I found a blog that Jim Langan wrote regarding the murder of a young woman whose accused murder was recently arrested. This article was written prior to the arrest being made so I found this rather interesting.
I would like to point out the following: The officers were never in fact considered suspects. And as to Mr. Langan's question as to why they took a DNA test if they were never suspects? Per a reliable source, the officers chose to supply a DNA sample to dispel the false accussations of being suspects in this young woman's murder.
The rumors concerning officers of the LAW were made that they were involved in a murder and were arrested by the FBI made headlines not just in the town of Hyde Park, but news agencies in New York city syndicated throughout the tri-state area were apparently calling in for information. The false rumors of having two officers being arrested is rather a severe accusation and when asked directly, the supervisor had every right to call the originators of being 'bomb throwers.' He was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer as to the false rumors of the arrest of town employees. Now that a suspect was arrested, we can confirm that indeed there were bomb-throwers creating these false accusations. Mr. Martino, if you saw his interview was not referring to the general media and concerned citizens asking harmless questions, concerned if they were safe in their homes and in their cars at nigh,t as instigators. He was referring to the originators of those spreading the vicious lies. The reason of creating such rumors could be 1) the possibility of ruining the reputation of two officers of the law by being called murderers and attempting to cover-up a crime aand 2) discredting the Hyde Park Police Department and the Town Administration.
What the supervisor is NOT responsible for is defending every person that is a suspect in a criminal case. While it is unfortunate that Ms. Kirby's son, who was romantically involved with Ms. Filberit, was initially questioned concerning her murder, it is not the responsibility of the town supervisor to defend citizens considered to be suspects of a crime, nor would he have access to the information to rule them out as such. That should be left the police and the district attorney. Individuals who are considered suspect in a crime should consult with legal counsel and while the supervisor is an elected official, the supervisor is not an attorney. Was he also supposed to defend the thirty other individuals that were considered to be suspects as well?
Mr. Langon also questions why the police didn't provide any information about the case. Guess what Jimmy? In the matter of a homicide investigation, or for that matter any ongoing investigation, they don't have to, as to protect the integrity of the investigation per the following:
There are ten categories of exempted records under FOIL. New York Public Officers Law 87(2) states that each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that: (a) are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute; (b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article; (c) if disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations; (d) are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise; (e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would: i. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings; ii. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication; iii. identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation; or iv.reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures; (f) if disclosed would endanger the life or safety of any person; (g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not: i. statistical or factual tabulations or data; ii. instructions to staff that affect the public; iii. final agency policy or determinations; or iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government; or (h) are examination questions or answers which are requested prior to the final administration of such questions; (i) if disclosed, would jeopardize an agency's capacity to guarantee the security of its information technology assets, such assets encompassing both electronic information systems and infrastructures; or (j) are photographs, microphotographs, video-tape or other recorded images prepared under authority of section eleven hundred eleven-a of the vehicle and traffic law.
So, as per the above, law enforcement officials do not have to supply information to the public in an ongoing investigation and even now that a suspect has been arrested, they still won't as the state and the defendant will be preparing for the upcoming trial.
While there is a right to freedom of the press doesn't mean that it is above the law. Mr. Langan should perhaps become familiar with it instead rather than writing his personal Mein Kampf in his blogs.
In my personal opinion, I think
a. Mr. Langan felt slighted that he wasn't provided 'privileged' information about this care.
b. He has a hard-on for Mr. Martino, hence why he is featured in every edition of his paper
Monday, July 25, 2011 Mother of slain teen's boyfriend slams town supervisorFILIBERTI BOYFRIEND’s MOTHER CALLS OUT MARTINO
'Stand up for my son and Katie as well as cops’
By JIM LANGAN
The mother of the young man questioned early on in the death of Katie Filiberti has reached the boiling point with Hyde Park Supervisor Tom Martino regarding recent comments he made attacking reports that two Hyde Park Police officers had been asked to submit DNA as part of the murder investigation.
The mercurial Martino used the term “bomb throwers” in reference to media and Internet speculation about the officers involved.
Hudson Valley News confirmed and reported the DNA request in our June 29 edition.
