Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 18, 2011 9:29:17 GMT -5
just-thinking wrote: That is terrible news. I know there have been many suggestions to that effect, but I liked to think they are at least trying. I really try to give them (LE) the benefit of the doubt. Is this an ongoing sabotage or did they do allot to mess things up in the beginning? FBI should be digging hard into this.
I no longer give LE any benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve it in this case. The FBI should have been digging hard here for a long time. Now that I am back to my cynical mindset, I believe the OC grand jury was a tool to discourage or thwart more heavy FBI involvement, which may have been imminent. Also, what better way to defend against a FOIA suit and claim inability to spill the beans to anyone but the court about anything relating to the investigation? Secret grand jury. I question the OCP's true motivation here. Unless they are also looking into police cover-ups and all of the peripheral players here, the result is a given--sorry; too confusing, not enough there.
I will go look at the MI statutes governing grand juries and see if there is anything interesting. Cathy
Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 18, 2011 9:30:27 GMT -5
And I repeat: Not one d**n thing I read in the FOIA documents concerning JH answers the question of whether he was involved or shows that the investigation into him should have been closed. I will read the rest of the documents when I can get my hands on them, but I doubt I will find anything convincing. I am sending relevant documents to Helen's team. Look for the page that simply ends by saying that Detective Anger and Detective Iatomi (sp?) are closing the investigation. No loose ends tied up, no good explanation for a d**n thing. Cathy
Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 18, 2011 9:32:12 GMT -5
Just watched the video. First, I agree, Reasoning--I love it when editors are kind and don't leave in the stutters and stammers we all make. It's always a relief. Second, and more importantly, thank you for contacting Helen when you realized this connection. I will tell you that LE is too clever by half in insisting that conversation on 12/26-91 never occurred. How dare they?! That is what they are used to doing--cajoling or strong-arming people, if necessary, into backing down. When I was told in March 2006, after reading Helen's material online and via private email, that Helen was crazy and to stay away from her, that was my first clue that something was very f'ed up in this investigation. This was verified when subsequently and in short order, all I heard were ad hominem attacks of every single person who had a coherent and was being blown off by LE. The more persistent the person, the more rude and dismissive LE was. It cracks me up that they don't have enough finesse to get rid of witnesses without pissing them off and making them more likely to make sure the truth comes out.
That's why Helen's website lit up like a Christmas tree when we were all discussing the "Magnum Force" scenario a few years ago. Some of them thought they would take care of everything and none of us would ever be the wiser. What do we know? We are just stupid, law-abiding, tax-paying civilians. Time heals all wounds, right boys? Cathy
Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 18, 2011 9:35:09 GMT -5
Just went through the stack of documents an hour ago. They did not test on Tim's case, because JH had been polygraphed on Tim's (AND ONLY TIM'S) case in 1992. Specific notation that three separate reports would be prepared for the other three cases. So there are only 3 reports because he was only poly'ed on Mark, Jill and Kris in 2009. It's possible that JH was never asked in the Tim King polygraph if he was withholding any information about Tim's case. Seems like an important question to me, and also one that could have been asked again in 2009. Cathy
Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 18, 2011 9:37:51 GMT -5
Unfortunately no maps in my stack of documents. But I saw them, they were very detailed, and can get copies (it may take a while). But some very interesting stuff regarding Mr. H's most recent polygraph. Of course the results are redacted, but somebody did a piss-poor job of redacting one of the reports. There are report covers and a one-page results page for his most recent polygraphs in Georgia. Catch this--there is a report cover for Mark Stebbins, Jill Robinson and Kristine Mihelich. THERE IS NOT ONE FOR TIM KING. No cover sheet, no "report," just nothing there to indicate he was polygraphed about Tim's murder. And of course he was--but why did they hold back the set for Tim King?? Not even a redacted version is included. Nothing.
AW, email me with an address where I can send you these documents for Helen's Youtube deal. Cathy
Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 18, 2011 20:04:21 GMT -5
2 cents wrote: Anyone know the information behind that tip in 77?
As I recall, his name was turned in by a girl friend (friend who was a girl?) because he had been saying some really weird stuff about the murders back then. I'm sure the name of the tipster was redacted. And I don't recall the nature of the "weird stuff"--it may simply have been described that way in the police report. Mybrotherskeeper | #6335 4 min ago
Regarding grand jury vs. investigative subpoenas in Michigan. Scroll down to page 2 to the article "Innovative Use of ... "
Sh**. In the bottom, right-hand search box (MCL Key Word Search), enter the words: grand jury. Mybrotherskeeper
#6338 2 min ago
Note the provision below for a multi-jurisdictional grand jury. Two problems:(1) the Michigan AG represents the MSP so he would never convene a grand jury--a conflict of interest? Why should the MSP be involved in any murder cases if this situation can arise?!(2) Jessica Cooper would never agree to a multi-jurisdictional grand jury, or to relinquish control to any special prosecutor. Please, please tell me she is not running again in 2012. I really do not want to make a political donation to a Republican and break my long-standing record.
And Michigan law makers, how can this happen that the MSP can be given jurisdiction over a huge, high-profile case, secure in the knowledge that the state AG will never question their activities?!
767.7b Grand jury; petition by attorney general or county prosecuting attorneys to convene; jurisdiction; contents of petition. Sec. 7b.
(1) The attorney general may petition the court of appeals of this state to convene a grand jury with jurisdiction over 2 or more counties in this state.
(2) Two or more attorneys who are county prosecuting attorneys in this state may, with the approval of the attorney general, petition the court of appeals of this state to convene a grand jury with jurisdiction over all of the counties in which they are prosecuting attorneys.
(3) A petition to the court of appeals under this section shall contain all of the following:
(a) The name and official title of each petitioner.
(b) The name of each county over which the grand jury is to have jurisdiction.
(c) A statement setting forth probable cause to believe that a crime, or a portion of that crime, has been committed in 2 or more of the counties named in the petition.
(d) A statement setting forth the reasons to convene a grand jury with jurisdiction over all of the counties named in the petition.
Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 19, 2011 4:24:55 GMT -5
Helen Dagner Petoskey, MI 1 min ago
just-thinking wrote: The maps are pretty interesting. He could fill in endless details if he was thinking about it, I bet. He seems very concerned with being accurate and taken seriously. It is like an overgrown kid's mind. Lot's of accumulated information and no great use for it, except to document and preserve memories in a superficial way. Is that drawing in Reasoning's video of I-75 with the 75 circles all over it John's real map drawing or was that a reproduction? Helen Answered~ That drawing in the video is a facsimile-I would not run the original at this time ,because it would reveal sensitive information that could damage the investigation.
Post by Helen Dagner on Jul 19, 2011 21:29:34 GMT -5
The maps are from the FOIA docs. They are actually 2 maps. Two pages go together to form one map in each case. Remember that much has been redacted from the maps and that you are looking at a scan made from FOIA photocopies.
No big deal you say, but you are only viewing them separate from the FOIA docs surrounding them. Bigger deal than you may think. And I'm not sure when it happened but Hunter was renamed Woodward awhile back and Woodward through B'Ham proper is called Old Woodward.
When put together, they are correct, although I also question the placement of Sheila. CandyO