Was NWH unfair to Bianchi?

Was the Northwest Herald fair in its reporting of yesterday's hearing in front of Judge Meyer at the McHenry County Courthouse?

McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi testified yesterday why he would not investigate Sheriff Keith Nygren. He stated clearly that he believed Illinois Supreme Court rules precluded him from investigating, indicting and prosecuting Sheriff Nygren, because he defends the sheriff and acts as his counsel in lawsuits against the Sheriff's Department. Bianchi believes he could be disbarred, if he did so.

And in answer to specific questions asked by Blake Horwitz, attorney for Petitioner Zane Seipler, Mr. Bianchi stated that "Ethically, I cannot (investigate, indict or prosecute (his client) the sheriff)".

And so how does this morning's Northwest Herald present yesterday's story? In huge, bold type (larger font than is normally used) the headline reads "Bianchi: I will not investigate sheriff". Actually, Bianchi did not say those words. The "fine print" in the article reflects that, when asked by Horwitz, "Does that mean you will not investigate him?", Bianchi answered, "That's correct."

What Bianchi said in response to almost all the questions from Blake Horwitz was that "Ethically" he could not at the same time defend the sheriff and investigate, indict and/or prosecute the sheriff. But the Northwest Herald failed to give that statement equal weight and left readers with the impression that Bianchi had made a choice not to investigate the sheriff.

Is Bianchi stuck between a rock and a hard place? While his office might normally "investigate, indict for and prosecute" crimes, in this case he cannot do so without a substantial risk of disbarment. Bianchi cannot defend and do other legal work for the sheriff and, at the same time, prosecute him.

That has been obvious to me for months. It had to be obvious to everyone. So why didn't Bianchi just quickly say that he could not both defend and prosecute the sheriff and then disqualify himself, leaving the door wide open for Judge Meyer to appoint a special prosecutor in this case months ago?

Why wouldn't he have done so months ago? Could it be that it was because he defends the sheriff? And does "defending the sheriff" mean that he does whatever he can do (legally) to stall, procrastinate, avoid an investigation of the sheriff and the possibility of charges being brought against the sheriff?

Yesterday Blake Horwitz wasn't bashful about enumerating the charges that might be brought against Sheriff Nygren. Try: solicitation of murder; trafficking illegal immigrant; taking bribes, fraudulent mortgage papers.

Why would the Northwest Herald toss in "...claims that representatives of the FBI said were without merit"? I saw a copy of the FBI's letter. It is open to interpretation and was signed by an underling at the FBI office. I wondered why an Agent would be communicating with the Undersheriff? The letter should have been signed by a higher-up in the Chicago office. Was it a genuine letter? If so, why was it ever released, since it is part of an ongoing investigation?

The final paragraph in the Northwest Herald story made me laugh. It read, "In Seipler's still pending federal case, he accuses the sheriff of firing him for blowing the whistle on racial profiling within the department."

The Northwest Herald has never reported that on April 6, 2011, the sheriff's own attorney told Federal District Court Judge Mahoney in Rockford that Zane Seipler was terminated for complaining about racial profiling. With the attorney's admission a year ago, why hasn't that case been settled?