Blaine County Coroner Speaks on Johnson Case

[NicoMoon]

In an interview today, Blaine County Idaho Coroner Russ Mikel offered his thoughts on the Alan and Diane Johnson murder scene investigation.

"I don't believe that anyone should be put away for any crime that hasn't been throughly investigated from all sides." Mikel said.

Out of character with the normal and expected murder scene investigation, Mr. Mikel was not permitted access to the scene until 8:30 PM on the evening of September 2, 2003, a full 14 hours after the murders were reported.

Expressing frustration that he was denied the expected access to the murder scene, Mikel stated his opinion that based on what he did observe "It would have been difficult at least for Sarah to have committed the murders. I didn't see how she could have, it appeared to me to be the work of a professional."

Mikel went on to say that once he arrived on the scene he was not permitted to take pictures or to document his observations. As a result, he states that the official coroner's report for the murder victims does not include any data from the scene, as is the usual procedure. He did authorize the bodies to be removed for autopsy, the results of which comprise the full content of the official coroner's report.

Mikel also dispelled previous statements by other sources that he reported that one of Alan Johnson's fingers had a torn nail, indicating that he'd been in a violent struggle just prior to his death.

Asked why he thought he had been denied the opportunity to follow routine investigation procedures, Mikel stated that he could only speculate, and therefore didn't wish to comment. He did go on to mention that he had contacted the Idaho State Attorney General's office to share his concerns about how this investigation was conducted.

When asked if he'd been interviewed by any investigators looking into the Johnson murders, Mikel responded that he had given information to one of the defense investigators and shared his concerns at that time.

Although Mikel was subpoenaed by the prosecution, he was not called to testify during the trial. He expressed his surprise that he was not subpoeanaed by the defense team, or called by them to testify.

Mr. Mikel stated that he is happy to know that the matter is being looked into, as he has lingering concerns about how the investigation was conducted.

[InsanitysAngel]

Wow, I'm not familiar with the case but THAT certainly should make one hesitate and think that something is not quite right.

I'll have to catch up on this.

[NicoMoon]

Wow, I'm not familiar with the case but THAT certainly should make one hesitate and think that something is not quite right.

I'll have to catch up on this.

Yes, I apologize for not getting all the relevant information up here. I have time management problems!

I was posting more on this at CTV in hopes of getting some useful information, but that's over. It's impossible to have a rational interaction on that site. Name a name, and the next thing, there's a swarm of maniacs all over the person. It's just unbelievable. Those people are so immature and inappropriate it's scary.

One thing I've figured out is how to get revenge on someone I don't like. Just post their name on CTV boards and say I like them. :dork:

This is such a serious matter, the life of a very young person who very well may have been railroaded into prison, simply because she was an easy mark, and there were politically expedient reasons to get a quick conviction with as little controversy as possible.

The fact that it's so easy and for many even so DELIGHTFUL to join in behaviors that are really nothing more than pilings on against any person, even one convicted of a serious crime really serves to prove how easily someone can be set-up in this country.

It's one thing to believe that someone is guilty, quite another to attempt to thwart the sharing of information or any process of evaluation as to how that verdict was reached. It's beyond childish and nasty, it's unethical and dangerous.

It's just what we need, prosecutors getting convictions because they are astute enough and sleazy enough to exploit the worst in human behavior. These people are like sharks and pirhanna, swarming frantically at any hint of a drop of blood. It truly disgusts me that people behave this way, that they're proud of themselves, and that their out of control primitive urges can be exploited and manipulated to thwart the cause of justice. But that's exactly what's going on in this country, sad to say.

And there are many warning signs that this is exactly what happened with Sarah Johnson, and that's why I'm so interested in pursuing this case. Just the fact that ANYONE would have a problem with that, or worse, would try to hinder the process is disconcerting just by itself.

