A member of the hearing “against” (the exact word this member used-as opposed to “inquiring into”) Jim and Steve Pacanowski has sent a long comment concerning our report under the “Star Chamber” heading.
We asked the author to call us, which he did.
We asked him to enumerate the charges/issues facing the Pacanowskis. He refused citing the confidentiality requirement of a “personnel” hearing.
However, as will be shown by his own written comment, he reveals many details of what took place during the hearing. These details also include Marsha Holland, the third person at the hearing.
Here’s just one example of “confidential” information, in this instance concerning the Pacanowskis, being selectively leaked: “However, based on highly conflicting testimony, and records produced at the hearing by one of the accused officers…”
So there was “highly conflicting testimony” Whose opinion is that? About what?
More, lots more, tomorrow-Monday.