SCROLL FOR UPDATES
Re: Creach OIS investigation
Dear Mr. Tucker
From your emails to the media last week, it appears that you will release your finding/decision this week in the Creach OIS investigation.
CAUTION – the OIS reports as presented to you are incomplete and leave issues/questions unanswered and unaddressed. An informed decision whether this tragic shooting was criminally justified or not – is not possible at this point.
Why you didn’t send this OIS report immediately back to the OIS investigative team for further investigation is beyond me. Even though SPD sent several emails asking if you required any additional information, the general answer was from your office was no. Why? Perhaps as discovered by KREM2 in their report Cage Fight; the timing of your decision had more do to with your then pending election for County Prosecutor than a search for the truth as to what actually happened in this tragic event. Unfortunately the voters returned you to office because the two viable Republican candidates took each other out in the primary. Because this was a Republican year those Republican voters who voted a straight ticket return you to office. Apparently they did not notice the Republican Part did not endorse your reelection. I will continue to hold you accountable for your actions or more appropriately your inaction and lack of leadership in the law enforcement community as this County’s chief law enforcement officer.
As I’ve disclosed many times before, I am not the Creach family’s private investigator nor am I their law enforcement expert that is reviewing this information. The Creach family sought me out through mutual contacts. I have not been retained by them and only being reimbursed for copying fees. I have freely shared with them the information I have obtained by filing PDRs. I have not provided them with any detailed analysis of the material I have received. They gave me the 733 page redacted report, the ME report and the autopsy photos. I have since obtained by PDRs the subsequent police reports by SPD Det. Hamond and the WSP forensic reports after the initial report was released, the scene photographs, the 911 Call center computer log file, the Dispatch Center’s CAD Call Incident History with the SECOND marks. I will be filing one more PDR regarding time stamping information that has just occurred to me that may be useful regarding the time line. Much of this information was made available to you by the beginning of October 2010.
I am truly sorry if my expectations exceed the local standard of performance but I would have not given such an investigation leaving so many unanswered and unaddressed questions to my district attorney for a criminal review. I would have sought to address these questions to the best of my ability prior to referring the report for review. If I hadn’t done so, my district attorney would have simply sent it back for more investigation. Please see the attached commendations of my work product by both CA deputy district attorneys and my former command staff.
Based on my review of the reports you now have I will stand by my professional opinion as I state above.
I met with WSP Sgt. Ken Wade last Friday for two hours after returning from Orlando, FL. Sgt. Wade emailed me while I was out of town after the OIS investigative team’s meeting last Tuesday to consider the new CAD history information. Sgt. Wade is aware I’m in the process of preparing a report/analysis for Sheriff Knezovich and him and wanted my report as soon as possible. I agreed to meet with him to give him a briefing summary. I expressed my concerns where this investigation was lacking as it was given to you. I suggest you talk with Sgt. Wade regarding my concerns. It is apparent that the OIS team has considered some of these issues but this is not reflected and or documented very well in the existing reports. I do not necessarily agree with the OIS teams rationalizations and conclusions regarding some of these issues.
I know we are inclined to give officers the benefit of the doubt as to their statements but there are times when a few amongst in our ranks do cross the line and commit criminal acts. Spokane is not immune as documented in the book, Breaking Blue, chronicling Sheriff Bamonte’s investigation. My agency has had its share too. One case in particular stands out in my memory which came to be known as, “Jake in the lake case.” A drunk filed a complaint that officers drove him to a nearby lake and threw him in. On the surface this sounded unbelievable but our investigators kept digging. It was discovered that this man’s lungs contained an algae that was specific to this lake. This case was criminally prosecuted and the officers involved were terminated. More recently another an off duty officer committed an armed robbery.
The key areas in need of further study/discussion are the time line/sequence of this event independent of the statements of Deputy Hirzel, the entry/trajectory angle of the bullet wound, the blood trails/stains – the possibility that the body was moved, and the inconsistencies in Dep. Hirzel’s statements based on the evidence, forensics and other information. I would have not concluded this case without a fourth interview with Dep. Hirzel and doing other investigation to confirm, corroborate and or clarify these inconsistencies to the best of my ability. Please remember the OIS investigators attempted to get the CAD history in seconds but were told by the experts this was not available. Because of my knowledge and experience I was able to retrieve this important information.
