Cops, robbers and cronies

Published: Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 09:49 AM.

The primary ended the voters spoke, and we moved into the general campaign. The “ investigators” suddenly reappeared I received alerts from several candidates and friends that the investigators were back and visiting candidates or alleged PAC members requesting meetings/interviews, at least four residents contacted me to let me know?  Why me, because it was also now common knowledge that there was a tape out there of my conversation with Williams. Wow –well run confidential investigation -not!  Or a vehicle to intimidate the PAC, Garth, or selected candidates-oh well, whatever?  Sometime during this period I learned that the investigation was formally closed by Mr. Glenn Hess on Oct. 16 with no action taken.  

The capstone finale for this whole sordid six month event was the BOCC meeting of Oct. 25, 2012 just one week before Election Day.  I urge everyone to see the tape if you have not. This was a clearly well staged planned event intended to smear the PAC members, Garth, and it was obvious.  Their plan was to get the now closed SAO investigation into the public arena to create a guilt by accusation and association premise, since they knew as of Oct. 16 there will be no criminal findings and no handcuffs.  All commissioners were involved.  They got a resident, Ms. Christine McElroy, a known associate of Yeager, who had been used previously to attack Garth and the PAC.  The result- a 20-minute plus diatribe supported by unanimously approved three minute time extensions.  McElroy was set up to enthusiastically reveal confidential information about the SAO investigation and then embellish it with falsehoods and innuendo intended to smear the PAC members, Garth, Bryan and others. Commissioner “I wore a wire” Williams will brag, then lie about the investigation being serious and ongoing even though they all knew it was closed on Oct. 16 with no action.  Also he will throw in a personal attack along with McElroy, to implicate Bryan.Commissioner McLemore will threaten “ blow-ins” and the PAC with deportation; Commissioner Tan Smiley will ask why we can’t come together and keep politics out of politics; Commissioner Ward McDaniel will misquote the constitution and Yeager will smile and talk about the good old days when we all behaved.    

Probably an unintended consequence of this performance was that the so-called criminal investigation conducted by the SAO was now public and the closed file could be demanded by the public and the press.  That occurred, after many delays and unresponsive dealings with the SAO office it was released to “The Star”. I have reviewed the file and predictably it raises more questions about the entire silly episode than it answers.  (Note: As a senior Army Commander one duty I performed was Court Martial Convening Authority.  That is similar to the role of a District Attorney, in my case for a community of 25,000 soldiers, families and civilian employees.  Over three years I reviewed and decided actions taken in 50-75 criminal cases based on the file provided by MP and CID investigators guided by the Staff Judge Advocate.  Based on that experience, in my opinion, this case file is woefully inadequate.  It is incomplete, unprofessional and if this meets the standard for the FDLE and/or the SAO for a controlled and well directed criminal investigation those of us who reside in this district and rely on the justice system to protect us and our rights have a serious problem.)  The discrepancies in the file and investigation report are numerous and writing an analysis of the issues and inconsistences would take more time and space than I have now.  A quick list of several of issues as I see them follows.

The sworn statements from Williams and others are not accurate and in three instances may be deliberate lies. They read like a telephone pass it on game and any experienced investigator should have been skeptical.

The dates of the statements appear to bend time.  Apparently Williams made his complaint to SAO about June 17, yet the sworn statement was signed the day of our wired conversation (June 28, 2012) - why?  Who reviewed those documents and authorized the taping?  No record of that authorization or conclusion is in the file.

The file ends with the interview with me on July 17 as I think it should have; since it should have been clear at that point to any competent investigator that there was no criminal activity or “blackmail.” However, Mr. Hess says the investigation was not concluded until Oct. 16. What occurred during that 90 day period?  There are no entries in the file.  

There is no record of the three attempts to conduct interviews that I know occurred between July and August? 

1 2 3 4 5

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

▲ Return to Top