Police Say a Popular Officer Sought Boys in Children's Chat Rooms
> Michael Costello, 39, a popular youth officer in the 114th Precinct in
> Astoria, Queens, seemed like a model of community policing.
> Nancy DiMeglio, 74, vice president of the 114th Precinct's community
> council, described Officer Costello as a popular officer and said she
> was "in dead shock" to hear the charges.
Is it possible this was the result of a malicious frame-up or technical error in identification? Could the messages have been forged?
These are very serious charges and are reported on from time to time. But is the technical computer basis absolutely solidly accurate to identify the sender and content?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All those things are possible, except that 'someone' who produced a picture of Costello also somehow arranged for Costello to go to the Starbucks at the appointed meeting time and that same 'someone' arranged for Costello to have items in his possession of a sexual nature. Certainly not illegal, but when taken in the context of the other known things in the case, rather peculiar to say the least.
This is _precisely_ or quite nearly the same as the Kremen's matter which Ms. Howard wrote about in the other message in this issue, but unlike the third-party bystanders in Ms. Howard's report (an 'expert' discussing any possible relationship between pedophilia/homosexuality/ bisexualty and conveniently getting it all blurred together; an aggrieved parent organization with suggestions [albiet they are premature] of how to administer punishment, etc; and an alleged 'confession' of bisexuality to police officers), the only third-party bystander in Lisa Minter's report, was the 74 year old lady in the community organization who said she was 'shocked' by the report. And a news source (Watch Right.com) I have had experience with versus a news source (Howard) with whom I have no experience.
The above Editor's Note brought to you as a public service for the readers who wonder why transgressions of the cop _as reported_ were fair game but transgressions by the proprietor of sex.com _as reported_ were looked at somewhat askance. PAT]