Hey Bill Keating, what does it take for the Norfolk D.A. to re-open a homicide investigation? You received new evidence last week regarding an old sudden death case previoulsy ruled an accident. The new evidence indicates that the accident may in fact been a pre-meditated murder. You know what murder is, right D.A. Keating? It’s the crime with no statute of limitations and one of only a few crimes with a law granting the District Attorney “exclusive” jurisdiction as to the investigation and prosecution.
Simple Question Bill, will you re-open the case to determine if, with the inclusion of the new and recently discovered evidence, a homicide was committed and is there enough to get an indictment against a still living person?
What’s the problem Bill? It’s been a week. A WEEK! You have said nothing about the homicide. If a body was found today you would immediately open an investigation. If a person walked into a police a station today and said, “I know who killed so and so twenty years ago”, you would re-open an investigation. Why is the poor Bishop kid’s death any different?
Bill, you have been excellent this past week at crying about the cover-up. But you know what Bill? That’s another case. And one which you don’t have exclusive jurisdiction over as you have in homicide cases. Deval has ordered the state police to look into the shooting. I don’t know what that means, but I know he can’t stick his nose in murder. He can on the cover-up I suppose. But definitely not on the homicide.
Talk about embarrassing Bill. You have an awesome opportunity to look great in front of the world simply by doing your job. Woody Allen is right about showing up and you don’t seem to be doing that. Instead we see Deval getting good headlines by cashing in on your apparent inabilities.
Bill, how clearer can it be. You are the only person that can speak for Seth Bishop.
What are you waiting for?
Once again, a crime has been committed — apparently by someone “close” to a police official — and once again the case “slips through the cracks.” Early reports indicated that her mother was a dispatcher for the police department that “lost” the paperwork. Those reports vanished when official records failed to support them. So what was the relationship? Was the Bishop family known to the police department, and in what capacity?
<
p>Amy Bishop is only part of the story here. I want to know what relationship she, her father (Samuel Bishop) or her mother had with the police department, especially then-chief John Polio. When she left the home and terrorized a local body shop, I want to know who she terrorized and what they remember about the case. If somebody walks into a business, brandishes a shotgun, and attempts to steal a vehicle, isn’t it memorable when nothing is done? What do the people Amy Bishop terrorized in that business remember? What does the owner remember?
<
p>Representative William Delahunt was the Norfolk County district attorney at the time. I’d like to know what Representative Delahunt has to say.
<
p>This is beginning to smell a lot like yet another case where people “connected” to police commit crimes with impunity. Were the Bishops secret informants to the FBI? Were they connected to the Flemmi/Bulger fiasco? Seems like everybody else in MA was … đŸ™‚
<
p>Meanwhile, we learned earlier this week that Paul Souza, the 50 year old lieutenant in the Boston Fire Department who was arrested last Friday in an “alleged alcohol-fueled road rage incident”, was charged with OUI in 1996 — and those charges were dropped. It seems he “never reported the case to his superior officer.” Turns out he has three surchargeable accidents on his RMV record. Just another “bad apple”, I guess.
<
p>Of course, this “bad apple” continues on active duty — he was again savvy enough to refuse a breathalyzer test:
<
p>Am I the only one weary of watching apparent corruption in our public service employees go unpunished and un-prosecuted? I’d like to see a little less protection for thugs on the public payroll, and little more for the victims of their selfishness — including the rest of us poor sots who pay the bill.
So, Ernie, I agree he had best step up, not about the shotgun in the face at an auto dealership, but, yes, who is speaking for Seth Bishop?
<
p>And if Keating cannot take the heat and step up on this, he doesn’t have the you-know-what to be an AG. Your old buddy Reilly might have something to say on the Q-T to Bill, you think?
This episode has all the appearances of a yet another coverup.
<
p>So now, it seems that our “authorities” cover up even murder — who is to guard our “guards”? Not just murder of innocents by police (such as we saw twice in connection with Kenmore Square events), but (apparently) by friends of police.
<
p>How could these events of 1986 not have drawn attention of authorities? A murder? An armed assault? And nobody even asks questions until eleven days later, and then the report is “misplaced”?
<
p>It is very hard for me to believe that this was anything other than a concerted effort by somebody to suppress normal police work. I want to know who suppressed it and why.
The news last night said that Governor Patrick has ordered the state police to review this case.
Here, from today’s Globe report (squeezed in alongside the oh-so-important Tiger Woods sob-story), is the key paragraph (emphasis mine):
<
p>You know as well as I do that this “report” will conclude that the State Police weren’t told of anything, didn’t know anything, and therefore didn’t do anything wrong.
