Found Deceased ND - Andrew Sadek, 20, Wahpeton, 1 May 2014 *alledged undercover drug informant*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Rocco said:
I'm sure the family will be more aggressive in pursuing leads since they firmly believe it was a homicide. However, if they take possession of that lap top now, the chain of custody is gone. Anything found on it that could be used to incriminate someone would be much more difficult to introduce in court since the family had it. I'm sure any defense attorney would claim the family changed information on the computer or manipulated it in some way.
Click to expand...

IF that is the case, then that would have to mean that the laptop ALREADY has incriminating evidence on it while in LE possession. Under that scenario, wouldn't LE discuss that with the family in regards to returning it instead of just saying "sure come get it" and then claiming "oh its somewhere else" when they came?
Is it LE common practice to keep these families completely in the dark? Doesn't create a very trusting rapport.
 
CantNotCare said:
IF that is the case, then that would have to mean that the laptop ALREADY has incriminating evidence on it while in LE possession. Under that scenario, wouldn't LE discuss that with the family in regards to returning it instead of just saying "sure come get it" and then claiming "oh its somewhere else" when they came?
Is it LE common practice to keep these families completely in the dark? Doesn't create a very trusting rapport.
Click to expand...

If LE just needs more time to go through it looking for evidence, then be honest....not hard to do...be honest.
 
CantNotCare said:
IF that is the case, then that would have to mean that the laptop ALREADY has incriminating evidence on it while in LE possession. Under that scenario, wouldn't LE discuss that with the family in regards to returning it instead of just saying "sure come get it" and then claiming "oh its somewhere else" when they came?
Is it LE common practice to keep these families completely in the dark? Doesn't create a very trusting rapport.
Click to expand...

I don't know that LE would know what exactly was incriminating evidence until they have solved the case. Something that doesn't appear to be anything now, may be huge later if they solve the case. I didn't realize the family went to get it and was told it was somewhere else and that's the only explanation they were given.
 
Rocco said:
I don't know that LE would know what exactly was incriminating evidence until they have solved the case. Something that doesn't appear to be anything now, may be huge later if they solve the case. I didn't realize the family went to get it and was told it was somewhere else and that's the only explanation they were given.
Click to expand...

That information was on an audio clip online of an interview that Tammy Sadek had with I believe it was a radio station or news reporter. I wish I had the link, maybe I can find it. You would think that LE would understand the chain of evidence situation better than any layperson, thus lay that out for her if indeed that were the case instead of how it has been handled. Actions such as that cause mistrust, and causes families to feel the need to pursue their own investigations. As well as with-holding vital information such as SEMCA involvement.
 
Rocco said:
I don't know that LE would know what exactly was incriminating evidence until they have solved the case. Something that doesn't appear to be anything now, may be huge later if they solve the case. I didn't realize the family went to get it and was told it was somewhere else and that's the only explanation they were given.
Click to expand...

Maybe a silly question, as I don't know how large their department is, but does LE have a local computer forensics specialist? At any rate, I think it's strange that they would give family the runaround as to where it was, or whether it could be released to them.
 
CantNotCare said:
That information was on an audio clip online of an interview that Tammy Sadek had with I believe it was a radio station or news reporter. I wish I had the link, maybe I can find it. You would think that LE would understand the chain of evidence situation better than any layperson, thus lay that out for her if indeed that were the case instead of how it has been handled. Actions such as that cause mistrust, and causes families to feel the need to pursue their own investigations. As well as with-holding vital information such as SEMCA involvement.
Click to expand...


If you say it was on the audio clip I believe you---I just hadn't seen that posted or heard about it. (Maybe Amanda has the clip in her archives?) I agree with your post based on the information Mrs. Sadek provided. However, I'd like to hear the other side of it---LE's side. Because I'm guessing there are 2 sides to this and the truth is somewhere in between.
 
CantNotCare said:
That information was on an audio clip online of an interview that Tammy Sadek had with I believe it was a radio station or news reporter. I wish I had the link, maybe I can find it. You would think that LE would understand the chain of evidence situation better than any layperson, thus lay that out for her if indeed that were the case instead of how it has been handled. Actions such as that cause mistrust, and causes families to feel the need to pursue their own investigations. As well as with-holding vital information such as SEMCA involvement.
Click to expand...


If you say it was on the audio clip I believe you---I just hadn't seen that posted or heard about it. (Maybe Amanda has the clip in her archives?) I agree with your post based on the information Mrs. Sadek provided. However, I'd like to hear the other side of it---LE's side. Because I'm guessing there are 2 sides to this and the truth is somewhere in between.
 
Rocco said:
If you say it was on the audio clip I believe you---I just hadn't seen that posted or heard about it. (Maybe Amanda has the clip in her archives?) I agree with your post based on the information Mrs. Sadek provided. However, I'd like to hear the other side of it---LE's side. Because I'm guessing there are 2 sides to this and the truth is somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

http://kfgo.com/podcasts/news-views...y-sadek-mother-of-ndscs-student-andrew-sadek/

Heres the audio clip. I highly doubt that she would publicly announce an untruth like that considering the importance of the situation to her, that would not be in her best interest, and she seems intelligent enough to me.
 
