You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Anchorage Police Department’ category.
As previously reported Judge Pamela Washington is considering the issue of the missing evidence seized by the Anchorage Police Department in the arrest of Shailey Tripp. In particular, it is my understanding that a cell phone and lap top computer of Shailey Tripp’s have not been returned. Shailey Tripp has asked me to submit a statement to the court regarding my interaction with Dave Parker, and other officers at the Anchorage Police Department. I have today faxed the following affidavit and letter to the court with the articles referenced below. If I am called to testify in Court, I’ll advise you.
December 20, 2011
Re: In the matter of Shailey Tripp
Dear Judge Washington:
At the outset, please accept my apology for not referencing the case number re the matter of Shailey Tripp and the Anchorage Police Department. As I am not a party to the case I do not have that information. I also do not have the name and contact information for the attorney representing any of the police officers involved in this matter, or the Anchorage Police Department itself. If your clerk should provide me contact information, I will gladly copy any attorneys who should receive a copy of this amicus brief. I have enclosed my affidavit and exhibits that indicate my involvement as a fact witness in this matter. I will gladly make myself available in Dallas for a deposition for any party wishing my deposition, and if the Court will be having an evidentiary hearing on this matter, I will gladly come to Anchorage to give my testimony and make myself available for cross examination.
Sincerely,
Malia Litman
*******************************
In the Matter of Shailey Tripp
Affidavit of Malia A. Litman
My name is Malia A. Litman. I am over the age of 18 years, of sound mind, and have no disabilities from giving this my affidavit. The statements contained herein are based on my personal knowledge, and I will make myself available to any party who desires a deposition, and I will appear in Court to make myself available for cross examination if any party should desire that.
In December of 2009 I started a blog known as malialitman.wordpress.com. The primary purpose of the blog was to document and reveal the truth about Sarah Palin. Although there were occasionally funny articles included in the blog, the main focus was to reveal factual information regarding Sarah Palin and her family. In each of the serious articles I have provided sources for the information referenced. As part of my efforts to uncover the truth about the allegations made by Shailey Tripp and her relationship with Todd Palin, I contacted the Anchorage police department. My initial contact was a telephone call to Police Chief Mew as his name and phone number were available to me on the internet. Chief Mew never returned my call but instead I received a call from Dave Parker, who identified himself as a representative of the Anchorage Police Department, and the person with the APD who was responsible for the “press release” issued by the APD to the National Enquirer.
Attached hereto and incorporated by reference are Exhibits 1,2,3,4 which are true and correct copies of the articles I posted on my blog referencing conversations with members of the APD, or matters pertaining thereto. These articles were written at or about the time of the events contained therein, and are part of my business records. The statements contained therein are true and correct, and constitute my record of the conversations I had with members of the APD. I would also draw the Court’s attention to the statement of Dave Parker, as referenced in the New York Daily News on Jan. 26, 2011 where he is quoted as saying:
“It was just guilt by innuendo, nothing else,” Lt. Dave Parker told the Daily News on Wednesday. “There’s not one scintilla of evidence that Todd Palin had anything to do with this.”
I was not a party to this conversation, but I am aware that this quote was referenced in the New York Daily News. If Mr. Parker actually said this it would constitute an inappropriate commentary by the APD on evidence, is not limited to evidence in the possession of the APD, whether reviewed or not, and constitutes a specific misrepresentation of the evidence, as the statements of Shailey Tripp would constitute at least “one scintilla” of evidence that Todd Palin and something to do with the house of prostitution.
I am not a criminal attorney and do not present myself to the court as an expert in criminal matters. However even a lay person recognizes that it is inappropriate for police in any city to comment on the evidence before a criminal matter is resolved and it is highly inappropriate to issue a press release that is contrary to the evidence in a case. If the evidence in the matter of Shailey Tripp was destroyed, that would appear to a citizen as an obstruction of justice. If the “evidence seized” in the matter of Shailey Tripp is not returned to her in the condition it was in when confiscated, that would be evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Anchorage Police Department. The APD should be held accountable for their part in this cover-up.
The Mission Statement of the Anchorage Police Department is to:
“To protect and serve our community in the most professional and compassionate manner possible“
Destruction of evidence does not constitute “protection” or “service” to the people of Anchorage, and it surely is not “professional” or “compassionate”.
Malia Litman
Shailey Tripp is not an attorney, wealthy, or an Alaska resident. Yet she is fighting for her rights in Alaska. As I have documented on this blog, the Anchorage Police Department have disparaged her by issuing false “statements” and “press releases” to the National Enquirer. According to Shailey, she gave not one, or two, lie detector tests , but three times she took and passed lie detector tests before the National Enquirer would publish her claim that Todd Palin was one of her customers. Todd and Sarah have never taken even one lie detector test regarding this matter. Todd has never given a public statement about the relationship. I wonder why? It would have been so easy for him to deny the allegations, and the press would have reported it in minutes. Instead it was Sarah who said the allegations were “all lies” and her statement came days after the story broke, and not until AFTER the APD issued their “press release”. It was Sarah’s lawyer who asked the police to issue the press release….according to Officer Parker. The press release sounded more like an attorney talking when they said that there was not one “scintilla” of evidence to indicated that there was a connection between Shailey and Todd. The “scintilla” of evidence was in the possession of the Anchorage Police Department. They had Shailey’s lap top, credit card machines, and cell phone.
