Male Nude Photography- Michael Crowe

Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Nick Baer is a world famous photographer of male nudes.
Table of contents

During this questioning, Michael told Detective Mark Wrisley, a defendant in this action, and Detective Phillip Han, who is not a defendant in this action, that he had gotten up at 4: He had turned on his television for light and had walked to the kitchen, where he took some Tylenol.

Michael stated that he was in the kitchen for approximately 15 minutes. He stated that when he was in the hallway he could see that Stephanie's door was closed, as were the other doors. By defendants' account, the statement that Stephanie's door was closed was suspicious because by 4: Stephanie was dead in the doorway of her bedroom with the door open.

See Phillip Anderson DT pp. During this interview, Michael Crowe also stated that Joshua Treadway was his best friend. The detectives saw a knife in plain view on top of a couch in the living room. See Lanigan DT pp. When Joshua was asked who owned the knife, he said it was his brother's; however, when his brother was questioned about the knife, he stated that it belonged to Joshua. After being questioned two additional times, Michael Crowe was arrested for Stephanie's murder on January 23, On January 26, Detective Han obtained a search warrant for the Treadway residence.

Probable cause for the warrant was predicated upon the fact that Michael Crowe had been arrested for the murder, Michael had stated that Joshua Treadway was his best friend, Michael had called Joshua Treadway from the police station on the morning of the murder, and a knife meeting the description of the murder weapon had been seen at the Treadway residence. On January 27, , prior to the execution of the search warrant for the Treadway residence, Margaret Houser, 3 Aaron Houser's mother, alerted police to the fact that a knife with a inch blade which belonged to her son was missing from his collection.

Based on this information, Detective Han sought and obtained a warrant to search the Houser residence. Aaron was asked about his friendship with Michael, his interest in fantasy games, and Michael's personality. Aaron told detectives that as far as he knew, Michael did not get along with his parents and that Michael had a "make-believe list of people he would kill.

Aaron was also asked about Aaron's interest in knives and about the knife that he was missing. Aaron did not make any self-incriminating statements during this interview. The warrants for the Treadway and Houser residences were executed on the evening of January 27, While the warrant for the Treadway residence was being executed, Joshua Treadway was being questioned by police. Joshua's interrogation began around 7: During his questioning, the search of the Treadway residence revealed two knives under his bed.

Joshua was then arrested for stealing Aaron Houser's knife. After being read his Miranda rights, Joshua admitted taking the knife from Aaron, but denied any involvement in Stephanie's death. However, over the course of further questioning, Joshua changed his story. He told defendants that he had gotten the knife from Aaron Houser and that Aaron had told him it was the knife used to kill Stephanie.

Joshua's questioning ended at approximately 8: Joshua was allowed to go home after the questioning. Joshua Treadway was questioned again on February 10, This time, over the course of approximately twelve hours, Joshua gave what appeared to be a detailed account of the events leading up to the murder and stated that he had acted as a lookout while Aaron and Michael committed the murder.

CROWE v. COUNTY OF SAN DI | leondumoulin.nl2d () | 2d | leondumoulin.nl

Joshua's confession, which was ruled voluntary by the state court trial judge, suggested that Michael killed Stephanie because he did not like her. I knew that he always had a kind of grudge against her. Joshua Treadway also told police that although he thought that Aaron and Michael were initially just joking about killing Stephanie, Aaron and Michael's plan progressed "until it became an actual thing that they had wanted to do as of the night that it happened. At some point during the questioning, Joshua was arrested for Stephanie's murder.

On the morning of February 11, , Detective Ralph Claytor, a defendant in this action, obtained search warrants for the residence and school locker of Aaron Houser. Those warrants were executed on the morning of February 11 by defendant Sweeney and Sergeant Phillip Anderson, also a defendant in this case. Aaron Houser was arrested on February 11, and questioned for a second time.

Aaron did not admit involvement in Stephanie's murder. However, during this questioning, Aaron explained that if he were going to kill Stephanie, the first thing he would do is tuck the knife in the back of his pants so that he could easily grab it when he needed it but so that she could not see it. He "would grab one of her arms and put it behind her back.

