Benjamin Ritchie's last meal, final words before execution in Beech Grove officer's murder
In the early morning hours of May 20, Indiana executed Benjamin Ritchie via lethal injection. He was sentenced to death more than two decades ago for the murder of William Toney, a Beech Grove police officer.
The execution began just after 12:01 a.m. at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City. Ritchie was declared dead at 12:46 a.m., according to the Indiana Department of Corrections.
His last meal was the Tour of Italy from Olive Garden.
"I love my family, my friends, and all the support I've gotten,' Ritchie said in his last words. 'I hope they all find peace."
In the months before his death, Ritchie filed a slew of appeals seeking to halt the execution. His legal team argued that defense attorneys who represented Ritchie in his 2002 trial failed to introduce his diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which the jury could have considered a mitigating factor during sentencing.
Late on May 19, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant a stay of Ritchie's execution.
In a statement released hours after Ritchie's death, his attorney described the execution as "the result of prioritizing finality over fairness."
"We continue to believe, as did half of the Indiana Supreme Court, that Ben's execution was inappropriate. Indiana executed a man with profound brain damage and developmental disabilities," public defender Mark Koselke said in a statement.
Bill Toney: Indiana executes Benjamin Ritchie for young police officer's murder. Widow honors victim.
Ritchie's is the second execution after Indiana's $900,000 purchase of pentobarbital in 2024 made the death penalty possible for the first time in 15 years. Joseph Corcoran, the first man executed since 2009, died on Dec. 18, 2024.
"While there is no peace in the execution, there is comfort in the realization that society has kept its promise to the men and women of law enforcement to hold those accountable for their reckless choices and damaging actions, so that those still serving find strength knowing that their service is not in vain," a statement from Beech Grove police chief Michael Maurice read in part.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Today in History: Russians vote in their first-ever presidential election
Today is Thursday, June 12, the 163rd day of 2025. There are 202 days left in the year. Today in history: On June 12, 1991, Russians went to the polls for their first-ever presidential election, which resulted in victory for Boris Yeltsin. Also on this date: In 1939, the Baseball Hall of Fame was dedicated in Cooperstown, New York. In 1942, Anne Frank, a German-born Jewish girl living in Amsterdam, received a diary for her 13th birthday, less than a month before she and her family went into hiding from the Nazis. In 1963, civil rights leader Medgar Evers, 37, was shot and killed outside his home in Jackson, Mississippi. (In 1994, Byron De La Beckwith was convicted of murdering Evers and sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2001.) In 1964, eight South African anti-apartheid activists, including Nelson Mandela, were sentenced to life in prison for committing acts of sabotage against South Africa' apartheid government. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, unanimously struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriages, ruling that such laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1978, David Berkowitz was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for each of the six 'Son of Sam' killings committed in New York City over the previous two years. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan, during a visit to the divided German city of Berlin, exhorted Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall.' In 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were killed outside Simpson's Los Angeles home. (O.J. Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson's ex-husband, was later acquitted of the killings in a criminal trial but was eventually held liable in a civil action.) In 2016, a gunman opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, leaving 49 people dead and 53 wounded in what was then the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history; the gunman, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group during a three-hour standoff before being killed in a shootout with police. Today's Birthdays: Actor Sonia Manzano is 75. Actor-director Timothy Busfield is 68. Olympic track gold medalist Gwen Torrence is 60. Actor Rick Hoffman is 55. Actor-comedian Finesse Mitchell is 53. Actor Jason Mewes is 51. Blues musician Kenny Wayne Shepherd is 48. Actor Timothy Simons is 47. Singer-songwriter Robyn is 46. Model Adriana Lima is 44. Actor Dave Franco is 40. Country musician Chris Young is 40.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Clarifying claims Louisiana voted 'to force a 9-year-old girl to deliver her rapist's baby'
Claim: In early June 2025, Louisiana lawmakers voted "to force a 9-year-old girl to deliver her rapist's baby." Rating: What's True: In early June 2025, Louisiana lawmakers rejected a bill that would have added exceptions for rape to the state's abortion ban, specifically allowing young rape victims to terminate their pregnancies. What's False: The proposed bill did not reference or target any specific case of a pregnant 9-year old. What's Undetermined: The claim originated from Louisiana state Rep. Patricia Moore's mention of a pregnant 9-year-old girl in her district. However, she did not provide additional details, and we were unable to independently confirm the existence or circumstances of the case. In early June 2025, a rumor spread that Louisiana lawmakers voted to deny abortion to a 9-year-old rape victim. One X post (archived) on the topic, which as of this writing had over 958,300 views, read, "Louisiana votes to force a 9-year-old girl to deliver her rapist's baby." It also quoted Democratic state Rep. Patricia Moore allegedly saying, "I'm constantly hearing that God would take a bad situation and turn it into good," additionally claiming that Moore spoke out against the bill "even after being made aware of the pregnant 9-year-old girl living in her district." Another Facebook post (archived) making the claim, which amassed over 25,000 reactions, read, "If a 9-year-old