O bviously that scintilla of evidence was going to become extremely important if it contained the information Shailey said it did. Obviously, Todd Palin would need that evidence to disappear if it implicated him. Obviously the APD was trying to help the Palins by issuing that press release, so we would have every reason to distrust them regarding that evidence. Thus I spoke with Officer McKinnon, the investigating officer to alert him to the importance of that “evidence” and to put the APD on notice that it was REALLY IMPORTANT that the evidence confiscated not mysteriously disappear, or somehow turn up as being magically erased.
Shailey Tripp was supposed to have her property returned back in June after she completed her probationary period. She has been trying to obtain the property for 6 months and the Judge has been kind to consider her letters a form of motion. It appears the Judge is starting to get mad, as we have been, at the apparent abuse and miscarriage of justice. We are waiting to hear from the Court as to the next step, but Shailey is not giving up. I won’t either, and I have told Shailey that I will travel to Anchorage to testify if the Judge needs my testimony. Sometimes justice is slow in coming, but nobody is giving up. Hang in there Shailey!
By way of update, I provide the following report regarding the “evidence seized” of Shailey Tripp, and which has not been returned.
Ms. Tripp has advised me by e-mail that she has contacted various departments at the Anchorage Police Department regarding her property which has not been returned, in spite of an order of the District Court requiring that it be returned. According to Ms. Tripp, Internal Affairs has started an investigation.
I attempted to reach Internal Affairs, the Property Department of the APD, and the Records Department of the APD. Even though I left my number for each it was Dave Parker who returned my call. He stated that if I were not Shailey Tripp’s attorney that he could not discuss this matter with me. Of course I am not, I told him that, but he already knew that from previous conversations.
Mr. Parker stated he was unwilling to discuss any matters regarding the evidence seized with anyone except Shailey Tripp or her attorney. I asked Mr. Parker to explain to me why he previously felt it appropriate to discuss this matter with the NY Daily News, and give a press release to the National Enquirer, but he was unwilling to provide any information to me. He did confirm that Shailey Tripp’s case is closed, and there is no further investigation underway. He explained that Ms. Tripp was charged with running a house of prostitution, it was a misdemeanor, and she pled no contest. He further admitted that it is the policy of the APD in cases such as this that “they don’t try to identify the Johns.” Without arguing the fundamental unequal enforcement of the law, it seems that if the APD were to issue a press release regarding this matter that it would have been more accurate to explain to the NY Daily News, and the National Enquirer, that it is the policy of the APD that “they don’t try to identify the Johns.” I guess the statement drafted by Sarah Palin’s attorney was a little different from that?!
Lt. Parker,
I’d like to believe you that you called me; however, after a thorough review of my cell phone log, I can find no evidence that you attempted to reach me. Perhaps you called the wrong number by mistake. 907-***-**** is the correct number.
Before discussing my property I need to correct a misstatement of yours: Anuradha Lawes, the person who picked up some of my property from APD is my mother, not my attorney. My attorney’s name is Kristen Foster. If you doubt Ms. Lawes is my mother or that she is not my attorney, I encourage you to call her to verify these facts.
The APD’s failure to return my property is as baffling as it is troubling. After speaking with various attorneys, officers, and others about this matter there seems to be no precedent, at least in the recent history of the APD, for the withholding of personal property in a dismissed misdemeanor case. Perhaps you can recall one.
To put things is their proper perspective a short review summary is perhaps in order. At a hearing on June 15, after it was shown that I had complied with all of the terms of my probation, my case was dismissed by Judge Pamela Washington. The return of my property was then discussed at some length. The judge ordered all of my property returned with the full consent of Municipal Prosecutor (MP) David Wallace. The sole exception was $209.00 in US currency. This agreement and order are in the public record.
Given the judge’s order, and the prosecutor having given his blessing, I anticipated a swift return of my property. I was sadly mistaken. David Wallace himself assured me that the return of my property would be expedited and told me to expect my property back within seven to ten business days. There ensued a frustrating two-month period of phone calls attempting to obtain the return of my property. During this time individuals at the APD attempted to stall by claiming that they were waiting for paperwork or authorization from the MP’s office. I subsequently learned this was not the case.
Someone named Matt at the MP’s office assured me that they had sent to APD all of the necessary paperwork and authorization they needed to release my property. I was both angered and disappointed to learn that the APD has not acted in an honest and forthright manner in dealing with my property.
As part of my efforts to obtain the return of my property I contacted Judge Washington’s clerk for assistance. Through a series of phone calls I learned that Judge Washington’s clerk had contacted both the MP’s office and the APD and had told both to comply with the judge’s order. The APD ignored her.
At length I was contacted regarding the return of property and arranged a Power of Attorney for my mother to act in my behalf to obtain my property. Some property was returned but not all of it. I am not going to itemize these items for you now because we both know you have these records in your possession. The items I am concerned about having returned to me are a credit card machine, a cell phone, and a computer.
The bottom line and undisputed fact is that the APD is continuing to withhold personal property of mine in defiance of a judge’s order and my constitutional rights. Furthermore it is clear from our correspondence that you have no intention of complying with the judge’s order and my continued pleas. This is unacceptable. The logical and obvious explanation for this is that the APD is protecting one or more persons whose names are contained in the property being withheld, apparently out of a fear that someone will be embarrassed or exposed in some way. The further proof of this is the bizarre issuance of a press release by you, discussed below.
