Post by Helen Dagner on Oct 20, 2006 11:29:33 GMT -5
Ms. Dagner
In regards to your statement of letting the media review the Xxxxxxx
file, my answer to that will be, "No I will not". The only reason I
allowed the newspaper reported to review only a small portion of the
material regarding the other investigation, was due soley to the fact
that the person making all the waves was a retired police Lt. with a
department that was on the task force. Also, the reporter making the
inquiries is a highly respected member of the news media, and has been
involved with the case since day one. At the very least, he deserved a
response.
In regards to your statement, "How can you for sure rule anyone out
completely, unless you were present yourself"? If you mean, was anyone
there when John allegedly made statements to you, or were they present
during the commission of the murders? This kind of dialog is pointless.
If you're refering to being present during the crimes, I have literally
thousands of documented investigations where none of the officers were
present, however they did their investigations.
I did talk to Jerry Tobias many times prior to his death about the
OCCK, and not once did he ever mention your name or your information
about your suspect.
Lastly, Dave nor I can figure out what you're trying to say when you
speak of Dave's dad, "Why would Robertson's son doubt any of this
today?"
Det Gray and Robertson
>>> <Bingotank@aol.com> 10/10/2006 11:17 AM >>>
DET.GRAY & ROBERTSON-OCCK TASK FORCE
I don't know, I'm just still a little stunned at your response. I
realize
you can't chase in circles forever on one thing, but how can you for
sure rule
anyone out completely, unless you were present yourself? Until you
begin to
read all those tips that are unfiled, how can you even think you don't
have
the answer sitting in your own drawer? It's kind of sad that you are
relying
on citizens to present you with any new evidence, instead of pursuing
it on
your own. Since you allowed the media to look over the evidence that
was in
question in order to clear the other individual, would you also allow
the
media to look over the XXXXXXXS family thick file? Please don't say
it's
protected, if the other person's file was opened to help prove the
police right.
When you say you actually talked to the investigators who "worked on
him"
(wow, that actually interviewed him), I assume your only talking about
2, maybe
3 investigators. I know one was not Jerry Tobias, who's no longer
here to
provide an opinion. If he was, I think he'd be at least willing and
open to
review his own work and try again. And Det Anger who's made the
decision for
everyone who is not the OCCK. If the head investigator back then,
Robertson
Sr, took the time to interview John, which I doubt, why would
Robertson's
son doubt any of this today?
You sure can't pound square pegs into round holes, but maybe the round
hole
(also known by another name) is the problem. My Best Regards, Ms
Dagner
In regards to your statement of letting the media review the Xxxxxxx
file, my answer to that will be, "No I will not". The only reason I
allowed the newspaper reported to review only a small portion of the
material regarding the other investigation, was due soley to the fact
that the person making all the waves was a retired police Lt. with a
department that was on the task force. Also, the reporter making the
inquiries is a highly respected member of the news media, and has been
involved with the case since day one. At the very least, he deserved a
response.
In regards to your statement, "How can you for sure rule anyone out
completely, unless you were present yourself"? If you mean, was anyone
there when John allegedly made statements to you, or were they present
during the commission of the murders? This kind of dialog is pointless.
If you're refering to being present during the crimes, I have literally
thousands of documented investigations where none of the officers were
present, however they did their investigations.
I did talk to Jerry Tobias many times prior to his death about the
OCCK, and not once did he ever mention your name or your information
about your suspect.
Lastly, Dave nor I can figure out what you're trying to say when you
speak of Dave's dad, "Why would Robertson's son doubt any of this
today?"
Det Gray and Robertson
>>> <Bingotank@aol.com> 10/10/2006 11:17 AM >>>
DET.GRAY & ROBERTSON-OCCK TASK FORCE
I don't know, I'm just still a little stunned at your response. I
realize
you can't chase in circles forever on one thing, but how can you for
sure rule
anyone out completely, unless you were present yourself? Until you
begin to
read all those tips that are unfiled, how can you even think you don't
have
the answer sitting in your own drawer? It's kind of sad that you are
relying
on citizens to present you with any new evidence, instead of pursuing
it on
your own. Since you allowed the media to look over the evidence that
was in
question in order to clear the other individual, would you also allow
the
media to look over the XXXXXXXS family thick file? Please don't say
it's
protected, if the other person's file was opened to help prove the
police right.
When you say you actually talked to the investigators who "worked on
him"
(wow, that actually interviewed him), I assume your only talking about
2, maybe
3 investigators. I know one was not Jerry Tobias, who's no longer
here to
provide an opinion. If he was, I think he'd be at least willing and
open to
review his own work and try again. And Det Anger who's made the
decision for
everyone who is not the OCCK. If the head investigator back then,
Robertson
Sr, took the time to interview John, which I doubt, why would
Robertson's
son doubt any of this today?
You sure can't pound square pegs into round holes, but maybe the round
hole
(also known by another name) is the problem. My Best Regards, Ms
Dagner