I still would like to see how all the entities get along now that Smith has been muzzled...mmm..stashed away. For all we know it coulda been a mines bigger than yours contest between the two lawyers. I gues we will never really know.

TexasMom-sounds like someone got their feelings hurt by a comment made. I DID NOT VOTE FOR Tyler. Oh well, Tyler does not have many friends in Victoria, Frank Henderson would have made a better District Attorney.

As for those of you who do not like Sailor, get a grip. He tells it like it is and over half of Victoria does not like that. I guess we should live in a version of the real world not in society as it is today. I thank Sailor for his input, and praise the Victoria 10; at least they have the mind set to do something about what they believe in.

If Tyler was on the up and up: Why did he take himself off the Ratcliff case? Oh yeah he may be called as a witness, that makes sense, why did he hire Ratcliff to begin with? HMMMM I am just a little curious about that. He knew when he hired him that he was going to be charged. I have heard the stories going around town; I hope that everything comes to a head including Tyler’s part in all this.

my question is. If one of the 300 cases had been a family member of Tyler's would he have rejected the case. I guess in a couple of days when the VA runs the story we will know more.

texasmom...sorry I did not respond to your post earlier, I had been at work. To answer your question, though, I am happy the records are being released. At least now everything will be out in the open.

Yes, the release of reports may put the DA in a bad light, depending upon the number of the comments, who they are directed at, and the content of the comments. The biggest advantage of releasing the comments, though, will be that people will be able to make their own decisions, and come to their own conclusions. They won't have to rely upon the opinions, insinuations and lengthy diatribes of others.

The reports are going to be made public. If it shows the DA in a bad light..so be it. He should be dealt with in the democratic way...AT THE NEXT ELECTION. Writing derogatory remarks is not an illegal act. It's unprofessional, but not illegal.
But, c'mon now...the VPD is made up of big boys and girls. Are the remarks going to be so bad, and so plentiful, to justify all of this uproar? If not, the VPD will seem like a bunch of whiny crybabies who don't like their work scrutinized. Time will tell, of course, as to what exactly the reports say.
I have the same question as TomC, though. How does Sailor know there are only a handful of derogatory remarks? Somebody said he had an inside source, but I would like an answer from Sailor himself.
I'm relatively new to Victoria and, thus, this forum. Who are the Victoria 10? The 300? And are any of the 300 posting on here...because that's who I would like to hear from. What were their experiences with the DA's office? How were they treated? Let them speak for themselves.

TomC what would make it right for you? Please, tell me. would it be that the records not be made public? If,so why not? This issue is not about sailor brother. This is about Justice for all. I commend sailor and the Victoria 10 for what they are doing. If, it was me and my case was one of those 300 I would be irate with the DA. Wonder if one of those 300 cases had been one of his family members you think he would have stalled. NOT! I commend sailor for all he has done. If it means he writes 500 words on the forum so be it.

The question will be of course, were all the documents in the box. It may take some coordination between law enforcement and the advocate to insure that the documentation for each presented and declined case has been relinquished. This all needs to come to an end, so I hope everything was done properly.

Gee, the new question of the day is so much clearer....

"yet when someone else does...whoo boy!" .....you get stalked from thread to thread.

OUCH!!

So....the derogatory comments are only in a "handful" of the reports. How does Sailor know this????  Seems to me that some backpedaling is taking place.
Also...again, according the Sailor, if "faulty legal logic" was used to reject a case, it's the DA's fault. Hmmm...who willl be determining if the reasons being given are "faulty legal logic"? My guess it will be Sailor himself, right?
 Because, after all....the legal education you receive a "rent-a-cop" school" is the same education you would receive in law school. And the work experience patrolling Formosa is most definitely equal to prosecuting individuals in a courtroom. 
 Yep...good thing we have Uncle Sailor to enlighten (and entertain) us.

We reworded the poll because I agree it didn't really make sense in its first form. Readers can only speculate on what the reports might say. All of these online polls are unscientific and mostly serve as just conversation starters. They should never be used as evidence of much of anything. You need to take a scientific sample to be able to reach any conclusions. Our apologies for the poor wording of the original question.

You are right, ToniAnne, about only being able to vote once, which is the way the polling should have been all along. I'm not sure when the Advocate caught the "flaw," but at one time you COULD vote as many times as you wanted from the same computer. I checked it for myself once, only because the Advocate is often "one-sided" in the way they present information to its viewers.

Also - you can only vote once from each computer/IP. If you try to vote more than once the numbers won't change and in the address bar gibberish it will say: Sorry you have already voted.

You can go to your neighbor's house, etc. and vote again though...

But with gas prices so high... I wouldn't want to drive around town just to vote. Haha...

(It is slow day...)

ALS TomC and Sailor - There was a poll question a few months ago asking about something that hadn't been reported or written about yet.

This is the same kind of poll. They need to take it down or reword it.

They are basically asking if you think WHEN THE REPORT COMES OUT if there will be questionable comments, etc.

I was so mad about the last poll they did like that, I can't believe I have forgotten what the question was! Ha...

Until then, Gabe, how about removing the current polling question on the Advocate's homepage? Is the Advocate really a newspaper, because questions like this make it more characteristic of a cheap tabloid! It is just further proof of how unprofessional and biased the Advocate is toward the DA.   And Sailor, I could care less what your opinion of me is.  When it comes to slander, you have me beat, hands down, no doubt about it!

ALS: The Advocate news staff is analyzing the reports this week. The findings will be reported soon and made available in print and online for your perusing.
Thanks.

At this point I would definitely have to agree with the "hard to tell" voters in today's poll, since there doesn't seem to be a "report analysis" on the website. If there is, it definitely should be a link attached to this article. One can only assume the Victoria 10 has been busy this morning. The poll itself itsn't actual number of people voting, but number of clicks made by A PERSON.  And might I add, I'm quite surprised we haven't heard from Sailor and his posse by now about the specifics of these derogatory comments.

Over 80 people have voted in this morning's polling question. Where can the report analysis be found on this website?

OK...at 6:50 AM on Sunday morning, 17 people have already voted the today's Advocate poll question regarding their report analysis and whether or not the DA made derogatory remarks. 7 said "yes", 4 said "no", and 6 said "hard to tell".
What exactly are they voting on? I don't see any report analysis actually posted to the website at this time.