It seems that the professor who shot up the University of Alabama because she was going to be denied tenure had a history of shooting people. Professor accused in Ala. slayings shot her brother in Mass. 24 years ago.
Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier confirmed today at a news conference that Amy Bishop had shot her brother in 1986. But Frazier offered a different account of the shooting, saying Bishop had shot her brother during an argument and was being booked by police when the chief at the time ordered the booking process stopped and Bishop released to her mother.
Frazier said he was basing his statements on the memories of one of his officers who was on the department at the time and had arrested Bishop. He said the records from the case have been missing since at least 1988.
“I don’t want to use the word ‘coverup’ … but this does not look good,” he said.
Frazier said the media had been fed an incorrect story. He said that there was an argument at the home on Hollis Avenue and Amy Bishop had fired three shots, including the fatal one, then fled the house and pointed the shotgun at a motorist in an attempted carjack. She was then arrested at gunpoint by officers.
The police were told to stop booking her? Did the district attorney look into this?
[Then-Police Chief John Polio] said he followed all department procedures and then-District Attorney William Delahunt’s office conducted an inquiry and the decision was made not to file charges.
Delahunt, who is now a US representative, could not immediately be reached for comment this afternoon.
Wow. There sure will be some fallout for that one. Aside from the fact that Bishop surely would not have been in the position she was in had she served jail time (or even been charged), it is possible that a conviction would have limited her access to firearms (though not necessarily – criminals don’t tend to respect guns laws that well). Still, a proper investigation back then could have saved lives now.
Oh, and just as an aside, did anyone catch what party Delahunt belongs to? The article doesn’t seem to mention it. Perhaps the people running the site simply didn’t know? Maybe it’s hard to find these things out?
Oh well, probably not important in the greater scheme of things. I’m sure if he was a Republican, it wouldn’t have been featured prominently at all.