Page 1 of 4
Posted on August 30 at 12:57 p.m.
Next hearing is tomorrow. Come one come all: watch the case get continued AGAIN without having Officer Kasi Beutel subjected to being required to take an oath and testify.
Why? Because the prosecution knows that she can't and won't testify, and without her there is NO CASE.
On DUI Case Against Peter Lance Could Be Collapsing
Posted on August 27 at 12:26 p.m.
Although this is old news from an old thread, the not so dearly departed "InTheKnow" stated that the Dry Reckless with a NG on the Per Se offense was a "standard deal", when it clearly is NOT. Here is what an Appeals Courtl Judge said on that very topic:
"The ... prosecutor offered the “dry reckless” ... a very unusual disposition."JOHN D. CONLEYJudge of the Superior CourtIn re SAM NANG LEYPetitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus G04489, Super. Ct. 09NF3056RULING ON PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUSHon. JOHN CONLEYDept. 44
Posted on August 26 at 6:20 p.m.
"Prefilled Forms Are Not a Violation of Department Policy"???
Really? Let's see what the SBPD Policy manual says. Take a look at Section 344.1, et seq.:www.peterlance.com/SBPD_Policy_Manual...
The same manual has a "code of ethics" which states among other things that the police have a duty to "Protect the innocent against deception".
The media spin "sound bite" given by Deputy Police Chief Frank Mannix contradicts his departments own manual, and he knows it, and so does the DA.
On Police Department Responds to Lance’s Handwriting Expert
Posted on August 26 at 6:10 p.m.
Allow me to translate the latest attempt by the DA to spin this case in the media:"deputy district attorney Gordon Auchincloss called to say his office is not necessarily looking into dismissing the case, but is instead examining the information provided by Genis regarding the handwriting analysis, and what that information might mean for the case"
The DA knows their expert Joseph Merydith agrees with Mr. Blanco's findings that the so called "original" in the John Page case was in fact a copy as to as many as 22 items, (a matter upon which Deputy Police Chief Frank Mannix has now admitted in this article to being the SBPD SOP for DUI cases). Here is what was said (recreated from shorthand notes):Jim Blanco: OK and I would suspect that you Joe, would really not dispute any of this. It is what it is. And it means what it means.
Joe Merydith: Right. I think that it appears black and white in the document and I would be surprised if I had a different reaction. The interpretation -- there could be a number of reasons why these were done. And I don't necessarily have to answer that at this time. And I don't know if i would have the answers. But as far as the findings that you're finding and the reaction that you're seeing I would be surprised if I didn't have the same reaction -- given a black and white examination.
The DA's office is trying desperately to put off the end of this case in hopes that they could somehow win by attrition, they will now issue swap and say they are concerned with the Forgery issue.
But lets face the simple fact that the DA can NEVER put Kasi Beutel on the stand, and she will not take the stand and subject herself to cross-examination under oath. Even the so called declaration she signed (which was prepared by the DA's office) where she stated that she did not forge any of the 7 signatures WAS CONVENIENTLY NOT SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that was an oversight or an accident???
The DA is giving the public the "bad news" in small bite sized pieces so when they finally dismiss the case it will already be old news.
Posted on August 26 at 9:08 a.m.
Dear "Goodprevails". You joined Indy message board on July 25, 2011 and have posted 8 comments, ALL on Kasi-Gate. You say:
"Many people in the law enforcement and legal communities read the claims made by Team Lance and see them for what they often are ... ."
So to begin with, the 'Legal community' consists of both prosecutors and defense attorneys (as well as civil litigators on both the plaintiffs and defense side). Clearly you are either a prosecutor, a cop, or a bailiff or the significant other of one of those three. Which is it? You might even be Kasi or Mark.
BTW, Mr. Blanco has quite a bit of law enforcement background. He worked for DOJ (Joseph Merydith sits at Mr. Blanco's old desk) and Blanco also worked with ATF. As for what Merydith said, why don't you call him yourself (916 227-3623) and see if he does not confirm that he is in agreement with Mr. Blanco's findings that the so called original on Mr. Page's Trombetta waiver was in fact a copy as it related to the "pre-arrest interview" which should have, but we now know clearly did not contain and could not contain Mr. Page's answers.
As for Mr. Blanco's qualificaions, Judge Hill AND the Santa Barbara District Attorneys have accepted him as the pedigreed, distinguished and qualified expert that he is:
Here are some highlights of a transcript for you:
P 56 the Judge L 9:
“He’s been attacked by your witness [Dave Moore]....I am satisfied completely that this man [Blanco] has done nothing wrong. And, if anything, by using scientific methods, he’s probably a better examiner than your witness.”
