Jacob Conway, who sits on the executive committee of the Jefferson
County, Ky. Democratic Party, told the public radio station WFPL that Shawn Reilly
and Curtis Morrison of Progress Kentucky bragged to him about recording
the meeting, which was held Feb. 2 at a newly opened McConnell campaign
office in Louisville, Ky.
In October 2003, Louisville was
shaken to its core when 20-year-old Zachary Scarpellini was gunned down outside
his Highlands apartment. The tony and quiet neighborhood of Victorian mansions
– home to residents like Ambassador Matthew Barzun and prominent
businessman-turned-politician Bruce Lunsford – was rattled awake by gunfire,
left terrified and in shock over such a violent crime.
The only witness at the scene other
than the alleged gunman was Scarpellini’s roommate, Shawn Reilly, now Executive
Director of Progress Kentucky. Reilly’s claim at the time of the crime was that
he and Scarpellini were merely following someone they thought was breaking into
cars. According to a report in the Bellarmine University (where Scarpellini was
a student) newspaper, The Concord, investigators believed the shooting was
random and the victim did not know his killer.
It would take years for the full
story to unfold but local media were at the time focused like lasers.
Snip
The ensuring death investigation
dragged on for months, leading to a press conference held by the Scarpellini
Family on Zachary’s birthday in March 2004. The family, distraught in their
grief, offered a cash reward for information.
Snip
After nearly two years of
investigating, the family/estate of Scarpellini named Reilly in a civil
complaint. The allegation was that Reilly and others had information about the
murder that wasn’t being shared with police.
An excerpt:
3. That on or about October 12, 2003,
the Plaintiff’s decedent was killed and/or murdered by the criminal use of a
firearm by unknown Defendant(s) at or near the intersection of Cherokee Road
and Longest Avenue, Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
4. That the Plaintiff is of the
opinion that the Defendant(s), Shawn Reilly, may have conspired with the
unknown Defendant(s) to commit said act, or willfully aided, and/or abetted, in
the commission of the act involving the use of a firearm, all deemed unlawful
by virtue of KRS 411.155.
5. That on or about October 12, 2003,
the negligent, careless, and/or intended conduct of the Defendant, Shawn
Reilly, was a substantial factor in causing or bringing about the death of
Plaintiff’s decedent.
6. That if the above allegations be
proven true, then the Plaintiff states that the Defendant, Shawn Reilly, and
the unknown Defendant(s) acted with such intentional malice and/or extreme and
reckless conduct and/or indifference for the safety of Plaintiff’s decedent at
all times material herein, that the Defendant, Shawn Reilly, and unknown
Defendant(s) are liable for punitive damages.
Reilly, who says
he moved to South Carolina after the murder to attend school, either did not
respond to the lawsuit or was unable to be located. That led to a request for a
Special Bailiff to serve him with the complaint. According to the affidavit,
Reilly was believed to have had information law enforcement needed and was
allegedly working to evade questions.
An excerpt:
Comes now the Affiant, who after
being duly sworn states that he/she is the Plaintiff’s attorney in the above
styled action. Affiant further states that they believe that process of this
action cannot be executed unless a Special Bailiff is appointed due to one or
more of the following reasons:
[X] Defendant has prior knowledge of
this action and it is believed that they have evaded or will evade service by
the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office.
[X] The exact address of the
Defendant is unknown and service will prove difficult.
[X] The Defendant has evaded service
attempts through certified mail.
[X] The Defendant is in and out of
the residence frequently and service will prove difficult.
A few weeks
later, Reilly surfaced in Louisville on a Congressional campaign staff.
‘You won’t
believe the rest’…which Page One Kentucky and Dan Riehl will have tomorrow.
Some are
claiming that taping a conversation from a hallway where it was – allegedly –
overheard is not a crime. Untrue.
Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 526.010:
Definition.
The following definition applies in
this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
“Eavesdrop” means to overhear,
record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others
without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any
electronic, mechanical or other device.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch.
406, sec. 226, effective January 1, 1975.
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.020:
(1) A person is guilty of
eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or
not he is present at the time.
(2) Eavesdropping is a Class D
felony.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch.
406, sec. 227, effective January 1, 1975.
526.060
Divulging illegally obtained information.
(1) A person is guilty of divulging
illegally obtained information when he knowingly uses or divulges information
obtained through eavesdropping or tampering with private communications or
learned in the course of employment with a communications common carrier
engaged in transmitting the message.
(2) Divulging illegally obtained
information is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 231, effective January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 231, effective January 1, 1975
526.070
Eavesdropping — Exceptions.
A person is not guilty under this
chapter when he:
(1) Inadvertently overhears the
communication through a regularly installed telephone party line or on a
telephone extension but does not divulge it; or
(2) Is an employee of a
communications common carrier who, while acting in the course of his
employment, intercepts, discloses or uses a communication transmitted through
the facilities of his employer for a purpose which is a necessary incident to
the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or the property
of the carrier of such communication, provided however that communications
common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except
for mechanical or service quality control checks.
Effective: June 19, 1976
History: Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 230, sec. 1, effective June 19, 1976. — Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 233, effective June 19, 1976
History: Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 230, sec. 1, effective June 19, 1976. — Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 233, effective June 19, 1976
No comments:
Post a Comment