Chancellor Subbaswamy and Stan Rosenberg Saturday UMass Homecoming Parade
Well I guess there goes the Pulitzer Prize for the venerable Boston Globe.
According to Northwestern District Attorney Dave Sullivan, drug OD victim Eric L. Sinacori, age 20, was not a UMass Police Department snitch, err, I mean informant. He was a "witness" in a case against a drug dealer.
Kind of a BIG difference wouldn't you say?
Although I'm going out on a journalistic limb at the moment by not corroborating that claim with another reliable source, but if you can't trust the District Attorney who can you trust?
And one of my other problems with the original Globe article was they seemed to think they could guarantee the young man's anonymity. In this day and age.
I had a couple dozen Google referrals on Sunday to the story I did four months ago from folks doing a search for "acute heroin intoxication, Amherst".
Even the Gazette figured it out, since the Globe article published the date he died. And the medical examiner has to file a death certificate in the municipality in which the person died (although it takes six months).
UMass PR folks at first seemed to be showing support to UMPD, but backed down last night and issued a statement from the Chancellor suspending the use of informants until a full review. Today both the Boston Globe and Springfield Republican did editorials cheering that backpedaling.
I have no problem with requiring informants to get counseling if indeed they are addicted. But to require parents be informed is simply a deal breaker. You might as was well require UMPD to take out an ad in the Daily Collegian naming their informants.
So yes, even though (apparently) Eric Sinacori was not a police informant, PR conscious UMass will probably go ahead and kill the program anyway.
And a year or two from now some kid will die of an OD that could have been prevented if his/her dealer was arrested via use of an informant.