Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Zinke's "cooperating" witness

This issue deserves a new article and not "just" a comment to previous articles.

One person (Curious1) keeps commenting that Zinke "...made a valid judgement call and in the open brought the leader of RITA corp in as a cooperating witness with all available records to share with the DEA."

Let's see, 1. confidential DEA investigation; 2. destination of illegal drugs: RITA Corp.; 3. president of RITA Corp. is long-time, high-dollar campaign supporter of Sheriff Nygren and long-time member of the sheriff's Merit Commission; 4. Zinke quickly reveals confidential information to Brian Goode; 5. Goode shows up in sheriff's dept. parking lot with what the public is led to believe are shipping documents.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that a "cooperating witness" should be kept away from the sheriff's department and should stay silent. You don't trash a DEA investigation pertaining to inbound drugs by "outing" a cooperating witness. What does Zinke do? Invite or allow Goode to come to the Sheriff's Department!

I wonder who dreamed up the "cooperating witness" angle. Who created that? Is it just "spin"? Anyone else getting dizzy?

The proper course of action here is an investigation by an impartial body - an organization not influenced by Nygren or Zinke or political or good-old-boy connections. Of course, that eliminates certain investigating bodies, because of their close ties to Nygren.

I would rule out the Illinois State Police, District 2 (unless things are different under the current commander), and the FBI (unless things are different after Robert Grant's departure). The FBI is having a hard time finding Zinke's December 3, 2010, to the Chicago office; that's the letter to which Assistant Special Agent in Charge Angela Byers replied on January 4, 2011. She replied under Grant's name (writing on his behalf, it is to be assumed) and specifically referenced Zinke's letter by date.

Zinke conveniently lost his copy of the December 3, 2010, letter, too. There is no record of it at MCSD. None. Even the Illinois Attorney General's office could not stimulate MCSD to look a little harder.

How an official letter (document) disappears at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department ought to be the topic of yet one more investigation. The Illinois Records Act should control how records are disposed of. Generally speaking, records cannot be mutilated, destroyed, transferred, removed, or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part, except as provided by law. Perhaps MCSD thinks it is exempt from that.

Someone suggested to me that possibly the FBI's January 4, 2011 letter was "manufactured". I have asked the FBI to authenticate its letter; i.e., did it actually come out of the Chicago office on FBI stationery, complete with date and signature (but without a File Number)? Will the FBI authenticate that letter? If they can't or won't, what will that mean?

I have a copy of that letter, which I received from MCSD, thanks to FOIA. And Cal Skinner published a copy of that letter on McHenry County Blog. But are these really copies of an official document from the FBI Chicago office?

4 comments:

Ray said...

Gotta go with Curious1 here. When you look at a something it has feathers, a bill, and goes quack quack ... it's a duck.

Gus you look at this and see a need for an investigation, when the facts on their face demonstrate that someone was mad about being demoted and tried (with your help) to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

If we were to take your facts as correct there would have to be a colossal cover up and perfect witness coordination ... and we all know that is not possible here.

Why don't you stop acting like you don't know this, and make some direct accusations (like I am sure you would like to do). That way all of the evidence can come out ....in your defamation case.

Gus said...

Ray, I don't know Koziol. I've never spoken with him or received any communication from him. I know what I read in his Petition. I read it; did you?

I can only guess that he expressed disappointment (irritation? anger?) about Zinke's contact with Goode. I can only guess that Zinke then arranged to remove Koziol from his assignment to the DEA task force.

Koziol had the guts to speak up. If all deputies spoke up about all the cr*p at MCSD, it would stop. They know to keep their heads down, though; they have watched what happened to those who did speak out.

Curious1 said...

Ummm...Gus...you don't have to search for an "investigating agency"...if the DEA felt wronged they are completely capable of making sure an investigation happened.

I get you are trying to stir it up due to political and personal leanings, but what Zinke is accused of doing to this point is perfectly with in his purview. No one even has insinuated he tried to be sneaky about it he brought the guy right in to speak to the investigator directly.

Anyone using common sense would come to the conclusion if he was trying to secretly tip someone off about a confidential investigation he wouldn't be bringing him to the office to speak to the investigators and hand over records.

Sadly someone did make this investigation open public record...unfortunately for you it is not the guy you want to direct a witch hunt after.

Gus said...

Ray, you'll like this one.

"If it walks like a duck, well, it might be a burglar"

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/if-it-walks-like-a-duck-well-it-might-be/article_f7d34af1-b704-5c60-af5d-401db8da74af.html