As an instructor in criminal justice, my interest in the Creach OIS is academic. My intent was also in a positive manner provide constructive critique of my law enforcement colleagues’ work product to improve its substance and quality. OIS investigations must be A+ level work not only because for the important criminal review but for the subsequent IA review re police policy and procedure to prevent further like incidents and to minimize the potential financial losses that the public must ultimately bare. The public must have confidence in the review process or collectively the law enforcement community will lose the trust of the public we serve. Lastly because of my unique professional experience, as a private citizen I am very concerned about the fraud, waste, and abuse of public funds readily apparent in the Spokane Region that are in excess of $100 millions of dollars. I don’t relish having to bare the burden and expense of poor decision making by those who have the duty and responsibility to mitigate these expenses. When law enforcement fails to acknowledge and recognize when mistakes were made and to take corrective/appropriate action, the potential civil damages only multiply.
Some have sought to diminish and marginalize my professional experience and opinion by saying I’ve made wild speculations. Some pubic officials have attempted to silence me by accusing me of libel when I discovered my emails regarding my PDRs related to the Creach OIS investigation were being blocked/quarantined. I later learned after filing a PDR for the computer forensics, this was done at the specific direction of City Attorney Howard Delaney earlier in the year during my investigation of the City’s CFO Gavin Cooley for misuse of the professional title CPA on the City’s website. Neither Chief Kirkpatrick nor Mr. Delaney have specified where I libeled Chief Kirkpatrick after sever requests by me and Larry Shook to do so. Some have dismissed the validity of my opinions because I was never a lead OIS investigator.
While it is true I was never the lead investigator in an OIS, I was involved OISs in many assisting roles including that of a two-term police union president representing the legal rights of officers of an agency with over 500 sworn and civilian personnel. It was during the service of one of my search warrants that an armed suspect was approaching the front door with the intent of shooting the officers at the door. Fortunately because my intel/tactical planning, our SWAT officers made entry from another direction, confronted and shot this suspect who was later convicted of attempted murder of a police officer. I reviewed and successfully filed 1000s of criminal cases during my thirty-five year career from the simple to very complex criminal conspiracies. These cases required a wide range of investigative skills including forensic financial and computer expertise. It was my skills that were directly responsible for the identification and arrest of a suspect that ran over and murdered a young woman with her own car that he was stealing.
My agency, the Riverside Police Department (Riverside, CA), during my time there had several famous and/or infamous cases in it’s history – The Norco Bank Robbery, the Tyisha Miller shooting, and the hostage situation where members of our City Council were shot in a room adjacent to the City Council Chambers. I’m very sensitive to police ambush shootings. Four officers killed in two separate ambush related shootings and another two in other shootings during my time at RPD. RPD just lost another officer several months ago in a gun related incident (See RPD Memorial Page). Law enforcement agencies in our immediate vicinity also lost many more officers to gun related shootings.
Mr. Tucker, you sir, have a sworn duty to the people of Spokane to objectively review these OIS investigations. Your office is a procedural system check on law enforcement’s collective work product and actions. I’m sorry to say in the Zehm death case and in the Jo Ellen Savage manslaughter case, you accepted law enforcement work product at face value and failed in your sworn duty to the people. The US Attorney’s Office has apparently found evidence of an overt cover up by SPD in the Zehm case. In the Savage case in my opinion you committed malfeasance in office by not requiring a complete and thorough criminal investigation that would have followed the evidence to its logical conclusion before you rendered your opinion that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a criminal filing.
I AM NOT saying there was any cover up in the Creach case or that a criminal filing is warranted.
By your tolerance of mediocre LE work product a clear pattern and practice is emerging. The question is in which cases is this tolerance intentional/overt in suborning the obstruction of justice and those in which merely are the result of inexperience or incompetence.
In NO WAY do I wish to diminish the work of the OIS investigation team in the Creach case as I believe there were political forces attendant that forced them to hand off this case before these issues could be adequately addressed.
