Florida Town's History Of 'Sloppy' Police Work

[Reader]

Thanks to tehcloser and IzzyBlanche for this article:

Trayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/u...wed-by-police-missteps.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

SANFORD, Fla. — The killing of Trayvon Martin here two and a half months ago has been cast as the latest test of race relations and equal justice in America. But it was also a test of a small city police department that does not even have a homicide unit and typically handles three or four murder cases a year.

An examination of the Sanford Police Department’s handling of the case shows a series of missteps — including sloppy work — and circumstances beyond its control that impeded the investigation and may make it harder to pursue a case that is already difficult enough.


More at link.....

 

[Harmony 2]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47453164/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

Police missteps in Trayvon Martin case hurt prosecution

With doubts shadowing the quality and scope of the police work, the prosecution and the defense will be left to tackle critical questions even as they debate the evidence. And ultimately, what happened on the rainy night of Feb. 26 may come to rest on the word of one man, George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who fired the fatal shot.

 

[AJ Noiter]

There's a lot of claims that the original investigators botched the investigation. I think now that we have some of the reports we can discuss this without everything "known" coming from a single side. Many questions are raised on both sides regarding the investigation.

I'll start it off with this question: If the original investigator (Osteen) botched it then why was he asked to be in the interview with the "girlfriend" when they recorded it? I would think that if someone's "hands are dirty" then they would want that person to stay away from the investigation at all costs.

 

[LambChop]

There's a lot of claims that the original investigators botched the investigation. I think now that we have some of the reports we can discuss this without everything "known" coming from a single side. Many questions are raised on both sides regarding the investigation.

I'll start it off with this question: If the original investigator (Osteen) botched it then why was he asked to be in the interview with the "girlfriend" when they recorded it? I would think that if someone's "hands are dirty" then they would want that person to stay away from the investigation at all costs.

Depends on who asked him to be there. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Maybe it's simply the information Mr. Martin was told when LE discussed what happened that night, Mr. Martin related to Mr. Crump and maybe some of that information was about SA and the Chief. It will all come out in the wash.....or in Crump's book when this trial is over. Obviously there was a lot discussed with Mr. Martin and LE that we do not know about. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

Maybe it's simply the information Mr. Martin was told when LE discussed what happened that night, Mr. Martin related to Mr. Crump and maybe some of that information was about SA and the Chief. It will all come out in the wash.....or in Crump's book when this trial is over. Obviously there was a lot discussed with Mr. Martin and LE that we do not know about. jmo

And I can already see it, if Mr. Zimmerman is found not guilty who is going to be up in arms because the "state's investigators were relying on the not-so-great investigation done by the previous investigators" ? It's something that could have been avoided. In my opinion it's pretty obvious the original investigators didn't botch the job or do anything out of the ordinary. This leads me to believe that the -only- reason there are charges is because of public pressure. If the previous investigators didn't do their job properly, why leave the dirty hands in the soup? Know what I mean?

 

[LambChop]

And I can already see it, if Mr. Zimmerman is found not guilty who is going to be up in arms because the "state's investigators were relying on the not-so-great investigation done by the previous investigators" ? It's something that could have been avoided. In my opinion it's pretty obvious the original investigators didn't botch the job or do anything out of the ordinary. This leads me to believe that the -only- reason there are charges is because of public pressure. If the previous investigators didn't do their job properly, why leave the dirty hands in the soup? Know what I mean?

IMO there are some really good officer's in SPD. I could also see politics coming into play as we know they sometimes do in cases. And that's "could" not did. It will come out in the wash for sure. If SPD, SA and the Chief did their job by the book they will come out smelling like a rose. If not, there's not enough febreze in Sanford that will cover that smell. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

IMO there are some really good officer's in SPD. I could also see politics coming into play as we know they sometimes do in cases. And that's "could" not did. It will come out in the wash for sure. If SPD, SA and the Chief did their job by the book they will come out smelling like a rose. If not, there's not enough febreze in Sanford that will cover that smell. jmo

Judging by what has already happened, I'd find that hard to believe.