The unamed source said Jail escapes deliberate to embarress Sheahan
The Sun Times today quoting an unnamed source,
A Cook County Jail guard has admitted to investigators that he helped six inmates escape over the weekend to give a political advantage to a former jail supervisor running for sheriff, a law enforcement source said Monday.Ane here's how the Trib plays it today. There's no mention of a plot.
The 36-year-old guard confessed that he allowed a convicted killer, two accused robbers and two others charged with aggravated kidnapping and battery to bust out of the jail to cast a shadow on Sheriff Michael Sheahan's management of the complex at 26th and California.
The guard knew the negative publicity would hurt Sheahan's chief of staff, Tom Dart, who is running for sheriff, the source said.
Unnamed Sources a red flag for me. I haven't followed this race at all but here's Remus's response in the Sun Times further down the column,
Remus denied any involvement in the plot, and a law enforcement source said there was no evidence connecting him to it.Sure feels like bull to me too. I wish the Sun Times would dig a little deeper and do less with anonymous sources.
"They're trying to insinuate this was done politically," Remus said. "None of them would ever let an inmate out of jail to help me. I would never sacrifice anybody for this election. This is total Cook County political bull----."
15 comments:
You probably jumped the gun. Tribune filed a late story:
===A Cook County Jail guard who said inmates overpowered him during a weekend jailbreak has now told investigators he aided the plot in an attempt to influence the upcoming election for sheriff, according to sources close to the investigation.===
I saw the update on Capital Fax but didn't update here yet. I couldn't sleep and was up at 4:30am.... bloggers really are bleery eyed people in pajamas.
Interesting...
The county provided over 200 guards each year for the last two. Stroger included over 200 guards in his 2005 budget proposal and SUPPORTED funding for new guards this year in the budget amendment process.
BTW, Claypool voted AGAINST funding the new guards this year, just before he voted FOR hiring the new guards and then AGAINST the whole budget and the funding and hiring of the guards at the end. Talk about your John Kerry-like moment.
Perhaps Claypool would want to change the subject, now that the "hot soapy water story" turned out to be crap.
At this time I just want to make two points (I may have more to say by this time tommorrow, assuming Remus makes it to the scheduled taping of the "Election 2006" Cable-TV interview we have scheduled with him early this evening).
First, I heard on the radio that Remus had responded to the report by saying that if it were true, than the guard should be given the "electric chair."
The second point is regarding budgeting positions in county government. Having been a Cook County employee since 1979, I can attest that all too often the job titles and positions approved in the annual county budget and the ones that actually exist in county government operations are NOT one and the same. Job titles have been routinely shuffled around.
The Cook County Board could vote for 200 additional jail guards in its budget, but there was no guarantee that County Jail would ever see those 200 additional guards. For all I know, Comm. Claypool's vote against those positions could have been in protest to a lack of guarantees that these jobs would be used where the County Board (and the federal courts) had deemed them neccessary.
RANDALL SHERMAN
Secretary/Treasurer, Illinois Committee for Honest Government
Producer, "Election 2006"
Wow this would be news if it was actually proven true. It's almost as if the Sun-Times was looking at gossip.
This is machine spin. This is the best possible outcome for Dart. How is it possible that it happened so fast. No guard is going to let 6 of the worst offenders out and then squeal immediately.
There has been some high pressure tactics to try to get the best outcome for political gain.
Something dirty is happening at the jail. AGAIN!
Randall, Randall, Randall...
Amendment 1 to the 2006 budget provides funding for jail guards. Claypool votes no.
Amendment 2 provides for new jail guards in the Sheriff's budget utilizing funds from recdently passed Amendment 1. Claypool votes yes.
Claypool then votes against the entire budget.
Which part of the NO-YES-NO analysis are trying to explain away?
Funny thing happens when you have to vote on stuff. People might just begin to hold you accountable.
