Native American Tribe Worries Oregon Militants Could Damage Ancestral Land

The Oregon militia demands their land back from the federal government. But that land actually belongs to the Burns Paiute tribe, which worries that the occupiers are damaging cultural artifacts.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at

Barbershop: Guns, Obama and 'Making A Murderer'

In this week’s Barbershop, Anil Dash, a tech writer in New York, Rev. Kenn Blanchard, a gun rights enthusiast and NPR’s Gene Demby talk about President Obama’s tearful moment on gun policy earlier this week. They also discuss how the Netflix series Making a Murderer is shaking up the way people think about criminal justice.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at

$900 Million Prize, 1 In 292 Million Odds — And A Few More Lottery Numbers

A machine prints Powerball lottery tickets at a convenience store in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. Saturday's jackpot has risen to $900 million.

A machine prints Powerball lottery tickets at a convenience store in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. Saturday’s jackpot has risen to $900 million. Saul Loeb./AFP/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Saul Loeb./AFP/Getty Images

One number has everybody’s attention this afternoon. But why stop at one?

Here’s the prize jackpot, plus a few other lottery stats worth knowing:


The eye-popping, record-breaking Powerball jackpot value, as of Saturday afternoon. If no one wins tonight, the jackpot could crack a billion.

That’s based on a single winner selecting the annuity option, which pays out over three decades. Alternately …


The cash payout that rarely gets the boldfaced headline treatment, but it’s the more likely winning amount. The vast majority of jackpot winners choose the cash payout, even though it’s always significantly smaller than the jackpot.

You could hypothetically benefit from choosing the upfront payout — provided you invest the money instead of spending it. Which of course is exactly what you’d do, right?


The tax man cometh. If you win and choose the lump-sum payment, expect to pay north of $200 million in federal taxes, at the 39.6 percent top income bracket — not counting state income tax.

1 in 292,201,338

One in 292 million. Those are your odds of winning the jackpot.

Not one in a million, not one in 10 million … one in 292 million.

Are you channeling your inner Lloyd Christmas right now … “So you’re telling me there’s a chance?”

Here’s a way to more viscerally experience the long odds. The Los Angeles Times put together a demonstration of playing the Powerball odds, in chunks of $100 or $1,000 or more — tallying up your total losses over time.

You can plug in truly enormous amounts of money and watch probability at work all afternoon, if that sounds like fun. So far, this reporter is down 104 grand.

15 percent to 73 percent

Listen to the story



  • Playlist
  • Download
  • Embed
    <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">

Listen to the story

That was the range, as of 2012, of total payouts by U.S. states, as Steve Tripoli reported for NPR in 2014. That is, of all the dollars paid for lottery tickets, that’s the percentage paid back to winners.

West Virginia claimed the 15 percent, Massachusetts the 73 percent, while most states were in the 50 to 70 percent range. (You can look up your own state in our chart).

For the record: Those are all abysmal rates by gambling standards. Most casino games pay back more than 90 percent, Tripoli says; the house still wins, of course, but it doesn’t win by nearly as much as state lotteries do.

44 states (plus D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands)

The vast majority of American states offer a lottery these days. Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah and Mississippi are holdouts, refusing to participate in either Powerball or Mega Millions. Some states cite religious objections, while in Nevada, the powerful gambling industry views lotteries as competition.

Residents of those states can still play the lottery — but they have to travel to a participating state to do it.

(Puerto Rico has Powerball but not Mega Millions. Now you know.)


That’s more than $70 billion — the total amount Americans spent on the lottery in 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries.

CNN Money calculates that’s more than Americans spend on sports tickets, books, video games, movie theaters and recorded music, combined.

NASA’s annual budget, for comparison, is around $17 billion. Total U.S. foreign aid for next year: just shy of $38 billion.


That’s the average per capita spending on lotteries in America, as calculated by Derek Thompson in The Atlantic last year.

Of course, the cost isn’t distributed equally, he notes. There’s geographic variation — with annual spending north of $700 in Rhode Island, South Dakota and Massachusetts, based on state populations, while well under $100 per capita in other states.

There’s also variation based on income. Study after study has found low-income communities spend more of their money on lotteries than high-income communities, Thompson writes.

That economic variation is why people call state lotteries regressive taxes — that is, a way of funding the state that disproportionately takes money from the poor.