And with the other one, I would grab and close her mouth and nose and pull her chin up. I would pull her back, let go of the arm, grab the knife and cut her throat like that. Aaron then explained that because of the chance of getting blood on himself, he would wear sparse clothing, preferably dark clothing so the blood wouldn't show up easily, "so there is not much of a chance for blood to get on it or so that it's easy to dispose of and then find a way to get out of there and clean myself off.

Aaron said that he would not wear gloves and that afterward he would take the knife and "fire it" to destroy chemical evidence and then he would get rid of it. Aaron also stated that he would choose 2: He stated that he would climb through a small window "because doors can be locked and can be noisy," as can large windows.

Although a small window might be "a little noisy," small windows such as bathroom windows are usually locked. Aaron proceeded to again explain the logistics of how he would hypothetically kill Stephanie, as set forth in the following colloquy:. Well, at this time she would probably be sleeping. She was sleeping, I probably would just try to cut her throat as quickly as possible without really waking her.

If she was sleeping on her back, I would — with my left hand would cover her mouth and simultaneously slice her throat and hold it for awhile until I was sure that she was dead. Tension in the muscles. If she was dead, they would relax. If there were wide in terror.

Russell Crowe

They would probably be shivering. Or they would be completely still. In late May , the grand jury issued indictments against the boys. Some time after June 1, , defendant Summer Stephan took over as the assigned prosecutor. Prior to the boys' trial, drops of Stephanie's blood were found on Tuite's sweatshirt. The charges against the boys were dismissed without prejudice.


  • Flawless Concepts?
  • Navigation menu!
  • The Speed Handbook: Velocity, Pleasure, Modernism (Post-Contemporary Interventions)?
  • Michael Crowe, Model, New York, New York, US.

After the dismissal of the charges against them, the boys and their family members filed three separate complaints in state court alleging violations of 42 U. Defendants removed the three complaints to federal court in February On January 3, , the Court issued a fifty-four page order on defendants' motions to dismiss the original complaints.

Plaintiffs proceeded to file a JFAC consisting of 64 pages, paragraphs, and 12 claims, 10 of which survived a second round of motions to dismiss. Also named as defendants are Lawrence Blum, a private psychologist who consulted with the Escondido Police Department during the investigation, Chris McDonough, a police officer with the City of Oceanside who participated in the interrogations of the boys, and the City of Oceanside.

In addition, prosecutors Gary Hoover and Summer Stephan are also named as defendants, although plaintiffs settled with defendant Hoover prior to the entry of this order. Finally, plaintiffs named as a defendant the National Institute for Truth Verification, the manufacturer of a device, known as a "CVSA," which is marketed as a "truth verification device" and which was used during the interrogations of the boys.

The court previously ruled on a motion for summary judgment brought by the National Institute for Truth Verification. The court has held numerous hearings and has ordered numerous supplemental briefs. The papers in this case fill 66 volumes at the clerk's office. The court has reviewed everything that has been placed before it, including approximately 40 hours of videotaped interrogations of the boys, along with videotaped interviews of Judith Kennedy and Stephen and Cheryl Crowe.

CROWE v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The court has viewed the actual crime scene photographs as well as a videotape of the Crowe residence taken by the police after the murder. It cannot be emphasized enough that a review of all of these materials is absolutely necessary to gain a true understanding of the actual facts in this case, for certain of the parties' papers would mislead a reader who was not thoroughly familiar with the actual evidence of record. The court notes throughout this order only some of the instances where the evidence is not as it is portrayed.

It is upon the court's thorough examination of the actual evidence presented, in conjunction with its exhaustive review of the applicable law, that this decision is based. The court notes that it has attempted to analyze each claim in detail, both with respect to the factual predicates of the claim as well as with respect to the defendants named in the claim. For example, the court has separately analyzed each of the challenged arrests and searches upon which the Treadways' and Housers' Fourth Amendment claims are predicated.

