Good thing the locals notified me of tomorrow's 20/20 episode.
Here is "the story:"
And here is the first ABC News feature which seemed relatively balanced. They soon quit that route, however, with a pathetic feature called "Officer Down."
Here is what you need to know about the history of 20/20 in the area.
On to my review of the "story."
Prologue i: Who among you in Franconia has ever seen the Complaint policies purportedly set in place from the early '90's (one and two) or as revised after February, 2006 (three and four), which was created after some sort of complaint that I have asked for pursuant to RSA 91-A. I don't know if 20/20 is interested in any of that, apparently not.
Prologue ii: No mention of Martha McLeod's failed HB 1428 "Bruce McKay Highway" at all, which was soundly rejected because of the will of the people of North Country. Government mails from Martha McLeod and others are owed, a lawsuit is coming and people are watching. The new writer I'm working with and meeting for tennis tomorrow may indeed be focusing on this aspect of the tragedy; specifically what the community and the Franconia Recovery and Reconciliation Committee felt about the police presence in Franconia leading up to 5/11. Here is what one of the members had to say. "....it seems [KingCast] is the only one in the print and electronic media , with any brass to go after the real story." We talk with locals in the short film "Franconia 5/11: Injustice on Stilts," and we are about to talk to more of them soon.
Prologue iii: 20/20 did not mention Gregory W. Floyd's criminal past and present. Update: They did mention it but only SOME of it and no mention of the lies about Vietnam or the 43 kills he said he committed so that's a wash.
One: In the first paragraph they mention that McKay sprayed Liko and Caleb but don't mention that he violated 7 pursuit and OC Spray policies to do so. The policies were put in place specifically because violating them could cause a violent reaction from the suspect.
Two: They then the call it a "high speed chase" when the government's own files indicate otherwise:
"The grey car was not going fast. I thought [McKay] was trying to get around it [for something else]. He made several movements (her daughter called it a "10-point turn" in her interview) to come nose to nose now facing north.... [McKay] pushed him and kept pushing him down (into the gravel area) dirt flew back the police car pushed him so strongly and just kept pushing and pushing and pushing until the grey car was beyond my view."
Three: They then quote Strelzin as saying McKay had run across the road and gone up about 30 feet off the road and on to the grass. Liko Kenny pursued him across the road in his car, ran up off the road, and struck him twice with his car, said Strelzin.
....Of course leaving out the fact that Floyd's own son at pdf 745 said that Liko's car never struck McKay until after Floyd started shooting at Liko, and also the fact that that Floyd lied about ever speaking to Liko first as clearly noted by the location of Bruce McKay's spent casings.
Four: They quote the less damaging part of what Robbie Hayward told them: When Rob Hayward, one of Kenney's friends, looks at the video he sees "a young guy who has been harassed a number of times and really, really believed -- because he told us -- that they were going to get him."
....because he straight-up looked me in the eye in the living room of one of Liko's friends and said he told them:
"Both men had good qualities about them but that MCKay was a liability and that the State had a greater responsibility to monitor the situation, and that Liko was pushed into a corner."
Five: And of course they don't mention the fact that McKay by his own words and actions caught on tape likely violated Liko's Constitutional Rights in the 2003 traffic stop, which was the real reason he was "lenient" at Liko's sentencing. They say Liko was arrested "with great difficulty," but really his person had already been seized without probable cause by the way McKay parked his car and by his own works saying so. The line of cases by Judge Cyr noting as much is right here, specifically:
State v. Nathan Wright 03-CR-109
State v. William Miller 03-CR-012, 013, 029
Six: And the kicker: They ask Sharon Davis "McKay" who cannot legally use McKay's last name as a wife, even at common law because they haven't known each other long enough pursuant to RSA 457:39 whether she thought that Liko Kenney "got what he deserved."
Isn't the real question whether Bruce McKay got what HE was asking for or deserved, as noted by State Rep Sorg and many others? Read the Union Leader 13 Jan. 2008 editorial "Memorial for McKay? Let Franconia Decide."
As for Rep. Gregory Sorg, R-Easton, who blamed McKay for his own murder and said memorializing him would "debase the currency of police heroism in this state," how is this guy a state representative?
That's okay. The truth is going to come out in the report to the U.S. House as soon as they return to session in September.
Hint: The story also claims that there were nine (9) complaints about Bruce McKay. But that's not true. There were many more than that, some from his own Fire Department as the KingCast v. Ayotte/Franconia litigation revealed.
PS: Some really astute fella' wrote on another board: "I still think McKay could have defused the situation on that night in Fox Park, or at least tried." Duh. But don't stop there; Franconia cops and McKay were violating Civil Rights in Fox Hill Park and Judge Cyr said so.
PPS: Someone else wrote: "The ahemmm 'expert' recently made reference as to what the 20/20 piece "should" include, but i trust chang/johnson don't read topix or 'the blog'.........." Well actually I bet they do, and if they do not, perhaps they should. I know they also don't talk to a whole lot of people I talk with in Franconia, people who have some valid things to say that 20/20 and others have blatantly ignored except for the first ABC News Story. My how they have changed tune despite the presence of MORE, not less information that McKay and Franconia have exposure for Civil Liability on a Monell claim, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Duh.