Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[Subfiend]

Is there anything we can do to encourage a proper investigation? If random people from the internet contact the AG does that help or just annoy them?

We are working on this. I don’t think the AUSA cares what the public thinks, but Congress and the Inspector General of the Dept. of the Interior do.

 

[Seaweed Doc]

We are working on this. I don’t think the AUSA cares what the public thinks, but Congress and the Inspector General of the Dept. of the Interior do.

Great idea on the I. G.

Not my field of work with the government in this case, but with agencies like NSF and NOAA there seems to be a palpable fear of the IG.

 

[DavidFL]

We are working on this. I don’t think the AUSA cares what the public thinks, but Congress and the Inspector General of the Dept. of the Interior do.

Is there any point of also asking the Justice Department Inspector General to look at the case?

 

[Subfiend]

Is there any point of also asking the Justice Department Inspector General to look at the case?

Maybe, but the DOJ acts on the information provided by the DOI. Remember, "garbage in equals garbage out." Unless and until the DOI does its job properly, which may or may not happen, the DOJ can sit back and wait for the results.

 

[Subfiend]

Many commentators have expressed outrage and incredulity that the AUSA declined to prosecute this case, and many have asked why? I have my own ideas about this, and there are few things about my conversations with the ISB and AUSA that I feel comfortable revealing to the public:

• I initially became involved in finding out what happened to Linnea Mills because my wife is friends with Lisa Mills, the family was understandably devastated by her loss and they had questions, they were getting little or no information from the NPS and others, and they did not understand what little information they were getting because it was confusing and they were not divers. If somebody or something kills my friends' child and they ask for my help, I will give it to them every time.
• I was asked by the National Park Service Investigative Services Branch ("ISB") if I would agree to stop my investigation into Linnea's death and wait for the ISB to finish its investigation and release its results to the Mills family via a response to a FOIA request. I declined. I knew from prior experience that the NPS investigation and FOIA process would take at least a year, and the ISB investigators did not know what they were doing from the outset.
• Although I declined to wait on my investigation, I did offer and agree not to interview any eye-witnesses until after the ISB conducted its interviews so the witnesses' statements would be "pure" -- that is, I would not inadvertently provide any information to the witnesses that they did not already have, before they were interviewed by the ISB. One year later, when we received the NPS report through a FOIA request, the transcripts of witness interviews revealed that the ISB investigators repeatedly advised witnesses not to speak to me or my investigator, although they thought it was alright for Snow to speak to PADI and its investigator. Let that sink in for a moment. The ISB investigators charged with investigating a crime told the people with the most direct knowledge of what happened not to speak to the family's representatives who, at that time, were trying to determine and explain to the Mills family what had happened to their daughter, because there were getting little or no information from the NPS.
• I was repeatedly advised by both the ISB and, later, the AUSA, that the existence of a potential and, later, actual civil case was an inhibitor to pursuing criminal charges, because the feds did not want to do my work for me or make a civil case stronger. I repeatedly responded that this concern was stupid. First, the ISB did not know what it was doing, nor did it appear interested in consulting with experts that could help them properly do their jobs. Second, if a criminal case was brought, this would delay the civil case and weaken the case against the other defendants, because they could simply point the finger of blame at the person(s) charged with committing a crime.
• After the case settled, I was informed by the AUSA that PADI's presence was still an inhibitor to pursuing criminal charges. I find this mystifying. While it is true that PADI's local counsel is the wife of the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, this fact should have no bearing on anything, and I don't believe it could. I don't believe the attorney or her husband, who are both ethical and professional, would care one whit about the legal process taking its course according to the facts and the law. The AUSA's comment remains unexplained.
• The new evidence that has been presented to the AUSA is available, and always has been available, to the ISB and the AUSA. They just: (a) never looked at it; (b) did not understand what they were looking at; (c) in some instances, never bothered to understand what they were looking at; (d) never looked for the evidence in the first place, even though its presence was open and/or obvious; and/or (e) simply ignored the evidence outright.
• Upon re-reading the ISB interview with Debbie Snow, which occurred before the ISB interviewed other eye-witnesses with contrary information, reviewed PADI training standards (which define the standard of care) or watched the video of Linnea's death, it appears to me that the ISB investigators demonstrated they had already reached their own conclusion -- based on what Snow told them -- that Linnea was experienced and had accepted the risk of her injuries. Maybe their statements are just some weird investigative technique I am not aware of, but their language mirrored almost exactly the language later used by the AUSA in explaining her reasons for declining to prosecute.

