I just finished reading Randy Kish’s letter to the Gazette on Aug. 17, 2019. I find it apt that he ends it with “conclusions/presumptions. This letter is written with nothing but presumptions that imply, with no evidence, that James Weary did something wrong. I do not know Mr. Weary or the officer involved. I only know what I have read in the Gazette about this case. I do know what time Mr. Weary left the bar is not relevant to what happened, nor is anyone’s opinion of the establishment he just left. No one should care if Mr. Kish would want Mr. Weary to represent him.
Mr. Kish then goes on to say that in his opinion, Mr. Weary cannot articulate himself well enough to convince the officer of his innocence. Unless he was there Mr. Kish has no idea how well the case was articulated. The letter goes on to say that being sarcastic and swearing do not go along with the phrase co-operation. Co-operation only means that he comply with everything asked of him.
I can tell you first hand that I have met police officers that have treated me with the utmost respect and professionalism. I have also been treated disrespectfully by officers. I answer both in kind.
I can only say a letter to the Gazette should include at least one fact. The idea that Mr. Weary is somehow at fault is not supported in this letter.
Mark Graunke, St. Albert
