Before we get too far away from that matter of Rachel Palmer taking the 5th, I would like to address Rachel directly regarding her commentary, behavior and specifically her appearance with her attorneys on Channel 11 after having taken the 5th. Let us review and reflect upon the following:
1. Rachel Palmer, this is not "about" you! In your testimony and selective interview with channel 11 you continually reference yourself, how long you have endured attacks from people on the blogs and Murray Newman himself and how tired you are of it, and blah blah blah-- it's all about you, you, you. Do not flatter yourself, Rachel, the only reason anyone pays attention to you is because you have continued to inject yourself in controversy in your ongoing attempt to ingratiate yourself to Pat Lykos and to cover up your criminal conduct contributing to the official oppression of Amanda Culbertson, and because your husband seems hellbent on showing his backside every time he gets a chance.
2. Dear Media, please stop calling Rachel Palmer a "top prosecutor." That's like calling a substitute kindergarten teacher among a bunch of college professors a 'top educator.' In the last 3 years since Lykos took over the office Rachel has not tried a single felony, and the few she did try before then did not go very well. She is a marginal trial lawyer at best. She has now found a comfortable place making more money than she is worth and all she does is supervise MISDEMEANORS. She probably wouldn't have a job at all at the office if Lykos had lost. As a victim of a violent crime, trust me, you wouldn't want Rachel Palmer advocating on your behalf.
3. Rachel testified that she was "scared" of Judge Susan Brown because of the way she treats her, and her only specific example was because of the way Judge Brown says "Hi, Rachel." Are you kidding me?? It has been a well known fact for a long time that from the standpoint of the prosecutor, Judge S. Brown's court is one of the best assignments in the trial bureau. She is fair, she knows the law, she is pleasant, and she is willing to go to trial on any type of case. Clearly Rachel Palmer was not around to try cases in front of notorious hard-assed judges such as Jimmy James, Joe Keagans, and ironically, PAT LYKOS who couldn't keep a consistent staff in her court from the district clerk's office because she was so damned mean. If all it takes to scare Rachel Palmer is the tone of one's voice when saying hello to her, she wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in Judge Pat Lykos' court. I am embarrassed to have ever been in the same occupational class with someone so soft and weak as Rachel Palmer.
4. What is Rachel Palmer (or anyone else) really saying when she asserts the 5th Amendment? Rachel is saying this: I am refusing to answer the questions because if I do, either I will have to admit I that have already committed a crime, OR the truthful answer I am required to give will itself contitute a crime (Aggravated Perjury). Whether there is a vast conspiracy or not to unseat Pat Lykos, the fact remains that Rachel Palmer is telling the world that either she has committed a crime for which she may yet be indicted or she has already committed or will commit perjury if she answers the questions. DOESN'T THAT BOTHER ANYONE IN THE LYKOS ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THEM IF IT DOESN'T? What has Rachel said or done that constitutes a crime, and who is she covering for besides herself? I hope the media and the public understands this about Rachel and Lykos.
5. What's in those emails, Rachel? I hope everyone noticed that during the interview with channel 11, Rachel's attorney Clay Rawlins had a stack of some "2000" emails of Rachel's subpoenaed by the grand jury, and he said something to the effect that with so many emails it is understandable that she might have made a mistake in them. WHAT MISTAKE?? Why didn't you read it to us? And Clay, maybe you ought to ask Chuck Rosenthal how well the 'mistake' defense works when emails are subpoenaed and used against you.
6. Under ANY other previous administration, Rachel, a prosecutor like you taking the 5th amendment would have been swiftly and unceremoniously FIRED. It was a policy of Mr. Holmes that, even if you are factually 'innocent'/or not guilty or not culpable or whatever, you as an employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office could expect to be fired for failing to cooperate in any way with a law enforcement investigation of any kind, constitutional rights be damned! Before Lykos, prosecutors were very aware, up front, that they are not mere citizens who possess those basic constitutional rights like everyone else. We were held to a higher standard of conduct. For example, if an Asst. DA got stopped for suspicion of DWI but was in fact not intoxicated, that Asst. DA would still be fired if the investigating officer asked him/her to take a breath test and he/she refused, despite the fact that any other ordinary citizen has a right to refuse a breath test. Why? Because prosecutors are an arm of law enforcement and as such, seekers of the truth, not hiders of it. Surely the public does not want a DA's Office with prosecutors who strutinize ordinary citizens everyday who are hiding facts which will incriminate them while simultaneously those same prosecutors are taking the 5th amendment any time they themselves want to avoid answering incriminating questions.
7. More to the point, Rachel, if you have nothing to hide, then why can't you answer the questions? Jim Leitner said to the media that he would be "hard pressed" to discipline an employee for exercising a constitutional right. Despite whatever experience he may have, it is clear that Mr. Leitner is first and foremost still a criminal defense attorney at heart and in practice. Rachel Palmer does have a right to take the 5th, but she doesn't have a constitutional right to do so and remain employed at the DA's Office. She remains employed at the will and pleasure of Pat Lykos. Keeping her so employed has rendered the Harris County DA's Office the Harris County Hypocritical DA's Office. Rachel, why don't you and your constitutional rights take a hike?
The level of hypocrisy is ridiculous. Wasn't Jim Leitner one of the same set of prosecutors who decided to get a copy of the transcript of witness testimony in grand jury despite his knowledge that Judge Brown and a court of appeals had ruled that grand jury may proceed without a member of the District Attorney's Office present, and despite his knowledge and understanding that Judge Brown did not grant him permission to get that transcript and in fact had told him not to do so? Yet a couple weeks later, apparently with Jim Leitner and the DA's Offices blessings, when Rachel Palmer gets herself cornered by incriminating questions, she refuses to answer media's questions and attempts to school Ted Oberg by stating, "You know that's not an appropriate question...grand jury proceedings are secret." Nauseating.
There is no vast conspiracy to unseat Pat Lykos (she brought this all on herself) but boy there ought to be because she has no respect for the law or anyone besides herself. There was a rumor that on the day Rachel spoke to Channel 11 with her attorneys and Leitner spoke to Ted Oberg that Pat Lykos told certain staff members that there was 'going to be a press conference,' and she was 'going to make everything right.' When are you going to speak to the media yourself, Pat? You can't hide forever. And putting Rachel and Leitner out there sure didn't make anything 'right.'