Posted on 09/19/2015 7:01:57 PM PDT by Elderberry
The Associated Press has analyzed evidence from a May shootout in which nine members of motorcycle clubs were killed outside a Waco restaurant and concluded some were hit by police bullets, a Friday AP report reveals. “The AP reviewed more than 8,800 pages of evidence, including police reports, dash-cam video, photos and audio interviews related to the May 17 confrontation,” the report explains. “Four months later, authorities have released little information about what sparked the fight or how the gunfire played out, and no one has been charged with any of the deaths.” . . .
That goes directly to a concern raised in this column after it was revealed in August that autopsy reports were released without ballistics reports. Along with questionable activities by both the prosecutor and the judge in the case against the bikers, flags were raised because that testing had been assigned to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and ATF had pledged the tests were “being given top priority over other cases.”
Because of that, this column approached Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with a simple request that is well within their purview and authority, and which would not in any way interfere with the ongoing investigation:
“Ask ATF when Waco ballistics report will be released.”
That’s it – just let us know when it’s expected to be complete. Surely by now the lab folks must have a feel for what procedures must still be completed, and the experience to estimate how long that should take.
With that request sent via Facebook messaging, Grassley’s office responded to TTAG’s inquiry. Except initially, the response just contained platitudes that committed to nothing. Challenging being effectively dismissed with nothing of substance got the staffer’s attention and resulted in a pledge of sorts.
“We definitely appreciate you taking the time to contact Senator Grassley,” the staffer replied. “If you can give us your email or mailing address, the Senator will be able to send you a more detailed message regarding your comments. Thank you.”
That was two days ago, and the detailed email has not arrived yet. With this latest development, I replied with a link to the AP report and a message that “this makes the question by Sen. Grassley to ATF all the more appropriate and urgent.”
This column will continue to monitor developments and post the detailed Grassley reply upon receipt. Perhaps the senator responding to TTAG’s inquiry will receive wider media attention and prod ATF to estimate how much longer the public will have to wait for its report.
Isn’t strange that we’re not getting any videos of the violent confrontations these so called refugees are instigating all over Europe? /sarc
absolutely no reason to involve the Feds.
Take it up with State authorities, who will act much more decisively.
Ooops wrong thread
It is known that BATFE were on site on 5/17. So the the Feds already ARE involved. Entirely appropriate to demand accountability.
“The entire affair is very odd.”
Not really. Gang wars have been happening through out history.
“My guess is that there was an accidental discharge (police? bikers?) and the fusillade started.”
Statements from bikers at the scene say it was more like an execution shot by the Bandidos.
“There is also a general issue that the police could have prevented the altercation entirely, by arresting conspirators before violence erupted. “
You are complaining about them arresting the bikers AFTER the gang fight.
Imagine your outcry if they arrested them BEFORE!
DUH .................
“One woman who was there claimed that years ago she saw Renya snorting coke.”
LOL.
A conversation at an unnamed place with unnamed people ....
Most of the answers are in the public domain.
Most of the casings were NOT .223.
Most of the bullets recovered from the dead were NOT .223
-------------------------------------------
Manuel Issac Rodriguez, 40, Allen, one gunshot wound in the head and one in the back. Head: Medium Caliber NOT .223; Back Medium Caliber NOT .223
Matthew Mark Smith, 27, Keller, one gunshot wound in the back and one in the abdomen.
Back: Medium Caliber NOT .223; Abdamen: Not Determined
Jesus Delgado Rodriguez, 65, New Braunfels, one gunshot wound to the head and one in the back. Head: Medium Caliber NOT .223; Trunk: Undertermined
Richard Matthew Jordan II, 31, Pasadena, one gunshot wound to the head. Head: Medium Caliber NOT .223
Richard Vincent Kirschner Jr., 47, Wylie, one gunshot wound to the top of the head, one to the left knee and one in the buttocks. Knee: Medium Caliber NOT .223; Buttocks: Small Caliber .223 or .22
Wayne Lee Campbell, 43, Fort Worth, one gunshot wound to the head. Trunk: Small Caliber .223 or .22
Daniel Raymond Boyett, 44, Waco, shot two times in the head. Head: Medium Caliber NOT .223; Abdomen: Medium Caliber NOT .223; Head: Undetermined
Charles Wayne Russell, 46, Tyler, shot once in the chest. Chest: Small Caliber .223 or .22
Jacob Lee Rhyne, 39, Ranger, shot once in the neck and once in the abdomen.Neck: Undertermined; Abdomen: Undetermined
Spaz. Arm: Not Available ... yet!
