| Recommend |
| Comment |
| Email this article |
| Print this article |
| Get news alerts |
| RSS Feeds |
 Share
|
Digg
Mixx
Linked In
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Related Articles
Kabot's court date is delayed for a third time
Jan 20, 10 12:04 PM
Kabot's day in court is delayed a second time
Nov 30, 09 11:29 AM
Kabot's court date is pushed back to December
Nov 4, 09 10:11 AM
Judge orders DA's office to investigate alleged call made following Linda Kabot's DWI arrest
Oct 28, 09 12:45 PM
New court date set in Kabot case
Oct 14, 09 12:20 PM
more
The lawyer representing Southampton Town Supervisor Linda Kabot said last week that Westhampton Beach Village Police made a mistake in charging his client with DWI early on Labor Day, adding that the evidence he has reviewed—including video of the arrest itself—supports his argument.
“After viewing the [video] tapes, I can say, with full confidence, that, after reviewing all the other evidence, there is not the slightest indication that she spoke with slurred speech, no evidence of bloodshot eyes, no staggering,” said attorney William Keahon, the third lawyer to represent Ms. Kabot in her DWI case. She is “innocent” of the charge, he later added.
In a first interview since Ms. Kabot’s September 7 arrest, the supervisor and her attorney, who provided answers to questions directly related to the criminal case, acknowledged Tuesday, September 22, that Ms. Kabot did drink two normal-sized glasses of wine over several hours before her arrest, but that she was never intoxicated. Mr. Keahon said that Ms. Kabot, who was attending a 40th birthday party at her sister’s home in East Moriches earlier that night, had one glass of wine at around 7 p.m., and a second glass between 9 and 9:15 p.m.
Ms. Kabot was arrested after a traffic stop at 12:25 a.m. when Westhampton Beach Village Police said they observed her vehicle cross the double-yellow line on Main Street while she was making a left turn from Sunset Avenue onto Main Street. Police officials had previously stated that she was making a left turn from Library Avenue onto Main Street—a point corrected by Mr. Keahon on Tuesday.
According to the police report, the arresting officer said that Ms. Kabot’s breath “smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage,” and her eyes were “red and glassy.”
Mr. Keahon disputes statements in the police report, including comments that Ms. Kabot appeared to be intoxicated and failed two sobriety tests administered by the arresting officer, identified on the report as Officer Ryan Lucas. Officer Steve McManus was also at the scene at the time of the arrest.
“She did not fail any sobriety test,” said Mr. Keahon.
He also defended Ms. Kabot’s decision not to submit to breath and chemical tests after her arrest, a decision that resulted in her driver’s license being automatically suspended for a year—regardless of the ruling in her DWI trial.
Ms. Kabot—who, on the advice of her attorney, refrained from speaking for most of the nearly two-hour interview—had previously noted that she declined the breath test because she felt “angry and intimidated” by the “overzealous nature” of the arresting officers—a point repeated by Mr. Keahon on Tuesday.
Mr. Keahon said Westhampton Beach Village Police made a wrongful arrest. “The jury will see very clearly the absence of intoxication in her driving and physical condition, and will find, without question, that the [prosecutor] will fail to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt,” he said.
Mr. Keahon did note that almost four and a half minutes of tape and accompanying audio are missing from the video of Ms. Kabot’s arrest, which was taken prior to the arrest. He added that portions of the two field sobriety tests are “memorialized” on the video that he reviewed.
He declined to provide copies of the arrest video, maintaining that the recording—actually, there are three and possibly even four separate videos taken early that Monday morning—is considered evidence in DWI cases and cannot be released to the public because it could taint a jury pool.
The Southampton Press has filed two Freedom of Information Law requests—one with Westhampton Beach Village, and the other with Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota’s office—seeking a copy of the video. The village has denied the FOIL request, and an appeal has been filed.
Mr. Keahon said he has obtained and reviewed three videos of that night from the Suffolk County DA’s office. He believes that there is a fourth tape of the conversation between Ms. Kabot and the police officers while she was being processed at Westhampton Beach Village Police headquarters.
Westhampton Beach Village Police Chief Ray Dean on Tuesday declined to comment on the case and the points raised by Mr. Keahon. Chief Dean did maintain that his officers made a lawful and appropriate arrest.
Mr. Keahon also revealed Tuesday that an anonymous letter mailed to Southampton Town Hall about a week after Ms. Kabot’s arrest is also being investigated by her attorney. The letter, copies of which were also mailed to the supervisor’s private post office box and home address, state that “[w]hile you were being field tested for sobriety, a call was placed to Anna by a ranking police officer who told her, ‘We got her.’”
Add a comment
Total comments by Sam: 223
Total comments by yearrounder: 148
Total comments by EastEnd68: 173
Total comments by nicole: 81
Total comments by cush870: 17
Total comments by Sam: 223
Total comments by yearrounder: 148
Total comments by Terry: 213
search around seeking the pettiest little tickets they wouldnt have any tickets to submit to the boss at all. They are never around when you really need them.
Except of course if you need to ask for directions.
Total comments by Sam: 223
But what sort of directions do YOU need to ask in Westhampton Beach? I'm not even from there, and I figured my way around a long time ago.
Total comments by Frank Wheeler: 506
Total comments by PrivateerMatt: 300
Total comments by Noah Way: 200
Total comments by MaryMac: 36
Total comments by INS: 524
Total comments by William Rodney: 65
I mean, if Ms. Kabot and her lawyer are so convinced that she is innocent, wouldn't they want the public to view this letter??? and the tape for that matter???
And why didn't the Press ask Ms. Kabot if she had any idea who might've had sent the letter? And would she ... more be willing to give that same answer under oath? Journalism 101 here folks....
And, has the Press seen this letter??? Was it hand written? Typed? What type of font? Was it pasted together? Any particular letterhead? Or blank?
And indeed...if this letter supports that Ms. Throne-Holst and the PBA were in cahoots to "get her"... why would the person who sent this letter do it anonymously? Why not do it publicly? After all, if the PBA and the potential next supervisor engaged in a crime....shouldn't the public have a right, in fact the necessity... to know??? I mean, what are we afraid of here if indeed Ms. Kabot...and the Press's... story...is accurate?
Did the letter have a return address? What was the postmark? Without this information, how do we know it wasn't sent by Ms. Kabot herself? Or one of her supporters? If it's anonymous...then it could've been sent by anyone...correct?
If it is an "alleged anonymous letter" how can the Press report on it without substantiating it? It could be from anyone....seems quite unfair and lacks of any journalistic integrity?
Not only that...what sort of credible media outlet would post a picture of Ms. Kabot at her sister's birthday, which appears to support her case...a picture that was sent to the Press by Ms. Kabot herself???? And what is this picture suppose to reveal? That she isn't drunk? Can that be gleened from this picture? and how do we know this wasn't earlier in the evening BEFORE she had something...or more to drink?
Or, maybe the Press just happened to be at the birthday party and snapped a few photos? Oh, wait...maybe the Press was in on the sting too... after all, it certainly has increased the hits on 27east....
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Let the main st. police officers spend one day on the streets of NYC. They would call their mommies crying.
Joelhassoul: The caption of the picture states that it was Kabot's father who ... more took/submitted the photo.
Total comments by Sam: 223
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
So you thinkt the SH press is supporting Kabot’s claims and the information they are printing is propaganda?
If you feel so strong about what you are saying why don’t you just send a letter to the editor and SIGN YOUR NAME TO IT instead remaining anonymous?
It seems you may have some kind of axe to grind with the press, are you an ex-employee that got canned?
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
Ask yourself why didn't Throne-Holst reveal the name of the caller or the time the call was placed?
All of your questions can be answered very easily, you would not want to see the jury tainted, would you?
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
P.S. this letter is not to be evidence in the DWI case, so Mr. Shaw, I hope that you will hound the lawyer for a copy of it.
Total comments by AlwaysLocal: 110
If the police think you have been drinking and you do not take the test you lose your linc.
Maybe the letter that was not signed was sent in by the same person who called a local redio station and guess who the radio station found out that person was HER HUSBAND
Finally going from EM to Quogue
WHY would you end up on main street in WHB???
and please don't tell me she was just there to see what was going on
Total comments by sjd: 171
sjd, Ms. kabot has already given the reason that she was on Main St., not that it's your business. I think we all have a right to drive wherever we want. Crossing a yellow line while making a left turn is not ... more an offense that is really that serious. Ms. Kabot must have signaled her left turn or she would have been charges with that offense as well.
Ms. Kabot may never know who sent the letter, hence the anonymous description, but ATH's phone records will reveal who called her in the middle of the night. Won't that be interesting.
Total comments by treewoman: 44
Total comments by blbandit: 2
AlwaysLocal
How do you know the Lawyer has not taken the letter to the police?
Why didn't Throne-Holst just tell the press who called her and what time it was. Could it be maybe she will be needing a lawyer.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
Total comments by yearrounder: 148
Total comments by kpjc: 56
No one said it's Throne-Holst's fault. The question is why did someone make a phone call to her, who was it, and what time was the call made. She didn't have to answer and she didn't. I guess we will eventually gets all these answers during the trial under oath.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
It's very simple...Ms. Kabot may very well be innocent....then produce the letter.... And what difference does it make when Anna Throne-Holst, or any other town official knew or how they came to know? For crying out loud...the town supervisor gets pulled over for DWI and you don't think word's going to spread...especially in this town...??? especially to other town officials....
And, yes....when someone is pending trial and they supply a photograph that supports their claims.....that is propaganda....pure and simple...
And remember....linda kabot is making accusations that, if true, are extremely serious and cut into the personal and professional intergrity of the police and throne-holst and, if true, amounts to a very serious crime... sorry, but such accusations should be vetted and backed up before thrown into the paper as the credible.....
and I'll make a deal with you, golfbuddy...why don't you stop writing anonymous letters yourself...reveal who you are and I'll do the same????
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
You make a fair point--so we're posting an image of both the anonymous letter and envelope, copies of which were provided to us by Ms. Kabot's attorney, William Keahon. You'll note the stamp at the top showing when the letter was received at Town Hall--which, by the way, makes it public record, and subject to the Freedom of Information Law, which I think is why the attorney provided a copy to us in the first place. Copies of the same letter also were sent to Ms. Kabot at her ... more home and a personal P.O. box.
Just to be clear: Mr. Keahon pointed out that he was not alleging anything in connection with the letter, nor was he suggesting that anything said in the letter was accurate. What he said was that it simply was a matter that he was looking into as part of his defense.
We chose to report the facts surrounding the anonymous letter Ms. Kabot received--and we took the step of asking Anna Throne-Holst about the allegations it contains, and included her response in the above story. I think it's up to readers to decide for themselves the credibility of such a letter.
Here are direct links to the images of the letter and envelope (they can be pasted into a browser's URL window to view them):
http://www.27east.com/assets/news.Article/235138/KabotStuff001_2.jpg
http://www.27east.com/assets/news.Article/235138/KabotStuff002.jpg
Total comments by Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor: 93
Is the next article going to be devoted to his microscopic examination of the records of the WHB officers involved, or statements by family members attesting to her sobriety, or more insinuations of political sabotage?
How about a little journalistic restraint? Or maybe you should go the other way and do a profile of her ... more attorney, he has quite a client list. I can only imagine that you won’t because that would insinuate guilt by association.
Total comments by Noah Way: 200
Total comments by Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor: 93
But you've got to be joking? This letter is taken seriously? So, this so-called single mother of 2...gets a call from a girl friend....who heard directly from throne-holst....who heard directly from an officer????
if this person was "outraged"... why didn't she call the supervisor on the phone...or the press....or anna throne-holst directly? or the why didn't the girl friend who heard directly??? this is incredible that you would give this ... more letter any credibility? Not only that...what if an officer did call and say "we got her?" what does that show? does that somehow show that he was saying "we got her" to confirm the "plot to get the supervisor" went through as planned? Or does it just reveal the sentiments of the officer who maybe didn't like the supervisor...as many in town do not? Throne-Holst is somehow guilty because a cop called her and said "we got her?" That's quite a stretch...
and just to be clear...you are alleging....because by reporting something so lacking in any credibility, that was very easily not written a "single-mother" of two....you are throwing it out there for public consumption..
why not publish any anonymous letter that claims wrongdoing? Where does it end? Sorry, but if this citizen was so "outraged" she would have not remained anonymous....OR...she would have called the supervisor, told her who she was....and asked the supervisor to keep her name from the public.....
this obviously does not pass the smell test
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by Noah Way: 200
and if he is not suggesting that anything in the letter was accurate ... then why use it?
I can't believe this... the lawyer himself says the letter... an anonymous letter at that, may not be accurate...but it's being used as part of her defense anyway and the press ... more is publishing it.... this is laughable
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Criticism accepted. But what would you propose? That we simply not report this at all? The letter exists, after all. It is a fact in the case. I would think most people would take something like this with a grain of salt--in the midst of a political campaign, and, as you correctly point out, considering that the anonymous author herself (himself?) cites the phone call and what was said as at least thirdhand information at that point. Anyone reading that might well conclude, ... more as you do, that the letter "does not pass the smell test." But shouldn't everyone have that chance to decide for himself/herself?
I don't mean this to be argumentative. I guess I am defending our decision--and I'd point out that had we known about the letter and chosen not to mention it, I suspect we'd come under a great deal of criticism for that decision as well.
In this case, I thought it best to err on the side of full disclosure and let people make up their own minds, reach their own conclusions.
Total comments by Joseph Shaw, Executive Editor: 93
Humor us, dear ... more Anna, and release your phone records-lets really see what this is all about before you besmirch other innocent victems of your spider webs,
.RELEASE YOUR PHONE RECORDS-RELEASE YOUR PHONE RECORDS-COME CLEAN AND TELL THE TRUTH-YOU'LL FEEL SOOO MUCH BETTER.
Total comments by foxnfowl: 17
Total comments by yearrounder: 148
Total comments by Sam: 223
it would be no different than if there was an anonymous letter stating that a certain town official stole money.... you could say that you were leaving it up to the public to decide its credibility... but if you reported the letter...and then went to that certain town official and aksed them about it... that very fact, that they had to defend themselves against an anonymous ... more claim, plants the seed of doubt in the public eye... it's no different when a man is accused of rape... just the accusation itself makes people suspicious...that's why allowing anonymous allegations that can not be substantiated or proved is so damaging and reprehensible....
i think its very simple.... the press would be right in publishing this letter...ONLY if they knew who wrote it and could verify if...then they could legitimately keep the person private..... but the press doesn't know who wrote this letter and to publish it and report on it is unfair to those the letter targets....and any fair minded person knows it
and please, you mean to tell me that the press published it because by not doing so they would have come under criticism....? again, you don't publish an anonymous letter that suggests that someone named...in this case an elected official and the police in question.... took part in a crime, without being able to stand behind the legitimacy of the claim....
i mean, come on... do you think this is the only anonymous letter ever sent to town hall? where do you draw the line
and again.... foxnfowl....to suggest that anna throne-holst produce her phone records based upon an anonymous allegation is ridiculous... in that case, any time an anonymous person alleges something about someone...that someone has to respond and prove that the anonymous allegation is wrong? give me a break.... the fact remains that Kabot, not throne-holst or anyone else, was arrested....
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by eastquogueguy: 21
btw...I just received a call from a friend that just received an email from another friend that was at Magic's the night of Ms. Kabot's arrest and saw her doing shots.... if i send that to the press...will you guys publish it?
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by DJII13: 87
Total comments by yearrounder: 148
Total comments by littleplains: 149
everyone has talked about kabot being innocent til proven guilty.... so are the cops....not only is keeping the roads safe from drunk drivers important work...it's dangerous for the cops....
what this is about is besmirching ... more the character of someone based on an anonymous letter.... which is what is being done to throne-holst and the cops...and it borders on slander...
but it certainlly has been a diverson hasn't it? all that's been talked about is what throne-holst knew and when she knew it... the fact remains... the supervisor was pulled over and arrested for dwi and she refused the breath test....sure, she has her day in court as she should....but she, and no one else, should be on trial here....
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by jrw1262: 7
now, if we can just figure out who tipped off all the Israelis who worked in the WTC not to show up for work that Tuesday...we can indict Bush for planning 9/11 with Bebe....
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by jrw1262: 7
Total comments by foxnfowl: 17
We sure do: “After viewing the [video] tapes, I can say, with full confidence, that, after reviewing all the other evidence, there is not the slightest indication that she spoke with slurred speech, no evidence of bloodshot eyes, no staggering,” said attorney William Keahon, the third lawyer to represent Ms. Kabot in her DWI case. She is “innocent” of the charge, he later added.
"an elected public official who is ... more refusing to provide relevant information"
Linda Kabot, and a breathalyzer?
Total comments by Noah Way: 200
Total comments by littleplains: 149
i don't think any town official, including kabot, would be party to such a heinous offense....and I would have to see clear cut proof that the cops would do such a thing...
don't you ... more see that anyone could have written this letter? would you want a paper to publish an anonymous letter that impugned your character? Would anyone reading this blog?
Would you at least want your accuser to come forward...or to at least know that the publisher who printed it knew who it was that was making the accusation? and that the publisher stood behind the anonymous source...?
and just becaue someone holds elective office doesn't mean they should be subject to "anything goes" accusations.... again, the fact remains that kabot was arrested by the cops.... and there is not one shred of proof or evicdence....so far....that supports that the cops, or any town official, did anything wrong... the only thing is this letter??? Oh, and of course the tape that kabot and her attorney will not make public....
I ask again...how can any fair minded person believe that this anonymous letter....that no one, including Joe Shaw, any reporter at the Press, Linda Kabot, her attorney, or no one else, knows the identity of the writer and/or sender of the letter and what their motivation was.... is fair to have published by the press and given credibility?
after all...if you are willinng to entertain that a town councilwoman conspired with the cops to bring down the sitting supervisor.... can you not entertain the notion that a supporter or friend of the sitting supervisor might have written or sent this letter?
I mean, how do you know...how does any one know....that this letter isn't a fraud? the only legit way a paper could publish this letter is if they were pretty certain that it was legitimate... If they had any doubts of its legitimacy...then they were obligated NOT to run it.... it's that simple...and no matter who says what... that's the truth....
and no matter what Mr. Shaw says about letting the public decide...the fact that they put it out there...knowing full well that it could just as easily be fraudulent as authentic....they gave the letter...and its conent...credibility...
So, I'm not trying to be smart... I'm trying to be fair.... This letter should never have been published or reported on...UNLESS the press knew who wrote it and that the editor and publisher of the Press were able to stand behind the letter as solid and credible....
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
DR 7-107 Trial Publicity
(A) A lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation of a criminal matter shall not make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that does more than state without elaboration:
(1) Information contained in a public record.
(2) That the investigation is in progress.
(3) The ... more general scope of the investigation including a description of the offense and, if permitted by law, the identity of the victim.
(4) A request for assistance in apprehending a suspect or assistance in other matters and the information necessary thereto.
(5) A warning to the public of any dangers.
(B) A lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense of a criminal matter shall not, from the time of the filing of a complaint, information, or indictment, the issuance of an arrest warrant, or arrest until the commencement of the trial or disposition without trial, make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relates to:
(1) The character, reputation, or prior criminal record (including arrests, indictments, or other charges of crime) of the accused.
(2) The possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or to a lesser offense.
(3) The existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the accused or his refusal or failure to make a statement.
(4) The performance or results of any examinations or tests or the refusal or failure of the accused to submit to examinations or tests.
(5) The identity, testimony, or credibility of a prospective witness.
(6) Any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the evidence, or the merits of the case.
(C) DR 7-107(B) does not preclude a lawyer during such period from announcing:
(1) The name, age, residence, occupation, and family status of the accused.
(2) If the accused has not been apprehended, any information necessary to aid in his apprehension or to warn the public of any dangers he may present.
(3) A request for assistance in obtaining evidence.
(4) The identity of the victim of the crime.
(5) The fact, time, and place of arrest, resistance, pursuit, and use of weapons.
(6) The identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(7) At the time of seizure, a description of the physical evidence seized, other than a confession, admission, or statement.
(8) The nature, substance, or text of the charge.
(9) Quotations from or references to public records of the court in the case.
(10) The scheduling or result of any step in the judicial proceedings.
(11) That the accused denies the charges made against him.
(D) During the selection of a jury or the trial of a criminal matter, a lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense of a criminal matter shall not make or participate in making an extra-judicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relates to the trial, parties, or issues in the trial or other matters that are reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial, except that he may quote from or refer without comment to public records of the court in the case.
(E) After the completion of a trial or disposition without trial of a criminal matter and prior to the imposition of sentence, a lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense shall not make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by public communication and that is reasonably likely to affect the imposition of sentence.
(F) The foregoing provisions of DR 7-107 also apply to professional disciplinary proceedings and juvenile disciplinary proceedings when pertinent and consistent with other law applicable to such proceedings.
(G) A lawyer or law firm associated with a civil action shall not during its investigation or litigation make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement, other than a quotation from or reference to public records, that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relates to:
(1) Evidence regarding the occurrence or transaction involved.
(2) The character, credibility, or criminal record of a party, witness, or prospective witness.
(3) The performance or results of any examinations or tests or the refusal or failure of a party to submit to such.
(4) His opinion as to the merits of the claims or defenses of a party, except as required by law or administrative rule.
(5) Any other matter reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial of the action.
(H) During the pendency of an administrative proceeding, a lawyer or law firm associated therewith shall not make or participate in making a statement, other than a quotation from or reference to public records, that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if it is made outside the official course of the proceeding and relates to:
(1) Evidence regarding the occurrence or transaction involved.
(2) The character, credibility, or criminal record of a party, witness, or prospective witness.
(3) Physical evidence or the performance or results of any examinations or tests or the refusal or failure of a party to submit to such.
(4) His opinion as to the merits of the claims, defenses, or positions of an interested person.
(5) Any other matter reasonably likely to interfere with a fair hearing.
(I) The foregoing provisions of DR 7-107 do not preclude a lawyer from replying to charges of misconduct publicly made against him or from participating in the proceedings of legislative, administrative, or other investigative bodies.
(J) A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his employees and associates from making an extrajudicial statement that he would be prohibited from making under DR 7-107.
Total comments by Publius: 284
Total comments by Noah Way: 200
Is it that you have a problem with the press or are you defending the democrat candidate for supervisor. The press did not publish the letter they just printed what the attorney stated in an interview.
"We’re not making accusations at this point, but it certainly triggers an inquiry,” Mr. Keahon said, referring to the anonymous letter."
.
Let me tell you, it was you that asked for the letter to be viewed on this blog, and knowing the nature of some of those that blog ... more here I'm not surprised with some of the responses. You started a real Sh@# Storm.
I have no problem with the story as written, if I did I would have sent a letter to the editor.
I know you want answers to all of your very long blogs, but no one will get any answers until this case comes before a judge.
We are all entitled to our opinion, you feel the letter had no credibility because on one know's who sent it , while some of us think that Kabot was set up. No matter how long your blogs are you will not change some peoples mind.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
but she aint' the only one with rights here... all have rights and shouldn't be defamed by such a letter....and no, it shouldn't trigger an inquiry because it has no merits... If the person who wrote it comes forward and identifies him/herself...and is willing to go on the record...different ... more story....
and the fact that the Press only published it because I requested it should concern all involved...why did it take a comment on this blog for the Press to reveal this ridiculous letter to the public?
and I did not create a Sh@# Storm..the Press did...by not vetting an anoymous letter that suggests that an elected official and the arresting officers engaged in some sort of set up... had their reportage had some integrity and journalistic ethics there would be no such storm.....
blame me, blame the police, blame throne-holst, blame whoever....the fact remains that kabot got arrested for dwi and now others are suspected for wrongdoing and have to prove they are innocent... and that's absurd
no one....BUT Ms. Kabot is on trial here... she has a right to defend herself and present a case.... but unless there is credibile evidence that someone else did something wrong... it is unfair and wrong to suggest otherwise....
Simple: whoever wrote this letter....come forward and identify yourself and under oath state your case!
and yes, Golfbuddy: some do think it was a set up and those minds won't be changed....and that's exactly why the letter should never have been reported on or thrown out there in the first place... because it planted the seed of suspicion that throne-holst and the cops are guilty of extremely dirty politics... and so far... there is no credible proof or evidence to support that.... very unfair and wrong.. no matter how you spin it....
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Its the most arrogant campaign poster Ive ever seen! And, I for one, am glad the press posted the anonymous letter. The letter itself is hysterical, but it needed to be published.
Total comments by Sam: 223
and maybe you think it's hysterical...i don't know why you think that... but if it was suggesting you engaged in a criminal set up.. and causing people to question your integrity, perhaps it wouldn't be so funny
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by littleplains: 149
By the way, no one on this blog has suggested that ATH engaged in a criminal set up or conspiracy. Just think the whole thing stinks a little, dirty politics? Maybe, would you be so shocked?
Total comments by treewoman: 44
and yes, there are anonymous tip lines to protect people...but the tips are not made public, that's what I am talking about....when you call crime stoppers the police don't go pubic with accusations...they check out the tip and make sure it is credible, they don't run to the press and say ... more we caught the guy because some anonymous caller told us so..... try calling the police with a false tip...or wrongly accusing someone of a crime..and see what happens to you....you'll go to jail....
and as I mentioned... whoever wrote this could take it to the press on condition that their name not be released....that way the press could verify the source and keep them anonymous... at least that would give it some substance and legitimacy
And i am not saying that kabot should not take the letter to her lawyer...she can build whatever case she wants and they can take whatever they want to court and put it in front of a judge...their discretion...although I am willing to bet that no judge would accept that letter into evidence... but I don't know the letter is not legitimate, how can i? but i don't know it is either...but until the press does, and until it can consider it credible.......it shouldn't be made public because other people are being hurt in the proces.....and the threshold for credibility isn't someone saying it is because it merely exists....anyone could have written it.
.
and you are wrong...the letter does suggest a conspiracy...."we got her" ?....if it didn't suggest a set up, then what's the point of it in the first place?
and no...dirty politics doesn't shock me...but I am not going to believe someobdy engaged in dirty politics just because they hold public office and some anonymous letter suggests it...is a politician guilty of dirty politics just because they are a politician? what about their presumption of innocence...? I don't assume all politicians engage in dirty politics..... maybe this is, maybe it isn't....
and no...i don't think any calls in the middle of the night are suspicious.... at least not in the sense that is supports some type of set up...what are you saying...that if someone did call her or anyone else...they are somehow guilty? fact is, kabot was pulled over and she is the one accused...no one else.... maybe she's innocent, maybe she's not... but she was the one arrested....
you can geez all you want... but you cant just float a rumor or suggestion or allegation out there about somebody just based on an anonymous letter that no one knows who wrote, or sent.....by that standard the press could publish any letter that alleges anyting,,,,just because it exists and somebody says it.... again...how many times does it have to be said: anybody could have written this letter? don't you see that?
again....whoever wrote it...come forward....or go to the press and reveal yourself and ask that your name be witheld.....and then let the press go on record saying that they KNOW who wrote the letter and then we can all shut up.....
after all....either you are alleging a major conspiracy between the cops and the potential next supervisor...or dirty politics at best....and I think we all have a right to know that before we vote....or, you might be helping to exonerate ms. kabot who was framed or wrongly arrested by the cops...either way, don't you feel you should do the right thing and give this letter of yours some credibility and shut up all the doubters???
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
I understand you passion. I think you are overlooking (and maybe on purpose) that Kabot was the one arrested for DWI unjustly. The video of the arrest was tampered with, 4.5 minutes are missing. Based on this information I am very suspicious of the police. How could anyone have the nerve to edit this very important video.This is a person life that they are playing with. How can you defend the police after reading that they edited this video. Why are you not screaming about that? ... more
You said" any elected official that would malign the character of the cops is beyond the pale". What about the reputation of Kabot, what the police did by editing the video was that not beyond the pale? A letter was sent a phone call was made to Throne-Holst the people are entitled to know. In one of your posts you said" if it was the supervisor in the same situation you would be saying the same thing". Bull, all you keep mentioning is the DWI, and kabot was the one arrested for DWI. Tell us what you think about the edited video?
Very wrong and unfair no matter how YOU spin it trying to make Throne-Holst the victim.
Do you know the history of the politics in SH with the police and how Throne-Holst got the police endorsement and why Kabot did not?
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
If we did not take the test we would have ended up the same way Linda did.
Now how much press would have we gotten???
How many of us would have went thru 3 attorneys till we found someone who said we did nothing wrong???
How many of us would have went to our sisters birthday party without any of our family (husband,children)????
How many of us would have driven from EM to Quogue via main street WHB after midnight to go home to our family????
Lets ... more call it for what it is.
As always LINDA blames everyone else but her.
ALL SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO DO IS TAKE THE TEST
Total comments by sjd: 171
Facts are facts; Linda Kabot would have simply taken the test the police asked of her and gone home...IF she had nothing to hide, and that's a big IF. She was drunk and knew what the ramifications were. It's pretty pathetic when you have to try 3 lawyers before one will agree to proclaim your innocence. You pay them for that.
The WHB police are trying ... more to prevent another life being taken due to a drunk like our supervisor...give credit where credit is due.
Total comments by EQme: 73
I think both of you should be forced to take an IQ test before they allow you into the voting booth to vote. Thats all you have to do is take the test.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
Total comments by yearrounder: 148
Total comments by peoplefirst: 289
Total comments by Sam: 223
What makes you think that Ms. Kabot went to her sister's birthday party without her husband and children? That is not true and I expect that you read that in the newspaper or deduced it on your own.
I'm sure Ms. Kabot had a reason for driving home via the route that she chose, key word, chose. She and you are allowed to make those choices. Who cares why? Are you trying to say that she forgot her way home? It's just silly. You are correct on one point though, if you were pulled over by the police, the press wouldn't care.
Total comments by treewoman: 44
Total comments by treewoman: 44
Total comments by yearrounder: 148
Kabot didn't have to take the test... but it was a fast, free, simple way to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. and she didn't do it. Now her lawyer is breaking every ethical rule in the book (see rules posted above) in an effort to (surprise!) taint the jury pool and blame others.
Meanwhile our missing money is nowhere close to being ... more found.
Total comments by littleplains: 149
Total comments by Sam: 223
Total comments by peoplefirst: 289
Total comments by treewoman: 44
Total comments by Sam: 223
Total comments by peoplefirst: 289
Total comments by foxnfowl: 17
Total comments by treewoman: 44
Fact: For any media outlet, be it the SHP, the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, TMZ....whatever...to publish an anonymous source...be it an anonymous correspondence, quote...or information gathered from an anonymous source....the editors giving the greenlight MUST know who that source is...
they can withold and protect that source from the public...but they MUST be able to verify the source is credible and be able to ... more stand behind the legitimacy and the credibility of that source. PERIOD.
And that basic, professional journalistic standard in this instance was not met.
Now.. to be fair and even handed...if any one else involved here receives an anonymous letter supporting their point of view...the Press has to publish it... Where does it end?
If ath were to receive a letter in her office and private mailbox in response to kabot's letter published by the Press stating that a friend received a call the kabot was doing such and such before she got pulled over... how could the Press not publish and report that? It would have no more or less credibility than kabot's letter..... that's why there are standards.
And it doesn't matter what any one else...be they from the press or the public says...that's the way it is.
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by Sam: 223
And was the Press supposed to know that the Police initially reported the incorrect street address where the line-crossing happened too? They reported that it was Library avenue, which ended up being wrong. Is that the Press's fault too? Are they now supposed to investigate the accuracy of police records too? And while we're at it, why doesnt the Press get the letter tested for fingerprints?? Cmon. They told us the ... more letter existed and where they got the letter from. When & if they receive info as to the author of the letter they will print that as well.
Total comments by Sam: 223
not knowing who wrote it amounts to nothing more than hearsay:
the SOURCE is who WROTE it...your analogy would be like kabot saying someone told her this and it not being written down... just ... more because the letter exists doesn't mean its authentic....it has to be substantiated that the letter is not a fraud.....and that's why the Press has to know who wrote it and that what's being alleged in the letter has some merit... it's that simple..if not, anybody could say anything about anybody just because they heard it or received it in an anonymous correspondence... how can anyone logically think that is an acceptable standard?
but..I tell you what, because obviously you are going to think whatever you want and that's your perogative....let's wait and see if the judge accepts the letter into evidence... if so... then I will say you were right and I was wrong. Deal?
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
There is a world of difference between reporting so and so did such and such, "according to police," as opposed to so and so did such and such "according to an anonymous source, that no one knows who it is, states in a letter that he/she heard from a friend..?"
anyway, tired of arguing....as I said in my earlier post.... Ms. Kabot has her day in court.. as she ... more should...and the court will decide her guilt or innocence... and let's see if the judge accepts the letter as evidence.
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
I dont feel that comparison is on a level playing field.
Total comments by Sam: 223
let the press publish anything that alleges anything about anybody....regardless of where it comes from or who says its legitimate... everybody's fair game....
and no longer does the press have a responsibility to ensure what they report is credible.... so long as someone says there is an anonymous letter or source that says something favorable to them...that's good enough....
welcome to the dumbing down of America
i'm ... more done
Total comments by Joelhassoul: 34
Total comments by kpjc: 56
Total comments by Baywtcher: 1
I want to know - Joe Shaw, are ... more you planning to get ATH on the hot seat about these questions? Or are we just gonna run with more damning pics of Kabot, and more glamourous shots of ATH (even when the story is unrelated to her!) It's in your hands to out this thing and protect the election process.
Total comments by foxnfowl: 17
Total comments by eastquogueguy: 21
Total comments by treewoman: 44
Vote NO for drunk driving...vote NO for Linda Kabot.
Total comments by tookatz: 45
Add a comment