Kletzky Defendant May Be Mentally Ill

More details on the murder, at Wall Street Journal, "Suspect Recounts Time With Child":

The man accused of abducting 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky told police he took the boy to an upstate wedding, let him sleep overnight in his apartment and then fed him a tuna sandwich before smothering him in a panic, authorities said Thursday.

Levi Aron's tale of an initially benevolent effort to help the lost little boy emerged as he appeared in a Brooklyn Criminal Court to face murder charges in a case that has unnerved the city and shattered the tight-knit community where Leiby lived.

Mr. Aron, 35 years old, entered the courtroom to loud and profane jeers from other defendants. He appeared blank-eyed and unemotional.

His lawyer, Pierre Bazile, entered a not-guilty plea on Mr. Aron's behalf and asked that his client be placed in protective custody.

"He indicated to me that he hears voices and has had some hallucinations," Mr. Bazile said. He would not comment further on the allegations outside the courtroom.

Continue reading.

Leiby's mom is said to be overcome with grief. She's beating herself up for giving in to Leiby's pleadings for independence.

Also at Reuters, "NY man accused of killing, dismembering boy is 'hearing voices'."

And New York Times, "Police Sort Through Suspect’s Account as He Pleads Not Guilty in Killing."

News International CEO Rebekah Brooks

As reported earlier, Britain's Guardian has been on the warpath during the Murdoch hacking scandal. Here's The Guardian on Rebekah Brooks of News International, "David Cameron and Rebekah Brooks: a special relationship":

Not since Dylan played the Albert Hall has there been a hotter ticket. MPs expected such demand for seats in the Boothroyd Room of Portcullis House next Tuesday that the appearance of Rebekah Brooks before the culture and media committee was due to be relayed by video to an overspill room – even before Rupert Murdoch and his son James performed the latest in a week of jaw-dropping U-turns and agreed to join her.

It is certain to be an occasion worth clearing your diary for. The last time Brooks condescended to be questioned by MPs, she made the striking admission that the Sun had paid police for information – a statement that she later explained did not mean that she knew of any actual cases of police being paid by her journalists. A decade, several arrests and an entire newspaper have passed since then, and this time there is rather more to talk about.

Murdoch senior's defence of his embattled empire will now be the main event, but it's the under-bill bout with Brooks that I'll be looking forward to most. Such has been the media preoccupation with Cameron's curiously trusting relationship with one former Murdoch editor (yes, I plead guilty) that his much closer embrace of Brooks has undergone little scrutiny.

That's the statement at the clip above, via the extraordinary roundup at the New York Times yesterday, "Updates on British Phone-Hacking Scandal."

Palin's Paltry Fundraising

I'm not going to sugarcoat it.

It seems unreal, but the Iowa caucuses could be held as early as December, depending on whether other early primary states try to leapfrog the Buckeyes. That would give Sarah Palin roughly five months to raise the $100 million that's long been considered the "entry fee" for competitiveness in the early contests. But according to reports out today, Palin's fundraising's lagging. At Wapo, "Sarah Palin’s PAC raises just over $1.6 million."

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin raised just over $1.6 million in the first half of 2011 through her political action committee, SarahPAC, an amount that suggests she has not ramped up her fundraising for a presidential campaign.

Palin has also spent about $1.5 million so far this year, mostly on political consultants, travel and direct mail, ending up with $1.4 million on hand.

Because she is not a candidate, Palin can file disclosure forms bi-annually rather than quarterly. PAC contribution limits also are twice as high as candidate contribution limits — $5,000 instead of $2,500.

The money was raised for her political action committee, so it could not be used in the 2012 presidential race should Palin run. It’s more a measure of supporter enthusiasm and political clout.

So does $1.6 million say anything about her political ambitions or viability? Not really.

Continue reading.

Palin's not officially declared, but time's a-wastin'. See also The Hill, "Palin PAC raises $1.6M in first half of year" (via Memeorandum). And check the spin at C4P, "Sarah PAC Raises over 1.6 Million in First Half of 2011."

RELATED: The news out yesterday was how far Republicans are trailing President Obama in the money race: