Ken Magidson and the Rosenthal Investigation?

Y'all aren't going to believe this, but I'm irritated with the Chronicle again.

In yesterday's edition, Rick Casey ventured back into CJC coverage (after spending a few months in hiding, hoping that Sam Siegler would forget about his earlier articles on him) with a column blasting District Attorney Kenneth Magidson for refusing to confirm or deny whether or not there was an on-going investigation into any misdeeds that Chuck Rosenthal committed as D.A.

I mean, how dare Kenneth Magidson focus on doing his job rather than appeasing Casey's journalistic curiosity?

"But . . . but . . ." sputters Casey, "the public has an interest in the decision and the reasons behind it."

Probably true. I'm sure the public has an interest in it.

Just like I'm sure "the public" had an interest in what General Eisenhower's invasion plans were for D-Day.

But sometimes there are things that the "public" is just going to have to wait on.

"I don't care what the public thinks," Magidson retorted. "I will do what is right."

(NOTE: I love how Casey used the word "retorted". It's almost like you can see the foam coming from Mr. Magidson's mouth as he dared to oppose the crusading journalist.)

All kidding aside, I say good for Kenneth Magidson. This guy is proving time and time again that the Governor made the right choice in who he selected to be the interim District Attorney. As many people like touting leaders who are a "PR Dream", I'd rather follow the leadership of somebody who does what's right, as opposed to what "looks best", any day of the week.

The bottom line is that when a case is in an "investigative phase", it often does need to be "kept on the QT", as Casey notes in the title to his article. An investigation is just that, an investigation. It doesn't mean any type of conclusive proof that there has been wrong-doing. The pre-hyping of an investigation leads to the pre-supposition of guilt, and a trial by public opinion, which nobody deserves.

Not even Chuck Rosenthal.

I think many of us will automatically jump to the conclusion that, by virtue of the fact that the "investigation" in question involves Rosenthal that, therefore, there is no need to keep any of it under wraps. Interesting theory, but that pretty much violates the theory of "innocent until proven guilty", now doesn't it?

If the District Attorney's Office was investigating any other public figure, the leaking of that investigation would be blasted as a political maneuver to undermine the Defendant's presumption of innocence, wouldn't it?

Did you expect Magidson to chunk that ideal out the window simply because he was dealing with Chuck?

If you did, you shouldn't have. Magidson's got more integrity than that. This guy is the real deal and he's proving it more and more by every day he's on the job.

It is regrettable that the Attorney General's Office did not follow the same idea that Magidson had, but they can play by their own rules.

By the way, Rick, maybe you ought to ask Pat Lykos and Clarence Bradford about what they think about the possibility of Magidson running an investigation into Chuck? I'd bet that they would tell you they were glad that he was shouldering the fallout of it so that they won't have to. I'm sure that they are quite happy that you are whining in your articles about Magidson, rather than them.

Don't get too stressed out if Magidson still doesn't bow to your request though, Rick. You can always just re-write your same column five times in a row. I mean, hell, if Jeff Cohen lets Lisa Falkenberg do it, he should let you do the same thing, too, right?