Politics: Did LaHood stumble, or was he set up?
At first blush, Darin LaHood comes off in a bad light in this article:
State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons said this afternoon that Darin LaHood, his opponent in November’s election, is interfering in a sexual assault case involving a minor girl.
LaHood went to the girl’s house Thursday and spoke to the girl’s mother, Lyons said. He offered up information about the case and said “something about the State’s Attorney not caring about our case because we are south siders.â€
On Monday, LaHood went back to the home, where he was confronted by two of Lyons’ investigators and drove off without getting out of his car. The county’s top prosecutor called that behavior “improper, outrageous and an offensive invasion into the private life of a rape victim, a minor no less, who was sexually assaulted and whose attacker is in jail awaiting trial.â€
LaHood comes across as someone exploiting this girl. What we don’t know are the behind-the-scenes activity of the other people involved. LaHood was confronted by Lyons’ investigators. I presume this second visit was an appointment. Are we to believe LaHood made an unannounced visit at the exact same time Lyon’s employees were there to greet him? I think not.
Lyons says LaHood passed along information about the case. LaHood says he did no such thing.
Was LaHood politicizing this case? We’ll never know. I’m not aware of any instance in which LaHood mentioned this specific case to promote his candidacy. The first mention of this case in political terms from either candidate — as far as I know — happened with Lyons held his press conference.
As far as questioning whether Lyons got the information, I assure readers that while the information is left out of some police reports available to the public, it is NOT a state secret.
Lyons did not lower himself to answer reporters’ questions. Therefore, we don’t know in what way LaHood is supposed to have “interfered” with his prosecution of Monterious Hinkle. Lyons has a habit of blaming everyone other than himself when he cannot successfully prosecute someone. Perhaps he’s just laying the groundwork for his next excuse.
I think Lyons made the tactical mistake here. I had almost forgotten about Monterious Hinkle. So I went back and checked my archives. It took three separate sexual assault arrests before Lyons took the steps necessary to get this guy in jail to await trial.
So it’s not LaHood who owes this girl and her family an apology.
The main issue in this race is whether or not the current state’s attorney declines to prosecute cases the police thinki ought to be prosecuted. How in the world is this case NOT relevant to this issue?
My advice to LaHood: Don’t run from this. Keep bringing up the case of Monterious Hinkle.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Wow. Who you endorsing in this one? Can’t tell from this story.
By the way…”forgotted”?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
If they gave out awards for spin, pundit, you’d get first prize.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Making me chuckle, Billy. It’s fine that you want LaHood to get the position – we all know how much you don’t like Lyons. But come-on – this post makes FOX look truly “fair and balanced”.
If anyone has to explain their actions, it’s LaHood not Lyons. Lyons and his investigators had a right to be at this location and questioning the victim — even if they were attempting to determine if someone was inappropriately injecting themselves into the case. LaHood has no reason – other than politics – to be talking to these individuals.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Why did I think of Chase Ingersoll when I read the article…..
August 19th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Leaking information about a minor is not cool. Someone is going to get their ass kicked or lose their job or both.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
At least it’s spin under my own name. Seriously, folks, I smell a rat here.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Anon, the information leaking wouldn’t even be an issue if Lyons had done his job in the first place.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Because 12 years ago I was the one getting a lot of calls like from victims on the Southside, Northside, East Bluff, West Bluff and all over the rest of town, that said Lyons didn’t give a damn about their case.
I responded to those calls the same way LaHood did – I went down there and saw the people……recall it was because Lyons refused to file any drug nuisance suits that I decided to file and run for States Attorney.
You know, Darin could sit back and let someone else make the allegation that Lyons was not doing enough on the case, he does not have to get his hands dirty and actually go down and meet the victim. The reason you go and meet the victim is that you don’t want to just make an allegation upon hearsay, you need to hear the victims plight first hand and see their tears with your own eyes and feel your own eyes tear up. The other reason you do that is just because on a most basic human level you cannot pass by human suffering without at least partaking a share of it by giving your time to the victim.
The cases that got to me the most, were those of the guys who were raped in prison. Lot of sleepless nights. Not just them. I also had them after hearing their stories.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
finally an endorsement darin can be proud of, chase ingersol. the points missed in all this are that the cops released information about a victim without doing it the right way (FOIA) and lahood lied to the family by representing himself as their new prosecuting attorney. sometimes the process matters, a lesson lahood failed to learn in las vegas (remember the reversals (4) for prosecutorial misconduct first mentioned on peoria pundit back in 06 or something). when prosecutors cut corners, cases get revrsed, someguilty go free, and some innocent get prosecuted.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
besides, this case comes right out of lahood’s push poll done a month ago. ask him for his question billy and I guarantee it’ll be one of his test questions, so talking to these folks is entirely political.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I’m with Billy, I smell a rat. Lyons is nervous and he is coming out with guns blazing. There are two sides to this story and we have heard only one. It was a total set up.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Yep, Lyons is desperate. He has to resort to throwing slime at his replacement. Kinda ironic that one of his supporters would post under “the last word” since that is what Lyons himself wants to be, seeing as how he refused any further comment beyond his carefully crafted attack at LaHood’s character.
If he truly believed this was a “improper, outrageous and an offensive invasion into the private life of a rape victim” then why make a public statement about it. Why not investigate it through the appropriate channels first then make the findings public. More evidence Lyons is a sleaze and his time is up.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:24 am
First of all, let’s put aside who is telling the truth about what happened, we will ever know. It was highly inappropriate for Mr. LaHood to go to the residence of this rape victim, he had no business in doing that. How can anyone talk about a “set-up” here, Darin started the whole thing, Lyons office had to look into it when notified. We have an opportunity to have a good States Attorney here, no matter which candidate wins, but let’s cut out the polictical crap and think of the best interests of the public. That is bigger than both of them. Reign yourselves in boys and let’s move on to better things.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Did you listen to Markley & Luciano today? Markley said that “some people” are saying that LaHood was set up. To which Luciano said, “Who? What total moron came up with that theory?”
I had to laugh. I knew the answer!
August 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
C.J.: Ha! So did Phil.
I didn’t state authoritively that he was set up. I simply wondered aloud if he was.
It’s a subtle difference I admit.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
There is nothing improper about any citizen or any attorney talking to any witness or victim. And as long as you are not asking them to lie, there is nothing wrong with with attempting to influence their testimony and in a rape case the primary influence is to influence them by asking them to testify in the first place, when like most rape victims, they would rather not.
If LaHood did something improper, then Lyons needs to shut up about it and prosecute it. It is a violation of the rules of professional conduct for Lyons to be characterizing the conduct of anyone, but especially another officer of the court as “improper” or “illegal” outside of the legal process in that it tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute and/or bias the public against a the fair trial of the accused.
I think Lyons actually got sued for this……it was the guy he prosecuted, who sold health insurance benefits to Peoria County….for what Lyons said about the guy before trial and for malicious prosecution.