Maxwell Anderson verdict, push for task force on missing Black women
The Brief
A jury found Maxwell Anderson guilty of killing and dismembering Sade Robinson.
According to Columbia researchers, Black women in Wisconsin between 2019 and 2020 were 20x more likely to be murdered than white women.
State Rep. Shelia Stubbs wants to create a task force to address that.
MILWAUKEE - A jury found Maxwell Anderson guilty of killing and dismembering Sade Robinson on Friday. Robinson's mother now looks to lawmakers for help, wanting the state to set up a task force on missing and murdered Black women.
By the numbers
Columbia researchers found Black women in Wisconsin between 2019 and 2020 were 20x more likely to be murdered than white women. The researchers said that was the worst disparity in the country.
FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX LOCAL Mobile app for iOS or Android
What they're saying
For four years, Wisconsin Representative Shelia Stubbs urged the state to set up a special task force on missing and murdered Black women and girls.
The group would be made up of police, survivors, attorneys, and victims' rights experts. It would look into what leads to violence against these people, and the task force would have to give recommendations on how to stop it.
The Wisconsin State Assembly passed Stubbs' bill in 2024, but it stalled in the Senate.
On Friday, Stubbs joined Sade Robinson's mother and family in court and then spoke with FOX6 News.
"We need the state to pass this legislation. We couldn't save Sade, but we have a chance to save somebody else. And that's what I stand here today. With this verdict, I stand here with the family. And it's the right verdict," said Rep. Stubbs.
Stubbs said the guilty verdict motivates her to rally her fellow lawmakers to make her bill a law. It's had bipartisan support. The governor has supported it, too. His budget proposal even included money for this proposed task force.
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley
"My thoughts are with the family, the friends, and the community of Sade Robinson who are deserving of our continued support. Regardless of today's verdict, real justice is living in a world where Sade Robinson is still alive and her killer never had the chance to take her life. As a husband and father, I can't imagine the pain, anger, and grief that Sade's loved ones are carrying. It's my hope that the Robinson family can rest tonight knowing that Sade's killer will be held accountable. Looking ahead, we all must recommit ourselves to protecting the lives of innocent women – particularly Black and Brown women – and working towards a community where everyone is safe from violence."
The backstory
Anderson is charged with first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse, hiding a corpse and arson of property other than a building. He is accused of killing Robinson after a date, dismembering her and dumping her body parts across Milwaukee County. One of her arms was later found on an Illinois beach.
SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News
Prosecutors said Anderson and Robinson showed up at a Menomonee Valley bar on April 1, 2024 – the night she was last seen or heard from. The next day, Robinson's burned-out car was found near 30th and Lisbon in Milwaukee. Surveillance photos show a man investigators believe is Anderson walking away from the area, and who was later seen on a bus heading back towards his home on the city's south side.
Anderson had planned to kill Robinson weeks before her death, according to a statement from a "confidential informant" noted in court filings FOX6 News obtained. A search warrant also revealed prosecutors believe Anderson tried to cover up Robinson's death with a text message.
Dig deeper
FOX6 News is streaming the entire Anderson trial each day on FOX LOCAL. The app is free to download on your phone, tablet or smart TV.
Day 9: Jury finds Anderson guilty of killing, dismembering Robinson
Day 8: Closing arguments made, jury deliberations begin
Day 7: Sade Robinson killed; mapping path of Robinson's car
Day 6: Jurors get look inside Anderson's home; see clothing
Day 5: Testimony provided our first look at Anderson's arrest
Open Record: Maxwell Anderson trial
Day 4: Video from Milwaukee, discovery of Sade Robinson's remains
Day 3: Testimony resumes; law enforcement, friends of Sade Robinson take stand
Day 2: Opening statements, testimony begins
Day 1: Jury selected in single day
Sade Robinson homicide: Timeline of events leading to criminal charges
Sade Robinson homicide: Parents navigate grief ahead of trial
Sade Robinson homicide: The psychology behind the murder
Sade Robinson homicide: Lasting legacy, from tragedy to advocacy
Open Record: A Date With Death
The Source
FOX6 News was in court for the Anderson trial. Information in this report is from the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, Wisconsin Circuit Court, and prior FOX6 coverage of the case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
Los Angeles Times
38 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Let the countdown begin: One year until the California governor and L.A. mayor primaries
