Oxford School Destroyed Evidence Regarding Shooting – AG Filing; Supplemental Michigan Criminal Complaint Alleges, Judge Acts to Preserve
Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more
Oxford School Destroyed Incriminating Evidence
WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 14, 20210 - A supplemental criminal complaint has been filed with the office of Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, alleging that the Oxford School Board deliberately destroyed incriminating evidence related to the recent school shooting which left four dead and many more injured, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that, following the shooting and while the school and some of its personnel were under criminal investigation, the school deleted social media accounts and scrubbed school websites which would have strengthened the existing evidence that there was criminal liability as well as civil negligence.
The new information was filed by Banzhaf to supplement his original formal criminal complaint to Nessel asking her office to conduct a criminal investigation after the school board has turned down here earlier offer to do so. As reported by media outlets:
"A law professor from George Washington University filed a complaint Tuesday asking the Michigan Attorney General's office to investigate Oxford school officials. John F. Banzhaf III told Patch on Tuesday he sent the three-paragraph complaint to the state Attorney General Dana Nessel's office. A similar complaint filed by Banzhaf in Georgia regarding the failed attempt of former President Donald Trump's phone call request to 'Find 11,800 Votes' led to a criminal investigation. The Oxford school district previously rejected Nessel's offer to conduct an independent investigation to determine the facts that led up to the shooting. Despite the school district's rejection, Nessel said Tuesday her office will review the events that occurred prior to the deadly shooting."
Banzhaf suggests that this new information even more strongly shows why the public should not have to rely upon a so-called "impartial" investigation conducted by a third party hired by the school board.
Where entities suspected of crimes hire an outside firm to investigate, they often pick one likely to be most favorable to the suspect, and to possible overlook (or not look to carefully to find) incriminating evidence. In any event, the outside firm certainly knows what kind of report the suspects hope to receive at the end of their employment, and may seek to provide it in the hopes of not discouraging further business from the entity, the law professor argues.
As a result of the allegations, a judge has ordered that all possibly relevant evidence be preserved, Banzhaf is happy to report.
