Re: Pete's case

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Hey, folks. I notice there's a definite split in opinion about what 
> we fans ought be doing about Pete's case. There are some people that 
> are activist and think we should be pursuing more information, and some 
> other folks who think no news is good news, and the longer the invest-
> igation runs the more likely the police are to totally forget to even 
> give Pete a caution. This difference indicates that we don't have enough 
> information to work with.

Well, I for one feel a bit awkward about sticking my nose into Pete's case.
Especially with the police.

I mean it's one thing to plead for Pete's innocence to the media but to
start petitioning the UK police to resolve the case or make some sort of
statement seems a bit intrusive.

Pete said he would speak when the time was right.  How do we know negoti-
ations aren't going on right now?  How do we know that Pete is finished 
with the police?  How do we know that the wheels of justice aren't still
churning?

I don't work for the UK police nor am I a member of the "Pete camp."  I'm
not signing no petition (!) hassling the cops about their handling of the
case.  Pete's got well-paid lawyers to take care of that sort of thing.
Do you really think he wants us fans sticking our noses into his police
"problem" by bugging & petitioning them?

Pete will speak when he's ready & when it's safe to do so.  Gotta get used
to waiting.... 

> Since I came back on the lists in January because of Pete's case, I feel 
> like I'm sort of wasting time now with nothing to do, 

You're an odd one, Keets.  ;-)

> so I'm going to take off again. No reflection on the present company. I 
> love you guys. :)

Well, don't be a stranger for too long.  It shouldn't take the arrest of a
Who member to bring you out of hiding.  (Oh no!  Is Daltrey next?  Cruelty
to animals?  Too many dead trout?  God forbid!)

Take care, Keets.


- SCHRADE in Akron