AG calls DA investigating deaths of contributor's

[off piste]

This is the guy who most likely will be running for governor of MA??!?! Filthy, absolutly filthy......


http://www.yorkweekly.com/news/01052006/south_of/81363.htm

AG calls DA investigating deaths of contributor's daughters

By Glen Johnson
Associated Press

BOSTON - Attorney General Tom Reilly called the district attorney investigating a car crash that killed the daughters of a campaign contributor, telling him he did not have to release reports revealing whether the teenagers were drunk at the time.

In the aftermath of the call from Reilly, Worcester District Attorney John Conte has not provided copies of the girls' autopsy reports to local police, hampering their efforts to file charges of providing alcohol to a minor.

"I was certainly surprised by the involvement of the AG's office," Northborough Police Chief Mark Leahy told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "They don't ordinarily get involved in these matters."

Shauna Murphy, 17, and Meghan Murphy, 15, were killed on Oct. 13 when their sport utility vehicle slammed into a utility pole in Southborough. The crash triggered a wave of public grief for the photogenic pair of Algonquin Regional High School students. It also injured a classmate, Melissa Smith, 15, of Northborough.

The Murphys were the daughters of Christopher and Michelle Murphy of Southborough. Campaign finance records show Christopher Murphy donated $300 to Reilly's campaign committee on June 30. Reilly, the state's chief law enforcement officer, is a Democratic candidate for governor.

A spokesman said Reilly knows the family, but insisted that politics were not a factor in the unsolicited call he placed to Conte in mid-November. And the spokesman, David Guarino, said Reilly was concerned only about releasing the reports to the media, not police officers.

"It's a horrible tragedy within one family," Reilly said in an interview on WGBH-TV. "I thought that this family had suffered enough and that those records were private medical records and should not be made public."

"There's no criminal case that certainly I know of," he added.

After the crash, Leahy assigned detectives to retrace the girls' movements since their direction of travel indicated they had come from his town.

While there was no evidence of alcohol at the scene, he said, "You had a horrific high-speed crash with young operators. Statistically, we know that is one of the things we have to look at early on."

The investigators determined the Murphys had been watching a baseball playoff game before the crash. The detectives also believe both girls had been drinking, Leahy said, but that conclusion is based on secondhand information from other law enforcement sources.

Police are considering charges of illegal procurement of alcohol for a minor, Leahy said, but he declined to elaborate. They were anxious to review a copy of the girls' toxicology reports, part of the broader autopsy reports, but were dissuaded after Conte's office declared it wouldn't be releasing them, the chief said.

Leahy also said his office has been awaiting a determination on charges from Conte's office, which would have to prosecute any charges. "Basically we're seeking a clarification of the social host statute to see if it will apply to our case," he said.

Karen Foley, Conte's administrator, told the MetroWest Daily News in a Dec. 21 article that the district attorney "doesn't anticipate any charges stemming from this accident."

The newspaper published a follow-up story last Friday revealing the phone call from Reilly, although the attorney general's office refused to reveal who initiated the call and why. Following the publication of the second article, Conte's office agreed to review Leahy's proposed complaint, the chief said.

Contacted Tuesday by the AP, Foley took a detailed phone message but Conte did not return a call seeking comment. Another spokeswoman said Wednesday that Conte was out of the office and not immediately available for comment.

Christopher Murphy said in a brief phone conversation: "I'm sorry; we're still grieving here. I have no comment."

Southborough police also investigated the crash, since it occurred in their town.

Investigators determined that Shauna Murphy had been driving her parents' 2000 Land Rover at 59 miles per hour in a 35-mph zone. The crash occurred about 1 a.m., an hour after the midnight curfew for newly licensed drivers.

William Webber, the Southborough police chief, said his investigation was complete, pending receipt of a final report from the State Police accident reconstruction team.

"There is no prosecution on this one because the operator is deceased," Webber said Tuesday.

