An Unpleasant Email Exchange

The day after detaining “Ivar” at Claudia Cowen’s apartment, agent Fawkes is greeted with this very unpleasant email message....

----------------------------

>So, you finally bring in a suspect on the Carlisle case? Thanks for keeping me informed.

>I thought I'd inform you that I received a call from the Los Angeles County Jail at 6 a.m. this morning. It seems that your suspect, a "Mr. Ivar the domestic custodian" was unlawfully detained, apprehended against his will, and did not have his Miranda rights read to him during the 40+ minutes he was in your custody. Accordingly, they released him.

>IF THIS IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO FOLLOWING BUREAU PROCEDURES, PERHAPS YOU'D BE HAPPIER VISITING THE KINKO'S COPIES OF NORTHERN WYOMING TO CHECK UP ON THEIR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. ITS A DISGRACE TO THE BUREAU, AND YOU'D BETTER HOPE THIS INCIDENT DOESN'T GET LEAKED TO THE PRESS.

>I'M LOOKING TO SEE THIS CASE SOLVED, DAMMIT. SO GET BACK OUT THERE AND DO YOUR JOBS. RIGHT THIS TIME.

>Assistant Director Purcell

----------------------------

New to the LA office and feeling very defensive, not to mention angry at what appears to be betrayal by his own colleagues, Fawkes replies immediately....

>To Assistant Director Purcell

>From SA Carter Fawkes

>Re: Procedural irregularity

>Sir,

>With all due respect, "Ivar the domestic custodian" was in the custody of Det. Mills, LA County Sheriff's Dept, Division of Homicide. He was not in Federal custody. If his Miranda rights were not read to him, it may be because he wasn't under arrest: he was brought in for questioning as a potential witness in Carlisle's death. It may also be because he professed not to speak or understand English, and Det. Mills was going to get an interpreter who could speak Russian. I regret that LA County chose to trouble you at six a.m. to inform you of his release rather than contacting me, and I apologize for your inconvenience. It certainly is incomprehensible, since they had my card and instructions to keep me informed when the interpreter arrived. I'll find out how Det. Mills could have dropped the ball, and how LA County could have been so uncooperative.

>I presume, of course, that the Bureau still has sufficient interest in this investigation not to let LA County dictate how it will be run: please let me know if you'd rather turn it over to them. I trust you don't question our desire to solve the case. At the moment, sir, I have to tell you there doesn't seem to be a prosecutable offense involved: all forensic results clearly indicate that Carlisle committed suicide. His motivations for doing so remain somewhat mysterious, and it remains possible that others are at risk. There are many more questions to be answered. But the Bureau's ongoing interest in the matter is open to interpretation, and it seems possible that remaining questions are more appropriately investigated by Naval Intelligence rather than the Bureau. I won't presume to speak for Agent Crowe, but if you are dissatisfied with my performance I would appreciate your guidance in determining what, in fact, the case IS. I assure you my best effort is going into it.

>Sorry to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I'll be watching my step a little more closely.

>SA Fawkes

----------------------------

This only barely conciliatory reply came back in short order....

>Agent Fawkes,

>Please try to curb your defensive tone; your in Los Angeles now, and that is not the type of work environment which we endeavor to foster. While "loosing" a suspect while in care by the LA Sheriff's office may not fall directly to you, as I understand it, the man was held against his will at gunpoint by you and agent Crowe without being charged for a crime. The man's English was clearly fluent enough that he could say he wasn't read his Miranda rights. Didn't one of you say he had a copy of an English translation of Pushkin on his person? If a person will not submit to voluntary questioning, law enforcement MUST verbally make him aware of his rights. I assumed they still covered that at the academy.

>Second, I understand you have a history with "strange" cases. Nonetheless, are you trying to tell me that a senior Navy Intelligence office sawed off his own arm, drew a weird symbol on the wall in his blood, and left someone's tooth on his shirt as part of a simple suicide? That noise you may hear is my credulity straining. Naval Intelligence Internal Affairs bears responsibility for the conduct of Lt. Carlisle. The Federal Bureau of Investigation must exercise due diligence to determine whether a crime was committed in this case, particularly since the facts of the case could potentially be connected to a breach of national security. As soon as you can prepare a case report with a plausible explanation of the facts at hand; present it to me and I'll be more than happy to assign you to another case. Until that time, get me some answers!!!

>Purcell

----------------------------

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO STORY