Watch out for charm when inmate decides to tell a tale

I am amazed at all the idiots that believe that a snitch's testimony must be true if it helps the police but if it hinders the cops they must be liars. Some informants are paid with cash but most are paid with something better than money, freedom. Of course if the defense paid someone to testify they would go to jail. Only the cops/prosecutors get to do that. Yes the defense (and prosecutors) can pay professionals, (like DNA experts) but only the ones that the courts allow and approve of.

"So, who to believe the men behind the badges or the jailhouse informant?"

How about taking BOTH with a big giant grain of salt until the court trial?

Informants are used every day, in every jurisdiction, to bolster and support arrests and convictions. Most of these informants have unsavory records yet their testimony is "believable" enough to warrant their use. I'm certain you can find both lies and truth in their statements.

Police and officials have been known to miscarry justice, lie, and generally practice CYA in countless ways, places and throughout history. Doesn't mean they are corrupt or incorrect in this case but it does speak volumes about blindly giving police a blanket pass on truthfulness.

Leave the case here. Frankly, something stinks big time and I'd like it dissected in our jurisdiction, where the event took place.

for the courts, judge the attorneys to make their call instead of an arm chair opinion.

As much publicity as this is obviously generating, trying to find all the little details in the Pilot is difficult, at best. This is very interesting information you present. I hope the defense attorney has filed a motion to suppress the warrant based on this. That may put the whole thing to rest right there, or not. Again, thank you.

OK, based only on statements by the prosecutor and on Det. Roberts affidavit requesting the search warrant and not at all on statements by the defense or Turnbull, we know the following:

The police were working with their informant on marijuana charges for Frederick in Nov. The informant burglarized Frederick garage three days before the warrant was served Jan 17. I personally heard the prosecutor say their informant was in the garage and stole half of the marijuana he alleges he found there. The affidavit says the informant was in Frederick's property within 72 hrs earlier, but did not mention it was to burglarize the property.

Roberts had been working with his informant for two months and knew all this, but did not mention the burglary by his controlled informant in the affidavit. Had he done so, the warrant would not have been granted, so it was obtained fraudulently.

The thing that bothers me most about this case is that on a night in mid-January, the police rammed their way into someone's home, and he reacted in a way that would have been applauded if the intruders were voilent criminals. According to the Bill of Rights, aren't we supposed to be protected from such actions? Why would such a search be executed under dark of night and with such force? They were not looking for a suspected murderer or rapist. The end result is a tragedy for both Detective Shivers and Ryan Frederick, and certainly for their families. If it is conclusively determined that the search was based on information obtained through the known illegal activity of felons, then we're all in trouble.

"What the police have done in obtaining that warrant was an assault on all of us."

What did the police do in obtaining and warrant, and how did you come about this information?

I am not being sarcastic either, I do want to know, there are a lot of accusations flying on this case, and I have no idea who is telling the truth.

Please tell me exactly how evading the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in our Bill of Rights is "doing the right thing"?

That really has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Frederick on any of the charges.

What the police have done in obtaining that warrant was an assault on all of us.

Some of us still take that Constitution stuff seriously.

OK, folks, it goes like this. First, in any system that administers justice to millions of people, there will be injustices from time to time simply because we aren't perfect. We have to accept that, just as we accept the bottom feeding lawyers and idiot judges who turn murderers and rapists loose on technicalities. Criminals are wrongly freed far more often than they are wrongly convicted, so let's not lose the big picture. Second, the reason why Chief Wright has chosen to speak out now is that the more stories the jailbirds circulate in the media, the harder it will be to find an impartial jury. As a jury foreman on two previous felony trials, I can tell you what a problem that is. Third, it's hard to understand why so many of you are drinking the KoolAid these bums are putting out and dumping on Chief Wright. Of course he is backing up his people, because they were doing the right thing. It's pretty clear to me who has the credibility here, and it's not the guy in the orange jumpsuit. As the saying goes, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

"Whom should we believe, the guy behind bars or the man behind the badge?"

Remember, if someone is in jail or arrested, they are guilty. Cops wouldn't arrest someone unless they were guilty. I don't even see why we need a court system. They also never screw up and are infallible and nver make mistakes or stretch the truth. This is something every journalist knows and no journalist would be so naive as to write a comment such as the quote above if this were not a universally known truth. /SARCASM OFF

The important question is not if Turnbull is telling (plenty of people are in jail/prison based on jailhouse snitches). The important question is why the people 'in charge' at the Chesapeake police department would perform an armed assualt in a residential neighborhood over some pot plants in a garage. At worst Frederick was a very small time pot grower, not a Columbian or Mexican Mafia drug lord. It was also reported he had a regular job where he could have been arrested. This cop was no hero, but rather a victim of the incompetence and stupidity of the cops in charge of the operation. Didn't they realize or care that people in nearby houses could have been injured or killed in their gun battle? The people in charge have a lot to answer for in the death of Shivers and the endangerment of families in the neighborhood. Whether Turnbull is telling the truth or not is secondary. It would not be the first time an inmate or cop has lied.

Sometimes, Kerry is logical. Sometimes she is illogical in her assumptions. Kerry obviously believes if an inmate snitches for the police that inmate is telling the truth. If what the inmate says is detrimental to police then the inmate is lying.
I always ask myself how can an innocent go to jail when he was not on the scene, never seen the victim and never committed a crime? Prosecution and police have to collude to convict an innocent. How, well check the Norfolk local who spent 25 years in jail. The only rape evidence was the woman saying she FELT like the accused did it.
Mr Coleman asked for DNA tests for years. When the state finally gave permission the evidence disappeared for 30 days. When it reappeared, Golly Gee! It was Mr Coleman's after all. Right then the governor should have commuted his sentence to life.
But, because these righteous Republican Christians in Virginia had to have their state sanctioned killing, he was executed. IT is still possible Mr. Coleman was innocent as he said.
Chief Wright does what all Chiefs do, stand by their man. It is possible Shrivers was more cad than hero.

"Whom should we believe, the guy behind bars or the man behind the badge?"

Remember, if someone is in jail or arrested, they are guilty. Cops wouldn't arrest someone unless they were guilty. I don't even see why we need a court system. They also never screw up and are infallible and nver make mistakes or stretch the truth. This is something every journalist knows and no journalist would be so dumb as to write a comment such as the quote above if this were not a universally known truth.

chief Wright is once again feeding us just bits and pieces to make his guys look good. If hes gonna say wait for the trial then shouldn't he just shut up ? I find his comments to be self serving and placatory.Who do I trust?-The one who the FACTS(all of them) back up; and so far I unfortunately would have to say the informant until proven otherwise.

Basically the police chief is supporting his people. Not surprising there. It's strange though that Turnbull knew of the situation yet was not involved as an informant. It's hard to believe a convicted burglar, however politicians and political appointees are also have a well earned reputation for dishonesty.

to obtain a warrant to raid the home of a citizen with no criminal record, should we not place equal trust in criminals when they cast doubt on police procedures?

The truth about how this warrant was obtained should have been told immediately after the raid went bad. The death of a police officer is too serious a matter to be treated as business-as-usual.

The truth about the decision to conduct this raid in the highly dangerous manner chosen should also have been told immediately.

The problem with concealing the truth for months in the face of questions from the press and the people is that when it is finally told, no one will believe it. If the Chief wants us to believe Turnbull is lying, then bring forth the real informants and lay out the whole truth for public review, not just bits and pieces that support the prosecution.

" 'We're waiting for the trial to clear up the misconceptions,' he said."

"OK, time to decide." She said.