It's June in California, which means the jacarandas are magnificently in bloom, joyous graduates overfill school auditoriums and the weather is utterly unpredictable. Oh and one more thing: As of this week, we are exactly a year out from the 2026 primary election. Here's what you need to know. California is a country within a country — a cultural and economic behemoth where the future happens first. And with term limits forcing Gov. Gavin Newsom out, the world's fourth-largest economy will be picking a new leader at the end of 2026. There is already a crowded field of prominent Democrats vying to replace Newsom. They include former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Rep. Katie Porter, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa). Two notable Republicans are also in the fight: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton. The biggest question mark remains whether former Vice President Kamala Harris will enter the race, a decision she plans to make by late summer. That waiting game has stalled the Democratic field: Candidates are continuing their frenetic campaigning, but many activists, donors and elected officials are holding off on further endorsements until Harris makes up her mind. (Though some are growing more frustrated with Harris, and the implicit message that governing California is a consolation prize that she can toy with for months.) California's affordability crisis — and varying views on how to solve it — will probably dominate the long slog of campaigning ahead. But given the wilderness the national Democratic Party currently finds itself in, competition for California's top job will also probably double as a referendum on the broader question of what a winning Democratic leader should sound like. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in California. And what about billionaire Angeleno Rick Caruso, a relatively recent entrant to the Democratic Party? The Grove developer has been flirting with both a gubernatorial bid and another run at the Los Angeles mayor's race but remains undecided. His personal fortune affords him the luxury of some extra time, though self-funding a statewide campaign will be far more expensive than a mayoral one. Still, there could be a lane for a business-friendly centrist running California's sclerotic political system. And speaking of Caruso, he also looms large over the 2026 Los Angeles mayor's race. As of now, incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is the only serious candidate in the race, meaning the first-term mayor could glide to reelection. But the former congresswoman has also taken a political beating in recent months. A catastrophic firestorm put her leadership under a national microscope, a bruising budget crisis left her in a no-win political puzzle and her strong-arm authority on homelessness has been threatened. Which is a long way of saying that Bass could certainly be vulnerable if a real challenger gets into the race, be it Caruso, or someone else. But that remains a big if. The nightmare scenario for Bass is a landscape that looks less like her predecessor Eric Garcetti's reelection romp in 2017 — where he ran virtually unchallenged and leapt to victory with more than 80% of the vote — and more like then-Mayor James K. Hahn's reelection dogfight in 2005. Hahn, a badly wounded incumbent, only barely eked his way into second place in the primary and ultimately rode a wave of voter discontent right out of City Hall, losing to Antonio Villaraigosa that May. Beyond Caruso, a few other names have been bandied about as potential challengers to Bass. As my colleague David Zahniser and I reported a few months ago, that list includes Councilmember Monica Rodriguez (an iconoclastic force who has been openly critical of Bass), L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath (another politician who has sparred with the mayor) and City Controller Kenneth Mejia (a digitally savvy leftist who, you guessed it, has also taken shots at the city's current direction). Whether any take the leap remains to be seen. Read some of the best stories from our archives Few stories published by the Times in recent years have hit a nerve as forcefully as Julissa James' essay from 2021, 'Lonely in L.A.? These 21 places and experiences will help you embrace it.' Julia Wick, staff writerKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew J. Campa, reporterKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ajax striker Brian Brobbey was the ‘target of violent extortion threats'
The Ajax striker Brian Brobbey has been the target of violent extortion threats involving arson, explosions and a shooting, according to reports in the Netherlands. Het Parool reports that the attacks on Brobbey came after he allegedly refused to pay €150,000 to an Amsterdam criminal who claimed to have 'solved a problem' for him. Advertisement Download the Guardian app from the iOS App Store on iPhone or the Google Play store on Android by searching for 'The Guardian'. If you already have the Guardian app, make sure you're on the most recent version. In the Guardian app, tap the Menu button at the bottom right, then go to Settings (the gear icon), then Notifications. Turn on sport notifications. There followed a series of incidents from fireworks that were pushed through his mother-in-law's letterbox, to an explosive detonated near Brobbey's car, his sister-in-law's car set ablaze and a close friend of Brobbey's, who had reportedly tried to intervene on his behalf, being shot and seriously wounded. Het Parool claims Brobbey rejected offers of help from the Amsterdam club, insisting he would deal with the coercion himself. The police found no evidence that Brobbey had paid any money to Jeymon A, who was sentenced in November 2024 to 10 years in prison for the attempted murder of Brobbey's friend, firearms offences, and drug trafficking. Brobbey, who had attracted interest from Premier League clubs, saw his form dip dramatically. Last season, the Dutchman scored just four league goals, a stark contrast to 18 the previous campaign, and could leave Ajax this summer. Brobbey's lawyer told Het Parool that his client has declined to comment while Ajax would not be drawn on players' private affairs. Lawyers for Jeymon A. said there is no evidence their client was involved in the extortion.