I continue to demand the immediate return of ALL of my property, in accordance with Judge Washington’s order, the Anchorage Municipal Prosecutor, APD policy, and the United States Constitution. I furthermore put the Anchorage Police Department on notice to NOT attempt to destroy any of my personal property.
Regarding the press release, the most significant aspect of it is the multiple specific references to Todd Palin. It is these references that would lead the average observer to conclude that it is political in nature and that its issuance had absolutely nothing to do with my case except to discredit me. It is replete with fabrications and misstatements. Here are the major points:
You stated in the press release, “There’s not one scintilla of evidence that Todd Palin had anything to do with this.” However, you later admitted publicly that you had not examined all of the evidence that was confiscated from me; consequently, there is no way you could truthfully make this statement.
The press release cited “several errors” regarding the investigation and arrest as it was reported in the Enquirer article, stating that “None of the physical evidence examined by police showed any connection to Wasilla resident Todd Palin and his name did not appear in any of the records seized by APD.” Given that, again, the physical evidence was not fully examined (if at all), this statement is at best misleading and at worst a deliberate lie designed to achieve a political purpose.
The press release goes on to say, “The investigation of the prostitution operation was initiated by Anchorage Police Department’s Vice Unit responding to internet advertisements, not through information developed from any tips or other persons.” This statement is also untrue. A review of the police reports in the case reveals that the investigation was initiated when William Fortier, who formerly owned the building where I operated my business, lodged a complaint. So either the police report is incorrect or you were misinformed.
Finally, the press release stated, “No rolodex was seized and taken into evidence.” While no ‘paper’ Rolodex was seized, officers never searched my computers, which contained electronic address books, and in several of the officers’ reports references were made to ‘client lists’ that were seized.
I will note also that you are on record as publicly admitting (in telephone conversations with blogger/attorney Malia Litman) that you issued the press release at the request of John Tiemessen, Sarah Palin’s attorney of record.
This highly unorthodox behavior cannot be explained or justified in the context of any normal APD practice or procedure. On the contrary, it leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this was done for purely political purposes to aid Sarah Palin, with whom you are known to be allied politically as well as through church affiliation. In short, you placed political and religious allegiance before your duty as a sworn peace officer.
It is also telling that this press release was issued after normal business hours and does not appear on the APD website, along with APD’s other press releases, as if you were instructed not to do so, embarrassed to place it there due to its content, and/or because it was not authorized by higher authority and you did not wish it to be known that you had issued it.
You can rest assured that I will not let this issue rest until I have received a full accounting of why the press release was issued and on whose authority it was released. I am sending a detailed letter to APD Internal Affairs outlining the unusual and unethical behavior of its officers, including the issuance of the press release as detailed above. In addition, I am sending a copy of this correspondence to the ombudsman for the Municipality of Anchorage Ombudsman requesting that she investigate this matter, forwarding copies to the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office and to Judge Washington.
It gives me no pleasure to take these actions but I am sick of being misled by the APD after I acted in good faith. There is clearly something amiss in the APD. I am happy to speak or correspond with you if it leads to the return of my property.
Shailey Tripp
Yesterday Shailey Tripp sent an e-mail to Dave Parker, the Press Officer at the Anchorage Police Department. She sent me a copy and agreed to let me post it. She said:
“ Lt. Parker,
I’d like to believe you that you called me; however, after a thorough review of my cell phone log, I can find no evidence that you attempted to reach me. Perhaps you called the wrong number by mistake. *********** is the correct number.
Before discussing my property I need to correct a misstatement of yours: Anuradha Lawes (cell phone: **********, the person who picked up some of my property from APD is my mother, not my attorney. My attorney’s name is Kristen Foster (telephone: **********. If you doubt Ms. Lawes is my mother or that she is not my attorney, I encourage you to call her to verify these facts.
The APD’s failure to return my property is as baffling as it is troubling. After speaking with various attorneys, officers, and others about this matter there seems to be no precedent, at least in the recent history of the APD, for the withholding of personal property in a dismissed misdemeanor case. Perhaps you can recall one.
To put things is their proper perspective a short review summary is perhaps in order. At a hearing on June 15, after it was shown that I had complied with all of the terms of my probation, my case was dismissed by Judge Pamela Washington. The return of my property was then discussed at some length. The judge ordered all of my property returned with the full consent of Municipal Prosecutor (MP) David Wallace. The sole exception was $209.00 in US currency. This agreement and order are in the public record.
Given the judge’s order, and the prosecutor having given his blessing, I anticipated a swift return of my property. I was sadly mistaken. David Wallace himself assured me that the return of my property would be expedited and told me to expect my property back within seven to ten business days. There ensued a frustrating two-month period of phone calls attempting to obtain the return of my property. During this time individuals at the APD attempted to stall by claiming that they were waiting for paperwork or authorization from the MP’s office. I subsequently learned this was not the case.
Someone named Matt at the MP’s office assured me that they had sent to APD all of the necessary paperwork and authorization they needed to release my property. I was both angered and disappointed to learn that the APD has not acted in an honest and forthright manner in dealing with my property.
