The remarkably well informed journalists at the Phoenix have published a searing indictment of the state’s top cop Tom Reilly for refusing to endorse much-needed reforms to reduce convictions of innocent people. “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” said English jurist William Blackstone. Apparently not in Massachusetts.
The article is titled, “Tom Reillys latest screw up. The Attorney General doesnt give a damn about justice.” Choice nuggets:
“Two-and-a-half years after he garnered headlines statewide by promising action in 90 days (oops), Attorney General Reilly and the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (MDAA) last week proudly released their ‘Justice Initiative’ report. Well, perhaps not proudly. They released it at 4:45 pm on the Friday of Labor Day weekend, without a press conference, press release, or comment. And they did not post the report on the MDAA or Attorney Generals offices Web sites.
“If they are ashamed of the report, they should be. It sheds no light on the causes of known wrongful convictions; concludes that the problems lie in the past, rejects almost every reform that has been suggested including those of the New England Innocence Project, which was the only outside entity asked to provide input; and spends much of its meager 25 pages praising the states current prosecutorial offices.
“Rather than pressing for change at local police stations, it tells them to adopt reforms only when practical including those called for by the courts, like taping interrogations.” Click here to read the whole piece.
where I always go to find well-reasoned, unbiased opinions about Tom Reilly. Pulleeze! They were so “remarkably well informed” on the SSM certification issue that a unanimous SJC told them to take a hike!
<
p>
They have no love for Reilly, so I’m not surprised to see this in the least. They are hardly objective.
<
p>
I doubt that this phrase has ever been used outside the heat of a campaign.
I didn’t know about Reilly’s gutting of this very worthy effort. The Phoenix reporters did. Therefore, I consider them not just well informed, but remarkably well informed. Were you aware of all this, most excellent Sabutai? If so, please post and share your remarkable information.
No matter how you read this article, Reilly is a fool. Great portrait of bidness as usual. I couldn’t help but think about the Benjamin LaGuer case. Kind of makes you wonder if some of the good old boys want to just gloss over past mistakes and not address reality during the election year. What else is hanging in the closet?
<
p>
This is an article about the chief law enforcer in the state — or should we just refer to him as the Killer Coker? Sorry MD, but this time attacking the source doesn’t alter the impact.
discredit the source. In fact, I will and rather easily.
<
p>
If a publication has a history of treating a figure unfairly, why wouldn’t I discount it? This “article” doesn’t even have an author. It’s presented as a “featured story,” but reads like an editorial. And there appears to be no attempt on the part of the author to contact Tom Reilly’s office for comment. Awful.
<
p>
At best, it is a terrible piece of journalism, at worst (and more likley) it is a piece of opposition research.
Is Dave Wedge now going to slam Reilly for being soft on crime because he dares raise the spector that there might actually be innocent people in prison?
<
p>
I am not for or against Reilly. I hope that if he becomes governor (and this goes for all the candidates) that he won’t play politics with questions of justice. What say you MD, can I have faith in your candidate on this count? Tell me why.
I’m still interested, though.
MD, do you have anything to say about my previous post?
it, you can discredit just about every newspaper and media outlet in MA for one thing or another. I wasn’t faulting you for that. However, this has got to be just about the final strike for your guy if it’s even partially accurate. The only other candidate who seems to be as into “oppo” as your guy is Gabs (money buys a lot of oppo). I know there’s no media love lost on my candidate, so come to your own conclusions.
“. . .this has got to be just about the final strike for your guy. . .”
<
p>
Because sooooo many people get their news from The Phoenix. . .Yup, and those people are Reilly voters. . .I would say the number of votes Tom Reilly loses fom this suspect “story” are about. . .ZERO.
When it comes down to it, there are a lot of people who don’t know squat about politics and couldn’t care less. They don’t vote in primaries. The people who do follow this stuff are the ones who do GOTV and encourage people to vote in the primaries. This is something that’s going to be used. I’ve stuck up for your guy a number of times in this process. Not because I think he’s great, but because he’s been slapped around in the same way that political consultants seem to think is a natural process. Wrong. I hope that whoever wins, we can happily toast the winner and blow Healey away in November. I would like to see someone positive and eager in the corner office. I hope that happens.
<
p>
The Phoenix deserves criticism for this weak sloppiness.
Once a person is in prison for a crime, the investigation stops. If that person is innocent, the guilty person is out among us!
<
p>
Shouldn’t our attorney general want to make certain we catch the actual perpetrator?
I agree that leaving the article unsigned, and offering no rebuttal or comment by Reilly, are dubious moves. And I’m sure that the Phoenix starts from a position highly skeptical of Reilly (not that I feel that they’ve shown my candidate a lot of love, either, BTW). But the report sure does raise a lot of questions about whether or not our Attorney General is committed to doing what he can to ensure that we don’t put innocent people in jail. Some of us actually take that question seriously (though, surely, as I’m sure the AG knows all too well, it’s easier to be a demagogue about people accused of being “soft on crime”). Maybe there are good answers to the questions raised by the Phoenix, but I’m struck by how little in the way of substantive defense one can find so far in the posts from his supporters. Attacking the report for its underlying animus is all very well and good–but, really, Reilly camp, where’s the beef?