This is the Daily Press opinion on the Victorville sheriffs deputy rape case about two weeks after they were tipped off to the story. It's actually very good and speaks to the frustration of what appears to be a cover up at the time. Sort of like now, only 22 years ago.

OUR OPINION

Do It Now

Early this week a deputy from the sheriff’s department chased down and arrested two men suspected of stealing building materials. A report was issued, which was picked up and subsequently printed by the Daily Press, and the district attorney’s office contemplated filing charges against the two.
Later in the week the DA dismissed the charges against one of the men for lack of evidence. We printed that, too.
That’s pretty much standard procedure in such incidents. When the sheriff’s department believes a crime has been committed it investigates, and reports the results of the investigation. When an arrest is made, a report follows. We read the reports, and if the crime is significant enough (value of the stolen goods in a burglary is substantial, for instance, or the crime is unusual in some other way ) we print a story.
 
 But the procedure followed in the case of the alleged rape of an Explorer Scout by a deputy sheriff more than two weeks ago has not, it seems to us, been standard. Sheriff Floyd Tidwell will no doubt dispute that, but we are concerned about several aspects of the incident and the subsequent investigation. He and other department officials have kept the investigation into allegations that the Explorer Scout also had sexual relations with several other deputies in the months before the incident. Since information surrounding this unhappy state of affairs became public knowledge about a week and a half ago, five deputies and a dispatcher have resigned from the department and two other deputies have been suspended with pay.

 The sheriff has been extremely reluctant to reveal any details of the investigation, and has kept even the district attorney’s office - so far as we know- in the dark.

There are several things wrong with all this.

One is that we seriously question whether the public would be aware an investigation was going on even at this late date if we hadn’t gotten a tip from an anonymous source in the first place. Even now, almost no information has surfaced except what we’ve heard anonymously and then asked about. We heard about the alleged rape from an anonymous source, then had it confirmed by the sheriff; we first heard about the suspensions from an anonymous source, then had them confirmed by the sheriff. We’re also sure we know the name of the deputy accused of rape, but have not been able to have it confirmed yet.

 All of this raises more questions than it answers. And as far as we’re concerned, the most unhappy part of all this is that the entire investigation has been handled internally. Fellow officers are questioning and investigating each other, officers who socialize together, have coffee together and, we assume, trust and respect each other.
Now some are being asked to determine if others are guilty of crimes. Can they do so without bias? More importantly, should  they be asked to do so without bias? And if they are, will they be as tough on their fellow officers as they would be on a member of the public? Or, to prove their unbiased, will they be even tougher than usual? Either instance raises the fairness issue.

 That’s called a no-win situation, and it should have been recognized as such immediately. We don’t think the sheriff should have permitted these questions even to be raised. He could have avoided them by calling in an outside agency to conduct the investigation. He can avoid having them raised again by calling in such help now.

 The public expects- no, demands- that its law enforcement be above reproach. Bringing in the state Attorney General’s office, for instance, would go along way toward blunting the charge that a coverup is in the making, or that favoritism is a way of life in the sheriffs department. There are plenty of members of that department whose conduct is above reproach, who do not deserve the loss of respect and the damage to their careers that will come if this isn’t cleared up fairly, quickly, and completely. By someone from the outside.

                       -Steve Williams