<
p>Sorry, but this is just another example of public officials stretching muscles doing finger-pointing pretzels to make sure that they get off the hook.
<
p>I’d MUCH rather hear my governor talk about “no stones left unturned” and “this investigation will go where ever the evidence leads”. Instead, we have yet another wimpy self-serving “nuanced” response that utterly misses the point.
Local police departments aren’t local chapters of the state police, so I’m not sure the Governor or the state police has the authority to investigate the Braintree police or to order an investigation thereof. It seems it would be the Norfolk DA who would be the appropriate authority to reopen or order the reopening of this case. Given the paragraph you quoted, both the emphasis and non-emphasis it seems to me that this is being handled in appropriate parts by the appropriate people. You’re quite the cynic someimes, you know.
It’s the perception, once again, that Governor Patrick is once again fumbling. I’m quite sure that all the parties know what they can and can’t do. There is surely no harm in Governor Patrick making a strong and categorical statement that he intends to use all the resources available to him to understand what happened, why, and what it takes insure that it doesn’t happen again.
<
p>Are you aware of any action from William Keating on this matter? Is there any indication that anyone is doing anything other then whistling Dixie in hopes that it will all go away?
<
p>This reminds me all too much of the way the priest sex abuse scandal was whitewashed for decades. If wanting to see somebody investigating what appears to be institutional coverup of murder makes me a cynic, then I plead “Guilty as charged”.
If you were even casually been following this, the answer to your question in the second paragraph comment ise easily answered.
<
p>For example or this or this and the links go and on
<
p>Even the scathing column Brain McGory wrote, had this to say:
<
p>”Mayor Joseph Sullivan of Braintree and Police Chief Paul Frazier ought to be lauded for pursuing the truth.
<
p>So, too, should Norfolk District Attorney William R. Keating, who said yesterday there was probable cause to charge Amy Bishop with assault with a dangerous weapon…”
<
p>Everyone should be outraged about this situation…but I’m not sure if you’re outrage in aimed in the right direction.
I did read those reports, Pogo. That’s why I’m writing these comments. I note tidbits like these:
<
p>From your Margery Eagan piece (emphasis mine):
<
p>And from your Peter Gelzinis link (emphasis mine):
<
p>”Trying to initiate some dialogue”? This from the current District Attorney? Are you kidding?
<
p>Why were Judith and Samuel Bishop given such authority in 1986, and why are they being given such deference today? Who or what did they know?
<
p>Just as we saw unfold in the Catholic church sex abuse scandal, we see two separate threads emerging. One is the story of Amy Bishop and her terribly tragic acts. The second is what I am focused on here: the appearance that government authorities covered up her crimes.
<
p>What is it that authorities even now don’t want us to know?
<
p>
So you take umbrage to the parses of words–or not using words that you think should be used. You seem to want to build a case that those in office today are running away from their responsibilities–and they do have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this 25 year mystery–when their behavior thus far indicates they are doing the very thing you are demanding–getting the information out into the public and reexamining what happened back then.
<
p>At the end of the day, I think you will be right, that we will not learn the complete truth as to what happened 25 years ago–but not because of some grand coverup that spans 4 decades as you seemed to indicate is happening, but because 2 key people in this case are no longer a live (the Capt and the lead detective) and those who are around will most likely stick to their stories or blame the dead guys.
Lends strong credence to Tom’s speculation (one of the very rare times that I find myself agreeing whole-heartedly with BT).
<
p>I am also inclined to think that the absurd punting by political figures over the last week has a lot to do with wanting to have Delahunt tell them what the story is first– but he was away.
I think the apparent disinterest in Thomas Pettigrew (I’m glad that we finally know the name) — both in 1986 and now — speaks volumes to what’s really going on here.
I would just add two points. My accusation of cynicism refered to “You know as well as I do that this “report” will conclude that the State Police weren’t told of anything, didn’t know anything, and therefore didn’t do anything wrong.” I hate jumping to conclusions that involve believing the worst about people. I DON’T know anything about what will happen as I have no crystal ball, and I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I also try very hard to skip over perception and deal directly with reality.
the disinterest in Thomas Pettigrew, “the Quincy man whom Bishop allegedly threatened with a gun after she shot and killed Seth Bishop]” (Quoted from the [link supplied by CentralMassDad, above)?
<
p>In what sort of “reality” is it acceptable for government authorities to not even question the victim of such an assault? I don’t doubt that you “try very hard to skip over perception” — in this case, such efforts threaten to cross the boundary into what some of us call “denial.”
…but neither am I going cast aspersions on what might or might not happened. I haven’t been following all the ins and outs and hadn’t heard about Pettigrew on the news. Pogo’s comments, as far as they go, are satisfactory to me.