Justice Watch Discussion Board "CORRUPTION #2" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... CORRUPTION #2, straykat2, 08:01:42, 7/05/2000 For reference, Straykat, Ginja, 10:30:48, 7/05/2000, (#1) ................................................................... "CORRUPTION #2" Posted by straykat2 on 08:01:42 7/05/2000 The other thread was getting too long, so I am taking it upon myself to start this one. Matt, thanks for starting the other thread about CORRUPTION. Ginja - You mentioned that the Attorney General's office is one of the agencies that investigates corruption in the DAs office (correct me if I'm wrong). I see a possible conflict with that arrangement, especially if the DA has worked in the Attorney General's office. As I recall, Bill Ritter (Denver DA) use to work in the Attorney General's office (same could be true for Mike Kane). Since Ritter & Kane are part of Hunter's task force, isn't this like the fox watching the hen house? There is too much opportunity for a cover up. Edited to say I could be confusing the U.S. Attorney's office with the Attorney General's office. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "For reference, Straykat" Posted by Ginja on 10:30:48 7/05/2000 I'm pasting my response here before we get to answering your question. I think it's worthwhile that people read this rather than skim it. It answers your question in your opening post here. I'll delve into it more if you feel the need. But notice, there are agencies within agencies that NOBODY knows exists!!! Even the staff and attorneys. I'm having a hard time accepting that there is no response to this post (except you). For five days, I've tried to explain how corruption is handled at all levels. I've gone so far as to show you that agencies exist within agencies, using false names, go so far as disguising themselves as businesses or nonprofit corporations....and not even an oooohhh, ahhhhh, or 'now I understand.' Here's the post. I'll check in after my lunchbreak to see if I'm again going to be bashed around as asshole of the week, or accused by an umemployed clerk of 'puffing up' my so-called "credentials". 95. "Hi Straykat" Posted by Ginja on 20:35:46 7/04/2000 >Would you elaborate on how corruption cases >are investigated? I am curious >as to what is looked at, >how it is determined what will >be looked at, the questions that >are asked, and how the leads >are followed up. Does a >neutral, outside agency investigate cases of >corruption, or is this done by >internal affairs? If it is >done by internal affairs then I >don't see how the investigation could >be unbiased. Okay, the best (and probably only) way to answer your question is to use the Boulder DA as an example, because there's no "right" answer as to who looks at what and how, etc....that all depends on who's committing a 'crime', what kind of crime it is, and what it's impacting. So we work off the hypothetical that Hunter's committing acts to thwart the Ramsey investigation. Let's go with Matt's charge by McCrary that he handed over evidence to the RST. The FBI already have their foot in the door as they're involved in the investigation. So this is a concern to them because in essence, he's (DA) screwing up their investigation. Likewise, the charge has been made publicly, as well as the fact that it's no secret there's a chasm between the BPD and DA. The FBI can easily take it upon themselves to go 'underground' and look into it without making any announcements to the public or other agencies. In many instances, they will go to someone higher up, in this case, the governor, to inform him they're going to be looking into allegations of a serious nature. But at the same time, since those allegations were made in public, the governor may have already put his investigators onto it already. Or at least giving it serious consideration. All of this takes place behind the scenes and NO ONE is informed that one or two offices are investigating the allegations. So the BPD is in the blind, as well as the sheriff's department, the CBI, naturally the DA, but also consulting DA's from Denver. The first questions asked and examined are what the allegations are. Handing evidence over to the RST. So the next step is to find out what that evidence was. Who passed it on, who accepted it. The laws are scrutinized. In this case, you've got a dilemma. You certainly don't share information outside of discovery with suspects. You can, however, in some instances, share it with the victims. You have to go back then to see what that evidence was. Certain so-called evidence CAN be passed on to the victims. Especially if its something they've already seen. It may be perfectly fine for the DA to send a copy of the ransom note, for instance. But then they have to look at how it impacts the case. True, both 'victims' read and handled the note. Perhaps they want the note to review to see if they can come up with any ideas from it as to who might have written it. Then again, they may want it to practice from so they can get over on the handwriting analysis. Likewise, they have to look into "how" that evidence was requested. Did the RST request it so their investigators could work with it? Perhaps that's how the request went in to the DA. But the underlying reason of the RST was so that their clients could use it to practice from. In which case, the focus of the investigation may sway some to look more closely at the RST for obtaining the evidence under false pretenses. IOW, there's plenty for the FBI and/or Governor's office to work with before they even leave their offices. Another factor as to 'who' does the investigating could be from the Attorney General's office...they can take