As part of my efforts to obtain the return of my property I contacted Judge Washington’s clerk for assistance. Through a series of phone calls I learned that Judge Washington’s clerk had contacted both the MP’s office and the APD and had told both to comply with the judge’s order. The APD ignored her.
At length I was contacted regarding the return of property and arranged a Power of Attorney for my mother to act in my behalf to obtain my property. Some property was returned but not all of it. I am not going to itemize these items for you now because we both know you have these records in your possession. The items I am concerned about having returned to me are a credit card machine, a cell phone, and a computer.
The bottom line and undisputed fact is that the APD is continuing to withhold personal property of mine in defiance of a judge’s order and my constitutional rights. Furthermore it is clear from our correspondence that you have no intention of complying with the judge’s order and my continued pleas. This is unacceptable. The logical and obvious explanation for this is that the APD is protecting one or more persons whose names are contained in the property being withheld, apparently out of a fear that someone will be embarrassed or exposed in some way. The further proof of this is the bizarre issuance of a press release by you, discussed below.
I continue to demand the immediate return of ALL of my property, in accordance with Judge Washington’s order, the Anchorage Municipal Prosecutor, APD policy, and the United States Constitution. I furthermore put the Anchorage Police Department on notice to NOT attempt to destroy any of my personal property.
Regarding the press release, the most significant aspect of it is the multiple specific references to Todd Palin. It is these references that would lead the average observer to conclude that it is political in nature and that its issuance had absolutely nothing to do with my case except to discredit me. It is replete with fabrications and misstatements. Here are the major points:
You stated in the press release, “There’s not one scintilla of evidence that Todd Palin had anything to do with this.” However, you later admitted publicly that you had not examined all of the evidence that was confiscated from me; consequently, there is no way you could truthfully make this statement.
The press release cited “several errors” regarding the investigation and arrest as it was reported in the Enquirer article, stating that “None of the physical evidence examined by police showed any connection to Wasilla resident Todd Palin and his name did not appear in any of the records seized by APD.” Given that, again, the physical evidence was not fully examined (if at all), this statement is at best misleading and at worst a deliberate lie designed to achieve a political purpose.
The press release goes on to say, “The investigation of the prostitution operation was initiated by Anchorage Police Department’s Vice Unit responding to internet advertisements, not through information developed from any tips or other persons.” This statement is also untrue. A review of the police reports in the case reveals that the investigation was initiated when William Fortier, who formerly owned the building where I operated my business, lodged a complaint. So either the police report is incorrect or you were misinformed.
Finally, the press release stated, “No rolodex was seized and taken into evidence.” While no ‘paper’ Rolodex was seized, officers never searched my computers, which contained electronic address books, and in several of the officers’ reports references were made to ‘client lists’ that were seized.
I will note also that you are on record as publicly admitting (in telephone conversations with blogger/attorney Malia Litman) that you issued the press release at the request of John Tiemessen, Sarah Palin’s attorney of record.
This highly unorthodox behavior cannot be explained or justified in the context of any normal APD practice or procedure. On the contrary, it leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this was done for purely political purposes to aid Sarah Palin, with whom you are known to be allied politically as well as through church affiliation. In short, you placed political and religious allegiance before your duty as a sworn peace officer.
It is also telling that this press release was issued after normal business hours and does not appear on the APD website, along with APD’s other press releases, as if you were instructed not to do so, embarrassed to place it there due to its content, and/or because it was not authorized by higher authority and you did not wish it to be known that you had issued it.
You can rest assured that I will not let this issue rest until I have received a full accounting of why the press release was issued and on whose authority it was released. I am sending a detailed letter to APD Internal Affairs outlining the unusual and unethical behavior of its officers, including the issuance of the press release as detailed above. In addition, I am sending a copy of this correspondence to the ombudsman for the Municipality of Anchorage Ombudsman requesting that she investigate this matter, forwarding copies to the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office and to Judge Washington.
It gives me no pleasure to take these actions but I am sick of being misled by the APD after I acted in good faith. There is clearly something amiss in the APD. I am happy to speak or correspond with you if it leads to the return of my property.
Shailey Tripp”
***********************************
Shailey has confirmed in this e-mail that the lap top computer seized had electronic address-books. Thus there can no longer be any doubt about the reason that the lap top has never been returned to Shailey Tripp. This is particularly offensive because Officer McKinnon has confirmed that he put the property department on notice of the sensitive nature of the lap top right after it was confiscated. That “scintilla” of evidence may have been destroyed, but it was last in the possession of the Anchorage Police Department before it wasn’t.
Tampering with evidence is a class C felony in Alaska. AS 11.56.610 provides:
“AS 11.56.610. Tampering With Physical Evidence.
(a) A person commits the crime of tampering with physical evidence if the person
(1) destroys, mutilates, alters, suppresses, conceals, or removes physical evidence with intent to impair its verity or availability in an official proceeding or a criminal investigation;
…
(3) prevents the production of physical evidence in an official proceeding or a criminal investigation by the use of force, threat, or deception against anyone; or
(4) does any act described by (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection with intent to prevent the institution of an official proceeding.
(b) Tampering with physical evidence is a class C felony.
It seems the only question left is how many police officers with the Anchorage Police Department were involved in tampering with evidence. How many police officers may have been identified on that address list along with Todd Palin?
