Failure of BoT Investigators
Reading the report of the investigators checking the DPS misconduct complaint, I was startled to find this reference to a post in my blog on page 19:
 ”[Footnote: 23] An Internet posting purportedly written by a student states that, in attempting to enter the building, the officers “just shoved the students away, just like that, so the officer with the lock buster could gain access to the door.â€See [ http://mishkazena.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/authorized-use-of-force ]. We could not corroborate this account.”
Hello? The reason they couldn’t corroborate the report is simple: They never contacted me to find out whether I knew the identity of the writer. Had they done so, they might have been able to ‘corroborate’ this account.
Their failure to do this gives me serious reservations regarding the whole report. If they failed to contact me,  how can we be sure of how vigorously they tried to contact the other sources?
Elizabeth
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
Reading the report of the investigators checking the DPS misconduct complaint, I was startled to find this reference to a post in my blog on page 19:
 ”[Footnote: 23] An Internet posting purportedly written by a student states that, in attempting to enter the building, the officers “just shoved the students away, just like that, so the officer with the lock buster could gain access to the door.â€See [ http://mishkazena.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/authorized-use-of-force ]. We could not corroborate this account.”
Hello? The reason they couldn’t corroborate the report is simple: They never contacted me to find out whether I knew the identity of the writer. Had they done so, they might have been able to ‘corroborate’ this account.
Their failure to do this gives me serious reservations regarding the whole report. If they failed to contact me,  how can we be sure of how vigorously they tried to contact the other sources?
Elizabeth
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
January 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
It is now EVIDENT that the investigation is invalid. One missing information from the investigation clearly indicates manipulation and manifestation of the ongoing oppression.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
It sounds like the work of a futuristic totalitarian state. Sounds frightening, n’est-ce pas?
Jean Boutcher
January 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Their failure to pursue this witness by contacting me to see if I know this writer or not is troubling….Why didn’t they?
January 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Why didn’t they? Well, who hired them? What instruction did they receive? I did instruct my attorneys because I hired them and expect something from them to my own like.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Beats me. The BoT hired them. I did informed one FSSA representative about this omission.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
My reading of corroborate was that they couldn’t find anyone else to confirm this happened, not that they didn’t know who wrote the posting. I’d have to look at that section of the report again. But in general, I thought the report was very thorough and fair.
January 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Hmm, now I’ve reread that section and it does seem they don’t know the identity of the student. I do agree, the investigators should have tried to contact you. Does their failure to do so invalidate the whole report? I’d need to hear from a lot of other people who weren’t contacted before I came to that conclusion.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Whether this was an isolated omission or not remains to be seen. I’ve not had a chance to talk to others yet.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am
I agree with Dr. Bradbury. Look up the meaning of the word corroborate. It doesn’t mean ask the person who wrote it if its true. They wanted to find an independent confirmation that this happened, most likely through one of the many people they were interviewing who were there. The fact that none of them mentioned it makes the story suspect. Thus, lack of corroboration.
Carl Schroeder, good God man! You sure do like to jump the gun. What a chip you have on your shoulder. Whole report is invalid?? Geez…
Jennifer
January 17th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Well, this witness may be very credible, but they will never know because they didn’t go around trying to find out the identity of this writer. The other people they interviewed may not have been outside, just inside. This witness may know another bystander who can verify what this person saw.Â
A thorough investigation would include a contact to the blogger to check if the person knows who the writer is. It is common sense.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I’m not sure the report as a whole is invalid, but it does seem that this omission indicates a shabby job– you’d think on such a topic of importance to all of us (I think regardless of where people stood on the protest, we can all agree DOSS/DPS is desperately in need of reform).
The positive part of this is that it indicates that we bloggers are visible, that we are garnering attention, and that we are being heard!
January 17th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Whoops– meant to finish the sentence:
…you’d think on such a topic of importance to all of us, they’d do it right the first time.
That’ll teach me to type faster than my thoughts, heh.