West Roxbury probably not the best place to try to steal tires off a car at 4 a.m.
It's really quiet on most of the streets there and noise is going to wake up the neighbors - who will look outside and call police. Boston Police report arresting an alleged quartet of crooks on charges they were trying to separate tires from a car at 60 Potomac St. shortly after 4 this morning.
Police say the four - Christopher Rivas, 18, of Roxbury, Elvin M. Brea, 18, of Hyde Park, Katherine Marmanillo, 20, of Jamaica Plain and Christy M. Sanchez, 21, of Hyde Park - drove up to Potomac and then, as an awakened resident watched, attempted to remove tires from a parked car:
Officers walked down the street and located the car that the suspects were attempting to steal the tires, and noted that several of the lug nuts had been removed and were laying in the vicinity of the car. Officers then conducted threshold inquiry of the suspects based on the information gathered and one of the suspects admitted to removing the lug nuts from the car. The suspects were placed under arrest and during an inventory search of the suspects' car, officers recovered two cinder blocks, a hydraulic car jack and a tire iron.
Innocent, etc.
Comments
Silent Night
You're right, Adam. It's basically silent on Potomac at night. You can hear the cars (and the 37 bus) on Lagrange but obviously there's not much traffic at that time of morning.
Although, I guess if you're going to do something like that, winter is a good time since everyone is going to have all their windows shut tight.
But what kind of car
was it? The BPD don't say - too bad. I'd love to know what they thought was worth the risk...
you would be suprised...
more than half the tires stolen in the city are from Honda Civics I would say. Nothing too exciting.
Your blog is reckless
Adam,
I wonder how and where you got your information. You identify each by name and home area and call all 4 "crooks" but only indicate that 1 confessed. Which one confessed? What about the other 3? What does your information say the other 3 were doing that justifies you classifying them all as "crooks?" Or are they "crooks" merely by association? If it turns out that 1 or more were in fact not guilty of committing a crime and, therefore, not "crooks", will you issue a public apology to that/those individuals?
Sure, if they're found not guilty, let me know
The info comes straight from the Boston Police Department. Unfortunately, it looks like I either linked to the wrong post or they changed the URL. In any case, here it is (it's the fourth item down) - I've corrected the link in my original post.
either way
adam says "alleged" and all four were arrested anyway. 100% responsible I would say.
He always says alleged with
He always says alleged with a wink... lol
The thing is until we turn over our court system to the mobs people are perceived as being innocent until proven guilty, even if they are obviously guilty. If your ever arrested for something you didnt do IM sure you would appreciate that little stipulation in our system of government.
do your research on UHub
If an alleged perpetrator is cleared of all charges, Adam typically goes back, finds the relevant threads, and posts a prominent notation that explains their not guilty status.
A good policy, given that the Boston Cops blog generally won't be broadcasting anything beyond their reasons for making an arrest. Hardly what the jury or judge are going to see.
I've seen a couple of posts
I've seen a couple of posts now from blog readers who seem to be looking for the neutral, impartial, both-sides-of-a-story qualities that are generally associated with newspapers.
I don't think it's any more "reckless" for Adam and UH to cite BPD Media in a 200-word post without first consulting four defense attorneys than it is for another blog to post a 900-word entry on a Suffolk County death investigation (http://rockthetruth2.blogspot.com/2008/09/return-of-david-woodman.html) without asking for my input. The former ("Boston Police report...", "Police say...") is certainly more tempered than the latter ("Translation: the cops are LYING!!!!"), and Adam offers the alleged perps' supporters an opportunity to comment while the other blog does not invite the same interaction.
Even as someone frequently frustrated by what does and doesn't make the Boston papers, and even as someone grateful for the audience that UH and other blogs offer, I appreciate the fact that our print media generally make the affirmative effort to contact both parties. I hope my daily dollar-fifty contributes to the survival of that practice, and readers worried about single-source stories might consider the same modest investment.