On Saturday, Vox pointed out an intriguing decade-old study suggesting that lotteries become less regressive as the jackpot size increases — that is, richer people are more likely to buy tickets for big prizes, lessening the disproportionate impact on the poor. Economist Emily Oster, then a graduate student at Harvard, suggested that a jackpot of $806 million would actually be progressive instead of regressive.

At the time, that jackpot size was theoretical — but not any more.

27 cents

According to the lottery industry’s own trade magazine, for every dollar spent on the lottery, an average of 27 cents goes to the “beneficiaries” — the oft-touted government spending programs supported by a lottery, usually in areas like education or recreation.

A cut goes towards administering the lottery (which is far more expensive than collecting a tax — one analysis by a conservative think tank found lotteries are up to 50 times more costly than tax collection). A chunk, of course, goes towards the winners. Some goes to retailers, some to the companies that design and operate the lottery systems. What’s left goes into state coffers.

The average might be 27 cents to state expenses, like the industry says, but it can be as low as 11 cents to the dollar, NBC News reports.


That’s the impact of a lottery win on net happiness, at least at first.

A famous 1978 study found that major lottery winners were no happier than ordinary folks, and actually got less joy from daily activities. A 2008 Dutch study found winning the lottery doesn’t make a household happier.

Now, a caveat: Two studies out of England suggest that it is possible to win the lottery and be content — but only eventually.

“No researcher has ever found that people are happier in the first year after winning the lottery,” one of the researchers told The New York Times

And the Times’ social science reporter suggests that it might take longer and longer to find contentment the larger your win is. So, about that $900 million …

Even numbers higher than 31

OK, if you insist: You can’t increase your odds of winning the lottery, but you can increase the chance that — if you do win — you won’t have to split the jackpot.

People tend to include birthdays and other dates in their lottery numbers, mathematician Aaron Abrams told NPR’s Robert Siegel in 2012, which means more numbers between 1 and 31. And people have a bias towards odd numbers.

So, for best results: Even numbers higher than 31.

But have we mentioned? One in 292,201,338.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at

Is Oculus Rift's $600 Price Too High For Virtual Reality To Succeed?

An attendee of the CES technology show in Las Vegas tried on the Oculus virtual reality headset Rift, which the company prices for pre-order at $599.

An attendee of the CES technology show in Las Vegas tried on the Oculus virtual reality headset Rift, which the company prices for pre-order at $599. John Locher/AP hide caption

toggle caption John Locher/AP

When I met up with Palmer Luckey this week at CES, the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas, the founder of virtual reality company Oculus VR had some explaining to do. Oculus had just announced the price of its highly anticipated consumer model of the virtual reality headset Rift: $599.

It sparked outrage from many fans who thought Luckey had promised them virtual reality for the masses, and at that price, the masses would have to skip car payments to afford it. Plus, the Rift requires a high-end computer that would run around $900, making the cost closer to $1,500.

About three years ago, Luckey’s introduction of the Rift he had created sparked a generation of people who had dreamed of immersive 3-D reality to believe it had finally arrived. Here was a prototype for an affordable version of a product, whose prohibitive cost had confined it to government and university researchers.

“It is expensive,” admitted Luckey, 23. “The Rift was designed to prioritize quality over cost. We wanted to make the Rift something that everybody would want before we make it something that everyone can afford.”

And according to Luckey, Oculus (which is owned by Facebook) is not making money on Rift hardware. In a tweet, he even called the Rift “obscenely cheap for what it is.”

Luckey argues, people who want a cheaper VR experience can buy a Samsung Gear for $99. Though it requires a Samsung phone to work, it uses Oculus software. To Luckey, the Gear gives a sort of starter VR experience that he hopes will get people excited about the new medium.

But will the Rift price tag doom the headset and perhaps even the much-hyped but yet-to-materialize virtual reality revolution? If virtual reality is going to take off, the audience will have to be a lot bigger than the people who can afford to drop $1500 on an entertainment device.

In defense of Luckey and Oculus, this is far from the first time a new class of computing technology started out with a high price tag. The original iPhone was $599 with a two-year contract. The first Kindle was $400. Over time, the prices decline. The latest iPhone still costs upward of $600, but you can get a brand-new older model for a lot less. A new Kindle can now be had for as little as $79.99.

