"The Whole Truth" - I didn't include that Facebook post because it is highly suspect. Here are a few quotes from the lengthy ethics report that lead to Patterson's forced resignation from the state House of Representatives, to give you some perspective:
"Our review of emails and our interview of Rep. Patterson revealed evidence that he likely managed to successfully manipulate, force, forge, or otherwise improperly influence Ms. Escobar, to recant her allegations of domestic violence by facilitating (if not himself crafting) a public statement posted on Ms. Escobar’s Facebook page."
"Rep. Patterson repeatedly refused to answer our questions about whether he wrote that recantation for Ms. Escobar without her permission or through his intimidation of Ms. Escobar."
"It seems obvious that he somehow forged, forced, or cajoled Ms. Escobar to recant her abuse allegations in an effort to end this investigation."
You can find a .pdf of the entire report here. Well, I cant figure out links on the comments... You'll have to copy/paste.
Second, the courts have an affidavit from Escobar signed on May 14, nearly two months after the Facebook post you reference. In it, she swears she was the victim of Patterson's assault and false imprisonment, and that she has received compensation for the damages.
She says that she does not intend to appear in court to testify against him, and that she understands that if she doesn't testify, the charges may be dismissed.
But the prosecution is still planning to pursue the charges because they have witnesses. The list of evidence they may call against him includes six cops, four other witnesses, Pima Animal Care reports, CDs, DVDs, transcripts, email, videos, photos, tapes, etc. So that charge has not been dropped, even if she said via Facebook that it should be dropped, or if she doesn't show up.
"Tucson Voter" - I did contact Patterson's attorney more than a half-dozen times over a period of two weeks. Though I got on a first name basis with his secretary, who assured me he had received my messages, the attorney, Joe St. Louis, never responded to my multiple attempts to get his version.
Please explain to me what is "wrong" here and I would be glad to go into more detail about what I know to be the facts.
Cochise - Good catch. I FIXED IT FOR YOU.
Steve, It's funny you take issue with "limp off." I heard the same complaint from the Kelly campaign, but for different reasons.
I have heard that FBI rumor, too. I asked John Ellinwood, Kelly's campaign manager, and he said, as far as he knows, there were a few threats in the crazy days immediately after January 8 - but Kelly went to Texas for a job, and wasn't ever under any kind of FBI special protection.
Ellinwood says the polling company is Telopinion, a Virginia-based Republican pollster, and that it was done through a live call of self identified likely primary voters. He wouldn't turn the full results over, but said the sloppy presentation was because they were a little rushed. Margin of error is 5.5 percent.
Antenori says he did his own polling - in the future CD2 without Kelly's name on the list - and he was doing much better than 15 percent.
Let the surveys and rumors begin.
Ahh, Red Star, this is a place for your analysis, which no Weekly story would be complete without. More to come, of course...
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation