Two deputies face contempt charges

[Unregistered]

I didn't know that reviewing a video to refresh ones memory was a violation? ASA Fraivillig challenged Sgt. F about his testimony and then asked Sgt. F if he was aware of Watchguard before court adjourned for the day. Sgt. F was advised by the judge to not discuss his testimony with anyone else before being released. Then the next morning Sgt. F was back on the stand and the ASA used video from Watchguard in her attempt to impeach Sgt. F's testimony. He was released and Dep. B was called to the stand where his testimony was also challenged. It was then that he mentioned watching a video from Dep. R's patrol car the night/morning of the Sg20's complaint. He also pulled out his notebook to vrify something he had seen in the video. After the jury was excused Dep. B was questioned by the judge about his testimony and the video he was referring to. He mentioned that he, along with Sgt. F reviewed the video with Dep. R as Dep. R apparently still had the video in his hard drive. Nowhere did I hear anything about those witnesses colluding to discuss the case. I did hear Dep. B mention that he had requested previously a copy of that video for him to review but it wasn't until the night before that he was able to see it. I guess it seems a little unusual considering the timing, but is that really any different than a traffic deputy reviewing his or her video of the DUI arrest? Is it any different than getting a case pulled for review prior to trial so that AH's like Fraivillig can't try to discredit us? Here is yet another example of knightmare's actions causing further collateral damage. If he would have just left Bybee alone to settle his civil dispute with Conley Rv then none of these brothers and sisters would have been screwed over by the cheese eaters MM, RR, JB.

[Unregistered]

I didn't know that reviewing a video to refresh ones memory was a violation?

Grrrrrrr that was totally my thought exactly. This is a witch hunt.

[Unregistered]

I didn't know that reviewing a video to refresh ones memory was a violation? ASA Fraivillig challenged Sgt. F about his testimony and then asked Sgt. F if he was aware of Watchguard before court adjourned for the day. Sgt. F was advised by the judge to not discuss his testimony with anyone else before being released. Then the next morning Sgt. F was back on the stand and the ASA used video from Watchguard in her attempt to impeach Sgt. F's testimony. He was released and Dep. B was called to the stand where his testimony was also challenged. It was then that he mentioned watching a video from Dep. R's patrol car the night/morning of the Sg20's complaint. He also pulled out his notebook to vrify something he had seen in the video. After the jury was excused Dep. B was questioned by the judge about his testimony and the video he was referring to. He mentioned that he, along with Sgt. F reviewed the video with Dep. R as Dep. R apparently still had the video in his hard drive. Nowhere did I hear anything about those witnesses colluding to discuss the case. I did hear Dep. B mention that he had requested previously a copy of that video for him to review but it wasn't until the night before that he was able to see it. I guess it seems a little unusual considering the timing, but is that really any different than a traffic deputy reviewing his or her video of the DUI arrest? Is it any different than getting a case pulled for review prior to trial so that AH's like Fraivillig can't try to discredit us? Here is yet another example of knightmare's actions causing further collateral damage. If he would have just left Bybee alone to settle his civil dispute with Conley Rv then none of these brothers and sisters would have been screwed over by the cheese eaters MM, RR, JB.

It all boils down to Knight trying to do a greased political favor for Conley RV, which is directly tied to Sarasota GOP funding for Knight’s past… and future… election-campaigns. In the big picture, the genesis of this mess is money and politics and greased palms.

[Unregistered]

I didn't know that reviewing a video to refresh ones memory was a violation? ASA Fraivillig challenged Sgt. F about his testimony and then asked Sgt. F if he was aware of Watchguard before court adjourned for the day. Sgt. F was advised by the judge to not discuss his testimony with anyone else before being released. Then the next morning Sgt. F was back on the stand and the ASA used video from Watchguard in her attempt to impeach Sgt. F's testimony. He was released and Dep. B was called to the stand where his testimony was also challenged. It was then that he mentioned watching a video from Dep. R's patrol car the night/morning of the Sg20's complaint. He also pulled out his notebook to vrify something he had seen in the video. After the jury was excused Dep. B was questioned by the judge about his testimony and the video he was referring to. He mentioned that he, along with Sgt. F reviewed the video with Dep. R as Dep. R apparently still had the video in his hard drive. Nowhere did I hear anything about those witnesses colluding to discuss the case. I did hear Dep. B mention that he had requested previously a copy of that video for him to review but it wasn't until the night before that he was able to see it. I guess it seems a little unusual considering the timing, but is that really any different than a traffic deputy reviewing his or her video of the DUI arrest? Is it any different than getting a case pulled for review prior to trial so that AH's like Fraivillig can't try to discredit us? Here is yet another example of knightmare's actions causing further collateral damage. If he would have just left Bybee alone to settle his civil dispute with Conley Rv then none of these brothers and sisters would have been screwed over by the cheese eaters MM, RR, JB.

AH Fraivillig was made to look like a royal certified bonifide idiot during the trial and hence, here is “payback in the courtroom.” It’s now AH Fraivilling’s turn to make us look bad, courtesy of the sitting judge. In the end, AH Fraivilling remains an AH e.g. black, round, stinky and crinkled around the edges. Nothing has changed.

[Unregistered]

I didn't know that reviewing a video to refresh ones memory was a violation?