Wow is misrepresenting these amendments. Here's how things actually worked:
Amendment 1 is what wow called an "increase in revenue estimates" on another blog. It's also known as "cooking the books." The Treasurer and Clerk of the Circuit Court submitted revenue estimates based on their direct experience with those revenues. Commissioners from the fiscally irresponsible Bush-era GOP propose revising the estimates upward--a move opposed by the two elected officials in question!
Also, there would have likely been no need for an “increase in revenue estimates” if the President had carried out a budget amendment passed (and NOT vetoed by him) last year to consolidate administrative departments at the county hospitals. Since when is the rule of law optional?
So Claypool votes against Amendment 1, which brings in some amount of savings. But then he votes in favor of additional guards, according to wow, proving how inconsistent he is--except, of course, if he also supports subsequent amendments which save as much if not more than Amendment 1 brings in. So much for the charge of inconsistency.
Claypool was right to oppose such a bloated, short-sighted budget. There's still a tremendous amount of fat to cut--patronage hacks, inefficient practices, etc.--and that will free up a lot more money to go towards health care and jail guards.
A guard has been chagd in aiding the escape
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/jail14.html
This did not stop WIND AM 560 from reporting that understaffing was to blame for the jail break, nor did it stop Sheriff Sheehan from announcing that if he just had a few more guards, this would have been prevented.
Liberals may "hate" AM 560, but those who love big government must be thankful for their voice on our AM dial.
JBP
Why does an almost-completely urban county like Cook even elect a sheriff? (What is this, Deadwood?)
One sure way to bring politics into law enforcement--hardly a good idea--is to make the chief law enforcement officer run in partisan races. We don't elect the chief of police in Chicago, so why are we electing a sheriff? To preside over jail beatings and escapes?
anon,
Sheriff elections are part of checks and balances system..sheriff elected, chief of police not..mayor elected, city manager not..city council elected, garbage man not.
Hope this helps.
JBP
Insider on Claypool's anti-guard funding position says:
"Amendment 1 is what wow called an "increase in revenue estimates" on another blog. It's also known as "cooking the books."
Hmmm. So, if Clayool was so against the passage of the revised revenue estimates to pay for guards based on "priciple," why was he more than happy to use that SAME SOURCE OF FUNDING for one of his own amendments to fund his pet projects, later that same day?
Gotta hate it when you're caught talking out of all sides of your mouth, right?
why was he more than happy to use that SAME SOURCE OF FUNDING for one of his own amendments to fund his pet projects, later that same day?
Because other amendments he favored would have saved enough to pay for those "pet projects" as well as the additional jail guards. This is NOT hard to follow.
You cannot say Claypool is "anti-guard" if he votes in favor of hiring 200 more of them! All he opposed was the MEANS by which to pay for them. As long as he had SOME funding solution, Claypool's positions are completely consistent with one another.
I note that you completely failed to engage my point about the President disobeying a direct, money-saving order of the board. Good choice to avoid trying to defend the indefensible, though I'd have enjoyed watching you flail around.
You are so lost on this.
There's a line on each budget form that cites the funding source. Check the funding source on the amendment for Claypool's pet project--it doesn't say "all the other amendments I submitted." It cites funding from the revised revenue estimate.
Claypool is more than happy to "cook the books" when it's for his pet projects, but not when it's needed for guards at Cook County Jail. Total hypocrisy.
GO a little further into the budget documents and you will find another Claypool-sponsored amendment that cuts funding for buidling inspections, environmental inspections, fire inspections, elevator safety inspections, snow plowing and autopsy processing. Most of these services provided in the suburban and unincorporated areas.
Claypool called these services "waste" and "bloat" during the meetings and said the County could afford to do without them.
Oh, and this was to fund his pet project also. This one didn't pass, but it does show his appalling lack of understanding of what County government does.
It's A Reform Revolution !
Nice to that non-partisan advocate Tommy Brewer taking the alleged inmate intimate's case.
I am surprised that Congressman Rush hasn't chimed in yet? Think we'll hear how he 'detests' Tom Dart -that inside his head hood wearer?
Post a Comment