Friday, March 14, 2008

For the record - UPDATED

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

Someone thinks I am not being fair to Gallegos - with regards to asking questions about the Gundersen investigation. IN addition to deciding that asking questions means you side with the (alleged) rapist (though he never uses the term alleged), he has this to say: (just so you know, both sides are represented here)

You should provide some authority, why a non- victim, non-witness who happens to be represented by Gallegos wife would ever amount to a conflict. First off she is not involved in the case, according to media reports. She was not the original reporter of the crime, despite your spin. She is not a victim. She is not a witness. You know Gundy-the Raper boy is going to get convicted, and you are desperate to take that positive spotlight away from Gallegos. That is why you are opposed to him being on the case. As for the way he has handled the case, let's take a look at that. A victim of crime reported that she had been raped. Acting on that information, an Arrest Warrant was prepared. The suspect was arrested. Multiple search warrants were executed, leading to the discovery of additional evidence. A complaint was filed, and the Defendant was charged with crimes. When after completing the additional investigation, additional crimes were revealed, the complaint was amended, and the Defendant's bail was raised. I don't know about you, but that appears to be the way to investigate and prosecute people for crimes. Clanton, the Defense attorney gave a freakin press conference that you can still watch on the T-S website. That is what is improper. Exactly what would you have done differently? Not investigate the guy? Not charge the guy? Not do additional investigation? Why? Because he is a cop and should be given a break. That is what it sounds like. You know the funny thing here is that all you Paulie-haters claim your not on the side of the rapist, by cleverly saying you are supporting the victim who doesn't want to testify. That is bullshit. To paraphrase Pres. Bush in 2002, You are either for the rapist, or you are against the rapist.

A little defensive, maybe?

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

8 comments:

  1. Gallegos himself wrote this. He follows your blog Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. when someone gets mad at another person for merely asking questions, i tend to get suspicious.......asking questions cant be a bad thing....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know that I'd use the word suspicious, but I find it troublesome when someone considers someone guilty before the facts of the case are known.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, I'm surprised you posted this Rose. You were taken to school, and actually acknowledged your teacher.

    I'm impressed!

    ReplyDelete
  5. She has posted this twice and both times I read it,it was obvious that the author is a spin doctor. You can never best Rose. You are simply not bright enough.

    ReplyDelete
  6. WEll, with all due respect to President Bush and Mr. Gallegos's
    fan club (funny how both ends of the spectrum have their fervent apologists) perhaps one can be said to be either for the rule of law or against the rule of law. Under that rule, there is no rapist yet, and certain rules apply to determining whether or not there is one. Interestingly, one of those rules was passed by the legislature, and interpreted by several court decisions, as protecting victims
    FROM PROSECUTORS. Wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I got schooled? Well, I'll tell you this - I look at your view of how it all came down, and I can see how you feel about it - but all I can say is, from out here, there's the strangest vibe on this one, it's like Fred says, somethin' just isn't right.

    For example - the guns are now somewhat explainable by the dept. ownership. The other issue I see is the pills written about in the paper (and therefore in those court records both the TS and ER write about) - and I'm just wondering, since they were BOTH police officers, how do you determine which one might have brought the guns home, or the pills home, or paperwork home or whatever else seems to be criminal and out of the ordinary, how much is just sloppy....

    I see why the DA's investigators were brought in, because in this case the Sheriff didn't want to be seen as biased and wanted a second hand in the arrest so as not to be accused of mishandling the case.

    The worst deal still is the (alleged) victim's apparent reluctance, and the involvement of the previous wife and Gallegos wife as her attorney.

    Add to that the inclusion of confidential information in court files... schooled? Whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who calls him Gundy-the-raper-boy?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.