So.....maybe until cops in Boston can plug their obvious leak it's not the worst idea that people 'stop snitching'?

I get your point, Jay Tea, our legal system needs witnesses to tell the truth about what they saw in order to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. But you have to admit that people would first need to have a faith that they would be protected for saying what they know and this post is a great illustration of how that's just not the case.

I think they have a good idea how, it's the who that's got them stumped.

The BPD is now strongly denying that the report contained witness names. They now claim that it was a list of SUSPECTS for a sex crime.

If the press report IS inaccurate, it would be a clear indication of the continuing lack of responsibility demonstrated by the MSM. On the other hand, if the cops are now lying ...

My bet is that the Globe has it wrong ... you know the drill - push through the hot story without fully checking and who cares about the damage it does.

To expand on Karol's comment, people do want to know that they can be protected. Strict gun control laws ensure the population is unable to provide for any level of protection on its own. Sure, maybe you can have a shotgun or a Louisville slugger inside your residence. However, unless you have a police escort once you leave your doorstep, it is quite literally you versus them. And them probably isn't too concerned with following the strict gun control laws of the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

After all, you're probably not witness to a jaywalking, right?

Whether the perps had a police witness list or a police supect list, it's obvious the police have a security problem.

Gosh, after all these years of occupation, they can't even control their own police force? It's a quagmire! When will Bush admit defeat and pull out of Boston!?

Based on things that I know have happened in my little area of So. Cal...

Gangs are known to convince someone "clean" within their group (a sister or cousin) and have them become employed with an police agency or in with the court clerk, where they will have access to computers and documents.

California privacy laws enacted earlier this year means even original court documents are redacted of all witness/victim identifying information. In gang cases, even the defense attorney's don't get this information at discovery. (we had a gang witness murdered within days of a defense attorney receiving discovery at arraignment..got the gangbanger on tape ordering the hit from jail). Have another case of a gangbanger in county lockup striking up a "romance" with a female civilian employee... she tracked other gangsters via computer for him and carried kites outside the prison to his mom (who then sent instructions on to his crew).

Hopefully this will wake up the Boston PD/Courts to check out if any moles are working in their midst.

I agree with Les, but it sounds like Massachusetts needs to pull out of Boston on a published timetable as well...

It would not be too difficult to find out exactly who accessed the computer records of the witnesses. All of those computers are restricted and leave a trail of who logged on to those files.

Remember a short while ago you posted on the story about Senator Wilkerson's criminal son being hired by the Sofflk DA's office?

Nah, couldn't be.

nice site..buts whats all this abt??..