As a critical thinker and especially an investigator I had to quickly learn that in order to be good in either, that despite my feelings or impressions, my conclusions had to be firmly rooted in fact, logic and clear objective evidence. I had to be willing to see all sides of an issue, be able to understand and look at the same evidence within their paradigms and worldviews in order for me to either clearly see how either I am going down the wrong path or clearly see how my opponent is at risk of the same or trying to deceive me. Failures to do this can and has caused many to fail to know the difference between a sound conclusion and a compelling inference.
I’m also reminded of one of my first lessons offered to me as I paid my dues as an apprentice investigator, pounding the pavement, sifting through papers and burning up in hot surveillance vans. I was told to never fail to try to do everything to see how youtarget can be proven to be truthful and your client to be shown a liar. Doing so forces us to turn every stone and not just the ones that look more in line with our preconceived notions or decided conclusions. It forces the investigator to be objective and more aware of his emotions and their subtle ways of pulling one the wrong way one “gut feeling” at a time.
That being said then one should not conclude halfway through this that I am defending the defendants. Nor that I am in any way dismissing the validity of the many concerns of corruption that certainly merited at least some due diligence scrutiny. However, As I have been investigating this since August, and have been very open and direct with my investigative queries and questions towards those accused of either the recent rape or of corruption, I never felt in a reasonable or professionally ethical position to make direct accusations on anyone of either and continue to research and investigate a number of questions that still continue to plague me.
All of these “facts” that are coming out (many that were already mentioned on air and in print months ago, or never should have for various legal and/or moral reasons) such as this consent decree, Sheriff Abdalla’s past indictments, Hanlin’s many relational and professional overlap with many prominent persons in this case, etc, even if were all to prove corruption (but actually implies at best) does not explain the many bizarre actions by the DA and law enforcement that would not only be inconsistent but counter productive to a city or countywide conspiracy to cover this up or hide a secret cabal of cops, lawyers and city officials hanging out at The Spot devising new ways to harm and exploit the citizens of Steubenville, as is practically being painted if you were to believe all the recent tabloid like “new evidence” being peddled all over the internet and certain murdertainment “news” channels without any real due diligence investigation to show for it.
I decided to share my conundrums below with my readers and listeners and hear their thoughts and critical thinking analyses.
1. Why arrest those they chose to if they indeed were aware of other rapists but wanted to protect them, as being claimed by many. Especially Mal’ik Richmond. He was under the former guardianship of Greg Agresta a school board member and brother in law of Emanula Agresta (Asst DA and member of Bruzzese and Calabria law firm of which other lawyers there happen to also be ADAs) would be bound to come out (as it did for me upon even cursory investigation and interviews of locals) and cast more suspicion on the community leadership and raise questions of bias and ethics. Why “pick” someone to take the hit whose background alone is guaranteed to complicate this case and compromise the very goals being claimed?
2. Is the fact that Judge Kerr the one that oversaw Mal’ik’s guardianship when he was a child have any bearing in his decision to recuse himself, if so how?
3. Many people keep referring to the deputies collecting a couple phones and then inadvertently erasing photos. Where is that coming from? I have heard no officaial statement to that happening. I interviewed Abdalla on the air over a week ago and although he does admit to the deputies not accompanying the boys to get the phones (leaving open the plausibility that they could have deleted photos themselves) he denied that his deputies deleted anything and some photo evidence was found and one IS being charged for it as I understand, so what is being covered up?
4. Thanks to the potentially slanderous statements of Rosanne , seeming rush to post “evidence” by Knightsec (I refuse to use the term Anonymous anymore and get caught up in whatever disagreement is occurring within this hacking group, idea, or whatever you want to consider them) and a few other nameless bloggers and internet stalkers, Charlie Keenan (Hanlin’s son) has been dragged through the mud as a culprit and accused by some as the driving reason for a cover up.
Yet recently, it has been publicly contended by people believed to be in this “secret cover-up conspiracy” that he was no where near the crime and was in fact out of town, when all eyes are on Steubenville and this case why would they offer such an easily verifiable alibi that has not been refuted by investigators nor, as far as I know, from Jane Doe’s lawyers. Why risk even more public exposure and at such a large scale the exposure of dishonesty and potential malfeasance given the position of some who offered this alibi? And if it is deed true, does that not destroy a core basis for the reasoning being offered to back claims of a cover-up?
5. How does a letter saying that the prosecution did not find sufficient evidence to arrest other boys who later testified, constitute a deal (As is being posited by many bloggers and armchair detectives)? Doesn’t a deal from a prosecutor involve them having the evidence and thus the ability to prosecute but chooses not to and makes that clear because they seek a higher priority suspect and need the first persons help? Is that not different from a written statement citing a lack of evidence and was also again pointed out in open court when one of the prosecutors said to one of those witnesses that they would have prosecuted if indeed the deleted photos that they openly admitted to have taken were recovered?
Finally there are the recent points raised by Frank Bruzzese on his Facebook, that again when looked at with unemotional or unprejudiced eyes, does raise valid challenges to recent claims against the city administration and law enforcement that in the interest of due diligence and fairness ought to be considered and reasonably answered.
“Let’s clear up four (4) facts. More to come later, but let’s focus on four (4) facts for today.
These facts are indisputable. You do not have to take anyone’s word for them. They were carved into the Court’s public record long ago, before any internet blogger arrived from cyber space.
Fact #1: In August of 2012, Jane Hanlin, Prosecuting Attorney of Jefferson County, Ohio, filed the charges which brought this case to light. She filed the most serious charges provided by law.
Fact #2: Our Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney also filed the motion to try the accused as adults.
Fact #3: Our Prosecuting Attorney gave nobody immunity.
Fact #4: Our Prosecuting Attorney called in the Ohio Attorney General and its Special Prosecutors and requested the court to give them the authority to investigate and charge any other person who may have committed any crime related to the case.” – Frank Bruzzese
Anyone care to weigh in?