If this gives rise to any questions you would like to ask of the APD you are invited to ask . I’m sending a copy of this post to Judge Pamela Washington.
I wanted to share with you the e-mail exchange between myself and Officer Dave Parker.
From Dave Parker today:
Ms. Litman,
As you know, those records are not open to the public. We access them only for
bona fide police purposes.
Lt. Parker
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 29, 2011, at 9:33 AM, I wrote:
Officer Parker,
I just wanted to make sure you saw this invitation:
I do not want to promote rumors that are untrue. Could you please confirm that
Todd Palin did NOT own the license plate “TRIPP” in March of 2008. Thank you.
Malia Litman
The amazing thing about this exchange is that it was Mr. Parker who felt it appropriate to tell the NY Daily News that there was not “one scintilla” of evidence connecting Shailey Tripp and Todd Palin. Obviously a license plate, if requested by Todd Palin, in March of 2008, with the name “TRIPP” on it, long before Tripp (Bristol’s son) was born, would be “one scintilla” of evidence that there was in fact a connection between Todd Palin and Shailey Tripp. Why would that be an inappropriate disclosure, if the statement to the NY Daily News regarding evidence in the possession of the APD that related to a pending case against Shailey Tripp, was appropriate?
Shailey Tripp has been waiting since March 2010 to have a cell phone and lap top computer returned by the Anchorage Police Department. They were confiscated when she was arrested and charged with running a house of prostitution. She pled no contest to the charges on June 13, 2010, and she was given a probated sentence. The Judge ordered that her property would be returned upon the completion of her probation. The date set to determine if she had fulfilled the terms of her probation was June 15, 2011. The case became famous when there was a story in the National Enquirer connecting Todd Palin and Shailey Tripp.
Any connection between Shailey Tripp and Todd Palin was thought to be unfounded when the Anchorage Police Department issued a press release indicating that none of the evidence in their possession, THAT THEY EXAMINED, connected Shailey and Todd. The APD said:
“None of the physical evidence examined by police showed any connection to Wasilla resident Todd Palin and his name did not appear in any of the records seized by the APD.”
“Bloggers have had no access to the evidence seized so their linking of evidence in police custody to any other person in incorrect.”
To date Todd Palin has never denied the allegations of Shailey Tripp. It was only AFTER the statement of the APD that Sarah Palin denied the allegation that Todd had paid for sex with Shailey Tripp. What she really said was that all we had to do was ask Todd, “Hey Todd you been hanging out with hookers lately?” I asked. I’ve gotten no response.
Shailey Tripp agreed to give an interview, so we talked last February. While she confirmed in that interview that she had been paid for sex by Todd Palin, she was careful about the extent of information she would provide, for many reasons, not the least of which was that she was still on probation.
On Monday, Oct. 24, I received an e-mail from Shailey which reported the following:
“So here is an outline of what has happened.
June 15, 2011 my court date, I complied with the terms of the plea, and my case was dismissed.
also the judge did say i could have all my possessions returned to me.
June 17, 2011 I phoned the city prosecutor’s office and left a message
June 17, 2011 my call was returned and the y left me a message stating that they would try to expedite returning my property to me
The following week I followed up and spoke person to person and was told the same thing, they would try to expedite it.
This goes on for 2 months. In the meantime I make calls to APD evidence, they place everything on the fact they need paperwork from city prosecutor. Finally at the 2 month mark city prosecutor tells me that APD has had the paperwork for sometime and that this is an APD issues. I confronted the APD, yes they do have the correct paperwork but there is a problem. They will not tell me the problem.
Finally after a few more weeks, someone tells me that Det. McKinnon has been put in charge of my property.
I leave a message for Det. Mckinnon. Finally he returns my call and lets me know that 4 months ago his superiors made him aware that my property was problem for the APD and needed to be handled with care and that there may be some incriminating information on it against “other” people. He then asked me that the APD has never gone through my cell phones or computer. He assured me all my property would be returned to me . I signed over power of attorney to my mother. My mother made an appointment to retrieve my property. the APD then sent me a letter showing what items would be returned. Many things were not returned. I handed the matter over to my attorney.”
**********************************************
This report by Ms. Tripp was consistent with what I knew, including the court date of June 15, 2011, which was reported by the NY Daily News last January. Given the willingness of the APD to help the Palins by issuing a press release to the National Enquirer, it wasn’t too surprising that the “evidence seized” had not been returned. However in an attempt to give the APD an opportunity to “refudiate” this report, I contacted the APD. Initially I left two messages for Officer McKinnon. They were never returned. I left several messages with the Anchorage Police Department Evidence Department, but those calls were not returned. When I finally reached someone after repeated calls, I was instructed that Officer Dave Parker, the officer I spoke with last February, would be the one with whom I should speak.
Officer Parker indicated he did not appreciate the fact that I had been reporting information on this blog, and asked that I communicate by e-mail. The following is the e-mail exchange we have had:
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:43 PM
To: Parker, David
Subject: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
Officer Parker,
I am confirming that I would like a list of the items seized when Shailey Tripp was arrested and pled guilty of running a house of prostitution, what evidence was returned to her or her representative at any time, including on 9-12-11, and a list of items that you indicated that were “obviously” not returned, and why. I would also appreciate confirmation as to who currently has possession of the items that were NOT returned. In particular, it is my understanding that a cell phone and lap top were seized but not returned. Thank you.