Sgt. Chris Felix and Dep. Chris Butler have been implicated in criminal conduct. Rubbish!

• The implication is that we discuss things, then we are in violation of a court order.
• The implication is that if we are talking to each other, then we are discussing the facts of the case (exchanging ideas), in violation of a court order.
• The implication is that we cannot talk to each other while we are working, because if we do, then we are violating a court order.
• The implication is that if we review a video of our self, in the presence of anyone else, then we are discussing the facts of the case (exchanging ideas with each other), then we are violating a court order.
• The implication is that we discussed the case together, in violation of a court order.

SAO idiots. Where is the effin common sense? The more familiar people become with the court system, the more contemptuous they become. Familiarity breeds contempt. That’s why cops are cynical.

[Unregistered]

I didn't know that reviewing a video to refresh ones memory was a violation?

Grrrrrrr that was totally my thought exactly. This is a witch hunt.

Sgt. Chris Felix and Dep. Chris Butler have been implicated in criminal conduct. Rubbish!

• The implication is that if we discuss "things" outside of court (like what's for lunch), then we are in violation of a court order.
• The implication is that if we are talking to each other about "things," then we are allegedly discussing the facts of the case, which is allegedly in violation of a court order.
• The implication is that we cannot talk to each other while we are working, because if we do, then we are violating a court order.
• The implication is that if we review a video of our self, in the presence of anyone else, then we are discussing the facts of the case (exchanging ideas with each other), then we are violating a court order.
• The implication is that we discussed the case together, in violation of a court order.

SAO idiots. Where is the effin common sense? The more familiar people become with the court system, the more contemptuous they become. Familiarity breeds contempt. That’s why cops are cynical.

That is correct. Seeing the injustices and politics and favoritism bleed over from the SSO to the SAO is disheartening. It causes people to lose faith and hope in the system which (as you noted) explains why cops become cynical (as the years go by).

It was not a “no contact” order. It is perfectly legal for the deputies to review their notes and videos of themselves (just like DUI investigators and SSO detectives do every day). It is also perfectly legal for Felix and Butler to talk to each other about what is for lunch or cases that they are currently working on -- as long as they are not discussing the Bybee case. Fraivillig's implication is that Felix and Butler were discussing Bybee's case. Indeed, this is a political witch hunt gone astray because two people were made to look very bad:

• Mr. Tom Knight
• And of course SAO Fraivillig.

Being made to look bad makes people vindictive. Knight and Fraivillig are classic in-house examples.

[Unregistered]

I find it hard to believe that two of three deputies stood around and watched a video in silence and never discussed anything about it. The rule is there to protect the innocent. This prevents corruption and the ability to conspire. Not to mention when you break the rule it is like saying fuk you to the Judge. Simple STFU.

[Unregistered]

I find it hard to believe that two of three deputies stood around and watched a video in silence and never discussed anything about it. The rule is there to protect the innocent. This prevents corruption and the ability to conspire. Not to mention when you break the rule it is like saying fuk you to the Judge. Simple STFU.

Why do you find it hard to believe that SSO deputies would tell the truth? In your experience as a LEO, is that what you personally experienced and witnessed? Oh, you don't have experience as a LEO. Never mind.

[Unregistered]

I find it hard to believe that two of three deputies stood around and watched a video in silence and never discussed anything about it. The rule is there to protect the innocent. This prevents corruption and the ability to conspire. Not to mention when you break the rule it is like saying fuk you to the Judge. Simple STFU.

• My spouse said the same thing, but he/she doesn't understand that when we work together, we are not silent statutes. We can still laugh and joke and talk about everything EXCEPT FOR THE CASE.

• The only way to circumvent this "perceptual problem" (in future cases) is for judges to issue LEOs no-contact orders.

• Otherwise, our supervisors will continue to assign us to work with each other, which means that we will we will subsequently talk to each other WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE CASE.

• Even when a judge orders us not to talk to each other about a case, supervisors still assign us to work together. It's been that way for over 100 years. What makes it different now are poisonous SSO/SAO politics that are infused in this crappy case.

• If you really want to get technical, here is a question you can ask Knight: Why are you allowing deputies to be assigned to work with each other, on the same squad/sector/shift/rotation, when they are court ordered not to talk to each other about a case? Technically, that's a management issue, which falls squarely into Knight's lap. This was orchestrated to happen because of Knight's incompetence. He should have known. Why did Knight allow Felix and Butler to be assigned to worth together? Is Knight in charge as the sheriff -- or not? Is Knight responsible for this management decision -- or not? You be the judge!

[Unregistered]

Now the SAO catching on to your unethical corrupt behavior!

The SAO is not going to catch jack squat. Everything that was done was legal and by-the-book. DUI deputies review video tapes all the time, prior to giving testimony in court. Detectives review tapes all the time, prior to giving testimony in court. Deputies work together all the time, even if ordered not to discuss a case. You're sniffing in the wrong place. However, if you're really desperate to find dirt, then please feel free to dig a little bit deeper by putting in a public recordes request to Knight and ask him the following verbatim questions:
1. Has Captain John Walsh has ever lied under oath, while he was being investigated?
2. Did you nonetheless promote Walsh into your senior command staff?
3. Why?

You can start by clicking here. You will not put in a public records request because you really don't care. Face it: nobody cares. That's why things are the way they are.