Wm. J. Ross - where is he?

William J. Ross is the guy whom the McHenry County Sheriff's Department wants a little chat with about the body of Jacqueline Schaefer that was in a bedroom of his house near McHenry. Her body was found on November 6. Ross is cooling his heels in Clark County (Nev.) Correctional Center, in Las Vegas, where he has been since November 7. Ross refused to waive extradition.

On November 6 Schaefer's body was found in a sealed room in Ross' house. Within a day the MCSD had completed its investigation and charged Ross with Concealment of a Homicidal Death. (Whew! That was fast.) Ross was indicted by a McHenry County Grand Jury on December 18.

In a statement to the Northwest Herald on November 12, Assistant State's Attorney Mick Combs "...explained that prosecutors will secure a governor's warrant to extradite Ross.'The only issue is proving that he is the same William Ross that's wanted out of Illinois.'"

If that were the only issue, wouldn't Ross be back in McHenry County by now?

When I contacted the SAO this past week to ask the status of the extradition request, the answer was that they weren't going to answer - It's part of an active investigation.

After I read the response several times, I began to wonder what is different between the November 12 statement to the media and my inquiry about the extradition. So then I called the Illinois Governor's Office to ask if Gov. Quinn had signed an extradition order and had sent it to Nevada's Governor Sandoval.

At first, they said they couldn't tell me, because what if the wanted person heard about it? He'd flee. I said that fleeing wasn't a high likelihood, because Ross is behind bars in Las Vegas on a hold for McHenry County.

But the Clark County (Nev.) Correctional Facility can only hold him for 90 days. That's about February 7 - less than a month from now. If they have to cut him loose, will he disappear then?

Then the Governor's Office passed the buck to their lawyer's office, who passed the buck to the Public Information Office. An ISP Sergeant there called and left a message for me. When I called him back, the call went to voicemail - sort of. The voice mailbox was full, and the person who recorded the message now works in a different department. A few more calls and a few more messages, and still no answer. But there is always Monday.

Paul Scharff, on Prim-Zinke debate

Read what Paul Scharff has to say about a debate between the Republican contenders for the March Primary Election for Sheriff.

Keep in mind that Scharff is familiar with the McHenry County Sheriff's Department. He is the author of Murder in McHenry, which can be purchased on Amazon.com

Paul was in McHenry County in November, but it happened to be on the same night as a scheduled event of the McHenry County Right To Carry Association.

You can follow Paul's blog at any time by clicking on McHenry County 1981 in the right sidebar here, or you can see his article about the debate here.

[Stuff] hitting the fan at Sheriff's Office

The "stuff" is hitting the fan at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department, where about 30 deputies and corrections officers are being directed to meet with the Sheriff's guy, Don Leist, whose official title is Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and Legal Affairs Officer.

Leist holds what was a clerical position at the Sheriff's Department and one that actually is no longer needed. However, Nygren decided he wanted an in-house attorney and, when Kathy Seith left, the job qualifications were broadened to something like J.D. degree preferred. With that, the well of applicants shrank and, Eureka!, we have a qualified applicant. Surprise...  Yeah, sure...

On Wednesday a Federal judge announced that the games would continue. Cal Skinner was there, and you can read his story here. Cal wrote, "Milliman was fired for not telling the truth in a deposition for former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s case of wrongful termination."

I added my 2¢ worth in a comment to Cal's article that the sentence should have read, "Milliman was fired for telling the truth in a deposition for former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s case of wrongful termination."

What did Scott Milliman tell the truth about on November 23, 2010, as described on McHenry County Blog?

• Excessive force used by McHenry County Deputy Sheriffs
• Retaliation suffered by Milliman and other deputy sheriffs for reporting unlawful conduct of other deputy sheriffs
• Allegations that Nygren was directly involved in ticket fixing in McHenry County
• Nygren’s acceptance of bribes intended to influence his actions as Sheriff
• Nygren’s involvement in a scheme to fraudulently procure SBA loans for individuals and share in the proceeds of the loans knowing that the loans were going to default
• Milliman’s cooperation with the FBI investigation into corruption in McHenry County
• Evidence of racial profiling by McHenry County Deputy Sheriffs
• General corruption within the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office

Now the Sheriff's Department (that would be Nygren) wants Don Leist to grill about 30 deputies and corrections officers who have been subpoenaed for depositions.

I'll bet that a goodly number of them are seriously worried about their jobs. If they go in and tell Leist the truth, they might as well have their bags packed. They all know that Milliman got fired to telling the truth in his deposition. When they are deposed, will they too tell the truth?

What's worst? Facing Leist or facing a perjury charge?

If I were a deputy or corrections officer and if Leist invited me in "for coffee and a little fireside chat," this would be my answer - ""I'll be very happy to cooperate and will do so upon the advice of my independent attorney, and I'll be happy to consider speaking with you (Leist or Sotos) after I have given truthful testimony at the deposition. I'm sure you do not wish to jeopardize your defense by insisting that I speak with you now."

What will happen if they say that? Leist will insist that they speak right then and there, under penalty of suspension or termination. Then they'll be persona non grata. Can McHenry County afford to do without 30 honest deputies and corrections officers?

