Adam Laird: Part 2
I'm a bit disappointed with the Times- Standard's second part of the Adam Laird prosecution. I'd hoped to see a little more regarding the incident he's being charged with. Perhaps some information from the prosecutorial side rather than just the defense. That didn't happen. We just got more along the same line as in part 1, that being claims of the charges being some sort of political retribution.
There's certainly a story to be told about the inner squabbling within the Eureka Police Department, but I'm not sure just how much that has to do with Laird being prosecuted. After all, even if he was set up and treated differently than other officers might have been, that seems a separate issue as far as his guilt or innocence of the criminal charges.
For example; If other officers might not have been prosecuted for doing the same sort of thing, maybe they should have been? Assuming he was treated differently, does that amount to reason for acquittal? Maybe his lawyer can make that case. I don't know.
It does give the defense the advantage of muddling issues and perhaps raising doubt towards his accusers. I'm not sure the prosecution can really counter this. If they try to argue against political prosecution in court, that will just muddle things up more which might benefit the defense.
It does seem from what I've read as if there were, and are, a number of people within EPD that wanted Laird out of there. Whether their reasons are valid or not, we'll likely never know.
******
Oh, and as far as the second story in the Times- Standard today on the Laird case: A summation of the Laird case "In their own words". Funny thing that it's just a repeat of quotes from the other story- Part 2. Why would they feel the need to summarize all the quotes from the story right next to it? And why no quotes from anyone on the prosecution side? Hmmm???
posted by Fred Mangels @ 10:06 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I've moved these comments to the Pledge of Allegiance post where they're more appropriate.
Glass is an ass. If Lanza was promoting his agenda in the past, then he can't be trusted now. Good riddance.
Fred,
It's quite simple really. The defense attorney is trying to try this case in the court of public opinion. Thad Greenson knows full well that the city cannot respond to any questions regarding personnel.
Perhaps Thad should try and go off the record with someone and do a story about the time Adam Laird pulled a loaded pistol out while drunk, off duty at a bar.
Further, since Thad is pulling all kinds of stuff from the Glass-Garr era, he can investigate Larry's incident with the underage girl that Garr swept under the rug.
Ohhh 5:47 and 5:48. The public has been missing you since "Above the Law" blog was shut down.
Glad you're back. Someone must have hit a little too close to home, hmmm?
Don't worry. The public is hoping that Thad gets all the off the record stuff. Nothing like having light shined in those dark corners :)
That may, or may not be,true. It has nothing to do with the charges that have formally been made.
Perhaps Thad should try and go off the record with someone and do a story about the time Adam Laird pulled a loaded pistol out while drunk, off duty at a bar.
I should delete your comment since it's unproven and it's irrelevant to the current charges. I won't, though, since it pretty much makes the case the Times- Standard is trying to make: that Laird has been treated differently, and it's a vendetta against him (whether deserved, or not).
There's no doubt in my mind other Eureka officers have been guilty of indiscretions of their own.
Don't worry. The public is hoping that Thad gets all the off the record stuff. Nothing like having light shined in those dark corners.
Just more proof in my mind Laird is being attacked politically.
Post a Comment
<< Home