The Wisconsin State Journal’s Obscuring and Distorting of Facts Regarding Kevin McCoy
It is widely believed that Dee Hall and the Wisconsin State Journal did an exposé on Dane County ADA Paul Humphrey. However, the truth of the matter is, this coverage, which included a major piece in the Sunday edition of July 8, 2007, a series the week of September 30, 2007, and other coverage has actually saved ADA Humphrey. How can this be so?
The Wisconsin State Journal and Dee Hall’s reporting minimalized Humphrey’s actual conduct and withheld from the public the facts connecting Humphrey’s misconduct to misconduct involving DA Brian Blanchard, the Dane County Courts, OLR and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This was done, especially when Humphrey’s misconduct could easily be deemed criminal.
If you search the Wisconsin State Journal coverage, you’ll find nothing touching upon whether Humphrey suborned perjury from Krenz. You’ll find nothing about the deputy testifying that Humphrey directed him to remove subpoenaed photographic evidence, and then how Humphrey blatantly lied in court when claiming that neither Humphrey nor the deputy knew the whereabouts of the subpoenaed photos. You’ll find a reference to Dep. Gnacinski’s second speed calculation; but you won’t find that Dep. Gnacinski testified to how this speed calculation was done, and who was present, and how it was scientifically invalid from the get-go. You’ll find nothing of Humphrey’s subordinate testifying under oath that Humphrey’s affidavit to obtain the warrant on McCoy was “not true.” There are numerous other examples.
Dee Hall’s and the Wisconsin State Journal’s misleading coverage went so far as to provide the following pseudo-facts in the July 8, 2007 story. (See Attachment #49)
“both the Office of Lawyer Regulation and Blanchard said the document (McCoy’s purported statement of October 27, 2003) was clearly a witness statement that Humphrey should have given to Sommers. Blanchard reprimanded Humphrey in 2004 for failing to turn over the statement and removed him as prosecutor on the case. To punish the prosecution, Judge Moeser barred McCoy from testifying.” (See Attachment #49)
Dee Hall withheld that while DA Blanchard reprimanded Humphrey in January of 2004 in an internal letter, Blanchard and his office withheld from the court what was conceded in his letter.
The spring after Dee Hall’s exposé, Judge Pekowsky conceded that the contents of Blanchard’s letter were exculpatory because they supported what Atty. Sommers was claiming, and therefore should not have been withheld from both the court and the defense. (See Attachment #50) The Wisconsin State Journal and Dee Hall have felt no need to inform the public to Judge Pekowsky’s sworn concessions.
Dee Hall’s assertion that, “to punish the prosecution, Judge Moeser barred McCoy from testifying” (which put Judge Moeser in a favorable light) was unfortunately categorically false.
Kevin McCoy and others were in court on multiple dates to testify to McCoy’s treatment by the Dane County DA’s office. However, Judge Pekowsky and then later Judge Moeser were persuaded by the Dane County DA’s Office to prohibit their testimony. And then Judge Moeser, at the Dane County DA’s Office’s request, prohibited Sommers from presenting at trial testimony from Kevin McCoy and others to his treatment.
On August 12, 2007, the Wisconsin State Journal printed a retraction (See Attachment #51) which acknowledged that Sommers wanted McCoy to testify, and that Judge Moeser agreed with the DA’s office in excluding McCoy’s testimony.
All of this led to a very bizarre turn of events that go a long way in suggesting that the OLR proceedings related to Humphrey were contrived. As shown in the next piece, all of this led to a very bizarre turn of events.
« PreviousNext »