walked into an adoption agency with plans to be a mother, they would laugh her out of the room and explain that she's too young to become a mom. But if a 9-year-old is raped, conservatives believe he's the perfect age for motherhood." Similar claims spread on social media platforms including Instagram (archived) and Reddit (archived). In short, the claim was a mixture of true, false and undetermined information. In early June 2025, for the third year in a row, Louisiana lawmakers rejected a bill that would have added exceptions for rape to the state's abortion ban. Namely, the bill would have allowed young rape victims to terminate their pregnancies. However, the proposed legislation did not reference any specific case of a pregnant 9-year-old. The claim stemmed from a statement by Moore, who said she was aware of a 9-year-old girl in her district who had become pregnant. We were unable to independently verify the existence or circumstances of the child mentioned. We reached out to Moore to request more details about the case of the pregnant 9-year-old and will update this story if and when we hear back. Louisiana's abortion ban took effect in 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. That decision eliminated federal protections for abortion and allowed individual states to set their own laws. Under the state's law, abortion is banned except in limited cases, such as when the pregnant woman's life is at serious risk, the fetus is "medically futile" or in cases of ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage. There is currently no exception for rape or incest. The in-question legislation was Democratic state Rep. Delisha Boyd's third attempt to create exceptions to Louisiana's abortion law. The proposed bill aimed to allow abortions for victims under 17 who became pregnant as a result of specific offenses such as rape or sexual battery that, if committed against a minor, would make an abortion legal in those cases. The bill said the victim wouldn't need to provide a police report, forensic evidence or proof that someone was being prosecuted for the crime in order to get the abortion. Legislators discussed the bill during a House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice hearing on June 3, 2025. As shown in the image below, the bill that "provides for exceptions to the abortion laws of this state relative to rape and certain sex offenses" received three votes in favor ("Yea") and nine votes against ("Nay"). Therefore, the law did not proceed to the House floor for further consideration. (Louisiana House of Representatives) You can access the full text of the in-question bill here. A video circulating alongside the claims on Louisiana "denying abortion to 9-year-old rape victim" originated from an April 11, 2025, KLFY News 10 segment that aired before legislators voted on the bill. Moore made the statement about the pregnant 9-year-old during the hearing at 38:57 of the video recording available via the Louisiana House of Representatives' official website. Moore stated that she was "aware of a nine year old, in [her] area, pregnant" and that she was struggling to reconcile her feelings about the case with her religious beliefs. Moore also added that her mother was raped at the age of 13 and had her at 14. "So I do struggle with it. I know we got to protect our children, but this point right now, I cannot vote yes," she said. Boyd, who authored the bill, also mentioned she was aware of a "Louisiana girl who was raped and gave birth at 13 years old and a 9-year-old girl who became pregnant after being sexually assaulted." All in all, while it's true that Louisiana lawmakers rejected a bill that would have allowed abortion in cases of child rape, there was no confirmed evidence that the decision directly affected a specific 9-year-old. Moore mentioned being aware of such a case during the hearing but provided no details, and we were unable to independently verify the claim. As of this writing, Louisiana abortion law does not include an exception for rape or incest. - YouTube. Accessed 11 June 2025. Agenda - Administration of Criminal Justice. Accessed 11 June 2025. HB215. Accessed 11 June 2025. ---. Accessed 11 June 2025. LA House On-Demand Video. Accessed 11 June 2025. Louisiana House of Representatives 24-28. Accessed 11 June 2025. "Louisiana Lawmakers Reject Adding Exceptions for Some Rape Cases to Abortion Ban." AP News, 3 June 2025, Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature. Accessed 11 June 2025.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
What CFOs should take away from the Ames v. Ohio decision
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. In a landmark decision on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck down the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, leveling the playing field for Title VII discrimination claims by now allowing all employees — regardless of their majority or minority status — to face the same evidentiary standard. For CFOs, this ruling signals heightened litigation risks and a need to consult with human resource leaders about hiring practices and potentially politically driven narratives being woven into corporate goals and messaging. In this collaboration, it's not just about a need for robust compliance strategies, but also an opportunity to assess the politicization of leadership and the organization's workforce. As companies face potential increases in lawsuits from majority-group employees who may have fallen victim to race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination in the name of a corporate DEI policy, financial leaders may have to reassess budgets for legal reserves, audit the contents of DEI programs in risk mitigation efforts and conduct workforce and pay equity audits to safeguard against costly claims and reputational damage. The case goes as follows: Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary and was later promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was denied in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly after, she was demoted to her original secretarial role with a pay cut, and a gay man was hired as program administrator. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The issue at hand with Ames, who is a heterosexual white woman, was whether Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (e.g., heterosexuals and white people) must meet a heightened evidentiary standard, specifically the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas legal framework. After multiple appeals to decisions requiring Ames to show a higher level of evidentiary standard, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Ames and has now unanimously agreed to repeal this extra burden of proof from what previously was determined as a 'majority' status. Legal experts now say this opens the door to new risk for CFOs. 'In the Ames case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the legal standard for an employee to bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer is the same, whether or not the employee is a member of a majority group or in the minority,' said Julie Levinson Werner, partner and vice chair of employment at Lowenstein Sandler. 'Previously, many courts around the country held that majority group plaintiffs, such as white men, had to also show 'background circumstances' that the employer was the unusual employer that discriminated against the majority,' Werner continued. 'Now, based upon the Court's decision, there is no longer the concept of a 'reverse discrimination' case, and any employee can sue their employer if they believe they have been subject to discrimination based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.' Jasmine Ahmed, who has held multiple roles in global financial leadership and now provides fractional CFO services, said that, regardless of guidance, finance teams who are unintentionally diverse, in her experience, have always performed better. However, she says the politicization of the issue around DEI has drawn attention away from addressing challenges and into an attack on merit. Having a merit-based professional approach that comes with hard work and grit, she says, are core fundamentals of working and growing careers in corporate finance. 'If you ask any hiring manager, 'If you had complete autonomy, what would you want?' it doesn't matter if it's in finance or not — the answer is always the same,' Ahmed said. 'I've never met anyone who says, 'I want to hire someone underqualified.' What do we hear instead? 'I want the best person for the job' because when the best person does the job, life is easier.' Ahmed said this is a core component of finding talent in finance, and using merit as an indicator of talent shouldn't be a political issue. 'That basic idea isn't political,' she said, 'it's rooted in qualifications, skills, experience and mindset. Those are the components of merit.' Ahmed said finance leaders can take steps to proactively work against ideas of race or sexuality playing a role in growth at their organizations by making sure merit and skill sets are the groundwork for talent evaluation. 'If you look at my track record, go research who's been on my teams, you'll see a pattern,' Ahmed said. 'Not only were they high-performing, they were also diverse. But that wasn't by design. It came from a culture that promotes merit.' She said she rejected traditional hiring tactics she saw in her career as part of this strategy. 'What was different [with my teams] is I didn't allow nepotism,' she said. 'I made talent development a priority for everyone. It wasn't just about performance, it was about developing people and holding managers accountable for doing the same. When you do that, you naturally build a strong, diverse bench.' When asked if she's ever seen a DEI policy in her experience that wasn't about box checking or politics, Ahmed candidly explained that she has not. 'Unfortunately, no,' she said. 'Around the time of COVID and Black Lives Matter, DEI was the hot topic. What did we do? We started filling roles with either African Americans or white women, and at the time, I thought, hold on, DEI isn't about checking a box or meeting quotas.' She went on to explain how the narrative around DEI in the CFO community is now being tackled as a labor issue, a challenge that has been talked about for years. 'I go to conferences and hear the same thing: 'Talent is our big issue.' And I ask, 'What are you doing about it?' We've been talking about the problem for years, but we don't take action.' For those who are building careers around the industry of DEI policies and their incorporation into the workforce, the court's ruling creates a new challenge. However, for Sheryl Daija, CEO of BRIDGE, a DEI and action-oriented, member-driven 501c6 trade group for the global marketing industry, the ruling is a portrayal of 'civil rights protections as preferential treatment.' 'By eliminating the 'background circumstances' standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face,' said Daija. 'The concurrence by Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Neil] Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI.' Daija went on to connect the language used by the justices in the concurring opinion to a political narrative against DEI policies. 'Their language [that is] citing briefs that call DEI an 'obsession' that causes 'overt discrimination' against majority groups signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities,' she said. Ahmed said organizations will likely follow one of two paths. 'One will ignore these issues, avoid the politics and take no real action, and they'll be blindsided,' she said. 'Their risk profile will go up, their teams will underperform, their innovation will stall.' She said the second group will take a more strategic approach and be much better off. 'They'll focus on solving the root problem, building strong, inclusive and high-performing talent for the future. If you solve for that, many of the risks and challenges will work themselves out over time.' Though she said this is seldom done in organizations she's familiar with, decisions like this — legal catalysts that come with a potential risk to the organizational growth projections — are sometimes what's needed to kick things into gear in a new direction. 'Culture is the hardest thing to change,' she said. 'I always tell clients, transformation is simple if you get the mindset right. With the right culture, people behave well even when no one's watching. You don't need as many rules, and everything becomes easier, but culture is also the one thing most executives don't invest in seriously.' Recommended Reading How CFOs can navigate DEI, its pullback and any legal repercussions in 2025