Mr. Tucker I challenge you to actually hold a press conference when you issue your opinion to defend your position before the media and public instead of retreating from public view by merely issuing a press release as has been your past practice. This is your duty as the chief law enforcement officer of this County. I will also be challenging the local media not to let you do this yet again. This has all to do with maintaining the confidence and trust by the public these OIS investigations are indeed complete, thorough and credible.
As Alan Creach succinctly said in Friday’s S-R article by Thomas Clouse:
The larger question, however, is “ ‘How can you justify killing a senior citizen who comes out to investigate what he perceives to be a theft in progress?’ ” Alan Creach said. “What we have tried to articulate from the beginning is that they have to deal with the community from a perspective of integrity, even if it looks bad for the department.”
Mr. Tucker please remember while your office enjoys absolute immunity when prosecuting a case, in the investigative and filing phase your office only has qualified immunity.
Sincerely yours,
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
UPDATE I
Email I sent to SPD Lt. McGovern
Lt. McGovern,
You have my previous emails to Prosecutor Steve Tucker and his staff and my recent emails with WSP Sgt. Ken Wade. I don’t know if you have the briefing summary that I provided Sgt. Wade yet last Friday. I’ve further refined my time line from this briefing. See below.
Please carefully review my challenge to Prosecutor Steve Tucker for my over all assessment of this OIS investigation and my relationship with the Creach family. I’m am fully aware that SPD contacted Prosecutor Tucker several times and asked if he needed further investigation and the his general answer was no. I realize that there were political interests that were beyond the control of your investigators in the timing of handing off this OIS investigation for criminal review.
I am sharing this information with the Creach family as this information is generally known now and won’t potentially compromised my recommendations for further investigation. Perhaps they can convince Mr. Tucker that more investigation is necessary before he can make a finding in this case.
As I cautioned Prosecutor Steve Tucker in my email:
CAUTION – the OIS reports as presented to you are incomplete and leave issues/questions unanswered and unaddressed. An informed decision whether this tragic shooting was criminally justified or not – is not possible at this point.
Mr. Tucker, you sir, have a sworn duty to the people of Spokane to objectively review these OIS investigations. Your office is a procedural system check on law enforcement’s collective work product and actions. I’m sorry to say in the Zehm death case and in the Jo Ellen Savage manslaughter case, you accepted law enforcement work product at face value and failed in your sworn duty to the people. The US Attorney’s Office has apparently found evidence of an overt cover up by SPD in the Zehm case. In the Savage case in my opinion you committed malfeasance in office by not requiring a complete and thorough criminal investigation that would have followed the evidence to its logical conclusion before you rendered your opinion that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a criminal filing.
I AM NOT saying there was any cover up in the Creach case or that a criminal filing is warranted.
By your tolerance of mediocre LE work product a clear pattern and practice is emerging. The question is in which cases is this tolerance intentional/overt in suborning the obstruction of justice and those in which merely are the result of inexperience or incompetence.
In NO WAY do I wish to diminish the work of the OIS investigation team in the Creach case as I believe there were political forces attendant that forced them to hand off this case before these issues could be adequately addressed.
Mr. Tucker please remember while your office enjoys absolute immunity when prosecuting a case, in the investigative and filing phase your office only has qualified immunity.
I’m aware that Prosecutor Tucker has scheduled a meeting with the Creach family tomorrow. If Mr. Tucker follows his past practice in these incidents of significant interest to the public, he will merely issue a press release and not be available to the media to defend his decision. I will not allow him to duck yet again his responsibility this time.
The purpose of my email is to establish an official record of my concerns re Prosecutor Tucker’s decision is being made without all the relevant facts/evidence attendant to this incident. For all of those involved in this investigation I wouldn’t seek cover in any decision/finding by Mr. Tucker from discharging your own sworn duties and responsibilities to the citizens of Spokane.
Also could you please confirm the receipt of this email as I have a separate issue with City Attorney Howard Delaney regarding my emails being blocked/quarantined by him.
Sincerely
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Timing sequence of the event:
Det. Hamond did try to establish the time line from the various computer sources. The CAD call incident history of this event shows Dep. Hirzel logging out of service on a prowl check at 14114 E. 4th by MDT/CDT entry at 23:00:07 Hrs local time (PDT). A dispatcher (ID 591401) verified this address as entered by Dep. Hirzel as being a valid address in the geo mapping database at 23:05 Hrs. Computer forensics of Dep. Hirzel’s laptop computer shows the traffic ticket he says he was working on shortly after parking his unit in the Plant Farm parking lot, was accessed at 11:06:15 Hrs. (23:06:15 Hrs) (Pages 234 and 248).
Dep. Hirzel says he was approaching 4th St. when he entered this address for the prowl check. Dep. Hirzel says this call was already in the CAD system (Pages 527, 528, 539, 560 and 561). According to 911 Call Center Supervisor Scott who I spoke with said this is not the case. This prowl check call was not in CAD prior to Dep. Hirzel’s entry at 23:00:07 Hrs. as designated by the (*) in front of his unit designator – B606.
Dep. Hirzel says shortly after parking his unit he pulled up his traffic accident report on his laptop. Dep. Hirzel says he then pulled the ticket file up to make the necessary edit as requested by his Sgt. Dep. Hirzel says he did a cut/paste from the traffic accident file to the ticket file. Dep. Hirzel says he hadn’t done any editing yet when he first saw Creach approaching.
The CAD call incident history shows an entry, “Control G S/2” at 23:07 Hrs. followed by, “Shots fired” at 23:07 Hrs. I’m assuming the entry, Control, was a manual keyboard entry by a dispatcher of the radio call by Dep. Hirzel saying, Code 6. I’m assuming the entry of shots fired was also a manual entry. These are manual CAD log entries and may be slightly delayed from real time, as the dispatcher must type the info in. The first keystroke is probably what generates the computer time stamp. This was later confirmed with 911 Call Center Supv. Scott.
Det. Hamond listened to the radio traffic voice recordings. Det. Hamond determined that ten seconds elapsed between Dep. Hirzel calling Code 6 and shots fired (Page 84). The second marks can also be established by the time stamping of the radio traffic audio recording. I filed a PDR for the audio recorder time stamping with the SCSO and learned that Det. Hamond noted the times as 23:07:15 Hrs. (Code 6) and 23:07:25 Hrs. (Shots fired). I may have overlooked this information but I did not see this in the reports.
I filed a PDR with Spokane County’s 911 Call Center for the 911 call received from Mrs. Creach after hearing the shot. See attached 911 computer log file of this call/incident. This 911 call was initiated at 23:07:53 Hrs. as logged by the 911 Call Center computer/telephone switch as it was received from a Qwest Tel Co. trunk line. The call was answered by the call center at 23:08.01 Hrs. Ernie Creach said his mother was at the window when she heard the shot. She then went to get the phone from near the bed across the room. She then crossed back across the room. According to Ernie Creach his mother misdialed the first time and redialed as she was went to the window. Ernie Creach has timed the actions of his mother to be approximately 20 seconds before the 911 call connected.
I filed a PDR with SPD who owns the CAD system to determine what the actual seconds were in the time 23:07 Hrs. logged for the entries of Code 6 and shots fired that were rounded to the minute by the CAD system software program.
The CAD incident call history now in seconds:
Entered: 23:00:47 Hrs via MDT by Dep. Hirzel
Location GEO verified by dispatch at: 23:05:56 Hrs.
Code 6: 23:07:35 Hrs radio trans by Dep. Hirzel by dispatch manual entry
Shoots fired: 23:07:49 Hrs radio trans by Dep. Hirzel by dispatch manual entry
The 911 computer/tel switch and CAD computers are in sync within one second of each other. See CAD entry at 23:08:03 Hrs. when info from Mrs. Creach’s 911 call is info merged into this call history.
I did suggest to Ernie Creach that he verify the time of his mother’s digital clock to actual time before there was a power failure:
I have double checked her clock. It is fast by almost exactly 1 minute 30 seconds. I have referenced this to my cell phone, and double checked my cell phone with 2 other atomic clock in dad’s office. The cell phone and dad’s 2 atomic clocks turned over at almost exactly the same time within a second. With that I took a second hand watch and watched the clock in mom’s bedroom and when that clock changed the second hand went almost exactly 30 seconds before my cell phone rolled up another minute. Basically when mom saw 11:06 on her clock dad would likely have left the bedroom at 11:05 +- 30 seconds when synced to GPS. I did contact our lawyer and relayed my concern that we officially test and document in an official way.
