Monday, September 11, 2006

Josh Wolf is disappointed

Josh Wolf writes in response to this post:

Rob, sources aside, we offered to screen the tape to Judge William Alsup in camera to prove that I did not capture the incident being investigated by the US Attorney (the alleged arson of an SFPD vehicle), and also to validate my claims that I was nowhere near the alleged assault on Officer Shields. The judge refused stating that his role was not to be a filter for the material to be reviewed by the Grand Jury. From the beginning of the contempt preceedings I have had a signed declaration filed in front of the court stating that I did not witness or capture anyone attempting to ignite a police car. So the question is not whether I should withhold evidence as you to described it, but instead, whether the grand jury should have omnipotent power to review anything the US Attorney deems fit to investigate. And you always struck me as the libertarian-type Rob... I guess I was wrong. (Josh Wolf)

Yes, you were wrong. I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm a "libertarian-type." I'm a registered Democrat who takes a dim view of disorder in the streets, especially where a city cop is seriously injured and someone tries to burn a cop car. 

Your sense of how the legal system operates is rather naive, but I guess that comes with being an anarchist. The US Attorney---or any attorney, for that matter---is not likely to allow the evidence he's after to be filtered through a judge. If you were willing to go that far, why not just turn the tape over? The US Attorney of course can investigate anything he wants if it has anything to do with the Federal Government.

My only question is, Why didn't the city's District Attorney investigate? Even if the DA thought the state's shield law covered your case, they should have provided an explanation for their inaction in the wake of a serious injury to a city policeman.

Labels: , , ,