put

Witnesses say Tennessee officials were unable to execute Christa Pike after a lethal injection attempt.

Officials in the United States have failed to put a Tennessee woman to death for a murder she committed in 1995, after the lethal injection was halted for hours as courts considered a last-minute appeal to stay her execution.

Christa Gail Pike, 50 had been scheduled to die on Wednesday for a killing she committed at age 18, after the US Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling that stopped the lethal injection just an hour before it was to start.

Her death would have been Tennessee’s first execution of a woman in at least 200 years.

Following the top court’s ruling, officials attempted to go ahead with the execution as planned and appeared to give Pike two doses of the sedative pentobarbital, according to media witnesses.

At 7:46pm local time, prison officials closed the curtain separating Pike from the media viewing room. It was raised three minutes later, when witnesses said Pike could be heard loudly snoring.

The curtain was closed again at 8:06pm. Witnesses continued to hear Pike snoring until the microphone was switched off at about 8:53pm, when they were told to leave the area. The Associated Press news agency reported that emergency vehicles were seen coming and going from the prison.

The Tennessee Department of Correction did not immediately explain why the execution had not been completed.

Supreme Court ruling

Pike had initially been scheduled to die on Wednesday morning, and witnesses had already gathered at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville when the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to issue a stay.

The appeals court said a delay was needed to consider whether Pike’s allegations of childhood sexual abuse were fully considered during her sentencing.

Later on Wednesday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the execution to proceed. Its conservative majority did not explain the decision, while the three liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that vacating the stay “unnecessarily prevents” the appeals court from giving due consideration to Pike’s claim.

Tennessee’s attorney general had argued that delaying the execution traumatised the family of Pike’s victim, Colleen Slemmer, and rewarded what it called “abusive delay tactics”.

1995 killing

Pike and her boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp, were convicted of the fatal stabbing and beating in 1995 of 19-year-old Slemmer, their classmate at a job training facility in Knoxville.

Shipp was 17 when the crime happened and received a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole. Pike was the only one sentenced to death.

Pike does not deny committing the killing, but her supporters argue the state should consider her age at the time, her mental illness and her allegations of severe sexual abuse, including that she was raped from early childhood.

“It is inconceivable that in the 21st century, the criminal justice system is poised to execute a survivor of rape and child sexual abuse whose jury never had the opportunity to consider those facts in weighing the defendant’s moral culpability,” her lawyers wrote in a filing.

After the killing, Pike was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. In her clemency petition, she said she had initially intended to fight Slemmer but killed her in a frenzied attack when she could not “put the brakes on”.

“I was a mentally ill 18-year-old kid. It took me numerous years to even realise the gravity of what I’d done. Even more to accept how many lives I affected. I took the life of someone’s child, sister, friend. It sickens me now to think I had the ability to commit such a crime,” Pike said in a statement.

Slemmer’s mother has said she wants Pike’s death sentence carried out after waiting decades for the execution.

Tennessee has not executed a woman for at least 200 years, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 18 women have been executed in the US, representing about 1 percent of all executions, according to the centre.

Director Na Hong-jin’s action movie “Hope” opened in 1,500 U.S. cinemas this month, marking the biggest domestic theatrical footprint for a Korean-language film since the Academy Award-winning “Parasite.”

That’s a big bet, particularly for a foreign film. But after the success of “Parasite,” the growth of Korean shows such as Netflix’s “Squid Game” on streaming and the broader acceptance of subtitles in film and television, it was a bet Neon was willing to make.

The indie studio snapped up North American and English language rights to “Hope” for an undisclosed price before the film’s world premiere in the spring at the Cannes Film Festival.

Right off the bat, Neon knew the film would be positioned in South Korea as a big action thriller and massive event film for director Na, and wanted to match that.

In the film, which includes Alicia Vikander and Michael Fassbender in its cast, a group of people fight back against a creature that rampages through a Korean village.

“The reality is that just because a movie has subtitles, doesn’t make it an art film or a niche film,” Elissa Federoff, Neon’s chief distribution officer, told me this month. “And this, to us, felt like a big action blockbuster.”

She continued, “To me, it was this movie that certainly cinephiles were going to be curious about. But I also knew that we could cross over to a broader audience if we gave it a shot.”

So far, “Hope” has grossed more than $8 million domestically and $45.6 million worldwide on a reported production budget of at least $45 million.

Neon expected to reach Korean and Korean American audiences with “Hope,” but the film also over-indexed with Latinos, who represented 27% of the audience, according to PostTrak theatrical data.

Such a wide national release is unusual for foreign films, which typically play in specialty theaters on fewer than 100 screens. Though its domestic box office total doesn’t indicate that the film fully crossed over to mainstream audiences, “for a foreign film, it’s very successful” and has done “solid business,” said David A. Gross, who writes the FranchiseRe movie industry newsletter.