OK, rant over. CTV board behavior is another issue for another Forum, isn't it? Although I'm not just speaking of CTV boards, but it is an excellent source for observation on the worst in human behavior. I don't intend to visit there again, the entire site disgusts me. There's no reason for it to be that way, but it's apparent that the mod/s there want it that way, and so it goes.

[InsanitysAngel]

It should be about the truth, and nothing more.

But it appears that some police departments and DA offices have turned it into nothing more than politics and a dog and pony show.

Shameful, just shameful.

[LightHeart]

I am sure you noticed Nico, once one came out over there, they all came out. I guess it's true what they say, "Wolves run in packs",

[NicoMoon]

I am sure you noticed Nico, once one came out over there, they all came out. I guess it's true what they say, "Wolves run in packs",

I logged out, and don't intend to log back in again. The behavior disgusts me, but it disgusts me more that it's not only allowed, but it's encouraged. The people who indulge in the mob behavior over there are evidently operating on nothing more than the demands of their own brain chemicals. They can't seem to help themselves, and they certainly aren't capable of critical thinking.

The fact of the matter is that those who enjoy expressing their hatred for Sarah Johnson exhibit more of the characteristics of someone who might likely commit a crime of violence than she ever did. I hope no guns go off in any of their proximity. They'd be even easier to convict than she was.

One has to wonder if they've ever been the victims of a serious ganging up on, or if all this stems from their frustrations over someone once telling them about themselves, and they've just never gotten over the pain.

I'll repeat myself, they disgust me. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.

[NicoMoon]

It should be about the truth, and nothing more.

That's certainly the common decency perspective, not to mention the socially responsible and ethical one.



But it appears that some police departments and DA offices have turned it into nothing more than politics and a dog and pony show.

Shameful, just shameful.

It does appear so, and it's been established so in some cases. That is it's flat out evil to try to thwart any exercise of due diligence on behalf of ANYONE who has been charged with or convicted of a crime.

People who do that are ignorant, short-sighted, and have no clue what the meaning or function of the word "justice" is. As far as I'm concerned they're as much a problem as the criminal perpetrators are. They're not a lot different, both groups function on pure emotion and never bother themselves to consider the consequences of their actions. Both groups of misbehavers seem to think that they are entitled to do whatever the hell they feel like, and therefore have free license to punish and harm anyone who presents a challenge to them.

Keeping this on topic to the Sarah Johnson case, there was a tremendous amount of odd behavior going on around that case, starting with the Sheriff broadcasting over police radio his concerns for the reputation of the "resort town" right down to the jubilant lynch mob mentality of Sarah's family and her parents circle of friends.

Naturally these dimbulbs from CTV boards would jump on the trash, slash, and burn wagon in default to decency, because that seems to be ALL they do, and ALL they care to do.

Which is not to say that there wasn't some good thinking and interesting commentary occurring during the discussion, it's just that you had to pick your way through piles of garbage to get to it.

People who can't manage to function normally in the face of disagreement should probably stay out of controversial discussions as a public service. Or better yet, the mods should make that determination for them, as we do here.

[Franklin]

Nico and I came up with at least 5 major indiscretions in this prosecution, any of which should be sufficient to throw out the conviction. Nico mentioned one of the - the fact that the coroner was not allowed to do his job.

Part of the reason she was convicted, IMO, is the attitude/behavior of the townsfolk and Sara's family, which parallel the attitudes and behaviors of the CTV trolls - th inability and/or unwillingness to think. I should just say unwillingness, because only very few of us are truly unable to think. Which would be OK, I guess if one just wants to veg out in front of the telly, or hang out in the local bar. But when someone gets involved - by serving on a jury, posting on a message board or wearing inflammatory shirts at the trial - then one has an obligation to think.

So if the trolls think what they're doing is cute, it's not. Who would want these brain-dead, soulless people on a jury if they were on trial? Or to depend on them in any way to act responsibly? Apparently that's type of folks who ran this trial. And the commentators on Court TV were right in there.