Similarly, the court has analyzed each of the statements uttered by defendant Stephan which plaintiffs contend were defamatory. Moreover, it has separately analyzed the liability of the individual defendants — Blum, McDonough and Sweeney — who have filed summary judgment motions contending that they did not play a sufficient role in the alleged violations to warrant the imposition of liability. The structure of the analysis necessarily results in a certain amount of redundancy, but it is hoped that this manner of analysis will make it clear to all which claims and which defendants remain in this action as well as the reason for the court's decision.

When reading this decision, one must keep in mind that this is a decision regarding whether defendants may be held civilly liable for the manner in which they conducted the investigation of Stephanie's murder. The court is deciding whether to grant or deny the motions for summary judgment. It is not determining who killed Stephanie Crowe, and none of the statements in this opinion should be considered a commentary regarding who may or may not be the killer. Finally, although the court regrets that it may seem to the parties that the decision was a longtime coming, the words of a great Chicago trial judge, Judge Prentice Marshall, have never rung more true: In their first claim for relief, plaintiffs allege that defendants Blum, Wrisley, Sweeney, Claytor, McDonough and Anderson violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by arresting the boys and conducting searches without probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits searches and arrests without probable cause. United States, U. Searches and arrests without probable cause give rise to a cause of action for damages. See McKenzie, F. Mendocino County, F. In addition, defendant Sweeney joins with defendants Wrisley, Claytor, and Anderson in seeking summary judgment with respect to the Treadways' and Housers', but not the Crowes', Fourth Amendment claims on qualified immunity grounds.

It is undisputed that defendant Blum, a psychologist in private practice, did not physically participate in the arrests of the boys or the searches of their residences. Rather, the Escondido defendants, who were undisputedly acting under color of state law, conducted the searches and arrests. In order to demonstrate that a private party was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's constitutional injuries, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the private party had control over the state officials' decision to commit the act alleged to have violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

See Franklin, F. International Business Machines Corp. Here, there is absolutely no evidence that defendant Blum had any control over the other defendants' decision to conduct the challenged searches and arrests. Accordingly, as a matter of law, defendant Blum did not proximately cause any Fourth Amendment violation and thus is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Fourth Amendment claims of all three boys.

Defendant McDonough is a police officer with the City of Oceanside. Prior to January 22, , defendant McDonough had never personally met defendants Claytor, Wrisley or Anderson and had only spoken with Barry Sweeney regarding past robbery cases. Afterward, defendant McDonough did not advise or recommend a course of action; specifically, he did not advise or recommend that Michael be arrested. Defendant McDonough was not present for, nor was he consulted regarding, the January 23, questioning of Michael. Defendant McDonough did not arrest Michael and was not present when Michael was arrested on January 23, Defendant McDonough did not participate in a search of the Crowe property, nor did he "suggest, advise or counsel any law enforcement officer to search any portion of the Crowe property.

At that time, Joshua had already been placed under arrest by the Escondido Police Department for stealing a knife. Defendant McDonough did not participate in the search of the Treadway residence on January 27, , nor was he consulted regarding the search. Defendant McDonough did not "suggest, advise, or counsel any law enforcement agency to search the Treadway residence. Defendant McDonough was not present when plaintiff Aaron Houser was interviewed on January 27, , nor was he consulted regarding the interview of Aaron on that date.

Although the reason why is disputed, it is undisputed that defendant McDonough suggested that Joshua be allowed to go home after the February 10, questioning. The decision to arrest plaintiff Aaron Houser was made by defendants Claytor and Anderson and another officer named Bass. Defendant McDonough did not participate in a search of the residences of Margaret Houser or Gregg Houser, and defendant McDonough did not suggest, advise or counsel any law enforcement agency to search those residences.

Although it is undisputed that defendant McDonough did not directly participate in the challenged arrests or searches, plaintiffs seek to hold defendant McDonough liable under a conspiracy theory. Plaintiffs speculate 7 that it was Tuite who closed the door as Officer Walters sat in his patrol car outside the Crowe residence and that had Officer Walters gotten out of his car to investigate the closing door, Stephanie's murder would have been prevented.

