In the Decatur Daily article of 10-14, Catherine Halbrooks is
quoted
as saying "she will not accept inadequate investigations from police
to build a case against a suspect." The criminals should love that
one. Especially since no investigation could possibly un-earth
every piece of evidence that might have a bearing on a case, and
therefore any investigation could be viewed as "incomplete"
of "inadequate".
And what would Halbrooks do about these "inadequate"
investigations? Would she send the cops out on endless searches
for
things that are irrelevant, or even things that can't possibly be
recovered, like pet veterinary records, dog sheets, computers in
landfills? Would she ask cops to dig up dirt on the VICTIMS'
private lives? Would she ask the cops to interview kooks and
palm
readers who claim to have new information? Are those the kinds
of
things that Halbrooks thinks makes an investigation complete?
Halbrooks comments are not only troubling to the police, and to
law-
abiding citizens, but they show a lack of willingness to accept the
role she seeks. Again, she says she "will not accept inadequate
investigations... to build a case against a suspect." But, in my
view, to do a job, any job, means to do the best with what you
have. Prosecutors build cases (even imperfect cases) against
suspects and they present them to the Judge or jury and they
decide
guilt or innocence. It seems to me that any suitable candidate for
this office would be talking about how hard they will work to build
cases, and uphold the law, rather than warning about situations
where they will refuse to build a case at all.
But most troubling is the possibility that Halbrooks might let a
defendant go scot-free if she deems the cops' investigation of his
crime to be "inadequate" or "incomplete". Would she do that? Of
course she would! She's already proven the worst possible case
scenario. She's trying to get Daniel Wade Moore, a heinous
torturer
and murderer, off scot-free. Catherine Halbrooks has no moral or
ethical problems whatsoever with letting a killer walk free. No
problem whatsoever. She would just blame it on someone else;
the
cops, the victims, whoever, and the Decatur Daily will be there to
back her up all the way, quoting her lies and her opinions as
though
they were facts. At least that's how it's been so far.
In the Daily's article of 10-14, Halbrooks make no mention
whatsover
about victims, about victims' rights, about working with victims, or
about justice for victims. Instead she talks about "what you owe"
to the DEFENDANT! I think it's clear what kind of District
Attorney
Catherine Halbrooks will be. She is totally unfit for the office.
Mac Tipton
Birmingham, AL
Letter to the Editor, Decatur Daily