Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 12:49 AM
Original post made on Mar 11, 2008
It sounds to me that the Police Department is doing exactly what we expect them to do.
I don't know Sgt. Michael Yore. But from what I've read, it appears that he's doing exactly what we should demand from a professional in his position. It's offensive to me that others have posted derogatory comments on other forums about him, without knowing him, or having even the slightest understanding of what he's doing.
It's becoming apparent that serious crimes occurred here. Let's let the investigation continue. Let's not make idols out of the suspects while we blindly criticize the people who risk their lives to keep us free.
P.S. -- to the critics --
Do you have the guts to write in and admit that you were wrong when the truth comes out?????
Just where in this article did you determine "It's becoming apparent that serious crimes occurred here"? Sounds more like the keystone cops to me - no one seems to have any idea what they are looking for! From an unsearched U-Haul to the minutes from a non profit group's meetings? Yeah, sounds like the PAPD is doing exactly what we expect (that's sarcasm, BTW).
Of course they have no idea what they're looking for. That's what a police investigation is for. Crimes were committed and now the Police are looking into them.
It's easy to look back on a situation and say "You should have looked into that U-Haul truck".
But until the pieces come together, you can't say that. Evidence comes together slowly - one piece at at time. And the "professionals" know that - and take one step at a time.
So Johnson felt no need to investigate who actually rented the truck or obtain a search warrant of the check cashing couples home? Instead she relied upon "the San Carlos Police records" in the investigation. Wasn't this the same department that when they inspected the theiving couples UHAUL just neglected to find 2200 in travelers checks? HMMM. Guess it was easier to fly Yore out to Texas to investigate old costume sales rather than investigate the actual burglary. Or someone from above wants to shut down the theater and this was the opening salvo.
You're spending too much time watching "CSI". Not every crime is solved in an hour. And, a suspicious U-Haul truck - without supporting evedence - isn't reason for search warrants.
"Johnson" - I assume you're referring to our Police Chief Lynn Johnson - what has she done wrong in this? She kept her mouth shut and started a legitimate investigation. Would you want something different if you were being investigated???
Let's give "Lynn" a coule of rounds of applause over how her department has handled this - not just call her "Johnson".
you completely right jim... and no joke, they have the "CSI EFFECT" in courtrooms when the jury doesnt trust/believe the evidence is sufficient because they have been so affected by csi and it's "solve the crime in a convenient 60 minutes" that they dont believe you cant ALWAYS get fingerprints off everything. its rediculous!
others: STOP WATCHING CSI --it sucks anyways. watch something like the first 48 if youre that desperate
What's watching CSI have to do with thorough police work? When a bike was stolen and appeared for sale on Craigslist, a PAPD officer went and staked out the thief's house. Aren't you concerned that some burglary ring cut the wires and broke into the theater, yet the police didn't pursue investigating who rented the truck or search the couples' home for the missing projectors that have been much discussed? Odd, that with these burglars still afoot you seem quite happy with them flying to Texas to interview the previous director about old costume sales, a task that could have been taken care of with a simple phone interview.
It is amazing to think that there are so many expert detectives out there who know exactly what should be investigated and how in this crime scene investigation. I for one, love reading mysteries and watching crime shows, but I am glad that in this particular case, that the real experts are pounding the pavement and using old fashioned (in more ways than one) detective techniques. Yes, it looks as if the trip to Texas may have proved nothing more than some information on costume sales, but it just might have caught more. Yes, some things seem on the surface to have been overlooked, but with hindsight it is all very easy.
Real detective work is involved here. These detectives have lots of leads, lots of evidence and lots of critics. They will spend many fruitless hours before they find something worth pursuing, and all they get is criticism for the deadends. Give them time, let them do their craft, and then let us see what they produce.
If anyone out there considers they know better, then I expect they are in the wrong career. So, Miss Marple and Poirrot, leave it to the experts.
To: "To the Jim H. Fan Club"
How did you know any 'wires were cut" at the Children's Theater. I've read every story about this and don't remember that wires were cut. What wires? Where did you read this? Please enlighten me.
