I still don't get it.

Okay, well seems the "Our View" piece in today's edition of The Standard Times once again deals with the concept of openness is government.  Seems once again I am in agreement with the underlying principal but am scratching my head about the desired application.  Well half of it anyway.

The two examples are about as unrelated as you can get., in my humble opinion.  One involves information about dealings with a top official in another community.  The other involves the events concerning the handling of a murder investigation in our fair town of Fairhaven. 

According to the piece:

In both cases, failure to take steps to avoid the perception of impropriety or secrecy sullies their reputations and diminishes their ability to serve most effectively. It engenders an atmosphere of mistrust and distrust.

I am not going to comment about the happenings in the other community.  While the complaints don't have me scratching my head, I don't know enough about it, I don't live there and I am not too must interested in the concept that sticking my nose into what transpires locally in another community is going to protect truth, justice and the American way.  

While the tenor of the piece on the more local matter seems to lay blame squarely at the doorstep of the D.A., rather than our local constabulary, my head itches real bad over this supposed faux pas.  

First and foremost, don't throw a murder investigation into a discussion about the Open Meeting Law and a town committee.  You are not discussing apples and oranges here. You aren't even talking about two pieces of fruit. 

A murder investigation is not covered under the Open Meeting Law and for the sake of every fearful citizen, let's hope that criminal investigations are never subject to the "Open Meeting Law" that applies to governmental boards and committees.  Do the reasons for that one have to be spelled out?

Secondly, and this is absolutely a personal opinion I grant you, what impropriety occurred during the investigation during the time period complained of.  Now I admit the word "or" was used when noting the perception of impropriety, but my read nonetheless was that somehow something improper had occurred for both examples.

Certainly there was a certain element of secrecy during the investigation from its start, even to the point of about a whole day and 1/2 later until the official word, and I am willing to bet even right now.

Your point is?

Seemingly, somehow this "secrecy" was at a minimum a violation of the intent of the Open Meeting Law. Indeed frightened citizens are not served by keeping them in the dark.  Neither do they get served by providing an up to the minute play by play on breaking details.  How many "headline" investigations have been severely criticized because of TMI to early in the process.

Yet there was not violation, seemingly or otherwise.  The biggest disservice here isn't anything law enforcement/prosecution has done, it is to utilize the implication that the "Open Meeting Law" applied.  If you can't understand how holding onto certain facts can aid an investigation, well thankfully others can see that. All you have to do is turn on the television to realize what the first 48 hrs. to 72 hrs. means to a murder investigation.

Yes it might have been beneficially to the "panicking" public to know as soon as the investigators did that the victim was acquainted with her killer.  I assume this is the revelation improperly withheld in secret.  Just as it may have been felt to be more important to delay that piece of information in hopes of not causing the suspect to rabbit once it was released. 

Rabbit the suspect apparently did, and probably as much as a result of the the social media stuff floating out there that other sources were reporting prior to the official calming announcement.

By the way, the town's people I live with, walkabout with and converse with weren't in much of a panic during the stated timeline.  Could be those people are just as heartless as I am.  Could also be they know the difference between a story and reality. Was everyone concerned? Absolutely.  Mass hysteria?  No.

If you were one of those who were in fact panicking though, let us know.  Could be I do in fact have enough ice water running through my veins to make an alligator shiver.

Sorry, there is nothing in this one that will engineer a level of mistrust or distrust as far as the investigation here.  Not on this time line. 

I am very serious though, your real thoughts on this one. Were you panicked? Were you hysterical? 

Do you feel the D.A. had a duty to "pre-emptively" let you know they had an idea of who might have done it to to keep a state of anxiety from setting in? 

Just hypothesizing now, but perhaps that preemptive strike was weighed against the chance of a quick apprehension. I know, it didn't happen.  So they should have known that before hand and just ignored that opportunity, right? 

Besides, no point to try and keep a perp from knowing you are on to him and potentially doing something desperate.  I mean how could that be more important than relieving the public angst created by 21st century gossip.

I agree with the bullet points at the end of the article though.  I absolutely do, especially becoming familiar with the Open Meeting Law.  Not that it has anything to do with a murder investigation, just all three good advice to citizens.  The type of stuff that might just keep a good citizen from assuming just because they read it somewhere doesn't make it true.

To be fair to the paper, I will direct you to an opinion piece well worth reading. Bob Unger hits a whole line of nails right on the head, except for the concept of opinions being expressed "clearly and and persuasively" in the paper.   

There in can be found my personal anxiety.  There is nothing clear or persuasive in the first piece that helps me remotely get the connection between the two examples about "openness".  Not about mentioning the investigation in the same breath as the other matter.  Certainly not discussing the open meeting law and the two matters in the same piece.

Again, if you get it, let us know. I certainly don't get this one.

Anyway ... 

Enough for today.  

Be safe.