Malia Litman
malialitman.wordpress.com
*************************************************
From: Parker, David <DParker@muni.org
Wed, Oct 26, 2011 9:45 am
Subject: RE: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
Ms. Litman,
I checked with Capt. Kris Miller of the Detective Division. We do not release lists of items seized which you have requested. I can however tell you that the property belonging to Ms. Tripp was returned to her attorney-in-fact, Ms. Lawes on 9-12-11 according to the Property Section disposition form. If Ms. Tripp would like further clarification regarding her case or the property returned she may contact me and I will direct her to the person who can assist her.
The property which was not returned to Ms. Tripp either belonged to the other defendant in the case or they were disposable items such as condoms.
Lt. Parker
Lt. Dave Parker
Anchorage Police Department
Public Information Officer
4501 Elmore Road Desk (907) 786-8724
Anchorage, AK 99507 Cell (907) 351-1949
*********************************************
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:49 PM
To: Parker, David
Subject: Re: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
Officer Parker,
It is my understanding that a cell phone and a laptop computer were among the “items seized” and that was reflected in the APD records. Ms. Tripp has advised me that those items were NOT returned. I would like clarification is you are saying they were not among the “items seized” or are you taking the position that they were in fact returned? Malia Litman
*******************
From: Parker, David <DParker@muni.org>
Wed, Oct 26, 2011 2:58 pm
Subject: RE: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
Ms. Litman,
As I wrote previously, if Ms. Tripp needs assistance please have her contact me and I will direct her to the person who can assist her. We do not have any document listing you as her legal representative.
Lt. Parker
**********************************************
To: DParker <DParker@muni.org>
Sent: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: Evidence in Shay Tripp matter
Officer Parker,
I am not Ms. Tripp’s legal representative, and I have never indicated to you that I was . I simply thought that because the Anchorage Police Department chose to issue a statement to the National Enquirer, that you were obviously willing to release information regarding the Shailey Tripp arrest. Because the APD , and you in particular, indicated to the NY Daily News that there was not “one scintilla” of evidence connecting Todd Palin to Shailey Tripp, it seems reasonable that you could, at a minimum, answer a simple question regarding a cell phone and lap top computer that were confiscated, according to your own records, and which Ms. Tripp has indicated to me were not released to her. Ms. Tripp has further indicated to me that Det. McKinnon told her that ” 4 months ago his superiors made him aware that her property was a problem for the APD and that the items seized needed to be handled with care, and that there may be some incriminating information on it against other people.” Ms. Tripp has indicated she has repeatedly tried to obtain these items and the APD has not returned them. I am giving the APD, and you in particular, an opportunity to respond before I publish the story. Where are the cell phone and lap top computer of Ms. Tripp? Are you going to return them to her in the condition that they were in when the APD confiscated them? Malia Litman
******************************************************
October 27th
Dear Officer Parker,
In reviewing records this morning, I draw your attention to my letter last February 22nd, of this year. I specifically put you on notice that the “items seized” had taken on even greater importance to the public because the APD commented on the evidence in your possession regarding Todd Palin. Here is the excerpt:
Given the “office documents, computers, office machines, calendars and books and photographs” that were seized, I am assuming the APD made additional arrests based on this evidence. I assume these arrests would also be a matter of public record, so you would not be disclosing confidential information. Please identify who was arrested based upon this evidence seized. I assume you still have the “evidence seized” in your possession and I hereby put the APD on notice that because the APD has issued the statement that “none of the physical evidence examined by police showed any connection to Wasilla resident Todd Palin and his name did not appear on any of the records seized by APD” it is important in the interest of full disclosure for the public to know exactly what evidence that you seized was “examined.” If his name was not on the list, who’s name was , and what if any arrests have been made or charges filed?
Shailey Tripp has indicated in more than one statement that there was evidence of Todd Palin’s meetings with her that existed in the evidence seized by the Anchorage Police Department. Even if his name did not appear in the evidence examined, perhaps his name appeared in evidence that was seized but not “examined.” Because cell phones were seized, did the police check all the phone records to determine the identity of callers to Ms. Thomas and to Ms. Tripp?
http://malialitman.wordpress.com/category/anchorage-police-department/page/3/
It is because the APD interjected itself into this controversy that it is important that the APD be accountable for identifying what items were returned to Shailey Tripp. If the item was not returned, or if its condition was altered, the public is entitled to know why.
Malia Litman
**************************************
-
The notion that “all men are created equal” in the 14th Amendment doesn’t seem to apply to persons adverse to Sarah Palin. Given Sarah Palin’s lack of understanding of the Constitution,
it is not surprising that she fails to understand the importance of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution for someone who is her adversary. Shailey Tripp may have broken the law, and she has paid the price for her transgressions. However any person who paid Ms. Tripp for sex also broke the law, and should be treated equally under the law. The men who paid for her services should have also been prosecuted. No arrests were made. Because the APD never “examined” the lap top and cell phone of Shailey Tripp, the APD was selectively enforcing the law. By commenting on the evidence to the National Enquirer and to the NY Dailey News, the Anchorage Police Department has violated the constitutional rights of Shailey Tripp, and indicated their willingness to be guided by corruption. By failing to return her property in the condition it was in when it was seized, the police have further violated her rights. At least if the property had been returned in its original condition, we would know what evidence there was of a connection between Todd Palin and Shailey Tripp.