[modsnip]

This is the problem! LE is telling her nothing & doing nothing! Give her the laptop back! (Unless LE & SEMCA have something to hide which it sounds like is the case!)
 
SaxySleuth said:
Maybe a silly question, as I don't know how large their department is, but does LE have a local computer forensics specialist? At any rate, I think it's strange that they would give family the runaround as to where it was, or whether it could be released to them.
Click to expand...

Maybe LE broke it accidentally and they don't dare tell the family? Who knows. I do know that you can buy and external hard drive and back up any and all information on that computer.

I find it odd they haven't given that laptop back and it smells like a power struggle to me. Not providing the family with basic answers is the wrong road for them to go down. They are obviously getting 'stall' advice from legal. No matter what happened to Andrew/selling drugs/bad behavior whatever, his mother is a victim in this situation.
 
Don't bicker, please and be respectful to one another.

Salem
 
IBsleuthin said:
Maybe LE broke it accidentally and they don't dare tell the family? Who knows. I do know that you can buy and external hard drive and back up any and all information on that computer.

I find it odd they haven't given that laptop back and it smells like a power struggle to me. Not providing the family with basic answers is the wrong road for them to go down. They are obviously getting 'stall' advice from legal. No matter what happened to Andrew/selling drugs/bad behavior whatever, his mother is a victim in this situation.
Click to expand...

It sounded like LE admitted to having it. Sometimes evidence is damaged, lost, misplaced or discarded. If handing it over could compromise a still active case that's a good reason. I still think honesty and forthrightness should be the best policy--for these families (promotes trust) and LE (viewed with integrity)
 
I hope the SEMCA review reveals the need for "informed consent" which in my opinion would entail providing potential informers of ALL their options/risks. It is dangerous business, and must not be glorified, or misunderstood. My opinion is that by telling an 18-21 year old only the maximum penalties for their indiscretions, that an atmosphere of blackmail and "no other way out" could potentially be created. Some college students at that age could be seasoned drug offenders and some could be first time (maybe only time) drug curiosity seekers/testers. I am not a proponent suggesting illegal activity under any circumstances, but I realize that MANY young adults first time off to college are being introduced to and discovering new things. Some young adults have been brought up to believe that all older adults or authority figures are looking out for their best interest in all good faith. In my opinion "informed consent" and an attorney's advice should be mandatory before proceeding/closing the deal.
 
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...tudents-used-drug-busts-uw-campuses/15637381/

http://www.snitching.org/2009/11/recruiting-new-informants.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/etc/script.html

http://voicesweb.org/node/2488

I was looking for a particular story that I watched a year or so ago and I can't find it and I can't think of where it was, but I want to say up north/northeast of the country.

This young man, like Andrew, would provide small amounts of illegal drugs to his friends.

One morning he woke up to guns all around him.

To make a long story short, he felt he had to become an informant, because lets face it, they scared the chit out of him.

He thought, well, He would do this a couple of times and that would be the end of it. A year goes by, and they wanted more and more, then more. Now they wanted him to go into larger populated area's and become more involved in street things. To get the bigger fish. He tried and thought okay he was done.

LE had different idea's and then when he said he felt he had does his part. They socked it to him. He was going away to prison.

Let's not forget Rachel Hoffman:
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...igns-rachels-law-protecting-police-informants

If this young man was truly an informant and was killed, or even took his own life because of the pressure. You have to understand, once LE have you, They have you.

It really disturbs me that they Issued these warrants after he went missing, after a year?
Still shaking my head.
LE should be held to a higher standard and protect informants, they are doing their jobs for free for them.
 
Really strange how both Andrew Sadek AND Dammion Heard were found deceased in clothing not belonging to them according to their parents. I am pretty familiar with my adult children's' clothing, as I am sure they are with mine. This is a familiarity trait I assume. Haven't we all at sometime looked at significant others and said "where'd you get that shirt? I've never seen it before, is it new?" It happens very infrequently, but happens, which tells me that people for the most part pay attention to and KNOW their loved ones usual type of attire. Clothing that is not at all the style your loved one would usually wear would stand out as odd.
 
https://www.facebook.com/ValleyNewsLive/posts/10152527071737326

Comments are pretty interesting. The majority of the people do not accept SEMCA's lack of accountability. Tammy Sadek learned through KVLY today that the investigation into her son's death was concluded and lasted between one or two days.
One would hope that the LE would respect her enough to inform her of what they found. But that cannot be expected from LE gone wild and allowed to do whatever they want.

Pathetic.
There are no words to describe this injustice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 94 more.
Total: 248 (members: 95, guests: 153)

Online statistics

Members online
95
Guests online
153
Total visitors
248
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,832
Messages
18,246,206
Members
234,462
Latest member
Kajal
Back
Top