Accordingly, plaintiffs contend that defendants entered into a conspiracy to protect Officer Walters and the Escondido Police Department from criticism. Plaintiffs alternatively characterize the conspiracy as a "scheme to blame and punish the boys," 8 a conspiracy "to coercively interrogate, arrest and incarcerate" the boys, 9 a "conspiracy to wrongfully convict and incarcerate the boys for Stephanie's murder," 10 and a conspiracy "to coercively interrogate, arrest and incarcerate Michael Crowe along with two of his friends, Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser As Judge Posner explained in Jones v.

City of Chicago, F. City of Westminster, F. Nonetheless, the evidence of such an agreement or "meeting of the minds" may be circumstantial rather than direct. See Gilbrook, F. For example, a showing that the alleged conspirators have committed acts that "are unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement" may allow a jury to infer the existence of a conspiracy.

Flawless Concepts

Racine County, F. Certainly, given the extent of defendant McDonough's participation in the interrogations of the boys, a reasonable factfinder could find that there was a "meeting of the minds" between defendant McDonough and the other defendants regarding the coercion of a confession from the boys. However, to hold defendant McDonough liable under a conspiracy theory for searches and arrests which he did not direct or execute, plaintiffs must demonstrate that he shared the common objective of the larger conspiracy alleged by plaintiffs: Although, as noted supra, "[a] defendant's knowledge of and participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and from evidence of the defendant's actions," Gilbrook, F.

Defendant McDonough did not work for the Escondido Police Department, did not have a prior personal or professional relationship with any of the defendants, was requested by the Escondido Police Department because of his training with the CVSA device, and undisputedly did not participate in any of the searches or arrests or in any of the decisions to search or arrest.

Moreover, even if a factfinder were to find that defendant McDonough participated in the coercion of confessions from the boys, in light of all of the facts, the act of coercing a confession is not the type of act that is "unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement" to violate the boys' constitutional rights on the larger scale alleged by plaintiffs. Because there is absolutely no basis for inferring that defendant McDonough, a police officer with the City of Oceanside, joined a conspiracy whose objective was, as alleged by plaintiffs, to wrongfully prosecute and convict the boys in order to protect the Escondido Police Department from criticism, defendant McDonough is entitled to summary judgment with respect to all of the Fourth Amendment claims asserted by plaintiffs.

Defendant Sweeney moves for summary judgment with respect to the boys' claims that they were arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment on the ground that he "did not conduct any of the interrogations that led to the arrest of" the boys and he "did not arrest any of them and was not involved in the decision to arrest them. Similarly, he moves for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims that the searches were not supported by probable cause on the ground that he did not obtain the search warrants.

However, Sweeney fails to address the conspiracy allegations leveled against him. Accordingly, defendant Sweeney's individual motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. The Escondido defendants move for summary judgment with respect to the Treadways' and Housers' Fourth. Amendment claims on qualified immunity grounds. Curiously, with respect to the Houser plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims, the Escondido defendants nowhere argue that there was probable cause for Aaron Houser's arrest and the searches of the Houser residence and Aaron's locker, while with respect to the Treadway plaintiffs' claims, they give only lip service to the argument that there was probable cause for the searches and seizures.

Because Supreme Court case law dictates that the first step in determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is to determine whether there has been a constitutional violation, see Saucier v. We are obligated under Saucier, however, to address this issue at the outset of our qualified immunity analysis. Qualified immunity "is an immunity front suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. That the issue of qualified immunity is not to be routinely placed in the hands of a jury was re-emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Saucier.

Thus, after Saucier, whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry. In the first step, the court considers whether a constitutional right was violated by the officer's conduct, viewing the facts regarding the officer's conduct in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. City of Coeur D'Alene, F. The clearly-established inquiry, "it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition Thus, "[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry" is "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.

County of San Diego, 84 F. In the Fourth Amendment context, it is "inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present," and "in such cases those officials — like other officials who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawful-should not be held personally liable.