Still, it is possible to undermine a new product by charging too much. The 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, Panasonic’s high-end game console, came out in 1993 with a price tag of $699. Time magazine named it “1993 Product Of The Year.” Never heard of it? There’s a reason: its high price doomed it to failure.

For his part, Luckey prefers to compare the Rift to PalmPilot, the personal digital assistant of the late 1990s.

“It was a very expensive device for most people,” he says. “And most people couldn’t justify the cost of that device in their everyday life. But, everyone knew about it.”

In its time, the PalmPilot was a success. And as Luckey sees it, the Palm marked the beginning of the mobile computing revolution that led to the iPhone and other smartphones in the same way that the Rift is the beginning of another revolution in computer communications.

“I don’t think Oculus will fail. But we have to have proper expectations,” says J.P. Gownder, an analyst with Forrester. He doesn’t think that 2016 is the year that virtual reality will go mainstream, but perhaps the year that modern VR “was born.”

The Rift is also not the only VR device scheduled to hit the market. Later this year, HTC will begin selling its Vive headset. It hasn’t announced a price, but some analysts think it may cost more than the Rift. Sony PlayStation VR is also hitting stores this year.

Gownder believes Sony’s headset is likely to do best because it has the advantage of millions of PlayStation owners who are primed to be interested in games in virtual reality.

Of course, no one knows for sure if consumers will take to virtual reality. Television makers spent a fortune developing and promoting 3-D TVs and those never took off.

But Luckey rightly points out that virtual reality — unlike the 3-D TV experiment — came from the bottom up. The Oculus Rift was built with money from a hugely successful Kickstarter campaign. (The company is now promising free Rifts to its Kickstarter backers.)

“There were a ton of people willing to back a company with no track record, no history and one game because they really wanted to play virtual reality,” says Luckey. And there are also thousands of developers creating game, travel, music and educational experiences for VR.

Though Luckey might want to think about comparing the Rift to the PalmPilot. Millions of people now own its descendants from the iPhone to the Galaxy Note. But Palm, the maker, is out of business.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at

1 Year, More Than 75,000 Miles: Cyclist Breaks 76-Year-Old Record


Seventy-five thousand miles is long enough to cross the United States about 250 times. Long enough to circle the equator — three times.

And for 75 years, 75,000 miles was long enough to be legendary. Or more specifically, it was 75,065 miles — the miles-biked-in-a-year record set by Tommy Goodwin in 1939 and never broken since.

But on Monday, a man named Kurt Searvogel pedaled past that mark. On Saturday — the last day of his year of extraordinary biking — he’s pushing towards 76,066, a full thousand miles further than Goodwin’s legendary feat.

Kurt Searvogel’s rode 230.73 miles on his first day attempt at the HAM’R.

— Alicia Searvogel (@aliciaadventure) January 11, 2015

“He him-haws that 76,000 is good enough,” Alicia Searvogel, Kurt’s wife and and one-woman support team posted on Facebook Saturday morning. “No! He’s done but he’s not done. … 223 MILES TODAY!!!!”

It’s just 223 miles in a day, after all … only 15 miles more than the average daily pace that 53-year-old Searvogel, a.k.a. Tarzan, has maintained since Jan 10, 2015.

How exactly do you go about biking 75,000 miles in a year? “Only A Game,” at member station WBUR, spoke to Searvogel and shared a day in the life of a man tackling the HAM’R — the Highest Annual Mileage Record:

” ‘Normally I’ll wake up around 5:00 and get some breakfast,’ Searvogel said, ‘and be on the bike around 6:00, pretty much ride until about 8:00 or 9:00 at night. Keep it to a 14-15 hour day and then — and then get enough sleep to keep going for the next day.’

“This has been Searvogel’s schedule for 365 days in a row. Wake up. Ride 200 miles. Upload the data from his GPS. Eat and sleep.”

Searvogel’s planned itinerary called for a “rest and recovery” day every seventh day: a mere 176 miles. But his records show he usually blew past 200 even on those “rest” days.

2 days to break the record!

— Alicia Searvogel (@aliciaadventure) January 3, 2016

It was an eventful year. Searvogel got in two collisions with cars, was diagnosed with asthma, had a heart scare, traveled through eight states and went through multiple bikes, the Tampa Bay Times reports. And in October, he and Alicia, his crew chief from the start of the journey, were married. He still clocked 175 miles that day.