Neon, of course, has experience with Korean cinema. It distributed 2019’s “Parasite,” which became the first non-English-language film to win Best Picture. After “Parasite” won the Oscar, it was shown on 2,000 screens, about 17 weeks after its release. The Bong Joon Ho-directed film ended up grossing more than $53 million domestically and brought in more than $263 million worldwide.

The film put Neon on the map in many ways, Federoff said, and also pushed the boundaries for what the industry considered a best picture nominee. Films such as “Parasite” and “Hope” should also expand what studios consider to be mainstream fare.

“Studios and distributors are still boxing things out a little bit and thinking of these as not as accessible or not for a general commercial audience,” Federoff said. “And I would totally disagree with it.”

Though “Hope” is a long way from the domestic box-office success of “Parasite,” these kinds of swings are important to keep the pipeline of original films humming and to vary the types of fare mainstream audiences can see at their local theaters.

Although art house films once skewed toward older audiences, indie films are now popular with younger generations, who have also become accustomed to reading subtitles.

That could bode well for future foreign language films looking to make inroads with mainstream audiences. While giving a wide release to a foreign language film could be seen as risky, it’s a move Federoff believes can help bolster creative filmmaking and keep people engaged at cinemas.

“My hope is that studios start to trust their audience and respect their audiences a little bit more,” she said. “I think we can all do this. I think we can all say that we just have to have more risk taking involved with what we do. There’s a lot of incredible international cinema out there that should be seen by everybody.”

Paramount and the states fight back

Paramount Skydance and the state attorneys general are defending their proposed settlement in the face of skeptical questions from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), arguing that the judge overseeing the case should approve the agreement without the deeper review the senator has requested.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín told both sides to answer Booker’s questions before she ruled on whether to approve the proposed consent decree. She said at the time that she would issue a ruling “in due course.”

On Monday, both sides issued separate filings that argued the terms of the settlement were adequate. In particular, the states pushed back on assertions that the consent decree was too weak, saying it “reflects a reasonable compromise that addresses the competitive issues posed by the proposed merger in the markets alleged in the complaint.”

“The decree’s enforcement provisions have teeth,” the states wrote in their filing.

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

A bipartisan group of lawmakers formally introduced a bill last week to create a federal film and television tax credit.

The proposed legislation would provide a 20% credit on above-the-line and below-the-line U.S. labor costs for eligible productions, including postproduction and visual effects work — two industries that have increasingly moved overseas.

The uncapped credit could increase to 30% with several uplifts, including for independent productions or filming in a federally declared disaster area, such as Los Angeles County.

What I’m watching

It’s fall, which means I’m all in on “Dancing with the Stars,” as I have been since Season 2, when Drew Lachey won with pro partner Cheryl Burke back in 2006.

This season feels like it was made for millennials like me, with contestants such as Julia Stiles, Harry Shum Jr. and Jenna Dewan. But my favorite dance last week was actually Guillermo Rodriguez’s paso doble.

Kennedy Center officials were long aware of serious structural issues that they cited as new problems after the abrupt decision to close the performing arts venue this month, a group of former employees allege in a letter to Congress.

The center’s executive director and chief operating officer, Matt Floca, did not treat the roofing issues as priorities and in April halted a funded plan to address them, according to the letter Thursday signed by David Seide, a lawyer representing the anonymous whistleblowers.

Floca denied their allegations, saying recent investigations of the leaks exposed new hazards at the building.

In a September court declaration, Floca noted there were “acute risks to public safety” when the aging building temporarily closed its doors after an inspection of a deteriorating roof terrace canopy and a partial ceiling collapse. The former employees, however, claim those “acute” issues were known previously by Floca, who joined the Kennedy Center as vice president of facilities in 2024.

“More than one year ago, Mr. Floca had requested and received the needed funds to remediate the New Problems he references,” Seide wrote, citing President Trump’s tax cut and spending bill that he signed in the summer of 2025. “Yet six months ago – with the funds in hand – he stopped the remediation process from moving forward.” In the legislation, Congress earmarked $257 million for the Kennedy Center.

The letter, first reported by The New York Times, is the latest in a series of tensions over an iconic Potomac River waterfront building that has become a focus of the Republican president in his remaking of the nation’s capital in his second term. Trump has installed his own leadership to the center’s governing board and had his name placed on the building before a judge ruled the new lettering was illegally added and ordered it removed.

The Trump-aligned board voted earlier this month to close the center indefinitely for repairs hours after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper blocked its plans to return Trump’s name to the building.

Cooper has told the center that it must give 30 days’ notice before making any major physical changes to the building, including demolishing it, as Trump has threatened. The Kennedy Center leadership also must file a status report no later than Friday on the temporary closure and emergency repairs.