it upon themselves to initiate an investigation without informing the FBI or Governor. That's how most of our investigations started when I was an AG investigator. Someone, anyone, could make a simple phone call. It would go to the chief and he'd meet with us to determine whether or not it's a valid complaint and whether we should investigate. Perhaps someone like McCrary would call in himself...or maybe the AG saw McCrary on tv make the statement...or even one of the investigators. Of course, you might get a call from the governor himself, or the mayor, or chief of police. IOW, you have no idea how many people can get involved in a covert operation like this. And in many instances, it needs no prompting. Like I said, the AG could have seen something on the tv. A letter from a disgruntled citizen. Whatever. Charges like that aren't taken lightly. Again, all of this takes place behind closed doors without anyone's knowledge. What happened at the AG's when I was onboard is that we picked up on this sort of thing either through the grapevine or a phone call or letter...even cops would come in with complaints. From there, we'd make the determination as to whether the allegation had merit, and then we'd take off with it. We would notify the Governor, and FBI right off the bat (unless it involved one of those offices)...ditto for staties...if it didn't involve them, they were pulled it. It's plainsclothes from there and we'd infiltrate (after going through as much as we could as I outlined above -- asking questions, checking the law, etc.). Maybe I'd be sent to the DA's office as an IRS employee to do an audit..something to get my foot in the door. Once inside, you snoop around. But that's basically how it would work. If you get as far as infiltration, then you've already determined the allegation had merit, a law was most likely broken, and the material passed on was outside the scope of acceptable evidence sharing. The infiltration would be to find out if anything else is going on, as well as to verify your findings before the infiltration. And then the outcome. Sometimes you get enough to charge the DA. Maybe once inside, you find out for sure that the information passed on was 'acceptable' and within the law. In which case, you finish your 'audit' and go back to the AG's and file your report. Maybe before you even went in on that audit, you had reason to believe the RST had obtained the evidence under false pretenses, in which case, the infiltration may be an audit at Haddon's office instead of the DA's. Back at the DA's office, maybe all your 'audit' comes up with is that the information passed on was just on the line between legal and illegal. Then you have to take a few more things into consideration. Did it negatively impact the investigation and could it have a negative impact in a future trial? If the answer is no, then you might sit on it and do nothing. Why? Because you've got the DA playing on the line of legality...if he just nudged it a bit this time with the evidence, he may screw up even more in something else. The 'auditor' can't audit forever, and has to eventually leave. On his way out of the building, he may say good night to the new guard at the door. Later on, the two will get together and compare notes. IOW, that new guard is another temporary 'employee'. And maybe, after everyone leaves the building that night, he goes around on his rounds and places 'bugs' in strategic places. There's more than one way to skin a cat. And there are several different agencies that can either take off on their own to investigate, or they can work together as a multi-agency team. But again, it all depends on who's doing what and how that action is impacting a case or process. On one corruption case I worked, we went so far as to tell the employees some strange story (I forget now, this goes way back). But involved the possibility that the employee might know something and not even be aware of it. So we brought the entire staff in and polygraphed them! All of them were scheduled to basically come in at the same time. It wasn't so much what they said under the polygraph we were interested in, it was their reactions and things they might talk about themselves. Perhaps one or more would be paranoid and whisper to a colleague if that colleague thought the cops had 'found out'. So the reception area was bugged. I made out like I was the receptionist sitting at the desk typing. Meanwhile, I had the earpiece on so I could hear what everyone was whispering. At the same time, I'd also have to keep on eye on them...who was sweating, who was crying, etc. People were getting physically ill they were so terrified. The cat was out of the bag. They knew we knew they were corrupt and our 'story' was just to get them there to arrest them. Another factor to consider when you think about these investigators for the various agencies like the Governor's office or the Attorney General. They aren't publicized, people don't know they exist...even employees! For example, our office was not in the courthouse or anywhere near it when the AG's office was housed. We had our own office in the city. We all wore plainsclothes. The sign on our door said "Holland Foundation"...and if anyone asked, we were an non-profit organization that gave out oceanographic grants. I hope this helps, Straykat. Quick reference to your question re Ritter. Again, it's highly unlikely he or others are aware of quasi-agencies at the AG's office. Perhaps he is. But he sure as hell wouldn't be sent a memo informing him of an impending investigation into corruption. It defeats the whole purpose of these agencies' existence! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE