Sucks, web TV coverage just ended...........Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Yep, that's Joel.

This hearing is beginning to devolve a little bit into political posturing and it seems that most of the main issues have been discussed, so I'm going to end my liveblogging at this point.

Oops, web coverage just went out, so my timing was perfect.

To all who attended and blogged, thank you very much. You guys did a great job.

3) Something literally housed at a state-wide agency. cited the BCA.

Which begs the question, why not have the BCA do this in the first place, with a subordinate unit?

"We decided not to conduct an investigation of individuals"

Cowards.

"Commander Ryan had sold to an intern a TV for $30". The TV was subsequently returned".

Smoking gun putting Ryan right in the middle of the shenanigans.

That's "theft", not "misappropriation", by the way.

Rep. Michael Paymar (DFL) is asking why the board wasn't aware of the issues.

Nobles responded that they were aware of the issues, but that they were "reluctant" to confront the commander about them.

No-bid contract with Cars with Heart.

It would be interesting to know who owns that particular business.

Nobles: "The Ramsey County Sheriff's Office fiscal agent function really didn't perform much accountability or oversight at all. It simply provided a bank account."

More black eyes for Sheriff Fletcher.

Ryan and Fletcher are getting hit from every angle today. I don't know that I've heard a single thing so far that they could hang their hat on to defend themselves against charges of incompetence and corruption

EDIT : Is that Joel in the beer bottle shirt??

To all who attended and blogged, thank you very much. You guys did a great job.

The Missing Watches. In one case, an officer executed a search warrant in a matter involving theft of stolen property. Among the items seized, were 70 watches, many with the price tags still on them. Most of the tags indicated that the watches were to be sold for approximately $100. Shortly after the seizure, the officer in charge of the case was approached by a Strike Force employee who asked him to sign a blank form allowing for the destruction of evidence in his cases(1). The officer was told that this was being done to facilitate the destruction of a large amount of evidence that was no longer needed. The officer refused. The officer then noticed two Strike Force employees and the relative of a Strike Force employee in a conference room. All three were looking through the watches. One was holding a watch up to their wrist. Upon seeing the officer in charge of the case watching them, one of the employees stated that they were not doing anything wrong. (2) During our inventory, only 50 of the 70 watches could be found in the evidence room. (3) In addition, the case file contains the statement that all of the watches were sent to a specific jeweler to be sold. The jeweler denies receiving any of the watches. (4) Indeed, the jeweler clearly recalls that a Strike Force employee contacted him to determine if he was interested in selling these watches. The jeweler explained that he was not interested. Yet, the employee entered a notation in the file that all watches were given to this jeweler. (5) As a result, 20 watches potentially worth $2,000 are missing, and the case file contains a false statement that the watches were given to a jeweler for sale.