The Creach family has timed the actions and likely route of Creach once being aroused by Dep. Hirzel’s presence in the parking lot from his bedroom, grabbing his gun, leaving the residence and walking to the location of the police unit at approximately 90 seconds.
The time line of this incident is absolutely critical to this OIS investigation as it relates to the voracity of Dep. Hirzel’s statements. The ending time can be approximated within several seconds of +/- 23:07:30 Hrs from Mrs. Creach’s 911 call, the CAD history time stamps, and the radio transmission audio record. Until the audio recorder’s time stamping is verified I will give precedent to the 911 and CAD computers.
The beginning time of this event is not so definitive. Assuming Dep. Hirzel is truthful when he entered this call by MDT and his location at the time, he parked his unit at the Plant Farm after 23:00:47 Hrs. Assuming Dep. Hirzel did parked his unit shortly before he accessed the ticket file at 23:06:15 Hrs, this puts him in the parking lot no later than 23:06:15 Hrs. subject to the laptop time stamp (See below).
Assuming that Creach was not out on his property prior to Dep. Hirzel parking his unit and the family’s time estimate of 90 seconds is reasonably accurate, this puts Creach preparing to leave his residence at no later than 23:06:00 Hrs based on the timing of the shot. Of course this could vary somewhat by the ten seconds that it required Creach to walk to the unit from when Dep. Hirzel says he first observed Creach.
The question is just how much earlier did Dep. Hirzel actually park his unit? This is the bracket of time that this incident occurred and the possible time for all of the actions described by Dep. Hirzel to have occurred.
Recommendation:
I have determined the time line of this event by certain computer forensic information by filing PDRs. There is additional information that may aid in further refining this time line of a technical computer nature that is not a public record obtainable by filing PDRs. This information is potentially available from questioning radio/data communication and other IT/technical personnel that maintain these systems.
Because of the nature of this specific OIS investigation and the critical nature of the time line of this event, this additional information should sought if at all possible now. This information will inevitably be the subject of discovery in later civil actions.
What known time source is Dep. Hirzel’s laptop syncing and at what frequency? Is this time source in turn synced to a GMT/UMT source? This laptop while functioning as a MDT/CDT may time sync from the radio data stream via the unit’s radio transceiver. If not it appears it the laptop may sync when it is in range of a Wi-Fi source. According to the reports Det. Hamond learned that Dep. Hirzel’s laptop time is reset whenever it comes into Wi-Fi range. Other deputies’ laptops could be surveyed to determine what the average +/- deviations are the norm.
What time source are the 911 Call Center computer and the dispatch CAD computer syncing? Is this time source in turn synced to a GMT/UMT source? How often do these computers resync? It’s apparent from the CAD call incident history that these computers on the night of incident were in sync within +/- one second.
The audio recorder probably is a stand-alone piece of equipment. Since the 911 Call Center, Crime Check and the SCSO/SPD Combined Dispatch Center are all physical located at the same location, more than likely this is a multi-track digital recorder that is recording the 911 and crime check calls as well as all of the active radio channels. If so, what is known time source is this recorder synced, at what frequency and what is the +/- deviation from the 911 computer and CAD computer? It is possible the time stamp of this recorder is done manually on an infrequent basis. If the actual real time deviation can’t be established at this late date, the radio transmission audio recording running time stamp can be compared with Mrs. Creach’s 911 call and the relative +/- deviation between these systems can be determined on the night of the incident.
Police Policy and Procedure – time syncing of critical computer systems
Since all of these systems are most likely physically located at the same location an effort should be made to ensure these systems are syncing to a known GMT/UMT source at a regular interval. The servicing/maintenance personnel of these systems are probably either governmental employees and or vendors spread across several jurisdictional entities. The agencies that are serviced by this call/dispatch center should come together and make this a priority of the call/dispatch center.
Ron_the_Cop on October 16 at 10:33 a.m.
Chicken Little here,
Look folks I’m a retired 35-year law enforcement professional from that unmentionable state to the south. I came here for this region’s many fine attributes and amenities. The local political environment was not one of them. I’ve worked 1000s of criminal cases from investigation, criminal filing, and deposition in court. I worked very closely with our district attorney’s office (prosecutor here) in doing so. I’m currently an adjunct instructor at a local institution and have taught forensics and crime scene investigation, community oriented policing, and controversial issues in law enforcement.
If folks want real change in the law enforcement community in Spokane then we need a real prosecutor that will take a leadership role in the LE community. If you like the status quo then return Tucker to office.
In my professional opinion Tucker should have been criminally prosecuted for rendering criminal assistance to an ongoing criminal enterprise (As defined in the federal RICO Act) that freely operates here in Spokane. This enterprise operates like a river leech that sucks the life’s blood out of Spokane. Perhaps it takes an outsider to recognize this. You know the old saying about a frog in a pot of water brought slowly to a boil.
I will stand by my professional opinion that the homicide death of Jo Ellen Savage in the RPS Parking Garage owned by the leaders of Spokane’s power elite was a First-Degree Manslaughter under WA criminal law. What was lacking is that NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY whether it be city, county, state or federal was willing to do was a complete and thorough criminal investigation.
Such a criminal investigation would have followed the evidence uncovered in the Savage civil wrongful death case wherever it would have led to its logical conclusion. No federal grand jury ever reviewed or heard testimony regarding the details of Savage case as it relates to violating negligent homicide under WA criminal law. The only involvement of a grand jury was the issuance of several subpoenas to get the Savage civil case information/materials. Don’t be misled by published reports, press releases and statements of public officials to the contrary.
Once the US Attorney’s Office gave it’s information/evidence in the Savage case to Tucker to review under existing state law, TUCKER DID NOTHING. Tucker did not compel a complete and thorough investigation be done. If you don’t ask the probative questions of those involved and or complicit in the crime OF COURSE YOU WILL HAVE INSUFFICIENT evidence to file. Tucker’s decision not to file criminal charges in this case was a COVER UP whether by his ineptness, incompetence, by design and or by deferring to or not wanting to challenge this criminal enterprise.
Spokane citizens have a real choice in this election. It is quite clear that no one else or any governmental entity is capable or willing to bring that change. It’s only WE THE PEOPLE who can hold our elected/appointed accountable for their actions.
I will not be voting for Steve Tucker.
People may dismiss what I say and call me a chicken little if you wish but I will stand by my convictions and opinions based on my professional experience, education, training and experience as a top flight criminal investigator. Folks are free to view my professional vitae online here. I will match my experience and training with anyone anytime:
http://tinyurl.com/265r62g
More to follow why continuing with why the status quo is detrimental to everyone in Spokane.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Riverside PD, CA
Ron_the_Cop on October 16 at 11:07 a.m.
More from chicken little,
Read quickly because what I’m about to say may vanish in the blink of any eye. Fortunately now with the Internet it can be scrubbed here but it can’t be permanently erased.
Here’s why continuing with the status quo is detrimental to everyone in Spokane with the reelection of Tucker. The operation of this criminal enterprise suppresses the prevailing wage base and the normal economic growth of this community that would otherwise be growing rapidly from its many fine attributes and amenities.
As I detailed in a previous piece and will summarize here the S-R is nothing more than an instrumentality of the Cowles Co’s ongoing criminal enterprise to cover its own criminal activity. This is done by it’s active self-censorship of stories and censorship of comments in S-R blogs where the business interests of the Cowleses are involved. This information would be highly detrimental to the owners that would otherwise inform the public. The public once alerted, educated and informed would hold their elected/appointed officials accountable for their criminal acts who have been systemically co-opted/corrupted by this ongoing criminal conspiracy.
The Cowles Co through intimidation and unfair business practices controls the flow of adverse information in other media it doesn’t own. When this is not successful, it silences reporters or other voices cutting too close to the bone by squelching them through a series of unfair subtle business practices and/or by violating the fundamental regulatory scheme of the Federal Trade Commission and the FCC.
In my opinion a compelling FTC antitrust case can be made regarding a clear pattern and practice of unfair business practices carried out over many years by the Cowles Co et al that has given it an unfair competitive advantage over other businesses both new or established in the Spokane Regional Market. There are high costs associated for those who would choose to challenge the Cowles Co market domination. New businesses are similarly deterred from locating here because of “the company town” nature of Spokane. This is nothing more than organized crime that must not be tolerated and must be eliminated.
I would encourage all to read my findings/conclusion in my RICO report. Especially read my Savage Case findings, Evidence Item RW26 and the addendum including the explosive statement of WA Asst. Attorney General Scott Marlow who reviewed Tucker’s case materials. What Marlow said to David Savage (Prominent attorney and former husband of Jo Savage, was corroborated by in another phone conversation with Spokane County Commissioner Bonnie Mager.
[Continued]
Flag as inappropriate
Ron_the_Cop on October 16 at 11:07 a.m.
[Continued from above]
From my conclusion in my RICO report:
I find it detestable and contemptuous that my colleagues in the law enforcement/prosecutorial community at all levels have failed to perform their sworn duties on behalf have the public especially with regard to the Savage manslaughter case. . .
In conclusion in my 35-year career as a criminal investigator, this is certainly one of the most blatantly criminal enterprises I have ever encountered. It’s hard to find words to adequately describe it.
The people have been repeatedly victimized by this criminal enterprise ⎯ this is organized crime. Organized crime cannot be appeased but must be destroyed because of its corrosive impact on government. The citizens of Spokane and the family of Jo Savage have a fundamental right to ensure that justice is served when their political/ governmental law enforcement bodies and decision makers because of their systemic co-option/ corruption can’t or won’t act to protect them from criminal victimization and from imminent public hazards.
In our legal system the law is of, for and by the People – NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I’m not voting for Steve Tucker. Tucker for whatever reason covered up the death of Jo Ellen Savage. It could have been anyone of us or our loved ones that fell to their horrible death that day through no fault of their own. This was a ticking time bomb and the owners knew it for fifteen years running but for economic reasons chose to DO NOTHING and rolled the dice. Our City leaders also refuse to order an immediate inspection of this garage to determine if its safe for continued public occupancy and whether the retrofit, as built, met the City’s engineering standards. Our City leaders are willing to continue to roll the dice.
You decide if you wish to return Tucker to office. You HAVE THE POWER to make a change.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Ron_the_Cop on October 17 at 11:08 a.m.
Please excuse the length of this post as this contains original information that so far the S-R has failed to report even though it’s reporters have had this information.
OK here’s some hard evidence re the complicity of Tucker in the cover up of the Jo Ellen Savage homicide. Tucker makes the point that this case was reviewed by a number of LE entities who all came to the same conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to a criminal filing.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
First SPD wrote only an accidental death/traffic accident report which at most was thirty pages. Chief Kirkpatrick ducked the issue when former Sheriff Tony Bamonte filed a formal criminal complaint that Savage’s death was a first-degree manslaughter.
Chief Kirkpatrick handed this case off to the FBI who accepted it even though there is no real federal nexus and or jurisdiction for what is largely a state negligent homicide/manslaughter case.
The FBI took it only because the US Attorney’s Office had undertaken a review of the RPD Bond Fraud cases. I won’t go into detail here but had they pursued this as a criminal RICO case, the manslaughter could have been investigated as an unindicted state offense as one of the predicate offenses required to show the existence of a criminal enterprise.
The FBI and the US Attorney’s Office ran the state statute of limitations clock down for a year. Asst. US Attorney Robert Westinghouse in his press conference said they could not meet their burden in the fraud case because of a number of reasons including the general five-year federal statute of limitations. Had they considered this as a criminal RICO case the statue of limitations would have been ten years from the last act.
US Asst. Attorney Westinghouse did say they had received evidence in the Savage death that needed further review under existing state law involving negligent homicide. He further stated they had no jurisidication and were turning their information over to Steve Tucker for further review. I was at this press conference and chastised Westinghouse at the time for this decision to give this to Tucker as they knew the local political environment. Westinghouse said they had no information that Tucker couldn’t due the investigation and review.
As I said above Tucker DID NOTHING once he received the information from the US Attorney’s Office other than review the boxes of documents. I have personal knowledge that key witnesses that should have been interviewed by criminal investigators and/or a grand jury were never contacted/testified.
All that Tucker did was send his limited information to the WA State Attorney General’s Office for an advisory opinion. Tucker severely limited their review by retaining the final filing decision. The AG’s Office couldn’t initiate it’s own independent investigation. As I said above at this point there was never done a complete and thorough criminal investigation. How you can make a filing decision without such an investigation to review is beyond me.
Asst. AG Scott Marlow in as much said so in his advisory letter to Tucker. Mind you Tucker just cherry picked the last paragraph in of Marlow’s letter and included it in his press release (See Evidence Item RW 20 in the Table of Evidence http://tinyurl.com/ybgkjqe ). Here’s the actual Marlow letter that I received by filing a PDR with the AG’s Office (See RW 17 ). The first page and a half of this letter is chocked full of caveats regarding the AG’s review. If you read between the lines – what Marlow is saying is that Tucker gave them crap at the last minute and tied their hands.
[Continued]
Flag as inappropriate
Ron_the_Cop on October 17 at 11:21 a.m.
[Continued from above]
But more importantly Marlow called David Savage shortly before sending his letter to Tucker. David Savage is a prominent personal injury attorney and former president of the WA State Bar Association. His current wife is a former senior assistant WA AG and currently is the general counsel of WSU. Both are no slouches in the world of criminal law and believe the facts and circumstances of the death of Savage were criminal that necessitated a complete and thorough independent criminal investigation (See my Savage case file RW 26).
Marlow told David Savage the AG’s Office was providing political cover for Tucker. David Savage wrote a memo to his file documenting this phone call. Brunt wrote a story on this memo. It’s apparent that Marlow was put on ice by the AG’s Office and Brunt didn’t try to get a comment from Marlow directly. The AG’s Office has attempted to imply that David Savage misinterpreted what Marlow had said:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010…
Here are some excerpts from this Marlow/Savage memo:
[Marlow] I am not sure why the system has not worked well here and I appreciate that this adds to this tragedy for you and your family
The AG’s office only received a request to review the materials supplied to us.
We were not given adequate time nor a well-developed file and I am mindful that the statue is about to run against a criminal prosecution for manslaughter.
I am not proud of the position we (the Attorney General’s Office) have been put in.
There is additional information we should have been provided (I [Savage] volunteered to provide him with more information but he decline implying that he charge was limited to the materials provided by Tucker.)
This matter needed a more thorough review and robust development … I do not understand why this matter has not been better handled
He said I regard this as “an effort at political cover.”
Here’s the full memo that David Savage wrote to himself immediately after this phone call with Marlow:
http://tinyurl.com/23rhw2m
AG Rob McKenna [Note: Fitzsimmons’ interview KXLY 03-10-10 this link will work] tried to blow this off too that this simply was a distraught former husband and who misunderstood what Marlow said. No media has followed up with Marlow to confirm firsthand. Why?
OK this could play as a “he said – she said” however Spokane County Commissioner Bonnie Mager had a later phone call with Marlow and Marlow said essentially the same thing to her as he told David Savage. Mager confirmed this in an email to me. The S-R has also had Mager’s email but has not done a follow up story. Why?
From: Bonnie Mager <bonnie@votebonniemager.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Demand for immediate correction – Spokane County Press Release April 3, 2009 – Co Prosecutor Tucker’s announcing no criminal filing in RPS Garage Accident
To: Ron Wright <nar9350@gmail.com>
Yes, I know Marlow was not happy about the bind they put the Ag’s office in–he as much as said so to me on the phone when I called.
I posting this for all to see re the decision making and work product of Tucker. If you want positive change in the culture of the local LE community don’t return Tucker to office. Tucker has failed in his sworn oath to WE THE PEOPLE to do the job we empowered him to do.
I will NOT VOTE for Steve Tucker. The choice is yours. You have he POWER to bring real change.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)