Now where are the bleeding heart celebrities? I guess this case wouldn't advance their careers. Where's Nancy Grace with all her insight/incite? If it can happen to Sarah Johnson, it can happen to any of us who isn't rich or famous, or a poster boy for the Me Generation, Good Old Boy Network, Playboy fantasy, Scott Peterson.

[Sunny Lincoln]

Nico and I came up with at least 5 major indiscretions in this prosecution, any of which should be sufficient to throw out the conviction. Nico mentioned one of the - the fact that the coroner was not allowed to do his job.

Part of the reason she was convicted, IMO, is the attitude/behavior of the townsfolk and Sara's family, which parallel the attitudes and behaviors of the CTV trolls - th inability and/or unwillingness to think. I should just say unwillingness, because only very few of us are truly unable to think. Which would be OK, I guess if one just wants to veg out in front of the telly, or hang out in the local bar. But when someone gets involved - by serving on a jury, posting on a message board or wearing inflammatory shirts at the trial - then one has an obligation to think.

So if the trolls think what they're doing is cute, it's not. Who would want these brain-dead, soulless people on a jury if they were on trial? Or to depend on them in any way to act responsibly? Apparently that's type of folks who ran this trial. And the commentators on Court TV were right in there.

Now where are the bleeding heart celebrities? I guess this case wouldn't advance their careers. Where's Nancy Grace with all her insight/incite? If it can happen to Sarah Johnson, it can happen to any of us who isn't rich or famous, or a poster boy for the Me Generation, Good Old Boy Network, Playboy fantasy, Scott Peterson.

IMO most of the people who don't scrutinize evidence and facts are like baby birds-they like their news regurgitated from the talking heads. Have they ever wondered who the talking heads get their info from?

They aren't curious about investigation anomalies. They dismiss them. And they are critical of those who wonder about them.

What is even more egregious is that they dismiss any piece of evidence that might exonerate the person they have decided is guilty.

I am not surprised by the coroner's story.

I am not surprised that the mob doesn't like questions. It would require thought and that in turn would make them feel unsafe.

I realized this one day when a poster answered my question by saying the person was guilty because LE arrested him.

[NicoMoon]

IMO most of the people who don't scrutinize evidence and facts are like baby birds-they like their news regurgitated from the talking heads. Have they ever wondered who the talking heads get their info from?

They aren't curious about investigation anomalies. They dismiss them. And they are critical of those who wonder about them.

What is even more egregious is that they dismiss any piece of evidence that might exonerate the person they have decided is guilty.

I am not surprised by the coroner's story.

I am not surprised that the mob doesn't like questions. It would require thought and that in turn would make them feel unsafe.

I realized this one day when a poster answered my question by saying the person was guilty because LE arrested him.

I think you're spot on, Sunny. Our entire system of justice is based on a conscientious and responsible citizenry, from which our juries are drawn. As the exercise of our God given intelligence declines, so will our society.

I mean, why incur the expense of a trial, why not just ask Nancy Grace what she thinks? :worthy: :rolleyes:

[Sunny Lincoln]

I think you're spot on, Sunny. Our entire system of justice is based on a conscientious and responsible citizenry, from which our juries are drawn. As the exercise of our God given intelligence declines, so will our society.

I mean, why incur the expense of a trial, why not just ask Nancy Grace what she thinks? :worthy: :rolleyes:

Exactly, friend! :jumpers:

[NicoMoon]

Exactly, friend! :jumpers:

Damn! You stole the best smiley!! :circle:

See you in the next post, Friend!! :evil:

Or should we just say "Guilty, Friend, shame on you" ??? http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:sbEt0o76trynJM:www.telechimp.com/telechimp/nancy%2520grace.jpg :shin:

[Sunny Lincoln]

I wish Nancy Grace and her ilk would just shut up. I think they are doing more harm to our justice system than bad cops and lying perps.