Asked for a response to the whistleblowers’ claims, a Kennedy Center spokesperson sent a written statement from Floca, who said the safety of patrons, artists and staff is his priority.

“The Kennedy Center has known for years that the roof overhang leaked,” he wrote. “What we did not know until this summer was how far the damage had spread inside it.”

Floca added that rather than halting design plans in April as the whistleblowers alleged, he had reassigned the work to a more comprehensive plan because the contractor’s quote for the initial plans were nearly three times the expected cost.

“That was a change in the approach to procuring and delivering the work, not a determination that the work was unnecessary,” Floca wrote.

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote Floca on Thursday after receiving the whistleblower letter. Whitehouse said the documents showed Kennedy Center leadership had “hoarded” congressionally appropriated funding for repairs “while blaming previous leadership for the state of repairs.”

“My initial investigation into misconduct at the Center focused on cronyism and corruption, with documents demonstrating considerable excessive and self-serving spending under President Trump’s chairmanship,” Whitehouse said. “The documents that I attach today seem to reveal deeper financial mismanagement.”

A spokesperson for the committee’s Republican majority did not immediately reply to a request for comment Saturday.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

Joe Marler has revealed that he put on a stone during filming for Celebrity Traitors after overindulging in the extravagant breakfasts that are on offer for players

Joe Marler has revealed that he put on a stone during filming for Celebrity Traitors. The rugby star, 36, was one of several famous faces to enter the famous castle last year before comedian Alan Carr walked off with the top prize.

The show is famed for its extravagant breakfasts, which players enjoy as they discuss the game, and now Joe has recalled just how much he indulged during production of their show.

Speaking to Richard Osman and Marina Hyde at their live version of The Rest is Entertainment podcast, he explained: “So you get flown up there and then you get shoved in the Marriott Hotel in Inverness Airport. It was gorgeous!

“I was in the room, you put a card under the door, your food gets brought to you, you can have as much as you like. “There’s no interaction with anyone, any other contestants and then you’re taken to the castle.

“For the first bit of enjoying yourself, just watch what you’re eating, to go in there and put on eight kilos. Some people engage in a second breakfast, some people it would be their first breakfast. Some people it might be a third breakfast.”

During his time on the programme, Joe, a Faithful, reached the final and correctly sussed that Alan, along with Cat Burns, were Traitors. But in a shock move, he was banished in the final at the last minute, meaning that Alan could walk away from the show victorious.

Viewers are just days away from the new series of Celebrity Traitors, which will launch on October 1 and feature will feature a stellar line-up of names including Coronation Street legend Julie Hesmondhalgh, Little Mix star Leigh Anne Pinnock and singer James Blunt.

Maya Jama, best known for fronting Love Island, as well as best friends and comedians Rob Beckett and Romesh Ranganathan will be seen taking part as well, amongst a host of others.

Before the official release date was confirmed, Joe appeared alongside Pointless star Richard at an event and it seemed as if the pair had accidentally revealed the launch date, although this turned out not to be the case.

It’s reported that he asked Joe if he had any advice for the upcoming group of contestants, and he said: “What is it, September 23, the next series?”

Then, Richard replied: “By the way, to point out, it’s absolutely embargoed that it starts on September 23. Let’s talk about what we call the events of September 23 this year … the cat’s out of the bag, isn’t it? Not to repeat it.” A BBC spokesperson declined to comment.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads

Denmark, Greenland and the United States are set to sign a security agreement that Copenhagen says will give NATO a larger role in protecting the Arctic, potentially shifting responsibility beyond the United States and Denmark alone.

The agreement is expected to be signed at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. Its full contents have not been made public, although US President Donald Trump has described it as giving Washington “permanent control” over Greenland’s security.

Denmark and Greenland have not endorsed Trump’s description. Both have said the agreement will benefit Greenland while respecting the island’s sovereignty.

The deal follows months of pressure from Trump, who has repeatedly argued that the United States should control Greenland and at times declined to rule out military or economic measures to acquire the semi autonomous Danish territory.

His demands triggered a diplomatic crisis within NATO and pushed Copenhagen and Nuuk into negotiations with Washington to address US security concerns while maintaining Greenland’s status within the Kingdom of Denmark.

A broader NATO role

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said the agreement would change the way Arctic security is handled.

“It will be in a form where responsibility for security in the Arctic is not only Danish or American,” Rasmussen told Danish broadcaster TV2 on Sunday. He added that NATO would play a major role in protecting the region.

A NATO spokesperson said the alliance welcomed the agreement, describing it as a step that could advance security, stability and cooperation in the Arctic.

Rasmussen travelled to New York for the signing but has declined to disclose the agreement’s details.

He said Denmark had been open from the beginning to addressing what he described as legitimate US security interests.

