"So the issue is now a relatively tremendous thing in the Criminal Justice world. If police officers were telling prosecutors that the B.A.T. vans had problems and couldn’t be relied on, then why did those cases continue? And what happened? Did a prosecutor ignore the exculpatory evidence and proceed anyway? Did they tell a supervisor who told them not to disclose it to the defense? Did they tell the police officer not to mention his or her reservations again? The answers to those questions can make a big difference in what the Grand Jury does with their information.
MURRAY NEWMAN; THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE;
Reminder: Association in the Defence of the wrongly Convicted colloquium "Injustice Speaks"; Friday October 28, 2011;
---------------------------------------------------------
"As a history major at Texas A&M back in the early 1990s, one of my favorite eras of history that I studied was the 1960s and 1970s in America," the Houston Chronicle commentary by Murray Newman published earlier today under the heading, "Watergate on the Bayou," begins.
"With the recent happenings with Pat Lykos and the 185th Grand Jury, I couldn’t help but be reminded of Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal that ultimately toppled his Presidency. No, I’m not predicting that this latest scandal will be the demise of Pat Lykos’ career, but some of the similarities so far are pretty striking," the commentary continues.
"As most of you probably are already aware, the Lykos Administration has a big issue with former-HPD Intoxilyzer technician, Amanda Culbertson, who made it publicly known that HPD’s mobile “B.A.T. Vans” were unreliable. If you are not up on your Richard Nixon history, his paranoia and obsession with “enemies” first became prominent with a man named Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg was the Pentagon employee who released the infamous Pentagon Papers to a reporter, papers that ultimately ended up in the New York Times.
Much like Pat Lykos’ ire with HPD technician Culbertson, Nixon was furious with Ellsberg bringing to light information that was damaging to his Administration’s goals. Nixon’s obsession with Ellsberg would ultimately lead to the creation of the “White House Plumbers” who would go to great lengths to do everything they could to discredit Ellsberg. They even broke into his psychiatrist’s office in an attempt to find notes on him to prove he was mentally unwell.
No, I’m not suggesting that Pat Lykos sent burglars to break into Amanda Culbertson’s home, office, or anything like that. However, the personal attack on Culbertson has been very Nixonian.
As I’ve mentioned before (and as Lisa Falkenberg wrote in her column here), Culbertson left HPD and went to work for Lone Star College, where she continued her previous job description by maintaining the Intoxilyzers used by county agencies on Driving While Intoxicated cases. The contract with Lone Star College had been in place with Harris County law enforcement agencies for 20 years, yet Lykos suddenly demanded that contract be terminated. She had her upper Administration deny involvement to Falkenberg when she was working on the article.
“I’ve been told that the decision really rests with the county commissioners,” [Harris County District Attorney's Office Assistant General Counsel Scott] Durfee said, adding “that we’re not going to be involved in that process.”However, when the contract was ultimately terminated, Commissioner Steve Radack was quite candid in letting the media know that the District Attorney’s Office had been the entity behind canceling the contract.
Emmett, Commissioners El Franco Lee and Steve Radack, and Commissioner Jack Morman – through a spokesman – all deferred to the district attorney and sheriff’s offices.
“I’m sure the district attorney has their reasons,” Radack said. “The DA is the user, they’re the ones that asked the purchasing agent to get involved.”
Lykos would be hard pressed to explain that this wasn’t a vendetta against Culbertson, so instead, she just refused comment on the situation. In the meantime, the Office was making a lot of rumblings about investigating Amanda Culbertson for perjury.
Fast forward to last week’s revelation that the 185th Grand Jury was investigating the B.A.T. van scandal, and an eerily familiar phrase from the Watergate investigation is shaping up to be the theme of the day: Who knew what? And when?
On Monday, Ted Oberg caught up with District Attorney Pat Lykos for an interview about what was going on in the Grand Jury. Lykos let her inner-politician get the better of her as she condemned HPD, saying she had no faith in them or their B.A.T. van. In tonight’s (Tuesday’s) news report, Oberg points out how Lykos verbally danced around the issue of when her Office was notified of the B.A.T. van problems. Lykos states on camera:
The Houston Police Department Crime Lab has never notified us of any questions or any issues with respect to the B.A.T. vans, and that includes as of today.
To which Ted Oberg responds:
She was right. If you listen very very carefully . . . Officers from the Houston Crime Lab never came to her office, but other police officers spoke up months earlier. She didn’t tell us about that. In court testimony, one police officer testified he knew of issues a year before and told prosecutors about them more than once without questioning the admissibility of the evidence.
So the issue is now a relatively tremendous thing in the Criminal Justice world. If police officers were telling prosecutors that the B.A.T. vans had problems and couldn’t be relied on, then why did those cases continue? And what happened? Did a prosecutor ignore the exculpatory evidence and proceed anyway? Did they tell a supervisor who told them not to disclose it to the defense? Did they tell the police officer not to mention his or her reservations again?
The answers to those questions can make a big difference in what the Grand Jury does with their information. It could range from an ethical violation not punishable as an actual crime to an Official Oppression Charge to Witness Tampering to Retaliation. Just like in the Watergate investigation, look for them to start with the least glamorous witnesses first. The investigation should start with the Misdemeanor prosecutors who were handling DWI cases with B.A.T. vans and then move on up the chain of command. Next comes the court chief, then the Deputy Division Chief of Misdemeanor, the Division Chief of Misdemeanor, and all the way up the line to the elected District Attorney.
Here’s another familiar term from the Watergate Era that Pat Lykos should be cringing to hear:
The commentary can be found at:
http://blog.chron.com/criminalbackground/2011/10/watergate-on-the-bayou/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