P 57 L 13 Judge:
“So what you’ve got here is....a decision that says that his expulsion was reversed.”
P 57 L 16 Ms. Ditlevsen:
“Well, under the settlement agreement that he’s offered, the board did not agree to revoke their findings of the unethical behavior,” to which the Judge blasted out-
P 57 L 21 “What are you talking about?”
P 58 L 19 Judge: “I’m convinced that Mr. Blanco has done nothing wrong. I have dealt with some organization like the one he’s dealing with and, you know, frankly, they’re a bunch of old fogies who don’t know what they’re doing.”
P 59 L 9 Judge: “He’s got his decision that says he’s right, and that’s sufficient in my book.”
Then Mr. Hollister,
P 61 L 10 “Your Honor, I submit that he is qualified.”
L 12 Judge: “I made that conclusion a long time ago. This man is qualified.”
Posted on August 19 at 6:53 p.m.
I don't know about jfklbj who signed in creating an account back in March of this year.
But it sure does appear that "OBVIOUS2ME" is the instant reincarnation of "InTheKnow" on the very day ITK was banned from this message board for repeated and blatent violations of the many rules governing the orderly debate of this forum.
And clearly a reading of ITK/OBVIOUS2ME postings demonstrates that ITK has strong law enforcement ties, and is extremely fond of KB, and is equally hateful of all persons who chose to work as lawyers in the Criminal Justice System, UNLESS they are working as prosecutors. Just go back and read ITK criticisms of every defense lawyer ITK comments upon including Josh Lynn former DA, and many others.
It is also clear from the very words of ITK that ITK is a cyber coward, who enjoys cyber drive-bys and publicly proclaimed to love the anonimity of this board when asked to step out from behind the curtain.
It would probably make for a more enlightened and civil discussion on this board if there was a requirement that true identity must be disclosed upon demand.
On Trojan Dogs
Posted on August 18 at 10:17 p.m.
Have you read the rules?1) You understand and agree that Independent.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties. You further understand that In the interest of maintaining pleasant and informative comments threads Independent.com may monitor any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit, or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent or explanation. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site.
2) You understand and agree that our comment threads and discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities, or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.
3) You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent, or other intellectual property right of any third party. If you found you have violated this, you will remove said material or request that one of our website administrators does do. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. You will indemnify The Santa Barbara Independent, Inc., its employees, agents, and affiliates from any and all claims and/or damages (including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees) resulting from any claim brought by any third party relating to content you have posted. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be ...
5) ......7) Be succinct, constructive, and relevant to the story. ... Comments falling outside our guidelines those including personal attacks, insults, and profanity are not permitted and may be removed at our sole discretion.
The following types of comments are not welcome here:
- comments that include personal attacks on writers or other participants in these forums;
- comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations;
- comments that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or facts is not publicly known;
- or comments that include vulgar language or libelous statements.
These examples do not attempt to be thorough or definitive, in fact we reserve the right remove or block any comment we find objectionable for whatever reason. Intelligent argument and good manners do count on our website, and free expression does not require us to suffer fools and boors.
Posted on August 18 at 9 p.m.
Comments by InTheKnow
Previous | Page 16 of 54 | Next
Posted on August 11 at 4:38 a.m.
I heard that people make stuff up on the internet... is that true?
On Fiesta Crime Stats
Posted on August 10 at 11:44 a.m.
Posted on August 18 at 5:50 p.m.
But if you take "On Patrol" off the air, Joyce Dudley will not have a convenient forum to tamper with the Jury pool like when she and her DDA Lee Carter had a cameo appearance and 'vouched' for their cases saying that SB DA's office would never take a case to trial unless they had an airtight case.
If that is true, then she and her deputies should NEVER lose, and they have no excuse for all the cases they clearly have lost.
Nevertheless, a certain percentage of the jury pool who watches this mindless police propaganda comes to jury duty ready to serve with a mindset that the DA is winning from the start.
As for needing Ira Distenfield for camera work, that is just not so. The Office of Traffic Safety ("OTS") will gladly give SBPD all the money they need to put digital Video/audio systems into every squad car. All SBPD has to do is fill out a Grant application identical to the ones they already fill out for the DUI/Driver's License Checkpoints, and they will get the money. This they have known all the while. The reason they want Ira to film instead of the dash cams is that the contract with Ira allows for destruction of bothersome video within 10 days of recording, well before troublesome lawyers can ask to have it preserved. Finally, Ira is quite good about only airing the stuff that is not completely embarassing to the SBPD.
Posted on August 15 at 2:09 p.m.
5150 Fem, (my new pet name for you) wrong on all counts, as has most frequently been the case.
Please, come to court and watch and learn, and maybe even cry: August 24, 2011.
On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing