Wis. attorney general tells Crandon citizens not to talk to reporters

From : http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGcaqntz8rVYXF5wQJNcNAnWZHZgD8S9C2GG1

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The state's top law enforcement official is drawing criticism for encouraging the public not to answer reporters' questions about a north woods shooting by an off-duty sheriff's deputy that left seven dead, including the gunman.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen last week said law enforcers would not answer questions about the case in the city where it took place, and he relayed a request that Crandon residents ignore reporters asking questions. He then left the podium without taking questions.

A week after the shooting, authorities have released little or no information on autopsy findings, certain 911 calls made during a manhunt and crime-scene evidence. The crime is one state's biggest homicide cases, and in addition to being a deputy, the shooter was also a part-time officer on the Crandon police force.

-----

Soon, I'll bet he'll insist on being called "coach."

 

Be interesting to ask the Attorney General why he felt that is a reasonable request and what charges he might bring against citizens who violate his suggestion.

 

And the list of people who can bite me grows by one.

 

He must not be 40....

 

He's a rich idiot. I didn't vote for him.

 

An IDIOT? Harsh words.

 

The only reason he was elected was because the previous attorney general was nailed for drunken driving while she was in office, which, of course, basically ended her chances of re-election. She lost her primary race, and the person who beat her ran a very poor campaign against moneybags Van Hollen. He'll be voted out as soon as his term is up.

 

Perhaps, but he does sounds idiotic, doncha think?

 

Poor Peg.
I liked her.

 

Assholish?

 

Hate to play devil's advocate, but maybe, just maybe since this guy was an officer and knew a lot of people, they'd like to investigate all angles of this before they start doing it through the media?

 

The media is and should be suspicious of any sort of hush tactic of this nature, but I can see reasons why he'd do that. It smacks of wanting to make sure the trial happens in the area where the crime occurred, and if he can limit media reports, he might be able to minimize the chances of a change of venue, which I'm told statistically reduces the probability of a conviction.