They have made horrors into entertainment for the masses. And it is the masses who serve on juries. I don't see how it serves us to have our juries biased by all the yadda, yadda that comes out of Nancy's mouth.

Nancy is like the Queen of Hearts, who says "Off with their heads!" whether the facts support her feelings or not. I've heard her get it wrong too many times to blindly follow her decrees :mad:

[NicoMoon]

I wish Nancy Grace and her ilk would just shut up. I think they are doing more harm to our justice system than bad cops and lying perps.

They have made horrors into entertainment for the masses. And it is the masses who serve on juries. I don't see how it serves us to have our juries biased by all the yadda, yadda that comes out of Nancy's mouth.

Nancy is like the Queen of Hearts, who says "Off with their heads!" whether the facts support her feelings or not. I've heard her get it wrong too many times to blindly follow her decrees :mad:

Yes, it's all true, but I have another perspective on that. The Nancy Graces of the world only exist because of their wide appeal. If we didn't give them their numbers, we wouldn't be hearing from them.

But I'm all for controversy and the free expression of all sides of any argument. It's just sad that people who get their faces on TV have so much influence. That's our fault. We don't have to afford anyone any special powers just because we see them on camera.

But I also do believe that people in the media have a responsibility to acknowledge the false sense of authority they are mindlessly granted and deal with it conscientiously. But there's no money in that, and there's the problem. We are an increasingly mindless society, totally dependent upon talking heads, and more influenced by their sense of fashion than by what they have to say.

Nancy Grace is as much entitled to her opinion as anyone else is, but my problem with CTV, Fox News, CNN, all the media outlets is that they are clearly hiring and promoting people who suit their corporate political agendas.

What really bugs me about Court TV is that it's so black, white, and simplistic in its presentation of something as complex important and vital as the workings of our judicial system. It should be educational in the extreme, but instead it's entertaining to the point of being disconcerting, and let's face it, it's geared toward the mentality of the lowest common denominator.

This is another reason, IMO, why it's so difficult, if not impossible to have a rational and intelligent discussion on the CTV boards. They are there for the consciously and deliberately ignorant, the Jerry Springer crowd, the same as the TV shows are.

We might as well be watching and discussing soap opera characters instead of facing the harsh and often difficult realities of life. We really don't need cheerleaders for or against the players in serious matters of criminal justice, we need objective, thoughtful and intelligent minds serving to illuminate us on the complexities of our legal system, not a bunch of biased media friendly faces oversimplifying everything for us.

[ScarlettRuby]

Nico, what's going on with Sarah Johnson? You've gotten me interested now. That coroner interview is disturbing.

[NicoMoon]

Nico, what's going on with Sarah Johnson? You've gotten me interested now. That coroner interview is disturbing.

Sorry I missed this until now, Scarlett! Thanks for asking.

I'm still working on compiling information on this case. In a way I'm sorry that I started it while in the midst of so many other projects. I'd like to get some momentum going and keep it going.

So much of the information I have I really wouldn't even dare post, it's so highly inflammatory and shocking. I have to do a lot of follow-up to verify or substantiate it in some way, or get the horse's mouths to express it themselves, like the coroner was willing to do.

What I will say is that Sarah, by my evaluation, is currently screwed. She never had and still doesn't have the kind of support and advice she needs.

I am beyond sure that she has not gotten a fair shake. That's about all I'm willing to say right now, but stay tuned, because I'm not forgetting about this one, or letting it go. What happened to Sarah could happen to anyone of us, and I find that to be quite frightening. One thing is quite clear to me, and that is that there wasn't any more compelling physical evidence against her than there was against Robert Blake. It's just that Sarah didn't have the same advantages.

I can't figure out how many of the same people who cite the lack of blood splatter on Blake as compelling evidence for his innocence don't seem to want to afford Sarah the same argument. Maybe they didn't find her equally sexy or something, it's a mystery to me!