Though Caleb and I were not authors of the April 1st Collegian article, we consulted and suggested some minor changes to the final piece. As such, I feel it permissible to respond to it.
In the article you may find what brief comment Irene Stevens was willing to make and a more in depth contribution by detective Criswell. These are important to consider because they contradict some of the original statements made by Cori.
The contents of the video are of the greatest interest to me, as there are major conflicts between Criswell's and Jackson's statement on the video.
I would also like to take a moment to point out three interesting aspects of the situation as presented in the Collegian piece. The first reiterates Anonymous’ citing of Criswell in a comment on yesterday's post. Criswell also said that, as 24 hours had passed since the incident, he didn't expect to find the laptop. This is typical reasoning in police work that in cases of theft and abduction criminals work fast to move the evidence. Despite being logical deduction, it shows that Criswell had already assumed that Cori was, in those 24 hours, acting with a criminal's mentality. I find this disturbing because, If we assume that the detective works without bias (that we are treated and protected equally under the law), this suggests that all students act as criminals in his mind.
Second, the statement by Criswell says that DeMarco was 100% certain the laptop was in the bag. The time when he was questioned is crucial here. If questioned directly after the incident there was no time for him to consider other possibilities; the likes of which he considered when, as Cori said in his interview, DeMarco made an appearance at the disciplinary hearing. We may all be 100% on things at one point, but furhter contemplation often reveals fuzzier details. If DeMarco made the same statement within the last month, then it conflicts with statements Cori made in our interview. As such, DeMarco's insistence as presented in the article is by no means certain.
Finally, the press release cited in the article presents an unusual discrepancy. It says that BUPD presented an affidavit of probable cause to the prosecutor on February 18th. The next sentence in the press release states that the prosecutor felt there was sufficient evidence and issued a warrant. If a warrant was indeed issued on Feb 18th, how was it that more than a month passed before BUPD notified Cori of the warrant (during which time his whereabouts could have been predicted around his class schedule)? In addition, let's remember that between the time Butler's release says a warrant was issued (2/18) and the time Cori turned himself in (3/26), Cori went through the entire disciplinary process with Stevens, including a scheduled hearing.
It seems, according to the release, that BUPD has demonstrated immense incompetence in allowing a wanted felon to roam campus. Either that, or the press release is mistaken; vague at best.
In an email exchange shared with Caleb and I, Stevens remarked of our original post that we were assuming all the proof was present. Her indication was that reaction to the situation was largely uninformed. I fear that the same might be said of the official statement released by the University. We should not presume that we have been presented with everything there is to present. Most importantly, we should not consider the statements by the University or the detective as any more authoritative than Cori's. I expect further development and surprising twists in this situation.