Searvogel’s not the only one avidly pursuing the HAM’R. The record first set by Godwin — a vegetarian Brit who battled foul weather and World War II food rationing, in a feat well worth reading about over at WBUR — is also being chased by Steve Abraham. Abraham was hit by a moped and broke his ankle — but kept riding. He restarted the year counter in August and is continuing his effort.

But for now the HAM’R is Searvogel’s, and the only question is how high he’ll push the record mark.

The final stretch is a ride from Jupiter, Fla., to St. Augustine, Alicia Searvogel said on Facebook. You can watch Kurt Searvogel’s progress through his GPS tracker.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at

Research Suggests Gun Background Checks Work, But They're Not Everything

William Gordon, left, helps Steve Wrona as he looks at guns while visiting the K&W Gunworks store in Delray Beach, Fla., on Tuesday, the day President Obama announced executive action on guns.

William Gordon, left, helps Steve Wrona as he looks at guns while visiting the K&W Gunworks store in Delray Beach, Fla., on Tuesday, the day President Obama announced executive action on guns. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Here’s one topic Americans can bank on hearing about in next week’s State of the Union address: gun control. The reaction to President Obama’s announced gun-control measures this week was swift and entirely as expected. Gun-control advocates and many Democrats applauded his efforts; gun-rights groups and many Republicans loudly denounced the orders as executive overreach.

Expanded background checks are central to the president’s proposals. His order doesn’t rewrite existing laws, but it would broaden the scope of who is in the gun-selling business. It would require more gun sellers online and at gun shows to be licensed (and perform checks) among other things.

“Let me be clear: It’s not where you are located but what you are doing that determines whether you are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch told reporters this week.

So would those extra checks bring down America’s high levels of gun deaths? Gun policy experts who spoke to NPR say it could, but if so, that it would only make a dent.

Here’s a look at the evidence:

What research says

Two recent studies provide evidence that background checks can significantly curb gun violence. In one, researchers found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring gun buyers to get permits (which themselves required background checks) was associated with a 40 percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides. Similarly, when researchers studied Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law, they found an associated increase in gun homicides by 23 percent, as well as a 16-percent increase in suicides.

Those are some huge results — one expert called the Missouri study “the strongest evidence that background checks really matter,” as The New Republic reported — but as with lots of social-science research, there’s some fuzziness as to what the results mean. One caveat is that these studies aren’t about background checks alone. Instead, they’re about permit-to-purchase laws, under which people had to go to local law enforcement to get a permit and, therefore, a background check.

That difference might have impacted the results, explained Daniel Webster, a co-author on both studies. He said that being forced to get a permit from law enforcement might do more to deter a straw purchaser, for example, than getting a check at a nearby store.

Furthermore, he added that because so many factors influence gun violence in different ways, it’s hard to say how much the effects seen in Connecticut and Missouri would also happen in other states. In addition, a stand your ground law enacted in Missouri in 2007 may have affected the results.

Still, other academic research points to the laws’ effectiveness as well. In a 2015 analysis of studies published over the course of 15 years, Webster and co-author Garen Wintemute found that expanding background checks could “have protective effects against lethal violence,” and that permit-to-purchase laws in particular help curb murders and suicides.

They also found that background checks help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but that it’s less certain whether that in turn leads to less violence.

There’s no perfect consensus on how well background-check laws work. A 2000 study found that the 1994 Brady Act — which instituted not only background checks but waiting periods at first — did not reduce either homicide or suicide rates.

A CDC task force also found in a 2003 review “inconsistent findings” as to whether restricting gun access through background checks works and insufficient evidence as to whether an array of other gun laws are effective. However, the CDC also said that its findings didn’t mean that gun laws don’t work; rather, it said it needed to study the topic more.

Gun-policy researchers say they want to better study background checks (as well as many other policies), but a couple of hurdles stand in the way. Part of the problem is that good studies on the effectiveness of background checks are pretty rare, according to Webster. One reason is that it’s hard to find good test cases to study.

“There’s not a lot of change or variation [in laws] to study in recent times,” he said. “The vast majority of these laws have been on the books for many, many decades.”

Another expert blamed the federal government.

“One of the big problems is that the feds have not funded good research in this area,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and an expert on firearm-related injuries.