It would be about the same. The evidence for conspiracy would be same as it is now.
Some of the attendees had open warrants. Arrest a few, that tends to put the rest on good behavior.
I know you read my posts, and I've said that before (arrest a few), again showing that you are an idiot.
Stickler for "the law" as he just a couple of years ago presented himself to be, now he's trammeled. But watch him wiggle...although he'll try to keep that out of sight, and hide behind a judge if he can...while still pressing forward with the cookie-cutter.
In a Facebook post after she left the DA’s office, the former employee wrote a threatening note to someone associated with one of Kingrey’s cases.“... So I know you thought that if I didn’t work for the DA that u wouldn’t have to worry bout me telling the world that u are the one that snitched on (a defendant). Well, my Bellmead allstar, it is actually quite the opposite. Now, you see, I have nothing to lose like I did before,” the post said. “So although I have remained silent thus far, now I want everyone to know that (you) are a snitch and set up (a defendant in the case).”
The DA can always pick and choose when to disclose this. The trigger is him wanting to use the evidence. If he doesn't want to use the evidence or testimony of the informant, then he can keep the informant out of sight. On the other hand, if he needs the informant to make the case, his choices are limited to charging, and not charging. This is the day-by-day reality, as prosecutors work to accumulate what they think is "enough" evidence to make the case they want.
-- ... while still pressing forward with the cookie-cutter. --
That has done it's job. Going forward with the criminal prosecutions, Reyna is not stuck with the cookie cutter. He can bring whatever evidence he has before the grand jury, and seek whatever charge floats his boat.
But, in the cases where the accused are suing for deprivation of civil rights, Reyna is stuck with the cookie cutter. He's also stuck with the testimony given by the state in examining trials and similar proceedings.
I disagree most wholeheartedly.
Texas is a sovereign state in all but a very few matters.
It is unquestionable that the investigation of law enforcement authorities is the domain of the state of Texas.
Should that investigation reveal improprieties made by anyone on a federal level, then those people are answerable to the State Authorities.
Always going to a federal entity to solve problems under the authority of the state is not what our or the US Constitution says, and is one reason we are going to hell in a handbasket.
The recently adopted Morton Act (effective Jan. 1, 2014), to a large extent precludes DA's, in Texas, being able to continue to pick and chose what they desire to reveal, in the same way they once did.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM LEGISLATION S.B. 1611, the “Michael Morton Act,” requires prosecutors to open their files to defendants and keep records of the evidence they disclosed in an attempt to reduce wrongful convictions in Texas. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland (1963) has long required prosecutors to disclose evidence that is “material either to guilt or punishment,” this new law requires disclosure of all police reports and witness statements, regardless of whether the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, and requires that any other evidence that is material to any matter be disclosed.
This is one reason Renya has been dragging his feet, and not charging anyone more specifically? He'd have to show his cards, and I do mean all of them. Playtime is over, boys and girls, and that extends to prosecutors, now.
Rank and file LEO's shouldn't have much to worry about though, as far as I can tell. Be honest, write good reports, do not embellish, do not leave critical details out, and the rest of the process should sail along swimmingly.
"Governor Rick Perry signed into law the Michael Morton Act (SB 1611) late this spring, ushering in a new era in discovery for Texas prosecutors. Here is a general overview of this law, which is effective January 1, 2014.Each prosecutor is charged under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 2.01 “not to convict, but to see that justice is done.” What you rarely hear quoted is the next sentence: “They shall not suppress evidence or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.” This duty to seek justice rather than convictions includes setting the innocent free—and it has been this way for decades. ..."
If *some* prosecutors hadn't made such a habit of engaging in various game-playing tricks to effect suppression of evidence and secreting of witnesses, there wouldn't have been this small degree of recent blow-back work it's way through the State Legislature, and wind up being signed into law by a Governor.
Bingo. I thank you for having brought that to everyone's attention, and thank you for not allowing us to become distracted, thus lose sight of that.
