Popkey, Dan (dpopkey@idahostatesman.

com) Add to contacts 3/14/14 To: WILLIAM GRIGG Cc: Bill Manny

Mr. Grigg: Our extensive reporting on this matter speaks for itself. Good luck with your project. Dan On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM, WILLIAM GRIGG <wngrigg@msn.com> wrote: Mr. Popkey, I just sent the following inquiry to Sheriff Raney, and I need your responses regarding those questions, as well. I also want to know why, in all of your coverage of this case, you didn't see fit to describe the background of the woman who accused Patterson of rape forty years ago. According to the police report, which you obtained, she was an emotionally disturbed woman who had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital; she had scattered five children (from more than one biological father) across at least two states, and had surrendered her parental rights over all of them; at the time of the purported rape, she was married, but separated, and living with another man. Her statement to police is also internally self-contradictory, given that she claimed to have told Patterson that she needed money for a sick child -- but NONE of her children was living with her at the time. Her testimony almost certainly wouldn't have held up in court. Her accusation against Patterson was the only "evidence" that a rape had occurred (the polygraph results in this case being exceptionally dubious, and inadmissible at trial). It is reasonable to surmise that this may be why the charge was expunged two years into Patterson's five-year term of probation. You made a point of impugning the character of the judge who effectively exonerated Patterson -- yet said nothing about the character and background of the accuser, which, unlike that of Judge Coe, was germane to this case. That omission would be inexplicable if your purpose was to report the facts without fear or favor. If that element had been reported in the Statesman, the public might have reason to conclude that Mark Patterson, whatever his faults, may well have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice forty years ago. If this facet of the story had been published, Patterson would have appeared much more sympathetic. Is that why you effectively concealed it?

I require your answers to these questions. Sincerely, William N. Grigg 208.642.8285 [Message to Sheriff Raney] Sheriff Raney, my name is William Grigg, and I'm writing a story about the Mark Patterson case. During an interview with Kevin Miller on KIDO last fall you said that the matter is "closed," but there are still pending matters that must be addressed.

1) You have claimed that the revocation of Patterson's CWL in 2013 came about because of a "tip" regarding information in his NCIC background check. Dan Popkey has confirmed that "No additional NCIC checks were performed" subsequent to the one in April 2012 that resulted in your office *approving* Patterson's CWL application, as it had five years earlier. This means that you were aware of his withheld judgment no later than April 2012, roughly a year *before* this supposed discovery -- yet you didn't make an issue out of this until after Patterson had criticized you for lobbying against a gun-rights measure. This brings up two questions: * Were you delinquent in approving Patterson's CWL application twice before revoking it last year? * Since you were aware of the withheld judgment, why pretend that this was "discovered" as a result of a "tip" from an unnamed source?

2) It is against federal law to disclose information from an NCIC check; according to the Idaho AG's office, this is against state law, as well. Either you, or somebody in your office, was involved in making this information available to the public. Two more questions arise: *Are you investigating this criminal act, as you are legally and ethically required to do? *If not, shouldn't you be prosecuted as an accessory to a crime?

3) You have filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Judy Boyle for making an inquiry of the AG's office regarding the CWL law and this issue of a previous withheld judgment. She has explained to me that this question was raised by one of her constituents, who is in a situation broadly similar to that of Mark Patterson. Offering a remarkably contrived argument you claimed that Rep. Boyle "committed a crime" because her question would be of benefit to Patterson. Two questions (one of them compound) present themselves:

* Are you seeking criminal prosecution of Rep. Boyle -- and, if not, why not? * If the answer to the question above is "no," isn't it reasonable to view this complaint as a purely retaliatory act?

4) Your email to Speaker Bedke on October 31 you seemed to suggest that it had been your intent to prosecute Mark Patterson for not mentioning his withheld judgment in his CWL application. Is that the case? If so, did this prove to be impossible because of the legal opinion provided by Brian Kane (in addition to the fact that your office twice approved Patterson's CWL, knowing about the withheld judgment from 40 years ago)? 5) What role, if any, did you play in the selection of Patrick McDonald, a former ISP officer, to replace Mark Patterson? I require answers to these questions, and they will be publicized -- as would a refusal to provide them. Very truly yours, William N. Grigg 208.642.8285 "If you can't do something smart, do something right." -Derrial Book (b. Henry Evans)

-Dan Popkey reporter/columnist Idaho Statesman 208-377-6438 desk 208-841-2618 cell