Coincidence Too? Connect More Dots

The local DA's office has quite a few resources under their control, both financial and logistical.

The DA suddenly decides not to run for reelection, but one of her minions decides to run in her stead.

A qualified candidate steps up and announces that he is running in opposition to the ADA.

It will be interesting to see what type of dirt starts being "dug up" by the entrenched candidate against the contender and his friends and family.

They couldn't possibly be this stupid...could they?

(I'm not sure whether this last comment is rhetorical or sarcastic...)

Coincidence?

Interesting development - the Jefferson County District Attorney (who was in office during the whole Jon Massey Case and whose name is featured in at least one exonerating/exculpatory reference) has decided to NOT run for reelection (see article here).

Could it be that her "hands on" involvement in the case that lead to the death of Jon Massey gave the public doubt in her abilities to fairly administer justice?

Or is it because she herself sent an email to Jon Massey's attorney and made a phone call to a young man's parents that could be interpreted as witness tampering?

Could it be that assistant district attorneys under her command have been involved in ethically questionable legal behavior?

After all, one of them in the Jon Massey Case alone engaged in Grand Jury misconduct (click here for details) before he crashed and burned.

And then there is the second ADA on the case who, when the defense presented a very strong case, somehow managed to ignore all the facts and prior testimony and ended up with a witness who mysteriously changed her story in a way that contradicted the county's expert witness (click here for details).

But apparently now we will be blessed with a "replacement" - from the same regime. The candidate who announced her run last night has just as questionable a history in the DA's office.

Let's start with the fact that she was the ADA handling the CRI who was exposed during the Grand Jury in the Jon Massey Case. She was responsible for preserving the confidentiality of his identity, even from others in the DA's office. Obviously, she failed at that (click here for details).

But she was also involved in the Deputy John Hallett fiasco - apparently despite the fact that he was found passed out drunk behind the wheel of his running patrol vehicle with a bottle of booze in his lap and his K9 in the car, the candidate failed to see any reason to charge him (click for the Sheriff's report).

So, are we there yet? It appears that it will be "business as corrupt as usual" if she is elected.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose the corruption!

ADAs (Apparently Dumb Attorneys)

The first ADA (Assistant District Attorney) involved in the Jon Massey case was a go-getter.

He had a shining career in prosecuting sexual offenses against minors that was the subject of a very favorable interview in the local newspaper.

The article even documents the inter-agency cooperation between CPS and the District Attorney's office, as it details the use of the Child Advocacy Center - a location used by CPS for interviewing children (and it was used to interview Ruby in the Massey case).

But there was an undercurrent swirling around the ADA. First were the issues involving the first grand jury that heard the Massey case.

Leading up to that grand jury, we have documentation that numerous affidavits and other evidence were sent to the ADA that would cast substantial doubt on Ruby's story, yet he proceeded forward regardless.

Even the DA was concerned about the reliability/credibility of the case, as presented in the discovery from CPS:

There is documentation that this first ADA spent at least two 3-hour sessions with Ruby reviewing her story and working on her testimony before the first Grand Jury, as well as the hours of time spent with other experts and prosecutorial parties - see Numbers Don't Lie!

However the first ADA assigned to the case did a major crash and burn, and left his position at the DA's office in March 2013.

The next ADA filed a motion in the case that definitively states that Ruby's story had been checked and verified as being as accurate and as complete as possible. This would make sense - there were well over 34 documented hours of interviews regarding time, place, and events that occurred with Ruby. The new ADA had access to all of the files and records in the case and so would have been confident of these details enough to put her name to a sworn statement.

Additionally, the second ADA directly witnessed the testimony of the psychologist that was paid by the county to do an evaluation of Ruby, she herself called him as a witness and did the direct examination of this expert. So when she presented the letter below to the judge four days after the hearing ended, it was blatantly disingenuous.

It must be very gratifying to work for the DA's office in our county - you can be incompetent, ineffective, and inept, and still collect a regular paycheck.

As taxpayers, we definitely are NOT getting our money's worth!