Donn Nails One
When he writes drivel, I will bitch. When he hits on point like this, I can say job well done.
From the initial report, something did not seem quite right. The evidence seemed lacking. Turns out, it was pretty much non-existent. You had to wonder what the hell was going on.
Some of Avery’s colleagues believe that the prosecution was prompted by a personal vendetta.
The vendetta presumably began with Avery’s 2003 drunken-driving arrest of a relative of John Cleary, an investigator in the DA’s office. Despite the apparent conflict of interest, Cleary was allowed to work on the Avery case.
Does that sound like the unbiased attitude you expect from the DA’s office?
The oddities did not end there. Prosecutors did not tell the grand jury that indicted Avery that there was no DNA evidence of an assault.
That is definitely a smoke and mirrors attempt. If that information was presented to the Grand Jury, there would have been no indictment. Period.
Finally, this disturbing statement:
“[Cleary] had nothing to do . . .with any judgments about how this case was pursued,” Clark said. “The determination to put the case before a grand jury was mine alone.”
It seems to me that Mr. Clark is enjoying the limelight a bit too much. This weak case gets lit up on the front page, he decides to put forth evidence in a very selective manner. He makes comments to the press about how the mayor should run his shop. He seems to love those interviews.
At the same time, a hit and run accident involving a member of the Mayor’s staff and a motorcycle gets buried in the blink of an eye.
I believe a District Attorney should not be voicing personal opinions to the media as often as Clark does. Perhaps if he spent more time really looking at the facts instead of playing media darling, cases like these would not go this far.