Mr. Konick s reply at the interview was false

Mr. Konick s reply at the interview was false and misleading for three reasons: 1. In answering the first question, he used the same phrasing as that used in the question (“Isn’t it a fact that...” and “No, it is not a fact that...”) Then, he took note of the rumors before addressing Mr. Evans’ question (“It’s said that...”) 2. Similarly, only Mr. Evans’ question spoke of appropriateness of Mr. Konick’s candidacy. When Mr. Konick said, “It wouldn’t be appropriate...”, he was using Mr. Evans’ phrasing and answering Mr. Evans’ question. 3. Most importantly, no answer to the first question could conceivably be relevant to the appropriateness of Mr. Konick’s candidacy. In short, the absence of fingerprints on the weapon would not, and could not, make Mr. Konick’s candidacy inappropriate. His wiping the fingerprints from the weapon, on the other hand, could constitute tampering with evideyice—a serious matter for a wouldbe law enforcement officer such as Mr. Konick.

A Commonwealth Attorney’s principal duty is that of a law enforcement officer, to prosecute defendants charged with committing crimes. He must be fair and impartial, have good judgement, and be of good character, so as to merit the confidence of both the Court and the people of this County. The conduct of Mr. Konick, as disclosed by the recently unsealed record, coupled with his false and misleading public statements at the Candidates’ Forum of October 5, 1983, and at the News interview on October 25, 1983, make it plain that he is untrustworthy and unfit for the office he seeks. This message was authorized and paid for by me in order to set the record straight in the matter of the questions asked Mr. Konick at the Candidates’ Forum, at which I was moderator.