~ Kelley For 28 Years! ~
ANOTHER
DANGEROUS REPORTER
Interviewer Corey Clayton: “Did you talk to members of the Amish community for the reconstruction of the story? Were they forthcoming with any details that weren’t already covered?”
Janet Kelley: “Well they were. They did not speak to me. They spoke to my colleagues and that was incorporated in my story.”
Podcast”Interview with Janet Kelley” (click here).
Nine-year-old Emma Fisher said she heard a female voice clearly tell her, “Now would be a good time to run,’’ and she did, a split-second decision that might have saved her life.
No one else said a word or heard the voice — the voice, many believe, of an angel.
From “Horror & Heroism” by Janet Kelley (the same link as above and click on the story from Day 2 of the series).
In 1979, she [Kelley] came to the New Era. For the past 28 years, she has covered crime and court news for the 41,365-circulation paper.
“New Era reporter wins top national writing award,” New Era, 3-5-07 (click here).
New Era reporter Janet Kelley won the Pulliam Award for her story about the Amish Tragedy, “Horror & Heroism.” Good for her. Do I think it’s great? No.
I think it would be nice to know the source of some of her quotes because apparently Kelley didn’t speak to a single Amish person involved. Amazing.
As the article states, Kelley has covered crime and court news for 28 years and that’s a problem. I have never seen her question the police, the District Attorney or a judge’s decision. When District Attorney Donald Totaro wants to announce a drug bust (usually after previous negative press such as the mistrial for Micah Stewart in an attempted homicide case), he makes sure to hold them early in the morning so Kelley can cover it and write a glowing report.
I have been paying close attention to events and reporting in Lancaster for three years. And as I have stated previously, I first signed up on the Talkback Board as “astonished” in August of 2005 because of a Kelley piece in which she said the Columbia Police were “baffled” by the disappearance of Cortney Fry. I was astonished a reporter could write such nonsense and not ask any pertinent questions.
And the below article involving the Millersville “Streaker” lawsuit has been on my site since March of 2006. I consider this to be blatant lying and protection of the police by Kelley.
As I noted not long ago, this was scheduled to go to trial in Federal Court in Philadelphia on February 6, 2007. That did not happen because the Millersville Police are offering a settlement in the case. When that is finalized, and if the details are public information, I will post it here.
[Editor’s note - the brief part of this story dealing with Nevin Cooley of the Penn Square Partners has been deleted. The full article is available on the left under the button “Judgement Days.” The New Era article linked to below is now in archives but there is a tremendous amount of "Talkback" under it if you page down.]
~ “Flap” This! ~
KELLEY AND COOLEY LIE
“The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
(From the Federal lawsuit against the Millersville Police – click here.)
Janet Kelley’s February 23, 2006 article, “Women sue Millersville cops in ‘streaker’ flap,” (click here) never once mentions the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Her article never once mentions that the women allege not only illegal entry into their home for forty-five minutes, but also that the Millersville police officers illegally searched their house. The lawsuit says Officer Peifer, “…opened the pantry door, went into the bathrooms and opened the closet at the top of the steps.” He also “…searched Bimler’s bedroom, her closet and the closet underneath the steps.”
Kelley, at the end of her article states, “Peifer, a 26-year veteran of the police department, was named Officer of the Year in 1995.” She never mentions that the lawsuit says the following, “It is believed and therefore averred, that Defendant Rochat [the Millersville Police Chief] failed to properly train Defendants Peifer and Tartara and / or had knowledge of Defendant Peifer’s past misconduct…”
I do not know what Peifer’s alleged “past misconduct” was, but I doubt a lawyer would put that in a federal lawsuit unless he has valid proof of past misconduct. Don’t you think Kelley would mention it and look into it?
Kelley also tells a huge lie that is based on the word “lie.” Her article says Peifer told Skubon, “If you like, I will read you your Miranda rights.”
No. The complaint reads that he said, “If you lie I will read you your Miranda rights.”
What’s the big deal? It’s huge. The lawsuit is alleging that he is threatening her that if she doesn’t tell him what he wants to hear, he will arrest her. He was not being “nice” and “professional” and offering to read her her rights.
Okay, so you’re saying it could be a typo. After all, it’s only a matter of a “k.” I have one or two typos in my copy of the complaint on this site. Well, Janet Kelley has been a reporter for over 25 years and has numerous editors. She is quoting a federal law suit and the “mistake” should have been caught. The New Era should print an apology and a correction.
The complaint is public information. Anyone can go to the courthouse and get a copy. No one’s “permission” is needed to print it. How did Kelley get wind of the lawsuit filed in Philadelphia? The plaintiffs didn’t tell her and neither did their attorney, J. Dwight Yoder. It is my speculation, and it is speculation only, that the Millersville Police tipped her off and wanted to try and reduce the impact of the suit when word did get out. Why else would Kelley write that Peifer was named “Officer of the Year” but never once mention the lawsuit’s “past misconduct” allegation?
Who wrote the headline? They are calling this a “flap.” This isn’t a “flap.” If even half of what the three plaintiffs allege in their suit is correct, this is a blatant and reprehensible violation of their constitutional rights and the two Millersville Police Officers should be fired.
Please check back on Monday for "Arrogant Monsters - 9."