Comments on: No Winners in Bungled Inquest

By: c

Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:44:35 +0000

I couldn’t agree more, John. Well said.

By: john

john — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:51:25 +0000

The reason the cops are going to come out smelling like heroes again… in this tragedy, is the same reason we have un-regulated growth in Idaho, relentless property tax increases, a rise in crime,(see todays Statesman)is for one reason only. The people keep voting for the same thing over and over. They don’t want detox centers, they don’t want to pay for well trained cops,they don’t want facilities to help troubled youth. Justice by police shooting is perfectly fine for the majority of Idahoans. It is the same reason Idaho is George Bush country. He thinks killing terrorists is the only way to get them, and by the way, growing them sure is good for business. Cronyisim is alive and fertilized in Boise and Idaho. The attitude of most here is “if you don’t like it move out, I got mine, screw you”. BTW, I’m almost a 50yr old Canyon county native. Save some of your outrage for the next cop shooting episode. Tell your chidren to trust firemen.

By: marie

marie — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:39:48 +0000

The police officer conveniently changed his first story that he shot Mathew Jones at 5 to 6 feet after telling him to drop his bayonet. The second version is he was attacked by Mathew, he ran 20 to 25 feet away, warned him to drop the bayonet, shot him. Officer Johnson was able to do all of this in 4 seconds as heard by the 911 tape when Mr. Jones said look out, look out and 4 seconds later there are 4 gun shots. But of course on the 911 tape there is no verbal warning by Officer Johnson. I’m disturbed by the fact that perjury is being committed. I guess it is ok for the police department to make up their facts as they go depending on the evidence they cannot tamper with. I find this whole tragic situation disturbing that our police department has no checks and balances. Jim Tibbs set the precedence when he did a news conference when Mathew was still in the morgue. Jim Tibbs went on tv with sealed evidence that became unsealed,handeled and played with. All to exonerate a policeman that was supposed to be under investigation. Officer Johnson was back on the force before Jim Tibbs stepped down from interim police chief. Scary this is what has been going on at the police department. The police department could not tamper with the 911 tape since Bruce Jones left his cell phone on the entire time, they couldn’t get the neighbors to change their stories which matched Mr. Jones’s testimony, and the balistics report which was done in a lab in Pennsylvania couldn’t be tampered with since it was revealed the officer was not 5-6 feet away, he was at least 20 to 25. How convenient Officer Johnson never turned on his audio belt untill after he had shot Mathew, threw the bayonet in the bushes and then took it out of the bushes and put it in his squad car trunk. For someone who had just killed a 16 year old boy in his front yard in front of his father, this officer sure had the presence of mind to cover his tracks.

By: Tam

Tam — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:01:35 +0000

It’s hard to imagine a father of four, even with ice water in his veins, who would play “bad-dog-no-biscuit” with this tragedy. If our children succeed in life, we as parents can rarely take all (if any) of the credit. If our children falter, there is likely plenty of “fault” to go around. Many parents need assistance with children who lose control due to substance abuse or mental illness. Few expect the cops to shoot them down in the driveway. Too bad more police don’t subscribe to KevinKs point of view..I mean why spend tax dollars on juvenile detention facilities when we could just make it all so easy.

I am not a friend of the Jones family and don’t know their personal situation. However, I think them neither ignorant or weak. Just a regular mom and dad whose everday situation had a life altering and tragic ending. We should all be grateful, because but for the grace of God. I learned a long time ago to never say never with my own children. They could prove me wrong sooner than I could spit out the words. I hope KevinK’s kids aren’t as quick.

By: KevinK.

KevinK. — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:01:48 +0000

(some)Parents are the ultimate authority and if you need the police to help “control” YOUR CHILD ,its too late and you are weak and or ignorant!….I feel the 16 years of parenting failed on this one.

KevinK.
(father of 4)

By: Larry Cantrell

Larry Cantrell — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:17:57 +0000

I don't understand Cops investigating Cops. I think a Grand Jury should be seated.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:24:05 +0000

Sara said:
“There are no objections in a inquest. People obviously don’t understand the process.”

Perhaps what causes the discussion is that people DO understand the process. They understand that a prosecutor can do whatever he wants in an inquest, including “misrepresent”, and no one can object. He can leave out relevant facts, and no one can object. He can call witnesses who know absolutely nothing of the facts of the case, and no one can object. He can completely manage an oblivious Coroner, and no one can object.

Oh, yes. People “understand the process”, all right. And they don’t like what they see. or smell. In fact, it stinks so bad that the stench of it is reaching beyond Idaho’s borders.

By: Tam

Tam — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:09:34 +0000

The hoot of this is I HATE conspiracy theories. I usually don’t buy into conspiracy hypotheses, and I surely don’t originate them. In this case anyone who is even cursorily acquainted with BPD culture as it was, is and evidently ever will be, can see somebody(ies) intentionally placed a fly or two in the ointment and it has made just enough of a mess that the truth will likely never be known now. I’m relieved that those like Curmudgeon and C can read and comprehend my intent. I absolutely understand the inquest is not REAL court. That was, afterall, my point. What it was borders on criminal and wallows in pathetic.

By: c

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:19:24 +0000

Sara, Tam said, “if this had happened in a real court,” meaning if this had been a legal proceeding other than a coroner’s inquest. I think Tam understands the process. She is correct that in a “regular” legal proceeding with a JUDGE, there is no way Day 4 of the inquest would have happened the way it did. The prosecutor proceeded as he did because he knew there could be no objections.

By: sara

sara — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 02:10:40 +0000

There are no objections in a inquest. People obviously don’t understand the process.