Thursday, October 08, 2009

Slow Progress in the Santos-Swinton IA Investigation

Ah, bureaucracy. And some of us actually want Government Run Health Care. An update now on my dealings with CSPD's Internal Affairs.

It is October the 8th, 2009. I received the following in the mail today, postmarked from Colorado Springs on October 5th:
"On 09-24-09, Mr. McBryde contacted Internal Affairs regarding some suspicions he had developed while following the Texas child custody/abuse case involving the FLDS at the Yearning for Zion ranch. The Ranch was raided by Texas authorities in April of 2008. Mr. McBryde's concerns involve Rosita [sic] Swinton and her connection to the Colorado Springs Police Department and in particular her past association with Lt. M. Santos and Lt. J. Anderson. Mr. McBryde requested that Internal Affairs look in to the case as he alleged that the relationship was more significant than previously reported. In particular he alleged the following:

1.) Ms. Swinton's relationship with Lt. Santos was more developed and long term,
2.) Ms. Swinton may have been a paid informant of the CSPD, 3.) The phone call made by Ms. Swinton to Texas was somehow at the Department's behest, 4.) Lt. Santos had intervened in a case involving Ms. Swinton in Douglas County, 5.) Lt. Santos did not recuse herself from matters involving Ms. Swinton and that she should have due to the alleged relationship."
The "Complaint Receipt Form" which has no number ( I had been promised one ) goes on only to list Lt. Magdalena Santos, Gold Hill Patrol-Shift II as the "Involved Employee(s)" or the subject. A few observations. Lt. Jane Anderson is also named, but somehow is NOT one of the subjects. It was alleged by me and was specifically alleged by my source and supposedly in the statement or deposition of Becky Hoerth that Janie WAS involved, which would make her a subject as well.

The Supervisor Receiving Complaint is said to be a Sgt. Lux (true) and not mentioned is the fact that I viewed Sgt. Lux as obstructionist and combative. Sgt. Lux no doubt is useful in minimizing department complaints from the outside.

The Division Commander Review was done by Lt. Kirk D. Wilson, with whom I have made some progress. That progress may only be to "go through the motions" and not accomplish anything, but even in a sincere investigation, one must "go through the motions." I believe in going through proper channels first. This approach then is appropriate.

The status is listed as; "A preliminary inquiry will be conducted to determine whether or not a policy violation may have occurred. Upon completion of the investigation, you will be notified of the results." In essence then, what is being done at CSPD's IA, is a "Preliminary Inquiry."

I will remark now on the body of he incident/allegation description.
"Mr. McBryde's concerns involve Rosita [sic] Swinton and her connection to the Colorado Springs Police Department and in particular her past association with Lt. M. Santos and Lt. J. Anderson."
As mentioned above, why is Lt. Jane Anderson not a subject of the inquiry?
"The phone call made by Ms. Swinton to Texas was somehow at the Department's behest..."
Not exactly. I suspect, and think there is strong circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Rozita was used by some branch of LE, up to and maybe including the FBI. Lt. Santos who USED to head up the Sex Crimes unit's Internet sting operations and now appears to have been demoted or moved sideways may have simply supplied Rozita to someone else that she worked with in documented Internet sex sting operations. I did not say that the phone call was made at the department's behest. If that occurred exactly as described, I would be one of the more surprised people on the planet. I don't think CSPD had it in their mind at any level above Lt's Santos and Anderson to "get" the FLDS at YFZ Ranch. They may have participated though in such an effort. Maybe they supplied Rozita's name and offered her as "voice talent."
"Lt. Santos had intervened in a case involving Ms. Swinton in Douglas County..."
Again, not exactly. That is my best guess. It is said that Becky Lynn Hoerth alleged that Santos and Anderson intervened on Rozita's behalf "three years ago." If that remark was made in April of 2008, that would refer to an incident in 2005. The only known incident in 2005, to me, is the Douglas County/Castle Rock incident, for which Rozita was convicted and had her sentence deferred. She was convicted by guilty plea.

It should be noted that the complaint was received two weeks ago. I received documentation of the complaint's receipt, today. I have followed up several times on this inquiry. I will be very disappointed to say the least if the investigation now moves or is shown to have moved with such speed that the preliminary investigation is conducted and closed prior to me even receiving the receipt. That would show planned bureaucratic foot dragging.

Slightly color the complaint to make it less credible. Like me alleging that the call was made at CSPD's behest. Make my allegations less qualified. In general, pretend not to "get it."

There are also other interesting remarks made by Lt. Wilson that need attention:

What does the wording "he alleged that the relationship was more significant than previously reported" imply? No relationship was previously reported outside CSPD. Lt. Wilson himself said that internally the relationship was "common knowledge."

I can say with certainty prior to my blog reports on the topic Rod Parker of Salt Lake City did not know. Neither did Michael Piccarreta. No FLDS member knew of the "previously reported" relationship. I suspect strongly that all find that relationship no matter how extensive, very interesting now. Was that relationship "previously reported" to Texas? If so, Texas knew and did not see fit to tell FLDS attorneys that their probable phony phone caller, that Texas refuses to investigate, whose computer records may show extensive LE contact, was that closely tied to Law Enforcement.

By doing this, supposing that contacts were widespread, Texas has now set themselves up for a Watergate style cover up. They may not have contracted for the break in, but they covered it up later. I don't know about you, but if LE held on to computers with potentially exculpatory evidence on them for 18 months and refused to investigate LE/caller connections and didn't tell the defense about them, it almost doesn't matter anymore if they were innocent of contracting for the call. You can no longer say with credibility that you are turning over all the evidence in the matter. You withheld evidence. There may be felonies involved now, where there were none before.

A post script. Lt. Wilson says "alleged relationship" but the only thing "alleged" for his purposes is the quality or color or extend or kind of relationship that existed. The relationship is not alleged. Lt. Wilson himself used the phrase "common knowledge" to refer to the relationship of Santos and Swinton. He does not now get to imply that I allege there was one. According to him, there was one, and it was "common knowledge" at the Colorado Springs Police Department.

Sphere: Related Content


kbp said...

They responded, so they verify they have been notified. If their wording looks like it provides any CYA for ignoring what you notified them of, reply with written clarification and request that they identify any means used to reference the matter (a number or what).

karateka said...

It may not have been the response you were looking for, but at least you got a response. Having responded, they at least have some liability for the information. Perhaps it will be something that will be brought up next time Rozita tries to get an extension.


P. S. I've started another blog on politics. You might find some of the news and ideas interesting.