Page 1 of 2
Posted on August 19 at 11:42 a.m.
To be honest, I don't see how this bickering is productive. It just detracts. Clearly those that engage in the personal attacks can't see passed their bias. I don't know what intheknow's agenda (or OBVIOUS2ME), but there seems to be some personal motive behind all this. I don't know if DWG is a good lawyer. I can tell you in any business it's impossible to satisfy all the clients. I assume it's the same for attorneys. Although, I don't think it's very professional for DWG to be talkiing about the case online.
On Trojan Dogs
Posted on August 9 at 8:16 p.m.
I'm sorry intheknow, but when a person who is entrusted to uphold the law and exercise powers over those who don't lies under oath and penalty of perjury it is always relevant. I know for many they would like this trial to just be about lance's driving, but there is a much larger issue here being played out through his dui stage.
I've read what you wrote and have to say that an arrest for 23154 (i looked it up) doesn't cut it as a dui arrest. Someone could have a .01 and be arrested for this crime. To say that's a DUI is disingenous.
Your shredding of the documents assertions would hold well, but mr. genis asked that they not be shredded. To state the word approximiately explains why they would shred a document so far before the "90 day" cornerstone just doesn't clear suspicions (I wish it did).
Your palm print assertions also don't hold because the type of print sought would only be produced by placing the hand in a fashion exclusive to a signature.
Combine that with the testimony of others and statements of more and it's just too many coincidences. One by itself may be teh result of how things are done. ALl of them together paints a bad picture.
I'm not saying Kasi is guilty of anything as she hasn't been convicted and should be presumed innocent till such---a presumption you should show mr. lance----but these things definetly warrant an investigation. An investigation would clear her and the department. Clearly you can't be against taking measures to verify there are no abuses. At least I hope you are.
I must say, I 'm shocked that you would say signing documents under oath and penalty of perjury falsely isn't relevant.
On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing
Posted on August 9 at 12:58 p.m.
I hate typos. What I meant was: "still no answer."
Posted on August 9 at 12:55 p.m.
still now answer.
Posted on August 9 at 12:37 p.m.
I would also like to say that if the police department feels they don't owe the public explinations than something is terribly wrong.
Posted on August 9 at 12:36 p.m.
I beg to differ. These aren't mere allegations standing by themselves. The published documents present a real conflict and were signed under penalty of perjury. As for the background checks of the SBPD, I do not know the proceedures, but I would like to. Either way, there is still no accounting for the other's who have testified against her and stated similar allegations. Maybe Lance isn't credible because he has an agenda, but it's hard to say the minister would be dishonest when he serves to receive no gain. What has been said isn't mere speculation or conjecture as there are actual documents released and published showing conflicts. I would like to hear an explination.As to whether officer's owe me an explination as to their conduct I would say they certainly do; more so than anyone else. We as the public give them an enormous amount of power. The power to level charges, incarcerate, physically restrain and in some situations take life. We do this because we trust them not to abuse this power. I would say once there is the smell of abuse or wrongful use, than an explination is necessary. If the explination is sound, then send the officer to serve the public, but we need to be sure. BUT SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME A REASON FOR THE CONFLICTS IN DOCUMENTS AND CONSISTENT ALLEGATIONS FROM MULTIPLE PEOPLE. This officer's name needs to be cleared!!!
Posted on August 9 at 10:56 a.m.
Can you please tell me what evidence you have to refute Lance's published evidence, other than he's nuts? How do you refute the published public documents (marriage, land and divorce records), and the sworn testimony of witnesses as well as the minister's statement? Are they all in a conspiracy out to get Kasi? If you have anything to refute that evidence, I think we all need to hear it to clear the officer's name.
Posted on August 8 at 4:12 p.m.
Lance may have been drunk and very well may be a dirtbag, but he has uncovered evidence, maybe not totally conclusive, but evidence of an officer lying under oath either on documents or in court. He has published the documents and made them available. He has brought forward witnesses. It is suspicious that now some of the court ordered and necessary documents for the forgery investigation are destroyed and we have been informed of this so late in the case. I understand many businesses and government agencies operate near paperless and this is for efficency reasons, but after looking into the proceedures SBPD, as inspired by this blog, documents are not supposed to be shredded for 90 days unless there is a reason to not shred them. My understanding is Mr. Genis asked that Mr. Lance's form not be shredded, but it still was. This paints a bad picture that needs to be investigated. I would ask intheknow what evidence do you have that Mr. Lance's accusations, as supported by the published documents, witness testimony and the word of a minister, are false? I'm not trying to put you on the spot. If you have evidence that would restore the reputation of this officer, I think we all need to know. And Saying Mr. Lance is not credible is not enough for me due to the documents he's published and the other witnesses accounts and testimony. Thank you.
Posted on August 8 at 3:44 p.m.
On Longtime SBPD Supervisor Arrested
Posted on August 8 at 3:28 p.m.
Also, I don't think the initials DWG are revealing of identity, but I appreciate Mr. Genis coming forward and showing his bias. I wonder if intheknow has any bias. Who are you, and if you don't want to put your name out there I understand, but at least let us know if you are an officer, prosecutor, or related to some kind of prosecuting agency or law enforcement, or related to someone who is one of the above. You sound very passionate and angry, one would assume you are. What is your name?
On City Responds to Peter Lance