 

[PirateFoxy]

Many commentators have expressed outrage and incredulity that the AUSA declined to prosecute this case, and many have asked why? I have my own ideas about this, and there are few things about my conversations with the ISB and AUSA that I feel comfortable revealing to the public:

• I initially became involved in finding out what happened to Linnea Mills because my wife is friends with Lisa Mills, the family was understandably devastated by her loss and they had questions, they were getting little or no information from the NPS and others, and they did not understand what little information they were getting because it was confusing and they were not divers. If somebody or something kills my friends' child and they ask for my help, I will give it to them every time.
• I was asked by the National Park Service Investigative Services Branch ("ISB") if I would agree to stop my investigation into Linnea's death and wait for the ISB to finish its investigation and release its results to the Mills family via a response to a FOIA request. I declined. I knew from prior experience that the NPS investigation and FOIA process would take at least a year, and the ISB investigators did not know what they were doing from the outset.
• Although I declined to wait on my investigation, I did offer and agree not to interview any eye-witnesses until after the ISB conducted its interviews so the witnesses' statements would be "pure" -- that is, I would not inadvertently provide any information to the witnesses that they did not already have, before they were interviewed by the ISB. One year later, when we received the NPS report through a FOIA request, the transcripts of witness interviews revealed that the ISB investigators repeatedly advised witnesses not to speak to me or my investigator, although they thought it was alright for Snow to speak to PADI and its investigator. Let that sink in for a moment. The ISB investigators charged with investigating a crime told the people with the most direct knowledge of what happened not to speak to the family's representatives who, at that time, were trying to determine and explain to the Mills family what had happened to their daughter, because there were getting little or no information from the NPS.
• I was repeatedly advised by both the ISB and, later, the AUSA, that the existence of a potential and, later, actual civil case was an inhibitor to pursuing criminal charges, because the feds did not want to do my work for me or make a civil case stronger. I repeatedly responded that this concern was stupid. First, the ISB did not know what it was doing, nor did it appear interested in consulting with experts that could help them properly do their jobs. Second, if a criminal case was brought, this would delay the civil case and weaken the case against the other defendants, because they could simply point the finger of blame at the person(s) charged with committing a crime.
• After the case settled, I was informed by the AUSA that PADI's presence was still an inhibitor to pursuing criminal charges. I find this mystifying. While it is true that PADI's local counsel is the wife of the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, this fact should have no bearing on anything, and I don't believe it could. I don't believe the attorney or her husband, who are both ethical and professional, would care one whit about the legal process taking its course according to the facts and the law. The AUSA's comment remains unexplained.
• The new evidence that has been presented to the AUSA is available, and always has been available, to the ISB and the AUSA. They just: (a) never looked at it; (b) did not understand what they were looking at; (c) in some instances, never bothered to understand what they were looking at; (d) never looked for the evidence in the first place, even though its presence was open and/or obvious; and/or (e) simply ignored the evidence outright.
• Upon re-reading the ISB interview with Debbie Snow, which occurred before the ISB interviewed other eye-witnesses with contrary information, reviewed PADI training standards (which define the standard of care) or watched the video of Linnea's death, it appears to me that the ISB investigators demonstrated they had already reached their own conclusion -- based on what Snow told them -- that Linnea was experienced and had accepted the risk of her injuries. Maybe their statements are just some weird investigative technique I am not aware of, but their language mirrored almost exactly the language later used by the AUSA in explaining her reasons for declining to prosecute.

Would I be correct in my understanding that the ISB agents are national, so the investigators involved likely don't exclusively work in Montana? Can they be assigned anywhere or are they assigned regionally only?

This does not sound reassuring about the quality of work they are doing, and we use the National Parks enough that I would like to know if anything happens to us things will be *competently* investigated.

 

[Subfiend]

Would I be correct in my understanding that the ISB agents are national, so the investigators involved likely don't exclusively work in Montana? Can they be assigned anywhere or are they assigned regionally only?

This does not sound reassuring about the quality of work they are doing, and we use the National Parks enough that I would like to know if anything happens to us things will be *competently* investigated.

Yes. They are national. I think there are 20-30 ISB investigators in the US and they go where they are needed.

The NPS DSO is based in Colorado, and the DSO goes where needed to investigate diving cases. Except in this case.

 

[Seaweed Doc]

• Although I declined to wait on my investigation, I did offer and agree not to interview any eye-witnesses until after the ISB conducted its interviews so the witnesses' statements would be "pure" -- that is, I would not inadvertently provide any information to the witnesses that they did not already have, before they were interviewed by the ISB. One year later, when we received the NPS report through a FOIA request, the transcripts of witness interviews revealed that the ISB investigators repeatedly advised witnesses not to speak to me or my investigator, although they thought it was alright for Snow to speak to PADI and its investigator. Let that sink in for a moment. The ISB investigators charged with investigating a crime told the people with the most direct knowledge of what happened not to speak to the family's representatives who, at that time, were trying to determine and explain to the Mills family what had happened to their daughter, because there were getting little or no information from the NPS.

Thanks again for your willingness to engage on this.

First, my condolences. I had no idea these were family friends. And thank you for being there for the family.

Second, many of your comments make me question the competence of the ISB and the AUSA. The feds actions should not be guided by whether or not there exists a civil case. It's doing their job they should be worried about, not whether or not they're doing yours. Criminal and civil processes seem to both go along in parallel just fine in other situations.

I don't want to appear argumentative, but I'm not following the logic on the comparison of your not interviewing witnesses to PADI interviewing Snow. I can see maintaining the purity of the investigation being a concern when an individual is talking to multiple witnesses. Perhaps you say something that one witness told you that makes another witness realize they can't stick to the story they made up or convinces them that that's also what they "saw." But since PADI wasn't an eyewitness and presumably is only speaking to Snow, is the same concern applicable? Recognizing PADI isn't her employer, but using an analogy, if my boss didn't witness a potential crime I committed while working would I be asked not to speak to the boss? Or spouse?

What am I missing? Was PADI a potential target of a criminal probe? Again, not trying to be argumentative but figuring I need to have somebody turn on the light bulb for my slow brain on this...

If something happened to my child and a criminal investigation were underway, of course I'd want to know as much as possible. But it seems like in our local criminal investigations quite often a lot of details aren't released. That said, a family liaison of some kind would be available to communicate what CAN be communicated and perhaps to consider questions the family might ask. Perhaps this didn't exist?

 

[Seaweed Doc]

The NPS DSO is based in Colorado, and the DSO goes where needed to investigate diving cases. Except in this case.

Except in this case?

This whole situation has me swearing a lot. And I don't swear, but what the hell?

 

[Subfiend]

Thanks again for your willingness to engage on this.

First, my condolences. I had no idea these were family friends. And thank you for being there for the family.

Second, many of your comments make me question the competence of the ISB and the AUSA. The feds actions should not be guided by whether or not there exists a civil case. It's doing their job they should be worried about, not whether or not they're doing yours. Criminal and civil processes seem to both go along in parallel just fine in other situations.

I don't want to appear argumentative, but I'm not following the logic on the comparison of your not interviewing witnesses to PADI interviewing Snow. I can see maintaining the purity of the investigation being a concern when an individual is talking to multiple witnesses. Perhaps you say something that one witness told you that makes another witness realize they can't stick to the story they made up or convinces them that that's also what they "saw." But since PADI wasn't an eyewitness and presumably is only speaking to Snow, is the same concern applicable? Recognizing PADI isn't her employer, but using an analogy, if my boss didn't witness a potential crime I committed while working would I be asked not to speak to the boss? Or spouse?

What am I missing? Was PADI a potential target of a criminal probe? Again, not trying to be argumentative but figuring I need to have somebody turn on the light bulb for my slow brain on this...

If something happened to my child and a criminal investigation were underway, of course I'd want to know as much as possible. But it seems like in our local criminal investigations quite often a lot of details aren't released. That said, a family liaison of some kind would be available to communicate what CAN be communicated and perhaps to consider questions the family might ask. Perhaps this didn't exist?

I don’t have a problem with the instructor speaking to the investigator for the agency they are a member of. The instructor has a contractual obligation to do so.

Also, I would not attempt to contact the instructor because I know they are likely represented by counsel and it would be unethical for me to do so. But, the ISB investigators don’t know about this rule my law firm and I adhere to. They thought I was going to contact Snow, and they told her this was likely. Then, they advised her not to talk to me.

I have a HUGE problem with government investigators telling witnesses not to speak to the interested parties’ attorneys or their investigators. What right do they have to interfere with the family’s investigation?

Ironically, the ISB investigators prefaced their advice with “I probably shouldn’t say this” and “I can’t tell you not to talk to them…” but then this is exactly what they did, with multiple witnesses.

There was a family liaison, but they were in the dark most of the time. ISB was in the lead, and everyone else in the NPS followed.

The other thing that should never have happened is the ISB lied to the family. They said, in essence, they had left no stone unturned, which was demonstrably false. They also said they could not determine the effect of suit squeeze because “nobody had ever studied it.” This was also false. In fact, Glacier was speaking to an expert who had studied it, in an investigation I was part of, but ISB stopped speaking to this expert. In the expert’s words, he was “ghosted” by ISB.

Last, but not least, in the last conversation I had with the lead ISB agent, he expressed his unhappiness that the Mills family was expressing remarks that were critical of the ISB and the AUSA’s decision not to prosecute, and he asked me to advise them to stop. I responded that this was never going to happen, and I intend to keep my word.