Do you have a plan to vote?

Let us tell you the information you need to register and cast a ballot in D.C.

We can't make City Paper without you

$
$
$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Two organizers of the newly reformed advocacy group GLOV (Gays and Lesbians Opposed to Violence) have issued a press release questioning MPD’s handling of the Tony Randolph Hunter case. GLOV representatives Todd Metrokin (himself a recent victim of a brutal beating) and Chris Farris (who first brought Metrokin’s assault to attention in a posting on thenewgay.net), wrote today that GLOV is “concerned about the path the city’s case seems to be taking.” [Earlier today, the Washington Blade published new information about the story of the suspect charged in the case, Robert Hannah].

Metrokin and Farris list five outstanding questions they have with the city’s handling of the case, including the police’s change of the classification of the crime from “robbery” to “altercation” and the lack of charges filed against a second victim in the attack:

1) The police report classifed this as a bias crime based on sexual orientation, It also stated robbery was a motive, and listed a cellphone, car keys, and cash that was stolen. Now, the police claim that this was an “altercation.” Why the change?

2) The arrest warrant identifies two witnesses who claim that there was a sexual advance that preceded the attack. One is the defendent, and the other is someone who knows him. Is that all they have? The charge – voluntary manslaugher, instead of murder – seems to be based on this account (otherwise, it would be at least second-degree murder). Why would a case precede on that testimony, which is obviously suspect? The arrest warrant identifies another witness who confirms the second victim’s account, so it is baffling as to why the version put forth by the defendant and his friend seems to be guiding this case.

3) Why have no charges been filed in the attack on the second victim? The police report clearly indicates that there was a second vicitm with bruises.

4) Why hasn’t the DA’s office contacted the second vicitm, either about charges in his case or as a witness in Tony Hunter’s case?

5) Why have charges been filed against only one suspect, when the police report says there were 4, as does the second victim?

Full press release after the jump.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Charges in Tony R. Hunter Case Raises More Questions Than Answers

WASHINGTON DC, October 17, 2008 – As more facts are unveiled in the recent arrest and manslaughter charge in the death of Tony Randolph Hunter, members of GLOV are left searching for answers and concerned about the path the city’s case seems to be taking.”

“Part of GLOV’s mission is to monitor cases to ensure that the rights and dignity of glbt victims are respected and protected,” says co-chairman Chris Farris. “That’s why we’re shocked at the apparent “gay panic” defense and subsequent charge of manslaughter in Tony’s murder which don’t seem to support the facts of this case. So many questions remain that we’re wondering how CAREFUL the MPD and District Attorney are being.”

We encourage the media to uncover the truth about this murder. GLOV is pursuing answers to the following questions:

1) The police report classifed this as a bias crime based on sexual orientation, It also stated robbery was a motive, and listed a cellphone, car keys, and cash that was stolen. Now, the police claim that this was an “altercation.” Why the change?

2) The arrest warrant identifies two witnesses who claim that there was a sexual advance that preceded the attack. One is the defendent, and the other is someone who knows him. Is that all they have? The charge – voluntary manslaugher, instead of murder – seems to be based on this account (otherwise, it would be at least second-degree murder). Why would a case precede on that testimony, which is obviously suspect? The arrest warrant identifies another witness who confirms the second victim’s account, so it is baffling as to why the version put forth by the defendant and his friend seems to be guiding this case.

3) Why have no charges been filed in the attack on the second victim? The police report clearly indicates that there was a second vicitm with bruises.

4) Why hasn’t the DA’s office contacted the second vicitm, either about charges in his case or as a witness in Tony Hunter’s case?

5) Why have charges been filed against only one suspect, when the police report says there were 4, as does the second victim?