Even though in couple of the hearings, due cause was not established, in fact the police admitted they had no evidence for key assertions contained within the arrest warrant(s), the judge decided to figuratively punt, and allow the arrest charges (and whatever else the DA may decide upon in the meantime?) go forward to a grand jury, regardless.
That's not enough to get McLennan County DA's office entirely off the hook as for possibilities for civil suit. A judge could also be dragged into being among persons charged with being conspirators to violate civil rights of the accused? I doubt it would go quit that far, if it goes at all, but even if only naming McLennan County DA's, that's where it really get's interesting, doesn't it?
Anybody (LEO's DA's, Justice's of the Peace, and maybe a judge or two) want to drive to Austin, and face a civil court jury there? Maybe they'd bump up against Vic Feazell as part of plaintiff's council, and 'ol Vic could take a bite out of crime. Somebody still owes that guy, I'd think.
It would be poetic justice if Vic was among those who spanked Renya & Co., if it comes to that, even though Renya himself is too young to have been part of the local Waco LEO inbreeding and vengeance seeking that Feazell long ago was (apparently) unjustly subjected to.
But for prosecutor's alone (singled out, and I would say rightly enough), from the same Texas State Bar link previously provided (above);
S.B. 825
allows for the filing of a grievance by an exoneree up to four years following release from prison against a prosecutor alleged to have violated the ethics rule regarding the duty to disclose and prohibits a private reprimand for such a violation.
That's in addition to possible civil suit...?
As for text of SB 1611 itself, that can be hard to find, being there were many changes to it before it eventually passed. I found what I'm pretty sure is the Act, as adopted, accessed from this page;
under "Enrolled", selecting the html link, produces the SB 1611 as passed and I presume later signed by the Governor;
As soon as formal charges are filed (beyond arrest warrant?), the prosecution has to give up all written police reports (upon request) and copies made available of statements, interviews and recordings made even by informants, even if not put on the prosecution's witness list.
This is a change to the usual rules of discovery processes, and prosecutors (some of them, anyway) don't like having the playing field leveled in this manner.
Well boo-fricken hoo. Let the evidence be seen.
If there is enough to convict, then the prosecution should have only small worries.
The defense still needs to ask for the information, yet that 'requesting' has been purposefully allowed to equate to a form pf blanketing, generic request, that must be complied with (no more games -- "but you didn't ask for that"), for if the prosecutors leave much of anything out, they can be liable for public reprimand, in the least, and so could be voted right out of office if they are the kind who like to ride the ragged edge of legality, continuing to rely upon excuses to cover for the ways they have of power-tripping defendants and defense attorneys (like, waiting until nearly the last moments before trial to produce evidence, while playing hide and seek with whatever they'd prefer the accused to not be able to see, etc.).
In the Morton case, the blue bandanna was withheld from being a "witness" of sorts. Prosecution fought tooth and nail for YEARS to keep it from being examined. Morton was wrongfully imprisoned for 24 years.
The Morton Act is aimed at making it harder for prosecution to withhold potentially exculpatory information. Informants, most particularly including undercover officers, may have exculpatory information.
Yet whatever they may have, no longer is that subjected to the discretion of prosecutors as to whether the information may be exculpatory, or not.
What must be turned over includes what may show guilt, also, regardless if a prosecutor does not want to rely upon that portion of evidence, or testimony. No longer can much of any of that be shielded from view.
It's not longer up to the DA's discretion, like it used to be. Reports from undercover officers are not excluded, in fact, the Morton Act clearly infers that all written police reports are included in what must be provided to the defense, and provided in a timely manner. That would include reports from undercover officers or agents that bear upon the case, regardless if the DA decided to rely upon testimony from an undercover officer, or any agent, and informer too. Since "conspiracy" had been included in the charges, so far, that opens the door for defense attorneys to demand to see pretty much the entire files in regards to whichever MC. Just maybe, Renya may want to limit what charges he will attempt to actually press to trial? If he doesn't, stand back everybody, and watch a man (that would be Renya) step on his own pecker.
The way I see, the preclusion from written communication between the State and employees, agents and contractors, is in regards to what information there is between the State and those listed which does not pertain to the defendant, and/or whatever case there is against a defendant. All info is all info, with few exceptions.
