Two passages from the letter are of particular interest. The first is the account of the sequence of events that occurred on Monday, March 19, 2012:
After having seen the surveillance tape of the break-in, detectives of the Hudson Police Department interviewed Mr. Cross at headquarters and permitted Mr. Cross to leave. Indeed, during the course of Mr. Cross' interview, one of the detectives asked Mr. Cross whether one of the people seen on the videotape looked like another man (Since he has never been charged with this crime, I will not state the man's name in this letter). Common sense would lead one to believe that the trained detectives (not Chief) of the HPD would have arrested Mr. Cross right then and there if he had been captured on the surveillance tape.
Compare this account with what Chief Ellis Richardson told Gossips on March 28.
The second is Tipograph's caution against making the videotapes public:
I am concerned that the City of Hudson and its officials will use the "evidence" you have been seeking to defame Mr. Cross and create an atmosphere of vigilantism. Without understanding the ins and outs of Hudson politics, I would be concerned that political motivations rather than the pursuit of justice are what are driving these efforts. I am sure that the citizens of Hudson will be heartened to learn that the problems of education, jobs and housing have been solved, freeing the officials of Hudson and providing sufficient time and resources to uncover the perpetrators of this 10 month old $57 break-in.As rhetorical strategies go, the final sentence strikes this reader as not only sarcastic but a bit of a red herring.
The video of the break in is a very public record of events that transpired in City Hall. The CCTV system was, presumably, paid for by the public with taxes. The burglars DO NOT enjoy any expectation of privacy. The video, once secured, is not for viewing limited to "executive session." The video should be viewable online and made available to the media a la "police need your help identifying these men."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that her client was not indicted is neither here nor there. The fact that her client was interviewed and not arrested on the spot is irrelevant. Ms. Tipograph's characterization of a brazen felony against the public as a "10 month old $57 break-in" while attacking the condition of the City's schools and economy are a red herring indeed. One that makes you raise an eyebrow and think "Hmmm, something stinks."
She has brought attention back to her client. If he's innocent then she should not be concerned as efforts to identify the perpetrators will only serve to exonerate Mr. Cross. Was the video viewed by the GJ? My recollection is that it wasn't and some sort of "fumble" with the evidence was claimed. Ms. Tipograph knows that there is no double jeopardy in the GJ process. The DA can go back with new evidence (or even the same evidence) and pursue the same charges.
From the article 'County Grand Jury declines to indict Cross, McClendon' by Nathan Mayberg, Register-Star, 12 Dec 2012:
ReplyDelete"Cross and McClendon were arrested by city of Hudson Police in March after being accused of breaking into City Hall. Law enforcement officials cited videotape surveillance as leading them to the two suspects. However, in August the sharing of that surveillance and other evidence became an issue in court when Tipograph raised questions following requests to see the evidence. Tipograph said at the time the Columbia County District Attorney’s Office sent a letter to her stating that the office 'lacked knowledge' of a recording of an interview between Cross and the Hudson Police Department, stills from the surveillance camera and photographs from the crime scene. Cross was eventually released on bail ... Cross was the subject of an intense manhunt for more than a month after he was named as a suspect for allegedly breaking into City Hall. The break-in was reported by a custodian after he noticed that the upstairs doors and window of City Hall had been forced open. It was discovered that about $100 in petty cash was taken from the Department of Public Works office. McClendon, who has a long criminal history, was arrested weeks after police announced him as a suspect ... Since the Grand Jury process is closed to the public, Tipograph said she couldn’t speculate on why the jury declined to indict her client."
The plot thickens. From “Highlights of Last Night's Common Council Meeting,” ‘Gossips of Rivertown’ blog, last Wednesday, 16 Dec 2012:
“The meeting got off to an interesting start when Council president Don Moore read aloud a letter he had written to District Attorney Paul Czajka and the response received back from Czajka. Moore wanted to know why no one has been brought to justice for the City Hall break-in and what had happened to the evidence--in particular, the videotape from the City Hall surveillance camera. Czajka's response read in part: ‘It has always been my assumption that the camera and recording have been, and are, the property of the City of Hudson. . . . Therefore, I am aware of no law, rule or regulation that prevents City officials from viewing their property or, for that matter, from disclosing same to the public.’ City attorney Cheryl Roberts reported that the Hudson Police Department had delivered ‘all the documentation’ to her office. She will review the evidence and determine what can be released to the public.”
