Wednesday, April 05, 2006


I made an inappropriate post the other day and I now wish to apologize for it.

I named the particular prosecutor involved and I went over the top with my criticism. While I still feel strongly that the factual issues underlying what I said were fair, I should not have named the particular prosecutor, and some of my comments were inappropriate. I have modified the post to take out the inappropriate comments, and removed the name of that prosecutor, both from that post and a subsequent post.

I have not named him here, but I will apologize to him personally by letter, and if he requests that I apologize to him by name on my blog, I will do so.


Anonymous said...

I'm glad you cleared that up. It was not at all difficult to believe that an ADA as you described him would be working for someone I would use similiar words to describe.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tetrault:
You, as well, need to learn to act like a responsible professional. I guess you lost your objectivity when you retired from the anchor desk... The lengths to which you will go to criticize the District Attorney never cease to amaze me. Troubling here is that you don't know me, have never met me and likely know nothing about me. Yet, you can't refrain from posting a comment that is purely a personal attack. I suspect you know little, if anything, about the legal and practical issues involved. I do recognize and appreciate the fact that public officials should receive just criticism from the public they serve, however, your criticism of my conduct (and, by implication, that of Ms. DeAngelis) is simply meritless. Joe Ahearn.

Unknown said...

I received notice of a comment from "Joe Ahearn". It's above. I should note, however, that I can't verify that the comment was really made by Ahearn.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Ahearn you're right . I don't know you. But your behavior in the case described by Attorney Redlich sounded to me like the same arrogant insensativity that I have long observed in DA DeAngelis. You see, I honestly believe that she railroaded an innocent man (Jack Carroll) to jail where he's been for the past eight years. Both DeAngelis and I have access to information about this case that was not allowed in either trial but which ought to persuade any reasonable person that the charges against Jack Carroll smelled to high heaven. She put two cops on the stand she had to know were not telling the truth.
She told the jury things she knew were not true. I just don't understand how the woman sleeps at night.

Learn more about the Jack Carroll case and read some of the 40 columns Carl Strock has written about it on our Justice Now website, Contact me and perhaps we can get together and discuss all of this further,