Kaldru

If nothing else it shows that the reporters didnt read your paper.

From the article on Latimes.com Robert Foltz, the former deputy district attorney is quoted to say this week:

"The former security guard’s actions suggested he had something to hide, Foltz said, mentioning Jennings’ decision to radio his supervisor instead of calling 911 after hearing the gunshots."

and in the your writing it says Jennings was patched through to the sheriff department

"Jennings had a radio, but not a phone. 20 He radioed his supervisor that he heard gunshots, and was patched through on his radio to the Sheriff's Department dispatcher. 21 He spoke to the officers and directed them to the correct parking lot. 22 "

You end your paper by this quote: "Sometimes law enforcement authorities, believing they have the right person, will do anything to obtain a conviction. In some of the cases cited in this chapter, as well as many other exoneration cases, authorities still maintain they had the right person in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "

and now to the question :)

Is statements like the one above from Foltz to the Latimes something you and your office try to counter?

I read the article before you paper and that was one of the things that caug

Cool :)

Keep up the good work :)