Police Chief Charles Broe confirmed our report but vigorously defended the officers involved and expressed frustration with the rash of rumors precipitating such an unusual request.
But it was Martino’s attempt to interject himself that has Melissa Kirby seeing red.
Full story in this week’s print edition, of Hudson Valley News
Can't say I blame her one bit. No one came out to defend her boy in any way when his name was being dragged through the mud all over town and all over the comment pages of a different local news publication. Even when asked directly if the young man was a suspect, police refused to answer, being as tight-lipped as they have been all along. Yet when doubt is cast over the Hyde Park Police Department, an official letter from the District Attorney's office is released to clear them, and the town supervisor calls the media and concerned townspeople "bomb throwers" for daring to question why two officers were asked to submit DNA samples as part of the investigation into the death of Katie Filiberti.
Where is the letter clearing the boyfriend Mr District Attorney? And Mr. Martino, how DARE you accuse the people of this community, and even the press as being instigators, for daring to ask questions about this case rather than giving answers the we should have been told without asking.
At the top of the list, why were two police officers taken in for DNA testing? Is the Chief conducting this investigation based on rumors and innuendo, or is he not? Or, for that matter, is the Chief even still conducting this investigation at all, or has another department taken over as the lead agency?
If the two officers in question were never suspects, then they should never been asked, nor should they have submitted to DNA testing. The notion that they were tested simply to put the public at ease over rumors is quite simply, ridiculous. If that had been the case, then the Chief would have made an official and timely statement explaining why this was being done, who the officers are and their part in the investigation, when exactly the officers were going to be tested, and when the results of the tests would be available. Furthermore, from that point forward he should have recused himself and his department, handing over the investigation to another agency.
The public hasn't heard a peep about the case, zero facts have been given all along, we don't even know if in fact the case is indeed a homicide thanks to the gag order placed on the Medical Examiner, yet when rumors begin swirling about the unprecedented fact that two officers were taken in for DNA testing we are called "bomb-throwers" and told the equivalent of "move along, nothing to see here."
Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/07/mother-of-slain-teens-boyfriend-slams.html#ixzz1VLHCJ2U1
I would like to point out the following: The officers were never in fact considered suspects. And as to Mr. Langan's question as to why they took a DNA test if they were never suspects? Per a reliable source, the officers chose to supply a DNA sample to dispel the false accussations of being suspects in this young woman's murder.
The rumors concerning officers of the LAW were made that they were involved in a murder and were arrested by the FBI made headlines not just in the town of Hyde Park, but news agencies in New York city syndicated throughout the tri-state area were apparently calling in for information. The false rumors of having two officers being arrested is rather a severe accusation and when asked directly, the supervisor had every right to call the originators of being 'bomb throwers.' He was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer as to the false rumors of the arrest of town employees. Now that a suspect was arrested, we can confirm that indeed there were bomb-throwers creating these false accusations. Mr. Martino, if you saw his interview was not referring to the general media and concerned citizens asking harmless questions, concerned if they were safe in their homes and in their cars at nigh,t as instigators. He was referring to the originators of those spreading the vicious lies. The reason of creating such rumors could be 1) the possibility of ruining the reputation of two officers of the law by being called murderers and attempting to cover-up a crime aand 2) discredting the Hyde Park Police Department and the Town Administration.
What the supervisor is NOT responsible for is defending every person that is a suspect in a criminal case. While it is unfortunate that Ms. Kirby's son, who was romantically involved with Ms. Filberit, was initially questioned concerning her murder, it is not the responsibility of the town supervisor to defend citizens considered to be suspects of a crime, nor would he have access to the information to rule them out as such. That should be left the police and the district attorney. Individuals who are considered suspect in a crime should consult with legal counsel and while the supervisor is an elected official, the supervisor is not an attorney. Was he also supposed to defend the thirty other individuals that were considered to be suspects as well?
