Also you have to learn a bit of how a police state would work from Burma and China. They control video and photographic media as much as possible to limit the impact of the press. Without recorded evidence, propaganda comes down to an issue of he said she said.

This victim is a Law Student (and a smart one evidently) and he will certainly take this all the way if need be! He will then turn around and sue the snot out of them and the taxpayers will loose again because some dirty cop can not conform to today’s technology. Cops use video and audio and for them to say we can not is ludicrous and will never be an accepted tactic.

Video and audio have caused a lot of police in the US some major problems; therefore they are scared of it unless they control it! Ever heard about a case where the person claims abuse and the tape is missing? Really that is obstruction of justice but you never hear of them being charged with it.

I’m referring to the wiretapping charge.

If he’d been charged with interfering with police business, or whatever they call it in Mass., that might be a different story.

But to turn this into a “wiretapping” case seems a stretch.

How does that summarily equal “bogus”? Do we have any documentary evidence either way yet? Or are you referring only to wiretapping charge and not the rest?

I’m not familiar with the Mass. wiretapping laws, but I can’t imagine this case holding up in Court.

Which is why the fact that the prosecutor is still pursuing it is disturbing.