He points to federal restrictions, passed in 1996, that said the Centers for Disease Control could not use its funding to “advocate or promote gun control.” That caused the CDC to back away from gun research almost entirely.

Outside organizations could pick up that slack, Hemenway added, but they have not done so. “The foundations haven’t done a good job, because it’s such a controversial area,” he said. You don’t want to get involved. So we know some things, but we don’t know as well as you would hope, given the enormity of the problem.”

What recent shootings tell us

While some scholarly evidence suggests that background checks reduce crime, seeing evidence in recent mass shootings is tougher. As the New York Times found in a December investigation, the guns used in many recent high-profile shootings were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

Importantly, though, to the extent that background-check laws on the books might have prevented mass shootings, it’s impossible to compile similar lists of incidents that would have occurred, were it not for those laws.

One other thing recent shootings say is that the current background-check system has some gaping holes in it. For example, FBI Director James Comey said in July 2015 that Dylann Roof, who is accused of killing nine at a South Carolina church last year, should not have passed a background check. Because information about his admission to a narcotics charge never reached an FBI examiner handling his check, as the Washington Post reported, Roof was able to buy his gun.

In addition, some states are doing a poor job of submitting mental health records to NICS, as Politico’s Kevin Cirilli writes, allowing some sick people to obtain guns. Cirilli points to Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, who had a history of mental illness before he killed 32 people in 2007.

As it stands, around 1.6 percent of 148 million background checks (that is, more than 2 million) between 1994 and 2012 were denied, according to federal statistics.

What the statistics say

One of the most important questions to this discussion is impossible to answer precisely: how many guns are obtained without background checks? While there aren’t exact numbers on this, the figure could still be substantial. Using 2004 data, around 18 percent of gun transactions involved private sellers, buyers’ family members or friends or “other” sources, as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler found last year. A majority of those sources were not licensed dealers (and therefore were not required to conduct background checks).

According to the figures cited by Kessler, 7 percent of guns were obtained from gun shows (and many of those sales probably underwent background checks).

But data suggests that gun shows don’t directly supply many of the guns used in crimes. Spokespeople from the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gun sellers, both also pointed NPR to government data showing that less than 1 percent of prison inmates in 1997 said they got their guns from gun shows. Meanwhile, nearly 80 percent obtained their guns from friends, family or “street” (illegal) sources.

All of this very well may mean that, as gun-rights advocates like Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio often point out, criminals will simply obtain guns through some avenue other than stores. That would mean that background checks don’t deter those people, and, therefore, that expanding them to more online or private or gun show sales would do little.

But there are other possible conclusions. A recent study of offenders in the Chicago area found most obtained their guns from “personal connections, not from gun stores or by theft.” While that study suggested to some that background checks are ineffective, one of the authors, Duke University’s Philip Cook, disagrees.

“This research demonstrates that current federal and local regulations are having a big effect on the availability of guns to criminals in Chicago,” he said in a release. “They can’t buy their guns from stores, the way most people do, and are instead largely constrained to making private deals with acquaintances, who may or may not be willing and able to provide what they want.”

Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told NPR that “the industry has always been supportive of the background check system,” though he also said he has doubts about how much good the new proposals will do.

Researchers Hemenway and Webster both think the president’s executive actions could have a modest effect on gun violence. For his part, Hemenway thinks universal background checks would be an effective first step, but what he thinks would be more fruitful in the long term has more to do with innovation than legislative action.

“In the long run, we should be spending a lot of money on figuring out technological fixes,” he said. “The easiest one is to make guns better for home protection and much, much less dangerous and less likely to be stolen.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at


Our panelists predict what will finally make the Oregon Militia Men end their siege.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at

Fresh Air Weekend: 'Carol'; Ellie Goulding's New Album; A Paramedic's 'Wild Ride'

Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett (right) begin a love affair after meeting in a department store in Carol.

Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett (right) begin a love affair after meeting in a department store in Carol. Weinstein Co. hide caption

toggle caption Weinstein Co.

Fresh Air Weekend highlights some of the best interviews and reviews from past weeks, and new program elements specially paced for weekends. Our weekend show emphasizes interviews with writers, filmmakers, actors and musicians, and often includes excerpts from live in-studio concerts. This week:

In ‘Carol,’ 2 Women Leap Into An Unlikely Love Affair: Screenwriter Phyllis Nagy and director Todd Haynes discuss their new film based on Patricia Highsmith’s 1952 novel, The Price of Salt. Nagy says the story was “extremely forward thinking.”