When Sarah Palin paid thousands of dollars to have “We the People” painted on her bus, what she really meant “Me, the Half-Term Ex-Governor.”
**************************************
Update:
Officer Parker sent this e-mail on Thursday Oct 27th at 11:37 Dallas time.
Ms. Litman,
As I have already explained, Ms. Tripp’s items were returned to her attorney-in-fact, Ms. Lawes on 9-12-11 according to the Property Section disposition form. If Ms. Tripp would like further clarification regarding her case or the property returned she may contact me and I will direct her to the person who can assist her. Obviously that would apply to anyone she appoints as her legal representative as well.
Lt. Parker
Obviously there is NO reference to the cell phone or lap top computer which Shailey Tripp explains have not been returned.
John Tiemessen is the attorney for Sarah Palin who asked the Anchorage Police Department to issue a press release to the National Enquirer. That press release has come under great scrutiny as it was false and misleading. The press release of the Anchorage Police Department regarding Todd Palin and his involvement with prostitution was directly opposite to the records of the Anchorage Police Department. Thus even though it was John Tiemessen who asked that the APD issue a press release there is nothing preventing him from THREATENING to sue the APD for publishing false information, even though he asked them to do it.The “threat” of a lawsuit is made for publicity, but not for the purpose of getting at the truth. To threaten a suit is a way to attack the truth of the statements in Joe McGinniss’ book by innuendo. Tiemessen is suggesting that it’s just guilt by “innuendo”, but he is the one making the “innuendo.”
Tiemessen has NOT really threatened the APD. I just made that up. The purpose is to illustrate just how easy it is to generate a headline, and/or to threaten a suit. He could have threatened to sue Ronald Reagan or Mickey Mouse and a suit against either would be just as likely as a suit against McGinniss. It is the actual pursuit of a suit that is the critical consideration. If you threaten a suit, you might make headlines, and people immediately question the truth of the assertions in McGinniss’ book, without proving that they are in fact not true. By Palin having her attorney make this threat, it is not even Sarah or Todd Palin going on record to say that anything in McGinniss’ book is untrue. If a lawsuit was actually being contemplated, an astute attorney would never THREATEN suit. Instead he would gather as much evidence as possible, and then simply FILE suit. Especially in the case of a slander or libel suit, where proving the truth of the matter in question is the critical consideration, gathering evidence first would be critical.
In the case at hand consider the type of evidence that would be relevant if Sarah Palin should actually file a suit alleging that the information reported was untrue. The attorneys for Joe McGinniss would be entitled to take the following depositions (where the witness would be sworn to tell the truth, under penalty of perjury):
1. Glen Rice: He would be required to answer detailed questions about the sexual experience he had with Sarah Palin. While most of us would NOT want to know the details, certainly Sarah Palin would not want disclosure by Glen of how he rated this experience and just how accomplished Palin was in the sack.
2. All people in the Wasilla community that might have ever seen Sarah and/or Todd snorting cocaine.
3. Any and everybody who might have knowledge of the truth about Trig’s birth mother. Chapter 19 of Joe’s book related to the rumors that Trig is not Sarah’s child. Mr. McGinniss would have the subpoena power of the Courts to take the depositions of Cathy Baldwin Johnson, nurses at the hospital, and even require a DNA test of Sarah, Todd, and Trig. It would be a dream come true for thousands of people around the country, if Sarah and Todd Palin would be forced to testify under oath about whether or not Sarah concocted the entire Trig birth story!
4. Sarah and Todd Palin – Of the many outrageous things that Sarah and Todd have said over the last three years, such a suit would require each of them to be put under oath, and to testify. We have proof that they lie. They have each lied so often that it might be hard for them to remember the truth. If you lie to the press you just look like a fool. We know what that looks like.If you lie under oath, you go to prison. We haven’t seen that in the case of Sarah and Todd Palin, but they haven’t had to answer questions under oath. Remember in the Troopergate matter that Todd Palin simply ignored the subpoena to appear and testify?
Todd may have avoided testifying in that matter, but he would not be able to ignore his responsibility to testify if he would be the Plaintiff in a suit against Joe McGinniss. He could have been arrested and jailed by the Judge in that matter. If a suit were filed by the Palins alleging slander or libel, the judge would require them to appear and give testimony. They would be REQUIRED to answer questions under oath. You might not have criminal exposure if you bring impermissible pressure on a state employee to fire another, but there are criminal sanctions for lying under oath. It is Joe McGinniss that has the real slander suit against the Palins for calling him a child molester.
Imagine for a minute one simple question: “Is Trig your natural-born son?” “Have you ever used cocaine?” “Did you ever have sex with Shailey Tripp?” “Did you ever give Shailey Tripp cash?” “Did you ever get a massage from Shailey Tripp?” “Did you represent in any written document to Shailey Tripp that you were not pregnant, when you have represented to the entire country that you were pregnant at that time?”
Thus a suit will never be filed. Tiemessen can threaten all he wants, but we know that Todd and Sarah will never allow themselves to be placed under oath and answer any questions.
