Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="fanfanclubclub, post: 88843, member: 787"]
Wow, Fitzpatrick is nuts imo.

Granted, I doubt the SPD is anything close to the gold standard.

But my understanding is that police do have 'exigency' prerogatives to deal with evidence and work product as they see fit.  It's on the DA to get the subpoena enforced, not merely issued.  A subpoena is hardly a divine commandment, its simply a prerequisite for a show cause hearing if there is any disagreement.  In Illinois, any attorney can issue a subpoena as a quasi-fictional 'officer of the court:' and parties challenge bogus subpoenas all the time.   I know the subpoena in the Fine case was issued by a judge or magistrate, but it was still an ex parte hearing (correct?).  Until the subpoena is enforced, the DA shouldn't go to the public about the issue.

IMO, Fitzpatrick is rushing to get all the evidence, rushing to the Grand Jury, and rushing to the media.  This seems especially true since the SPD brought in the US prosecutors.  It isn't as if the SPD is keeping the evidence all to themselves.

And for Fitzpatrick to launch a series of wide ranging complaints against the SPD only demonstrates, justifiably, why the SPD might have wanted to keep him at arms length to begin with.  For a DA to scream cover up before he even has the evidence, when he will definitely have access to the evidence soon and the US attorneys already have access, seems like really poor form.

Finally, Fitzpatrick has really undermined his own credibility (obviously) by listing all the things he "should have spoke up about before."  I don't doubt that SPD has all the problems typical of city police stations: a lot of bad stuff.  But for Fitzpatrick to admit that he looked the other way numerous times when murder cases were mishandled, seems like 90% of an unintentional resignation.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?