Bill - it was in a recent article right here - the article stated that wires to security systems had been cut (sorry - I can't give you a link to that, but it was reported on Palo Alto Online).
Flying to Texas to interview someone?? The detective in question probably didn't fly first-class, sipping champagne and eating lobster. He was probably packed in the back of a crowded airplane wishing he was somewhere else. But he got to observe the body language, the eyes, the attitude -- things that couldn't be seen in a phone interview.
If and when this goes to court, a jury would ask why the investigators used a phone call instead of an in-person interview. That's been taken care of here. The jury won't wonder.
Sometimes, in an investigation like this, it doesn't matter what the outcome of an interview is - it's all another piece in the puzzle. It doesn't imply that someone is guilty. It provides information -- valuable information.
Crimes - especially financial crimes - can be notoriously difficult to solve. It would be nice if the Police could take a DNA swab (like on TV) and find the culprit. But it doesn't work that way. Sometimes, investigators have to "poke" things with sticks, and see what they do. The answers can finally lead to a conclusion.
I stand by my earlier attitude that our Police Department is handling this correctly and professionally. If and when this finally gets to trial, we'll all be glad they were so thorough.
> Despite the San Carlos police search of the van, and
> more than a month of elapsed time, the $2,200 of checks
> remained in the truck.
Interesting that the articles don't say that the Palo Alto Police have actually recovered these checks. Given that there were checks recovered in San Carlos, and checks actually spent--the number of checks that were available for being so easily stolen is well over $2,200. The Weekly does not seem to want to tell people how big the loss to the Children's Theater actually is.
None of these articles indicate who is responsible when money is stolen, or reported stolen from a Palo Alto government office and there has not been appropriate management of the money. (Meaning has been no mention of a locked money box kept in a safe.) So, is the person whose name was on the checks supposedly asked to pay back the money that has disappeared?
Also--there is no mention of how many checks were in this employee's possession at the time of the theft.
I tracked down the comment where it was mentioned that wires had been cut. I remember at the time thinking it odd that this was the first time I'd heard those details. I don't remember reading them in the Weekly. Here it is, from one of the earlier Children's Theatre threads: (Note that there are two threads with the same title. The first one has only a very few comments. This one had 36.)
Details of Children's Theatre thefts disclosed
Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Mar 7, 2008 at 9:06 am
There have been 36 comments on this topic, the most recent on Mar 9, 2008 at 7:03 pm.
"...The theatre has a security alarm system in place, though no cameras, the day the burglary was discovered, it was also discovered that both the security alarm wire and fire alarm wire had been cut. ..."
Posted by RE: take it private, a resident of another community, on Mar 8, 2008 at 4:59 am
> "...The theatre has a security alarm system in place,
> though no cameras, the day the burglary was discovered,
> it was also discovered that both the security alarm wire
> and fire alarm wire had been cut. ..."
This was posted by a contributor to the blog -- but wasn't in any of the articles or police press releases.
Does raise an interesting question however--how is it that a security alarm wire is exposed so that it can be cut? And a fire alarm wire too? Were these wires on the outside of the building, or the inside? Were they cut before the building was entered, or after it was entered? Why cut the fire alarm? Was the Burglar Alarm connected to the Palo Alto police department, or a private concern? Does this kind of alarm show that it's been cut at the monitoring point?
Or maybe the police have not released this information, or maybe they were not cut at all.
Dear Jim H.
I believe the correct spelling of Johnson's first name is "Lynne". While I'm not on a first name basis with her, I would give her the courtesy of not presuming to be - and would at least spell her name correctly. After all, she's not just any Curly, Moe or Larry.
You seem to know a lot about this case and are a big defender of the police. Instead of refocusing the discussion on details, let's stick to the main issue. This investigation has been going on for ten months. At this point, it's a fishing expedition. Let's call a spade a spade.
Shelly: i think the" Curly , Moe, and Larry" are "Lynne, Frank and Gary"
The wires were on the inside of the building, and they were cut, a repair man from the city fixed them the next week.