“Innuendo” is an indirect or subtle reference to something. Someone who is relying on innuendo is suggesting something by insinuation.Todd, Sarah Palin, and their attorneys have adopted “innuendo” as their mantra. Unfortunately the word “innuendo” has become the victim of misuse and abuse. Whenever the Palin family or their lawyers (which includes the APD) seek to deny a direct attack by a named source, the suggestion is that there is no direct statement, but only “innuendo” that something unfavorable to the image of the Palins actually happened. For example, when Shailey Tripp said that Shailey Tripp had sex with Todd, the Anchorage Police said it was “just guilt by innuendo.” The quote from January of this year was:
“It was just guilt by innuendo, nothing else,” Lt. Dave Parker told the Daily News on Wednesday. “There’s not one scintilla of evidence that Todd Palin had anything to do with this.”
The only “scintilla of evidence” was the statement given by the sexual partner of Todd Palin, while taking a lie detector test, that she had sex with Todd. The only “innuendo” involved was the statement by Sarah, not Todd, when she insinuated that Todd had not had sex with Shailey Tripp. When Sarah said, just ask Todd, “hey Todd, you been hanging out with hookers lately, he’lll tell you the truth.” The “innuendo” was that Todd had not had a sexual relationship with Shailey Tripp, but of course we know he did.
Back in November of 2009, when Going Rogue hit the shelves, the LA Times commented on a passage that was “unusual for a political memoir.” They reported:
“Amid rumors that Palin and her husband Todd, known as Alaska’s “First Dude,” were getting a divorce, the governor recounts this moment in her odyssey. If it reads like a Harlequin novel, viewer discretion advised.
“That day in sunny Texas when the divorce rumors were rampant in the tabloids, I watched Todd, tanned and shirtless, take the baby from my arms and walk him back to the ranch house so Trig could nap while I made calls,” she writes in “Going Rogue,” the much-publicized memoir out Tuesday. “Seeing Todd’s blue eyes smiling, I chuckled. ‘Dang,’ I thought. ‘Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?’”
Thus Sarah Palin created the image of a happy marriage by “innuendo”. She suggested that if she found Todd to be sexually attractive, then the couple had a happy marriage. However now we know from Joe McGinnis’s book, that marriage is not a prerequisite to a sexual encounter with Sarah Palin, especially if the man is an athlete with great hands!
The National Enquirer reports this morning that Sarah and Todd Palin are, once again, headed for a divorce.
Whether Todd and Sarah actually divorce is inconsequential. The relevant story is that Sarah Palin has intentionally misled the American electorate about the importance of family. When Vanity Fair reported that “there wasn’t much parenting” going on in the Palin household, we were sympathetic to this kids, but hoped it wasn’t true. When Vanity Fair reported a year later that the Palin refrigerator carried dents substantiating the claims of battle done between Todd and Sarah with cans of food, we laughed and thought it might be true. Now that McGinnis’ book has been released and he has further documentation of pre-marital and post-marital affairs of Sarah and Todd Palin, we realized that the history of marital problems for the Palins was likely accurate.
Now that the National Enquirer is reporting that the marriage is over, it seems that this was a “marriage by innuendo.” It is always tragic when divorce is the best option for a marriage. It is even more tragic when politicians deceive the electorate regarding their values. The offense to the public is not the fact of a divorce, but the deception of a happy marriage.
If the Palins ever had a happy marriage and a tight-knit family it was long before Sarah Palin became a celebrity. To portray herself as a dedicated mother and wife is clearly not true. To suggest that abstinence education is effective is insulting to our intelligence. Let’s hope that any political future of Sarah Palin is the result of “innuendo” and “nothing else.”
The National Enquirer broke the story that Todd Palin had paid Shailey Tripp for sex.
It was Shailey Tripp, the person most knowledgeable about the encounter(s), that reported the information. Thus she was not reporting what someone told her. She was not insinuating that she had sex with Todd. She said she DID! To this day Todd, the only other person with personal knowledge of the relationship, has not denied the relationship. It was Sarah Palin who said:
It was “just guilt by innuendo, nothing else.”
“Heck, all they had to do was ask me or ask Todd himself, ‘Hey Todd, you been hanging out with hookers in Anchorage?’ and he’d tell the truth.”
I asked him, but never got an answer. Maybe he was afraid to answer for fear that he would feel compelled to tell the truth?
Dave Parker of the Anchorage Police Department said:
“”It was just guilt by innuendo, nothing else,”
Now, Joe McGinnis’ book is being discussed in multiple articles on the internet, referencing a sleep-over Sarah had with Glen Rice. It was not Sarah or Glen Rice who refudiated this claim, but instead Todd Palin. He said:
“This is a man who has been relentlessly stalking my family to the point of moving in right next door to us to harass us and spy on us to satisfy his creepy obsession with my wife.”
“His book is full of disgusting lies, innuendo, and smears,”
Todd, not Sarah, released this formal statement which again used the word “innuendo”:
“This is a man who has been relentlessly stalking my family to the point of moving in right next door to us to harass us and spy on us. He traffics in innuendo and falsehoods.
It must have been humiliating for Sarah to defend Todd, so that Todd wouldn’t have to lie about his relationship with Shailey Tripp. Likewise, when Todd was asked to deny Sarah’s sexual adventures, he must have been humiliated too. Payback’s a Bitch.
The only innuendo in each statement was the suggestion that Todd and Sarah had NOT had affairs. The innuendo is “payback’s a bitch” (the female dog kind).
Recent Comments