Ah, the cesspool depths of Oregonian-style investigative reporting! My guess is that there are reporters over there who wouldn't be caught dead with their names on that story; others are more easily conned by Detzel AKA "The Pretzel" for how he twists and bakes facts to come up with "duh truth".

The Francke story is way beyond my interest and attention level. But Les Zaitz at least used to be The Oregonian's best reporter, and a respectable investigative one. I wouldn't tend to immediately dismiss his endeavor.

I consider the problem with the Oregonian's investigative reporting to be primarily an editorial one; they do have some decent investigative team members, although, personally, I haven't been impressed with Zaitz (sp?). What concerns me are the facts that are being left out-dismissed- in the Francke matter, those the Tribune pointed out. Most of what I know about this particular case is due to the diligent efforts of Phil Stanford and Jim Redden. But I have seen first hand other examples of cases where judges granted motions to limit relevant evidence (this I learned from the film), and, I believe, this should concern all of us. If we don't have legitimate courts, we don't have much at all. A memorable quote about our not-so-fair state came from a woman I met in the Honolulu airport in the 90s who ran a typing service for vacationing lawyers in Aspen Co: "Ah, Oregon; Mafia controlled courts and ubiquitous cafe latte". Imho, we should be paying more, not less, attention. No matter what the big O tells us to do.

The thing that amazed me about that article is that they didn't really seem interested in disproving the multiple allegations of corruption as much as they were intent on disproving the specific allegation that the corruption directly led to a contract hit on Franke. The big white elephant in the room is that there seems to be a catastrophic level of corruption in the state prison system, regardless of whether Franke was killed by a hit or by a small time crook ransacking his car.

It would be nice to see them investigate THAT rather than play follow-up on the Franke story.

Indeed. But my guess is that they can't focus on corruption without dismantling the machine that has been running the state for the past 30 or so years and too many of their friends are part of it.

I appreciate Jack's comments regarding the Oregonian's recent "Special Report" on this case.

It's disturbing that some feel the Francke story is way beyond their interest or attention level, and brings to mind something I recently read.

"Go to sleep America, your government has everything under control".

The positive domino effect breaking this case would bring in Oregon political circles is staggering, to say the least.

Check out my website, www.freefrankgable.com. It's the bad guy's worst nightmare!

One guy, with the help of some very good friends can make a difference. Believe that!

Disturbing that some feel the Francke story is way beyond their interest or attention level, Mr. Taylor? Well, there was one here. (Hang on, let me look around.) Perhaps you are easily disturbed or a bit fanatical. There are waaaaaay too many issues for everyone to be engaged in all.

I can see the headline now:
"THE OREGONIAN INVESTIGATES ATTORNEY GENERALS INVESTIGATION INTO DIANE GOLDSCHMIDT/ENRON/TEXAS PACIFIC/NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT CONSPIRACY"
"Just an amazing string of incredible coincidences, fully explained after Noelle Crombe and Lez Zeitz actually read Atty. Gen. Hardy Meyers' I-team's conclusion, and agreed with the state's finding. 'We are glad to be able to finally put all of these horrible, unfounded and highly inlfammable accusations behind us', state the Goldschmidt's. Combe and Zeitz spent over eight hours with the Goldschmidt's. 'They have really good taste in wine' stated Crombe. Zeitz agreed with her findings, 'The Pinot Noir had a good nose of cherries and berries, and a really smooth finish; the smoked salmon was an excellent complement.' One blockbuster noted during their investigation was a written confession by Frank Gable regarding the murder of Michael Francke, penned just hours after the time of the event. 'That really was the comfort food we needed' states Zeitz. 'We really had some doubts until that popped up in a stack of old files Neil hadn't gone through in years. Some may call it luck, I think it was good reporting.' 'Ditto', said Crombe. 'Ditto' Says the O"

Maybe good repeating? Please note they failed to name the pinot noir! Wait till the boys at the Tribune see this!

Some issues are fundamentally important and figuring those out and focusing on them conserves energy. Imho, the Francke case does address some of those fundamentally important issues and unraveling it might well resonate all over the state. I think that is part of the reason it is fashionable to diss those interested in it as "conspiracy theorists" as though there were no such thing as a conspiracy. It is a no-no to speak the unspeakable "C words": conspiracy, corruption, contrivance. But these are legitimate words that describe real concepts.

Easily disturbed or a bit fanatical Sally? Yes, there are waaay to many issues for everyone to be engaged in all, but if placing the wrongful conviction and incarceration for life without the possibility of parole for Frank Gable falls into that category, than color me easily disturbed and fanatical.

Let's not forget this horrible injustice was made possible by a level of corruption in this state that quite possibly continues to this day, and I think this case needs to at least be placed high on the priority list of issues all of us choose to address.

Michael Francke died trying to inform us all of the corruption or maybe more. This state owes him and his family justice, and that doesn't come from convicting a man with no physical evidence, and on the testimony of drug addicts. Most of which have recanted their testimony.

Please reread, Mr. Taylor. I did not say anything to disparage your interest or involvement level. I protested only when you said you were disturbed I was not equivalently so. Didn't I? I made a casual remark obscurely referencing stories I remember from the reporter in question in the past, and mentioned it only to make clear I have not even an interesting lay knowledge of this one.

I wasn't dissing anyone.

I will say now I am less interested even than I was.

Wow, I feel a cold draft going on here. Somehow, I feel if Sally was selected on the jury for Frank Gable, the poor guy still wouldn't have had a chance. Please tell me I am wrong, Sally, or am I just taking Mr. Taylor's side? Help me not to bring it down to a human level, and hear your indifference.