As the Ninth Circuit aptly noted in Smiddy v. Thus, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for damages arising out of a Fourth Amendment violation if a reasonable officer possessing the same facts as the defendant officer could have reasonably believed that the search or arrest was supported by probable cause even if a court later determines it was not. County of Santa Barbara, F. Importantly, a police officer's subjective intent is irrelevant to the qualified immunity analysis.

See Anderson, U. Anderson's subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant. Moreover, for summary judgment purposes, "[t]he fact that an expert disagrees with the officer's actions does not render the officer's actions unreasonable.

Detective Han obtained a search warrant for a search of the Treadway residence on January 26 and executed the warrant on January 27 at approximately 8: The following facts were included in the affidavit in support of the search warrant:. Stephanie Crowe was stabbed to death. Her wounds were consistent with being stabbed with a knife with a inch blade. Defendant Claytor told Detective Han that Michael Crowe called Joshua Treadway from the police department and told him that Stephanie's body had been found.

Lannigan told Detective Han that he had interviewed Joshua Treadway at his residence on January 22 and saw a knife at the residence in the living room on the couch. The knife had a black leather-wrapped handle with a hand guard and a inch blade. Michael Crowe was arrested and charged with Stephanie's murder on January Probable cause to search exists when, given the totality of the circumstances, it is fairly probable that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.

See United States v. The evidence must simply demonstrate a "probability" of criminal activity, not a prima facie showing, and the evidence "need riot be admissible, but only legally sufficient and reliable. Based on the fact that Michael Crowe had been arrested for Stephanie's murder, that Joshua Treadway was Michael's best friend, and that Detective Lanigan had seen a knife fitting the description of the murder weapon at the Treadway residence immediately after the murder, there was a fair probability that evidence related to the murder would be found in the Treadway home.

However, the constitutionality of a search is not conclusively established simply because the facts in the affidavit in support of the warrant support a finding of probable cause. In determining whether there is probable cause to search, it is relevant whether the affidavit in support of the warrant contained material misrepresentations, be it affirmative misrepresentations or misrepresentations by omission.


  1. The Dedicated Server Handbook(tm) - Linux/Webmin (Amazon Kindle Edition).
  2. Michael Crowe: Man waiting for heart transplant stuns his family when his own heart HEALS itself.
  3. Male Nude Photography Michael Crowe Editions.
  4. ?
  5. The issue of the materiality of alleged misrepresentations, is, at the summary judgment stage, an issue of law for the court. Affirmative misrepresentations are material, and therefore the Fourth Amendment is violated, only if there is no probable cause absent consideration of the misrepresented facts.

    However, even if a plaintiff is able to demonstrate that a warrant was issued as the result of a material misrepresentation, a police officer defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds unless the plaintiff can also demonstrate that the police officer deliberately falsified information presented to the magistrate or recklessly disregarded the truth.

    See Hervey, 65 F. Thus, resolution of defendants' summary judgment motion requires consideration of the alleged misrepresentations identified by plaintiffs. The Treadway plaintiffs contend that the judge who issued the warrant for the search of their residence was misled about Michael Crowe's involvement in the murder, which involvement was material to the issuance of the warrant for the search of the Treadway residence.

    In particular, the Treadway plaintiffs argue that defendants misled the judge about Michael's involvement by failing to inform the judge about the correct position of Stephanie's body upon her death. The position of Stephanie's body was relevant to the question of whether Michael had told the police the truth when he said that he had gotten up at 4: Defendants maintain that Stephanie's door was not closed at 4: In fact, defendant Anderson testified at his deposition that part of the reason why the Escondido defendants believed that probable cause existed to arrest Michael Crowe was that he said that the door was shut at 4: Plaintiffs, however, contend that Stephanie died inside her bedroom with the door closed and that, therefore, Michael told the truth when he said that Stephanie's door was closed when he got up at 4: According to plaintiffs, defendants knew that Stephanie died inside her bedroom and should have presented this fact to the judge when obtaining the warrant.