Mr. Langon also questions why the police didn't provide any information about the case. Guess what Jimmy? In the matter of a homicide investigation, or for that matter any ongoing investigation, they don't have to, as to protect the integrity of the investigation per the following:
There are ten categories of exempted records under FOIL. New York Public Officers Law 87(2) states that each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that: (a) are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute; (b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article; (c) if disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations; (d) are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise; (e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would: i. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings; ii. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication; iii. identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation; or iv.reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures; (f) if disclosed would endanger the life or safety of any person; (g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not: i. statistical or factual tabulations or data; ii. instructions to staff that affect the public; iii. final agency policy or determinations; or iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government; or (h) are examination questions or answers which are requested prior to the final administration of such questions; (i) if disclosed, would jeopardize an agency's capacity to guarantee the security of its information technology assets, such assets encompassing both electronic information systems and infrastructures; or (j) are photographs, microphotographs, video-tape or other recorded images prepared under authority of section eleven hundred eleven-a of the vehicle and traffic law.
So, as per the above, law enforcement officials do not have to supply information to the public in an ongoing investigation and even now that a suspect has been arrested, they still won't as the state and the defendant will be preparing for the upcoming trial.
While there is a right to freedom of the press doesn't mean that it is above the law. Mr. Langan should perhaps become familiar with it instead rather than writing his personal Mein Kampf in his blogs.
In my personal opinion, I think
a. Mr. Langan felt slighted that he wasn't provided 'privileged' information about this care.
b. He has a hard-on for Mr. Martino, hence why he is featured in every edition of his paper
Monday, July 25, 2011 Mother of slain teen's boyfriend slams town supervisorFILIBERTI BOYFRIEND’s MOTHER CALLS OUT MARTINO
'Stand up for my son and Katie as well as cops’
By JIM LANGAN
The mother of the young man questioned early on in the death of Katie Filiberti has reached the boiling point with Hyde Park Supervisor Tom Martino regarding recent comments he made attacking reports that two Hyde Park Police officers had been asked to submit DNA as part of the murder investigation.
The mercurial Martino used the term “bomb throwers” in reference to media and Internet speculation about the officers involved.
Hudson Valley News confirmed and reported the DNA request in our June 29 edition.
Police Chief Charles Broe confirmed our report but vigorously defended the officers involved and expressed frustration with the rash of rumors precipitating such an unusual request.
But it was Martino’s attempt to interject himself that has Melissa Kirby seeing red.
Full story in this week’s print edition, of Hudson Valley News
Can't say I blame her one bit. No one came out to defend her boy in any way when his name was being dragged through the mud all over town and all over the comment pages of a different local news publication. Even when asked directly if the young man was a suspect, police refused to answer, being as tight-lipped as they have been all along. Yet when doubt is cast over the Hyde Park Police Department, an official letter from the District Attorney's office is released to clear them, and the town supervisor calls the media and concerned townspeople "bomb throwers" for daring to question why two officers were asked to submit DNA samples as part of the investigation into the death of Katie Filiberti.
Where is the letter clearing the boyfriend Mr District Attorney? And Mr. Martino, how DARE you accuse the people of this community, and even the press as being instigators, for daring to ask questions about this case rather than giving answers the we should have been told without asking.
At the top of the list, why were two police officers taken in for DNA testing? Is the Chief conducting this investigation based on rumors and innuendo, or is he not? Or, for that matter, is the Chief even still conducting this investigation at all, or has another department taken over as the lead agency?
If the two officers in question were never suspects, then they should never been asked, nor should they have submitted to DNA testing. The notion that they were tested simply to put the public at ease over rumors is quite simply, ridiculous. If that had been the case, then the Chief would have made an official and timely statement explaining why this was being done, who the officers are and their part in the investigation, when exactly the officers were going to be tested, and when the results of the tests would be available. Furthermore, from that point forward he should have recused himself and his department, handing over the investigation to another agency.
The public hasn't heard a peep about the case, zero facts have been given all along, we don't even know if in fact the case is indeed a homicide thanks to the gag order placed on the Medical Examiner, yet when rumors begin swirling about the unprecedented fact that two officers were taken in for DNA testing we are called "bomb-throwers" and told the equivalent of "move along, nothing to see here."
Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/07/mother-of-slain-teens-boyfriend-slams.html#ixzz1VLHCJ2U1
RSS Feed