Conte is the most senior of the state's 11 district attorneys, having taken office in 1976. Reilly himself was the district attorney of neighboring Middlesex County before being elected attorney general in 1998.

Reilly's call to Conte came two weeks after Massachusetts enacted Melanie's Law, tough new drunken driving legislation backed by the attorney general.

Guarino, the Reilly spokesman, said the attorney general routinely talks to district attorneys. In the case of the Murphy sisters, he said Reilly initiated the call to Conte after learning local reporters wanted to know whether the girls had been drinking.

"There's plenty of case law," Guarino said, to support the contention the autopsy reports are private medical records.

"Tom's campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with this," Guarino said. "He knows the Murphy family but had no contact with them about this case."

Leahy says the crash and subsequent investigation have raised a number of issues that deserve public discussion. Among them were the girls' level of intoxication and how they may have received any alcohol.

"Those things need to be discussed in any responsible community, and there never can be the appearance that the police department is not doing its job," the chief said.

Asked whether the district attorney and attorney general had tried to stymie his investigation, Leahy said: "I hope not."

[off piste]

Police drop probe after AG's call, prompting Romney complaint


http://www.yorkweekly.com/news/01062006/south_of/81363.htm


Police: Witnesses said teens were drinking before fatal crash

http://www.yorkweekly.com/news/01062006/south_of/81364.htm

[Mr_Cheeze]

I'm not a Reilley fan, to say the least; however, I can at least understand what he was trying to do in protecting a friend and his family from suffering more than they already have. Unfortunately, this whole thing has backfired, as the publiciity is now greater than it likely would have been had he never got involved.

The main thing that I think need to come under scrutiny is why the Worcester County DA, John Conte, has apparantly resisted efforts by the investigating police department at acquiring autopsy results. It all seems to be moot at this point after the police chief announced the official closing of the file on this case.

Mitt Romney is absolutely right in calling into question the various motives involved here after the state legislature took great pains to make the drunk driving laws tougher. Now is not the time to be protecting anybody, friend or not, if a message is to sent concerning DUI.

[Rych]

Wasn't there a seriously injured girl in the back seat? I'm sure they want the tox report for their lawsuit.

[off piste]

Squirm, Tom, squirm..... http://graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/smiles/icon_sweatdrop.gif

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/10/reilly_faces_more_questions_about_involvement_in_c rash_probe/

Reilly faces more questions about involvement in crash probe

[GeepNutt]

I'm amazed that someone running for govenor could use such poor judgement in a case like this. Even if no laws were broken, public perception is going to be what does him in. And every day a new piece of the story (coverup) emerges and he looks more foolish than he did the day previous.

Just another sad day in Massachusetts politics. ::)

[Slider]

I am not living in MA anymore, so I've only paid attention in spurts. But is sounds to me more like Romney and Healey were going for some political points, and it is about to backfire in their faces.

It looks a lot more like grandstanding by the governer and his Lieutenant than obstruction. I can absolutely understand why a friend might make a call, independent of the investigation, to protect the privacy of a family that has just experienced a double, very tragic, fatality.

The AP says Conte withheld the autopsy reports. If that is proven true, I am wrong. So far, there's no hard evidence either way.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

You don't pay enough attention to MA politics... just enough to take shots at the GOP in the statehouse. Big friggin surprise coming from Slider. Nevermind that Romney and Healey do make a great point about the need for better judgement by the Massachusetts head legal advisor, for christ's sake, following the recent toughening of drunk driving laws in the legislature. I agree that Reilley probably thought he was doing the right thing at the time, but that certainly doesn't mean that it actually was the right thing to do. It wasn't. And to make matters worse the whole thing backfired on him with the media coverage they were hoping to avoid. The AG really has lots of egg on his face from this one.

As for the whole Conte side of the story, unfortunately that seems to have been marred by political infighting between him and the police chief involved. Perhaps there is some history there that we don't know about. This whole case has been sullied by the high-ups on every side of it.

I don't see how this hurts Romney one iota. On the contrary, this is a small scuffmark against Reilley that is sure to some up during the battle for the statehouse. It won't hurt him that much, though, either.

[Slider]

The whole thing would seem to revolove around whether the toxicology reports were available to the investigating officer. According to The Globe, "Leahy subsequently told the Worcester Telegram & Gazette that he had not asserted that Conte was refusing to release the reports."

So they got the reports, and there was no effect on the investigation. That means there was nothing unethical in Reilly making sure Conte did not release them to the media. Had he asked Conte not to give them to the Northborough Police Chief, things would have been different. That didn't happen, and the Chief has been backtracking.

This is pure politics, instigated by Romney and Healey, at the expense of the families involved.

Slider

[GeepNutt]

This is pure politics, instigated by Romney and Healey, at the expense of the families involved.

Slider


Whoa! There are a lot of big time influential people involved in this now, some large cash donations, the perception of wrong doing and you still find a way to blame Romney and Healy?

Every time Reilly opens his mouth we get a different take on his side of the story.

And please tell me why this family shouldn't be exposed to the embarrasing facts of the story when every other drunk driving accident in this state hits the airway's and newspapers immediately with Brethalyer stats, blood alcohol levels and previous encounters with the law, etc.

In fact if this family was so great why were there 17 and 15 year old daughters out to 1:20 AM on a school night? Why was the oldest allowed to drive after midnight on a Junior operators license?

No, instead we should blame the Republican administration who actually forced the state legislature to go back and actually put some teeth into the latest drunk driving law passed in this state.

[Slider]

There's nothing unethical in helping a constituent. That is what elected representatives are for.

The would be something unethical in stifling a criminal investigation, but it seems that nothing remotely like that happened here.

All the other things you cite - other news stories, kids out late drinking, new drunk driving laws - are unrelated to whether Reilly acted unethically. It seems he didn't, and it seems that that Romney and Healy jumped the gun in asserting that he did. Like I said, politics.

Slider

[GeepNutt]

Is it unethical if there is money involved? Hmmm..

Would an ordinary citizen who didn't donate to a campaign fund be given the same consideration?

Bottom line, the Attorney General should not be in position to help constituents in these types of matters. He is in power to oversee the administration of laws in the Commonwealth. It is not like he's a rep or senator.

[Slider]

But he is a citizen, with First Amendment rights. I think ethical codes and law really have to be the yardsticks for anyone's behavior, and I don't see him as having violated either one.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Anyone care to take bets on whether Slider's opinion of Reilley's actions might be a tad different were he of a... Republican ilk?

Any further bets that he'll deny this allegation?

[kernel crash]

Yikes! Slider your really on a slippery slope with this one. Blame the Republicans and give the Democrats a pass. New Year. Same old Slider.

[Slider]

I guess you guys can't attack the argument, so you attack the arguer. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, let's hear it.

Slider

[GeepNutt]

I guess you guys can't attack the argument, so you attack the arguer. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, let's hear it.

Slider


According to your argument we must blame Romney and Healy for playing politics.

Reilly, who's ethics can certainly be questioned in this case get's a free pass.

Yup, No flaw in that reasoning.... ;D

[GeepNutt]

As someone once said, "follow the money".....

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=120800

[Slider]

According to your argument we must blame Romney and Healy for playing politics.

Reilly, who's ethics can certainly be questioned in this case get's a free pass.

Yup, No flaw in that reasoning.... ;D


Playing politics at the expense of a family who just lost two daughters. That's the real problem here.

As for Reilly's ethics, you'd have to point out exactly where they come into question. I don't see that in your post, or in the story coverage.

Slider

[Slider]

As someone once said, "follow the money".....

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=120800


Again, there's nothing unethical or illegal in helping a constituent, whether he donated money or not. Doing something illegal for money or not is unethical, but that didn't happen here.