Buttitta to private law practice

Dominic Buttitta, former Assistant State's Attorney at the McHenry County State's Attorney Office, has established a law partnership in Barrington and now is in private practice.

Buttitta was a prosecuting attorney in Woodstock and also represented the office in the McHenry County Mental Health Court, where Judge Weech presides.

You can reach him at his new practice with Ross Carponelli at Carponelli & Buttitta, 117 South Cook Street, 2nd Floor, Barrington, IL 60010. The telephone is 847/382-4000, and the firm's online information can be viewed at www.cb-lawoffice.com

His practice includes representation on DUIs, criminal defense, divorce, personal injury, real estate and foreclosure defense.

Compare guilty Harvard cop with Amati "investigation"

You may have read about the Harvard cop who cheated on sick time, forged doctor's notes and got caught at it. What happened in that case?

He got nailed to the barnyard door - charged, prosecuted; he pled guilty to official (felony) misconduct, lost his opportunity ever to work as a cop again, and got ordered to pay back the City of Harvard. That was after a long song-and-dance of many court dates. Imagine his legal fees!

The Northwest Herald article said that $4,000 of the $9,509 restitution will be paid out of his bond. 

 

Well, maybe. That's if the court system can get hold of the 90% of the bond that wasn't posted (most get to post 10% to get out of jail), which it probably will, by hook or by crook. (Oh, wait; maybe that's not the right phrase to use when referring to a court...) And then there is the additional "little" matter of $1,054 in fine, fees and costs. And his bill from Gummerson Rausch et al. 

 

Now compare this with the Amati deal in Woodstock.

 

In Harvard the cop got charged with crimes. Felonies. The State's Attorney approved the felony charges.

In Woodstock the cop didn't get charged. The State's Attorney did not approved the felony charges. (Why not? Did the Illinois State Police do a lousy job investigating and presenting its case? I doubt it. If they didn't have a case, they wouldn't have gone to the SAO.)

 

The State's Attorney Office cited the Sgt. Amati's long police career. But that is a mitigating factor and should not be considered during the charging process. 

 

When do you consider mitigating factors? After conviction. During sentencing, when there are used to argue for probation or a lenient sentence. And, even then, they should be brought up by the defense attorney, not by the prosecutor.

 

The prosecutor addresses aggravating factors, if any. But in this case it was the Chief of the Criminal Division of the McHenry County State's Attorney office who threw the bone to Amati. 

 

The McHenry County Sheriff's Department bailed on its responsibility, too, by refusing to investigate when the complainant was escorted to MCSD. Maybe MCSD hasn't figured it out yet, but most cops know most cops. When you are presented with a crime by a cop, you act like a cop and take care of business. Not at MCSD, though. (Here I aim at "the" person who made the decision to send that Woodstock PD Sergeant and the complainant away.)

 

If the "life-long, law-abiding citizen" theory were used before a person was charged for their first time, there would be fewer people ever charged

Stupid programming on NWH site

This morning I was writing a comment to a response to my Letter to the Editor that was printed in the Northwest Herald.

As I worked to get the wording just right, the webpage re-cycled and everything blew away.

I've heard that a lot of people don't like the new format of the Northwest Herald online edition. If you don't, be sure to email Jason Schaumburg, Editor, and Dan McCaleb, Group Editor.

For the Comment window to re-cycle without warning is inexcusable. You may want to draft your comment in Word or in an email form and then copy-and-paste it into the Northwest Herald Comment box to avoid writing it and then seeing it vanish right before your very eyes.

TWI on City's cop-out

The Woodstock Independent hit the City of Woodstock hard
today on its editorial page, along with this editorial cartoon.

The editorial on Page 5, titled "Our View",  starts off with a quote of the City's motto: "True to its past ... Confident of its future."

The editorial continues with its explanation that the City's motto has been tarnished lately.

Be sure to pick up a copy of the Jan. 8-14 (weekly) issue at the newspaper's office at 671 E. Calhoun St., Woodstock (just west of Route 47) or at many retailers throughout the city.

Unfortunately, the editorial is not available on the website of the paper. The paper normally doesn't get into controversial issues, and I compliment the ownership and editorial staff for sticking up for the residents.

This week's paper (single copy) will set you back 75¢ or a buck. Whatever it is, it's worth it. This might be a good time to go ahead and subscribe. A year's worth of papers delivered to your mailbox will cost you $25-35.

In my opinion, the holidays and the cold weather have contributed to the relative silence of the townspeople in the past two weeks on the Amati issue. The City Council waved its arms, moved its lips and thumped its collective breast and did little else.

The administration of the City had to know what was coming. The Police Chief certainly would have informed his boss, the City Manager. The City Manager certainly would have informed the Mayor. They all had plenty of time to tell the Chief what to put forward to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, which was short one member because the City Council hadn't filled the empty chair.

There are a lot of people who shouldn't be let off the hook easily on this one. Telling the residents "We can't do anything" is nothing short of a cop-out (no pun intended).

Coming up?

Coffee with the Chief, Monday, January 13, 7:00PM, Woodstock Police Station
City Council Meeting, Tuesday, January 21, 7:00PM, Woodstock City Hall