives them nude photos of children to be developed. The authorities were making sure that the photos were not child pornography. Again, no ethnic prejudice involved.

Yes, absolutely the media "falls into stereotypical reporting" as Ron says, and that should not be tolerated, but there's no reason to assume that authorities are swayed in any way by it or to assume that authorities are handling a criminal case with prejudice simply because the case involves an Irish Traveler. To assume such a thing is to be prejudiced oneself!