Slider

[BG]

"Again, there's nothing unethical or illegal in helping a constituent, whether he donated money or not."

Wow, spoken like a "good old boy", are you going GOP on us?

BG.

[Slider]

If we are comparing Reilly to DeLay or Duke Cunningham, then the difference is obvious. There's nothing illegal in what Reilly did, and nothing even questionable. If I am wrong, please point out where.

Those other guys may mouth things like "favors for constituents" but the paper trail shows the truth, and they will pay the price for their sleaze and already have to some degree.

Bear in mind that I don't really GAF about MA politics. I just find stories like this interesting. After this thread started, I followed the story more closely, and it sounds like nothing more than a political pig pile, with nothing at the bottom.

We will all see how it plays out. Too bad we couldn't start a betting pool or something.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I guess you guys can't attack the argument, so you attack the arguer. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, let's hear it.

Slider


It is the usual flaw: transparently biased partisan carping. Your only interest in this story is having taken the opportunity at swiping Romney and Healey for their criticism of the states top legal advisor, who happens to be Democrat. I guess it's not the Governor's place to remind the AG about his prominence as the chief legal advisor to the state. I don't even care about the money side of the argument. That kind of stuff happens in politics day in and day out. And let's face it, $300 dollars is hardly worth risking one's reputation over. The main question for Reilley is just how firmly does he stand behind the newly buttressed drunk driving laws. I believe he does stand behind the laws, but this action by him certainly calls his judgement into question.

[Slider]

What did he do that was contrary to the law, new or old?

Slider

Let me edit this, since I see you agree no laws were violated. The question becomes what poor judgement was used? What, exactly, did he do that was wrong? I just don't see it, so maybe you can outline it for me.

[kernel crash]

There were 3 teenage girls in the car.
I believe the oldest was ~17?
They were involved in a car wreck in the early hours of the morning that killed 2 sisters.
Was the driver drunk?
Were they all drunk?
Where did they get the booze?
What happened at the party they attended before driving home?
There was a ~20 year old guy throwing the party they attended.
Did he contribute to the events of the evening?
Is he liable in a court of law?
Does the lone survivor in the car have a civil case?

This is a general outline of the events of the evening. If Reilly steps in and ask that certain reports be kept out of the public eye, how does this affect the investigation? Is there a lost opportunity to educate other teenagers of the high cost of drinking and driving? Would Reilly step in and do the same to your family or mine? Do we not pick up the papers and see reports of drunk drivers every week? Yet this family, who is friendly with Reilly and has "contributed" to his campaign, gets the Attorney General to step in and change the normal course of an investigation like this. Yup Slider. Your right. I don't see any problem with any of this.

[Slider]

What possible right would anyone except the doctors and the investigating officers have to the toxicology reports? I don't know for sure, but I would bet that it is even illegal for anyone outside of law enforcement to see them, except for the guardians of those involved.

If federal HIPAA statutes apply, that is definitely the case, which would simply mean that the Reilly was seeing that the law was obeyed, which is, after all, his job.

The issue, to be very clear, was whether the press should get the reports. You are saying that they should, but I don't understand why, regardless of whether HIPAA applies or not. This is the job of law enforcement, isn't it?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

What did he do that was contrary to the law, new or old?

Slider

Let me edit this, since I see you agree no laws were violated. The question becomes what poor judgement was used? What, exactly, did he do that was wrong? I just don't see it, so maybe you can outline it for me.




It's really quite simple. Here is a man whose ambition is to win the election for Governor of MA this November. How does it look when he snubs his nose at the drunk driving and underage drinking laws broken in this case, all because he wanted to help a constituant. Perhaps his intentions were noble, but they lacked a certain foresight, unbecoming of a man in his position. Poor judgement.

This is going to come up again later this year, and he has noone else to blame but himself if it ends up hurting him. The Democrats have had a hard enough time in gubernatorial elections here in MA. The last thing they need are more bonehead maneuvers like this.

[Slider]

Naw, this was a trial balloon floated by the Republicans, and it fell flat. Despite the Herald's attempt to help inflate it, it became a non-issue once Leahy backtracked on his claim that Conte witheld the reports. Since that didn't happen, there's nothing here.

If it comes up during the election Reilly will see it as a huge softball pitched underhand.

Kinda thinking we've talked this one out....

Slider

[GeepNutt]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/6458006/detail.html

Can someone explain the difference to me.... ???

[FriedRys]

seems pretty obvious to me, failed to send his campaign contribution.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ameriquest lobbyist helped AG: Reilly rips firm, but took cash
By Dave Wedge
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - Updated: 12:28 AM EST

Despite calling Ameriquest Mortgage a “bad company” that he “would have absolutely nothing to do with,” Attorney General Tom Reilly has taken campaign cash from lobbyists for the embattled financial lender.

Reilly, who is running for governor, accepted $1,650 over the past four years from employees of the Brennan Group, a politically connected Hub firm that has lobbied Beacon Hill for Ameriquest since 2003, records show.

Ameriquest, which this week agreed to a $325 million settlement with 30 states for allegedly ripping off homeowners through inflated loans, has paid $100,000 to The Brennan Group over the past three years, according to state records.

Just this week, the AG criticized his Democratic gubernatorial rival Deval Patrick for serving on the board of Ameriquest’s parent company, saying he would not be associated with a business with such “despicable practices.”

Patrick has not revealed whether he is compensated for serving on the board of the parent company, ACC Holdings, and a campaign spokesman did not return a call.

But Republicans ripped Reilly for taking the donations from a firm he had publicly condemned. “He’s just another Beacon Hill insider pretending that he’s not,” Massachusetts GOP spokesman Matt Wylie said, calling on Reilly to return the contributions.

But Reilly campaign spokesman Corey Welford said the donations had no influence on the AG during settlement talks with Ameriquest and won’t be returned.

“When Ameriquest wanted to settle for less than he was willing to accept, Tom Reilly held the line and pushed for them to pay more,” Welford said. “The result was a $325 million national settlement with $12 million for Massachusetts consumers. Yesterday, Tom Reilly stood up and called it exactly as he saw it — Ameriquest is a bad company that illegally preyed on many of our poorest citizens.”

Campaign finance records show Brennan Group president John Brennan is a generous campaign donor who last year gave maximum $200 contributions to several pols besides Reilly, including Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi.

Brennan Group lobbyist Lynda Bernard is also a major donor who has given maximum $200 donations to Dimasi, Travaglini and Mayor Thomas M. Menino, as well as several lawmakers.

John Brennan has also given $600 over the past three years to Gov. Mitt Romney and $200 in 2004 to Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, a Republican running for governor.



Draw your own conclusions. Mine? More of the same shiat from a politician telling the public what they want to hear, while always accepting graft and doing favors under the sly.

Yea yea, we know, Slider and Trailbait. The Republicans are so much worse at this stuff. ::)

[Slider]

First, it sounds like the money was spread around to both parties. And second, since it was not illegal, the question is: What's the big deal? This is not graft, no matter how you would like to spin it.

The guy Reilly was criticizing was on the board of Ameriquest. There is an exponential difference in degree between directing a sleazeball company and taking a fully legal donation from an entirely separate entity.

This is pure smokescreen BS. If you agree that Ameriquest sucks, take a closer look at the Board of Directors. Case closed.

Slider

[Slider]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/6458006/detail.html

Can someone explain the difference to me.... ???


Case 1: The Attorney General tried to ensure that medical records for a deceased pair of sisters was not released to the press, which would have been illegal.

Case 2: a fellow hosted a party where teen drinking was allowed and was charged in the death that resulted from a subsequent car crash.

Can someone explain the similarity to me... ???

Slider