The negotiations therefore appear to have focused on finding a framework that can accommodate Washington’s strategic concerns without formally transferring Greenland’s sovereignty to the United States.

Trump’s claim raises questions

Trump has offered a different description of what the agreement means.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, he said the deal gives the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland. He also said no US adversary would be able to establish a base or military presence on the island without Washington’s written approval.

Copenhagen has not publicly responded to that characterization.

The difference between Washington’s description and Denmark and Greenland’s public statements leaves important questions about the agreement unresolved.

Among the most significant is whether it changes the 1951 US Denmark defence agreement, which provides the legal basis for the American military presence in Greenland.

The document’s provisions on US access, military infrastructure and the role of NATO have not been made public.

Greenland at the centre

The agreement comes as Denmark acknowledges that it underinvested in Greenland’s defence for decades.

Copenhagen has since pledged to increase its military presence on the island and strengthen Arctic surveillance, including through greater NATO involvement.

Greenland’s government has sought to reassure residents that the negotiations do not compromise the island’s sovereignty.

Erik Jensen, an opposition lawmaker in Greenland, said on Facebook that he had read the draft agreement and felt reassured by its contents. He also praised Greenland’s foreign minister for handling the negotiations.

For Greenland, the issue is particularly sensitive because the island has extensive autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark and has long maintained a political debate over eventual independence.

What the agreement could mean for the Arctic

The deal could mark a significant change in the security architecture of the Arctic.

Greenland occupies a strategically important position between North America and Europe, making it valuable to the United States and NATO as competition over the Arctic increases.

A larger NATO role could provide a multilateral framework for responding to concerns about military activity and strategic infrastructure in the region. At the same time, the agreement’s precise legal and operational arrangements will determine how far that shift actually goes.

Until the text is released, it remains unclear whether the agreement represents a substantial restructuring of Greenland’s defence arrangements or primarily a political framework for closer cooperation.

What is clear is that the negotiations have moved Arctic security from a dispute centred on US ambitions for Greenland toward a broader discussion about NATO’s collective role in one of the world’s increasingly contested strategic regions.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — The unprecedented spate of mid-decade redistricting for the U.S. House has changed the congressional districts for one-tenth of Americans and significantly altered the makeup of at least one-fifth of districts, according to a new study.

A report by Protect Democracy found that 34.8 million people — about one in 10 Americans — now live in a different district than they did during the 2024 election cycle. And about one-fifth of all Americans now live in a district where more than a quarter of voters are new to the district compared with the last election cycle.

The findings display the stark overhaul that partisan redistricting fights kicked off by President Trump last year have caused for Americans across the country. The new congressional maps are increasingly drawn in ways that favor partisan politics over factors like geography and shared communities. That raises concerns among scholars about how the country’s hyperpolarized politics are affecting American democracy.

“If this trend continues, it really brings into question whether or not elected officials are really representing their constituents anymore, or if the voters are being randomly picked by mapmakers to squeeze out partisan advantage,” said Ben Raderstorf, a policy advocate at Protect Democracy and one of the paper’s co-authors.

The bare-knuckled partisan redistricting battle for the House began when Trump urged the Republican-controlled legislature in Texas, the second most populous state, to redraw its congressional map to help the party. The highly unusual plan prompted an immediate response from California, the most populous state, which held a successful referendum to tilt its map toward Democrats.

Other states followed, and Republicans are positioned to potentially gain nine seats because of redistricting.

The Protect Democracy report warns that such partisan tactics reduce faith in American elections generally and insulate incumbent lawmakers from public opinion. That can make political organizing more difficult, the report cautioned, potentially worsening the country’s already highly polarized politics. Both parties may also enter a “doom loop” where they embrace more aggressive and frequent redistricting efforts to avoid ceding any ground to their rivals.

In some states such as Missouri, the mid-decade redistricting has created confusion for voters about which district they live in and which candidates will appear on their November ballot. After conflicting lower court rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked new Missouri districts backed by Trump that had been used in the primary, leaving the state to revert to its previous districts for the general election.

The report concludes with a call for new electoral structures the authors believe would eliminate the potential downsides of partisan redistricting, like proportional representation or a formal truce between the parties to implement nonpartisan districting plans.

Nine states already use nonpartisan commissions to draw congressional district lines but those provisions have limits. California, for instance, suspended its nonpartisan maps with a referendum last year in response to Texas’ redistricting measures.

Such remedies would face long odds in Congress and statehouses, but scholars believe there are few other avenues to turn down the temperature in the partisan redistricting fights.

“This is only going to get worse until somebody stops it,” Raderstorf said. “The logic of gerrymandering points inevitably towards maximalist partisan advantage on both sides. There is no off-ramp other than reform. It is the only way to break the cycle.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.