Here's the link: (http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/NEWS/70913011) If I were John Loope, I would find the report of the Louisville City Atty/Ethics officer very unsatisfactory. Here's the full text:(http://ww2.thedailytimes.com/news/ethicsprobereport.pdf) Page 8 of the pdf (numbered page 6 in the document) says basically that all the allegations were dismissed as untrue in the report just because the accuser didn't provide all the evidence. Could it be possible that accuser expected the person tasked with investigating the complaint to uncover and examine the evidence? I mean, when I think of an "investigator," I envision someone in a trenchcoat who can get to the bottom of a matter. Not some attorney who says he took it upon himself to write a report and then declares the conclusion at the beginning. The attorney further says something like: "That [meaning that the accuser didn't provide all the evidence], in and of itself, should end the investigation and result in a finding of no ethical violations. However, since the investigation has the further function of allowing the accused persons to have their say and exonerate their names if there are no facts, I am continuing with the investigation." So he says right at the beginning of the report that the only purpose of the report is to give the accused their say and that the conclusion has already been made based on lack of evidence PROVIDED BY THE ACCUSER. Not that I'm saying the lack of evidence provided automatically means the accused are guilty, either. But if I were going to be exonnerated in something, I'd hope it was a more ringing endorsement than this. I'm glad the police investigators don't operate that way.