Renya, knows this, or at least pretended to know that, in regards to the case where he dropped charges against the seven defendants, doing so (so he said) because he was obligated by law to provide the information to the defense. That was the basis for his threat to drop the charges --- if the detective continued to refuse to provide his office with the identification of an informant. The detective dug in her heels, and refused to name the informant. Renya dropped the case, just as he threatened he would.
How could Renya now hide the names, identities and written reports which are in any way directly related to the Twin Peaks case, after having made such a hullabaloo about not having the information that he would have to, by recently enacted law (if not already under Brady v. Maryland) provide to the defense in that previous 'seven defendant' case?
Can you see it now? The prosecution no longer gets to sit on things, picking and choosing what is exculpatory or not. If it's part of the 'file', then all of that must be made available to the defense with few exclusions, all of which are subject to being taken before a judge to determine if it can be, or must be excluded under law, such as names and evidence pertaining to minor children who were victims of sexual predators, or just things like humdrum, everyday normal communications between State and State employees, including law enforcement officers, that would arguably have nothing to do with whatever case is being taken to trial. That provisio was likely included to prevent too far-reaching fishing expeditions on the part of defense attorneys. But everything, the entire contents of small 'fishin' holes', are not only subject to discovery, but must be given over to the defense in response to rather generic requests for "all" information.
http://texasdefender.org/wp-content/uploads/Towards_More_Transparent_Justice.pdf pdf, 68 pages.
A few paragraphs from the Executive Summary;
Our review revealed that prosecutors’ instructions to law enforcement agencies, or a lack thereof, may create confusion about law enforcement responsibilities under the Morton Act. Many prosecutors produced no evidence that they had trained or informed local law enforcement agencies about the Act, or implemented practices to ensure that law enforcement officers knew what must be disclosed in each and every case. Among the jurisdictions that had created memoranda, training materials or new forms and processes, many included information that misstated or diminished the agencies’ obligations.Often these forms emphasized law enforcement’s constitutional obligations under Brady v. Maryland, but ignored the broader requirements of the Act. Other materials developed by prosecutors mischaracterized the obligations to disclose information under the law. These materials include forms stating that law enforcement’s obligation to disclose information in a case ends with a final conviction, which explicitly contradicts the Act’s directive to disclose any favorable evidence before, during or after a case’s resolution.
In certain jurisdictions, law enforcement officers may be engaging in practices that prevent the prosecution’s full compliance with the Act. Reports from defense attorneys also revealed that in a handful of jurisdictions prosecutors may be disclosing everything in their own files, but not actively encouraging and requiring law enforcement to make sure all relevant information was included in those files.
Old Gator, always wants to talk about the aftermath, never the before.
We are all still shaking in our boots waiting for the video to be released, even though that which has leaked out, well... I guess there were some bad guys, but a lot of apparently came to eat a burger and drink beer on a Sunday, ((which we all know is a sin (in Waco).
Gator - How’s Mr. Unlis(ted) these days?
Isn’t that great stuff?
Bizarre. Like a bunch of teen girls airing their differences on Facebook? Look at the names.... almost every one is the same. That is what passes for justice in Waco.
Other silly girls, who claim to be Freepers, call folks out for posting stuff like that - - - because it is not new?
Relevant, probative, perhaps directly on point as to the source of the leaks?
If it doesn’t have ABC, CBS CNN, or NBC behind it, some simply are not satisfied. Then they want to complain about the MSM.
Pearls before swine.
Judges are almost completely immune from civil suit, as are prosecutors. That grievance procedure you asked about, that is separate from the civil suit. The law claims to adequately police itself.
Broden also filed a request for investigation into Peterson, for Peterson's application of million dollar bail without applying the rules for setting bail - as a breach of judicial ethics. Board of Judicial Conduct or similar.
And it seems like just yesterday there were those who proclaimed (and, were gleeful that) the Bikers shot themselves up.
Drip. Drip. Drip.
Seems a gusher opened up the other day.
Often, when it rain, it pours.
And that’s a good thing.
Or at least for those who seeks the truth.
I must apologize for that one being a rather long comment, but it does have links to a few articles and pdf's, which contents of could bear upon the Twin Peaks cases, as those eventually make their way through the courts, or else be dropped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.