*Note, I have been corresponding with Detective Burns and she slipped in a Confidentiality notice into our thread, since this is my side of the conversation and there has been zero transparency with the department, and I have not as of right now Oct. 28 1:36PM responded to her email, this particular message I am sending to her (as well as prior messages) sent by her did not include that notice, therefore I am posting my response to her confusing email.
Subject: Re: Status of FOIL and CPRB Complaint for Rosetta Edwards’ Case
Dear Detective Burns,
To clarify, you initially indicated that you were handling my CPRB complaint and later mentioned that a separate FOIL Detective was overseeing my FOIL request. Despite this separation, you repeatedly referenced my FOIL request in discussions about my CPRB complaint, which led to unnecessary confusion. I consistently clarified that my FOIL request and CPRB complaint were distinct, and you eventually acknowledged this. However, the denial of my FOIL request, based on the vague pretext of an “ongoing investigation” in a 67-year-old case, makes its rejection highly relevant to the CPRB complaint, highlighting persistent concerns about transparency.
It’s important to underscore that as officers of the court, there is an obligation on the department—its Chief, Commander, and other involved parties—to refer cases of potential criminal misconduct or interstate crime to appropriate federal authorities, such as the FBI. My aunt’s case shares several elements with other unsolved murders in Albany from 1957 to 1961. Past misconduct by a department officer, Chief of Police and investigator John P. Tuffey, along with current zero transparency with the victim’s family, is all quite troubling and could potentially constitute a violation of the Victim and Family’s Civil Rights.
As a reminder, in my initial interactions with Commander Cornell and Detective Jones, they were made aware of three main points:
- Our family’s need for transparency and access to information on my aunt’s murder after decades of silence.
- My intent to file a FOIL request as a formal avenue for obtaining records.
- My intent to record our interactions to ensure accountability, given previous communication challenges with the department.
Despite my transparent intentions, this process has included last-minute cancellations, misdirection (such as directing us to the Department of Vital Records for a coroner’s report instead of the Coroner’s Office), and involving an attorney mid-process. Additionally, John P. Tuffey, the investigator and former Chief of Police originally assigned to my aunt’s case, was instrumental in exonerating the primary suspect six years prior to her murder with political assistance. The repeated failure to appropriately direct this case for review, alongside the FOIL denial, raises significant concerns that merit inclusion within the CPRB complaint.
Additionally, the “confidentiality notice” in your recent email further raises questions around transparency, suggesting limitations on open communication. Denying the FOIL request on the grounds of a supposed “ongoing investigation” aligns with a longstanding pattern of withholding critical information in this case, an approach that undermines both transparency and accountability.
With this final clarification, I reiterate my request: please proceed with my CPRB complaint, include all my correspondence to date, and assist us in moving forward with the dignity and integrity this case deserves.
Respectfully,
Edmund J. Janas, II
