Newburyport Daily News
---- — To the editor:
I must respectfully differ with remarks made in your March 26 story, “Police: Clues lead to suspect.” Although I am glad to hear that police are circulating images of the alleged bank robber, they are just that: images. A police department cannot claim to have a suspect until they have the name or identity of an alleged culprit. The image merely leads to a photo, not a bank robber.
Secondly, the story editorializes a bit by stating that, “Seabrook police typically have had good success capturing alleged bank robbers in recent years.” In fact, the story admits that Salisbury and Amesbury police arrested that suspect, not Seabrook. At Rockingham County Courthouse, I sat through the sentencing hearing for another Seabrook bank robber who had turned himself in. He was not caught by Seabrook PD at all. Another Seabrook bank robber was caught by concerned citizens.
In a larger sense, the Seabrook police union has been fighting the installation of dash cams in cruisers for years, despite the fact that they are widely supported by the public for gathering evidence in cases just like this — as well as capturing bad acts by officers or those who might get a free pass. In addition to the 2010 North Hampton collision, which has resulted in an expensive lawsuit for the town, and the 2011 drunk driving incident for former Sgt. Preston, even more questions are being raised about possible favoritism surrounding an alleged drunk driving incident involving the wife of a Seabrook lieutenant.