The video of the break in is no different than any other unsolved crime. We see video captured from bank robberies and other crimes all the time in the media as law enforcement seeks the public’s help in identifying the perps. Surely this situation will be no different unless, of course, they don’t want to ID the burglars. As the Columbia County DA said, there is “no law, rule or regulation that prevents City officials from viewing their property or, for that matter, from disclosing same to the public.”
Is she saying that Quinton is on the tape and that no one should care that there was a break-in because there was only $57 taken?
ReplyDeleteHello this is Quintin Cross and things are not always as they seem. The question for me is process, When the evidence and information leaves the realm of the law enforcement/criminal justice system it becomes compromised and the concept of bringing new information back to the grand jury is moot due to that so is this a political vendetta? The minute those documents were turned over to the City Attorney all potential criminal actions etc. were over case closed. I saw the less than 15 second tape and the pictures I am not concerned people are going to see what they want to see. This is proven in my interview at HPD that will show that even Detective Funk said it was my alleged co-defendant and someone else. I personally don't believe that this should be piece mailed I think that in the event the City moves to release the video and picture they should release the full case file they are now playing the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner have a full airing of the facts associated with this case and should hold employees and officials accountable.
ReplyDeleteBetween the lines you seem to be saying that the HPD itself has already compromised the evidence. Please explain.
Delete"The question for me is process, When the evidence and information leaves the realm of the law enforcement/ criminal justice system it becomes compromised and the concept of bringing new information back to the grand jury is moot due to that so is this a political vendetta?"
DeleteAllow me to answer your question about the process. There is NOTHING about releasing the video footage that captures the burglary that jeopardizes the integrity of the case in any way. If that were the case, law enforcement wouldn't use CCTV videos or stills to solicit help from the public to identify suspects. The identification of suspects is not the same as proof of guilt or innocence, nor does it create issues with respect to evidence, chain of custody etc. It just doesn't. There has been no evidentiary hearing that I've read about in which a judge has thrown out a video tape. If such a tape existed and wasn't shared with the defense it could still be used in the GJ (or public) to identify the suspects. Whether or not it could be used later in court is a decision that no judge has yet made. Your claim that it would be a politically-charged effort may be correct--criminal investigations often are, especially in high profile cases. It’s not a violation of due process.
"The minute those documents were turned over to the City Attorney all potential criminal actions etc. were over case closed."
Really? A crime took place. The fact that you and your alleged co-defendant were not indicted doesn't mean the case is closed. Not by a long shot. If the GJ failed to indict two men for a heinous crime of violence should the cops close the case? Hell no. Why is this any different?
"...even Detective Funk said it was my alleged co-defendant and someone else."
Is that the same alleged co-defendant who was also not indicted? I'm confused by what you're saying.
"...in the event the City moves to release the video and picture they should release the full case file..."
Nope. Wrong. This is an on-going investigation. The contents of the case file are not to be released to the public until the case is closed out. The "video and picture" are a different story. They can be used to identify the suspects without compromising the case. There is loads of case law to support that. It's not even a question mark.
#1 - Quintin Cross and his attorney should welcome the release of the video, as it will be an opportunity for them to put all suspicions to rest.
ReplyDelete#2 - If QC does indeed appear on the videotape, then the citizens of Hudson have a legitimate interest in learning how this case was bungled by the police and/or the district attorney, and why the case is now "sealed."
Come on Tipograph.
ReplyDeleteEverday all across America the news stations show videos of people robbing, shooting, etc. employees at convenient stores, gas stations, etc.
Play it forward, play it backward, pause it but don't play the Citizens of Hudson to be fools.
Lets play that video on Channel 6 Perp patrol tips and solicit the publics help to identify the individuals who ever they really are so they can arrest and prosecute the offenders. If the formerly accused individuals are certain that the tape does not show them, they certainly should have no worries in their mind whats so ever. Sounds very fair to me. BTW any repayment and community service being done from prior? Seems this has went to the way side as well. Also the Fire Department issue has appeared to have disappeared as well.
ReplyDeleteahh that Fire Dept Issue that was destined to change everything ...
ReplyDelete