re: Jennings 8 Murders

quote:

---

Lends credence to the idea that the common thread is that some group of people needed these girls to die to cover something up.

---

But the FBI who is involved is in collusion? The new sheriff continues to say this isn't the case instead of throwing the old one under the bus? The old one did such a good job covering it up that he was promoted to the state-level whatever it was? The other local offices are all in on it too? As fun as pointing out LA corruption is, this either goes up to the state or federal level, or there's no actual conspiracy at all.


Also, you claimed to be from Jennings earlier in the thread. If you read the article, you'll notice that part of the police 'corruption' mentions Phil Karem as being 'the officer that killed three people.' Karem was a retired, former officer. What does his post-retirement heinous murder have anything to do with the corruption of the current police departments? Not only that, the majority of that author's 'evidence' is stuff that 'he had seen himself' and gathered from a group of people who swear up and down that the police are out to get them. I'm not saying I don't believe these people, but when all the 'evidence' comes from a group of people who admittedly do meth and crack, call me crazy, but I am slightly inclined to look for a better source. The guy supposedly questioned the Sheriff about evidence that he reviewed that the Sheriff wasn't even aware of. Is it because the Sheriff was mentally checked out or not an active part of the investigation? I would be willing to bet not. Particularly, I want to know where this guy is getting his hands on tape recordings that are 'booked as evidence' that were not presented in court (while the Sheriff isn't aware of their existence). I will say this: if the police department is letting this kind of evidence in an active investigation leak, then yes. They are incompetent and should all be fired. Something tells me there's a bit more to it than the writer makes it seem. His inconsistency on the Karem thing, for one, makes me wonder where his head's at. His continuing 'ragging' on the PD by his language also makes me question his neutrality, which is something I would hope a journalist would attempt to demonstrate in an article. He also talks about the sheriff's office getting sued by a Hispanic couple for being unjustly pulled over. Go back and read the line again. He makes no mention of whether or not they won or lost. I'm willing to bet you can't find a PD without 10 active suits against them. Who sues them means nothing. The outcome does. And last, he complains that his (a reporter) phone calls aren't returned by the Sheriff for several days, but then comments on how quickly the same guy responds when an official request for records is made. His slant is very unappealing. He does not demonstrate neutrality. If I went and interviewed 10 people in North Baton Rouge with history of drug use and hard time for sexual crimes to boot and asked them if they thought the police had something to do with the murders of the women pre-arrest of the two Baton Rouge Serial Killers, how do you think they would respond? Again, I don't mean to diminish the testimonies made. It's just that they're the only testimonies used. They didn't ask anyone 'north of the tracks' opinion. They didn't ask any 'higher ups' about it. There was actually a dramatized version of a show looking for serial killers on the learning or history channel (brutal bayou was the episode's name but I forget the series, and they followed Kirk Menard around for a few days and got his take on the issue). Everyone South of the tracks blames LE and thinks it's them and all that jazz. Then Retired Mayor Marcantel was put on camera where he basically laughs at the notion. Maybe corruption and a huge drug ring extends to the level of the mayor, too, but that's just a little too much for me.