    Plaintiffs contend that the omission of this fact in the warrant was material. In determining the materiality of this alleged omission, the proper focus is not on the actual position of Stephanie's body but rather on the facts that defendants had in their possession regarding the position of Stephanie's body.

    On this record, it is undisputed that Stephanie died between Moreover, it is undisputed that Stephanie's bedroom door opens into a small alcove directly across from Michael's bedroom door. Although a cliche it may be, the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" still applies. The court has viewed the crime scene photographs, and in those photographs Stephanie is lying in the doorway of her bedroom, i. John Peters, one of the paramedics who first arrived on the scene, testified in his deposition that he found Stephanie in the position that she is shown in the crime scene photographs.

    See Peters DT p. Steve Mandich, another paramedic on the scene with Peters, similarly testified at his deposition that the crime scene photographs accurately reflect his memory of where he saw Stephanie's body upon his arrival. It is further undisputed that defendant Sweeney arrived on the scene after Peters and Mandich, and therefore defendant Sweeney necessarily viewed Stephanie's body in the same position in which it was viewed by Peters and Mandich — in the doorway.

    Moreover, it is without doubt that it would be physically impossible for the door to be closed with Stephanie's body in the position reflected by the photographs, and no reasonable factfinder could possibly find otherwise. Thus, given the undisputed time of Stephanie's death, unless Stephanie's body was moved between the time that it was discovered by Judith Kennedy and the time Stephanie was viewed by Peters, Mandich and Sweeney and defendants knew or had reason to know that the body was moved, defendants could not have known or had reason to know that Stephanie was not lying in the doorway of her bedroom when Michael got up to go to the kitchen at 4: Without such knowledge, defendants cannot be held liable for basing their probable cause determination on Stephanie's body being in the doorway of her bedroom.

    See Sheik-Abdi, 37 F. Having carefully combed the voluminous record, the court concludes that no reasonable factfinder could find that defendants knew or had reason to know that Stephanie's body was moved and therefore was, not lying in the doorway at 4: First, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that any of the members of the Crowe family moved Stephanie's body between the time it was discovered and the time that the paramedics arrived or, more importantly, that they informed defendants or anyone associated with the investigation that they had moved the body.

    In fact, Judith Kennedy specifically testified at her civil deposition that she did not move Stephanie's body. See Judith Kennedy DT p. Moreover, Cheryl Crowe drew a diagram of the crime scene for defendant Sweeney which a reasonable officer could interpret as showing Stephanie's body in the doorway of her bedroom with the door open. Based upon the above facts, a reasonable factfinder could reach but one conclusion: Accordingly, regardless of whether the door was actually open or closed at 4: Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, Judith Kennedy's statements to Wrisley during her January 21 interview cannot reasonably be interpreted as putting defendants on notice that in fact the door to the bedroom was closed when Stephanie was found.

    Specifically, the court notes the following colloquy, which occurred between defendant Wrisley and plaintiff Kennedy:. When you got up due to the alarm and you went out and you found Stephanie in the doorway I guess there —. No, I just stepped inside and I saw her laying there and I thought this is — something's wrong here Having reviewed this portion of the videotape, it is clear that Kennedy did not correct defendant Wrisley when he referred to Stephanie being "in the doorway" and that Kennedy answered "no" to the question of whether she went into Stephanie's room.

    It is undisputed that, unlike Michael Crowe's bedroom door, Stephanie Crowe's bedroom door did not open directly into the main hallway, but opened into a small alcove that connected Stephanie's bedroom to the main hallway. Thus, it was entirely reasonable for defendant Wrisley to believe that Kennedy was referring to "stepping inside" the alcove and not Stephanie's bedroom. In addition, even assuming that Ms. Kennedy's cryptic statement to defendant Wrisley could be interpreted as a statement that the door was closed, this statement would have been immaterial to the judge's probable cause determination given all of the evidence regarding the position of Stephanie's body which suggested that the door was not closed and the absence of any evidence that the body had been moved.

    In , Souths also announced a corporate partnership with the bookmaking conglomerate Luxbet. Upon hearing of this, Crowe called Carr and invited him to Australia to address his Rugby league team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs , which Carr did the following summer. He addressed the team before the game and watched from the sidelines as the Wolverines defeated the Irish 38—0.

    Crowe has appeared in 43 films and three television series since his career began in He won the Academy Award for Best Actor for Gladiator and was nominated twice more for The Insider and A Beautiful Mind , making him the ninth actor to receive three consecutive Academy Award nominations.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Russell Crowe Crowe in June This section of a biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources.

    SHARING MY NUDE PICTURES!

    Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately , especially if potentially libelous or harmful. January Learn how and when to remove this template message. Russell Crowe filmography and List of awards and nominations received by Russell Crowe. Film portal Rugby league portal. Retrieved 26 June People in the News CNN. Archived from the original on 21 November Retrieved 30 June Archived from the original on 9 October Retrieved 10 April Archived from the original on 23 June Archived from the original on 24 March Archived from the original on 30 June Retrieved 19 November Archived from the original on 16 October Retrieved 22 February Something to Crowe About!

    Archived from the original on 4 March Archived from the original on 30 March Retrieved 4 March Retrieved 4 August — via Twitter. Archived from the original on 23 May Retrieved 3 March Theatre Promotions One Ltd and Company. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 23 October Archived from the original Video on 1 May Retrieved 29 May Retrieved 8 April Retrieved 1 July Retrieved 11 March Archived from the original on 2 August Retrieved 30 July Retrieved 10 September Retrieved 24 April Retrieved 19 June Archived from the original on 22 June Archived from the original on 18 May Retrieved 10 May Retrieved 26 October Retrieved 2 August Archived from the original on 2 April Archived from the original on 13 October Monaco heiress was shot dead on the French Riviera by Eleven-year-old ukulele whizz kid stuns onlookers in Five squirrels are rescued after getting into 'Gordian Making a fuel of drivers!

    Pranksters use a megaphone to Moment Indian husband is hacked to death in front of his Dua Lipa China concert's security guards are detained Woody Allen hints that Tragic deaths of Mia Farrow's three adopted children from You and Woody Allen Startling before and after photos lay bare Hurricane Comments 19 Share what you think. Bing Site Web Enter search term: Dylan and Ronan Farrow berate New York Magazine's 'hit job' as they rally round Mia Farrow Bodyguard stars Keeley Hawes, 42, and Richard Madden, 32, dine out at posh Mayfair restaurant as drama nears its climax Good times Gordon Ramsay looks dapper as he joins glamorous wife Tana at close friend Victoria Beckham's star-studded tenth anniversary party Stepping out Shauna Sexton dons low-cut top as she runs errands after visiting rumoured boyfriend Ben Affleck in rehab Checked into rehab on August 22 Khloe Kardashian flashes her midriff in knotted top with leggings while heading to the movies with Tristan Thompson Casual How unBEARable!

    Simon Cowell's son Eric, four, steals the show as he sweetly introduces himself to Louis Tomlinson and they high five Gabby Allen kisses Rak-Su star Myles Stephenson and calls him her 'baby' as X-Factor star celebrates his birthday Christine Lampard showcases her baby bump in Breton striped top as she enjoys a stroll with her dog Minnie And who is Vicky Budd's new mystery man?

    Ruby Rose and 13 Reasons Why star Ross Butler flirt on Instagram after she shares friendly snap of the duo posing together Olivia Newton-John dazzles Melbourne crowds at charity walk to raise funds for her cancer research centre Scarlett Johansson dazzles in plunging white gown as she leads best dressed on red carpet Fans sent into a frenzy after Homeowner who shot dead a council official on live TV after a heated planning row dies aged 77 just months Dieters go into mourning as Slimming World reveals that Muller Police launch probe after world boxing champ Billy Joe Why won't Mother Theresa stand up for Britain?

    Burt Reynolds 'intentionally' leaves son Quinton out of his will and selects his niece to be the executor of Trump declares trade war on China: Meet the man who can retire at British cave expert slurred as a sex offender by Tesla boss in row over rescue of Which one are YOU?