British Singer Ellie Goulding Strikes An Inventive Chord With ‘Delirium’: The “Love Me Like You Do” singer created her new album as an experiment — to see if she could make a “big pop album.” Reviewer Ken Tucker says Goulding’s experimental effort was worth the risk.

Paramedic Shares His Wild Ride Treating ‘A Thousand Naked Strangers’: Kevin Hazzard, who worked as an Atlanta paramedic, rescued people from choking, overdoses, cardiac arrest, gunshot wounds and a host of other medical emergencies. Respiratory calls were his favorites.

You can listen to the original interviews here:

In ‘Carol,’ 2 Women Leap Into An Unlikely Love Affair

British Singer Ellie Goulding Strikes An Inventive Chord With ‘Delirium’

Paramedic Shares His Wild Ride Treating ‘A Thousand Naked Strangers’

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at

'El Chapo' Back In Prison He Escaped From — Thanks, In Part, To Lure Of Hollywood

Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is escorted by army soldiers to a waiting helicopter, at a federal hangar in Mexico City Friday. The world’s most wanted drug lord was recaptured six months after he fled through a tunnel from a maximum security prison in a made-for-Hollywood escape that deeply embarrassed the government and strained ties with the United States. Rebecca Blackwell/AP hide caption

toggle caption Rebecca Blackwell/AP

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán had seen his name in headlines. He knew it graced the world’s Most Wanted lists.

But it appears that the notorious drug kingpin wanted something more: He wanted his name in lights.

Guzmán was recaptured by the Mexican government on Friday, and has been returned to the same prison he broke out of in July. Mexican authorities tracked him down in the seaside city of Los Mochis thanks in part to Guzmán’s desire to make a biopic about his life, Mexico’s attorney general says.

The druglord had contacted actors and producers, Arely Gomez says, opening a line of investigation that helped Mexican marines ultimately capture the fugitive.

Guzman’s life is certainly dramatic enough for the big screen. In fact, a film based on his story — Chapo: El Escape del Siglo, or Chapo: The Escape of the Century — is set to open in Mexico next week.

And a less glamorous video of his July escape has already seized the attention of the world, as Bill and Laura reported yesterday:


Surveillance video shot by a security camera in Guzmán’s cell showed one of the world’s most notorious criminals pacing around before dropping behind a partition in the shower area of his cell.

“That cell was in the Altiplano prison, a maximum security facility about 55 miles from Mexico City. Guzmán spent less than 18 months there before his accomplices used a nearly 1-mile tunnel to ferry him to freedom.

“Before he was captured in February of 2014, Guzmán had been on the lam since 2001 — when he escaped from another maximum security prison that was reportedly nearly identical to the one he broke out of last year.”

After his 2001 escape, the head of the Sinaloa Cartel “managed to outmaneuver, outfight or out-bribe his rivals to stay at the top of the business for over a decade,” as Reuters put it.

This time around, he had months, not years, of freedom. Mexican forces first located Guzmán in October, but he escaped in part because Mexican marines held their fire at the sight of two women and a child with him, Mexican attorney general Arely Gomez said Friday.

Officials then tracked Guzmán to Los Mochis, with help from his silver-screen dreams and information from one of his tunnel builders, the Associated Press reports. They narrowed his location down to one house in an upscale neighborhood, and moved in early Friday, the wire service says:

“Five suspects were killed and six others arrested. One marine was injured.

” ‘You could hear intense gunfire and a helicopter; it was fierce,’ said a neighbor, adding that the battle raged for three hours, starting at 4 a.m. She refused to be quoted by name in fear for her own safety.

“Gomez said Guzman and his security chief, ‘El Cholo’ Ivan Gastelum, were able to flee via storm drains and escape through a manhole cover to the street, where they commandeered getaway cars. Marines climbed into the drains in pursuit. They closed in on the two men based on reports of stolen vehicles and they were arrested on the highway.”

Now Guzmán is back at the Altiplano maximum-security prison — the site of his July escape.

The U.S. has a standing request for Guzmán to be transferred to the States, where he faces drug trafficking charges. Many are calling for that extradition to happen, and quickly.

On Friday, Mexican authorities said nothing about extraditing the escape artist to America.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at