BLOG: Crime Scene Photos Show Baskey Holding The Gun?

Bryan Dubois
Jul 6, 2010

The fact that both of the families are being dragged through this again is sad, but I suppose if I felt that a relative of mine was being unjustly portrayed as a murderer who then committed suicide, the emotional toll would be worth enduring again...

Some of the alleged errors in the investigation:

Crime scene photos show Baskey holding the gun?

Come again?

And *Mark Gilliam (the 'coon hunting' fan) is heard discussing the gun placement...for what?  The photo?  Not enough info to go on - but any time I see his name and there's some kind of race issues involved, I cringe.

The official story is that Barnett (a black man) murdered his white girlfriend and then committed suicide.  The situation is ripe for face-saving manipulation.

Not that anyone in the area would harbor any suspicion when it comes to the SPD's investigative techniques, (*The Costante incident) but this is why the SPD has to get in front of PR issues as soon as possible.  Take the high road so that people aren't wondering if there's any truth to the NAACP's claims. 

Sounds like a great issue for a Friday afternoon talk show at 3:00 pm.

[*I'm required by the easily offended to state that anyone mentioned by name in these blog posts is a really good neighbor and would give you the shirt off his back.]


In The Light

It is interesting how many of you are speculating about what is true, and making claims about who did or did not do something.

According to the initial story the NAACP reviewed the conclusions presented by the former DPD investigator, and reached their conclusions based on what they saw and heard. Assuming that what was presented was so convincing they then decided to go public with their concerns.

One could conclude that what they reviewed was probably a more complete set of facts than either one of you have heard, or seen. It is highly doubtful that they would have gone public without having first confirmed the validity of what was presented. If I were asked to bet on which side is more likely to know what the FACTS are about the issue, I would probably choose the NAACP, or not bet at all.

All most of you have are some newspaper snippets, some persons with other agendas to hash out, rumors, and mere speculation.

I would also guess that they, the NAACP, are aware of the potential legal ramifications of their actions. They do have access to considerable national legal sources, that might have reviewed their information prior to its release. Now for some of you, your other agendas might affect your ability to accept the probability that such actions were taken.

Also, if they and/or others believed that something was wrong with the alleged murder/suicide conclusion, who do you think they would have relied on to review the evidence, SPD?


The NAACP has about as much of a chance to get questions answered as they did about 10 years ago when an unarmed young black man was shot to death outside of a Margaretta body shop.


I was just talking to a group of downtown business owners the other day, it seems that a majority of them feel that the Register is attempting to make Sandusky sound unsafe.

This stems from a number of stories that have been half-reported or sensationalized, to blogs like this one that lead people to believe that the police are a bunch of bad guys out to get us all.

How will this city ever heal and move on if people keep rehashing the past, this that are done and over with. Things like an officer making a mistake with a name in a report, or an officer saying he likes to hunt deer, rabbits, and coons. Bryan, from what I have seen in the past, you do not like people bringing up your criminal past, what makes it right for you to do the same?

We as a region need to let go. We as a region need to grow. Resentment might be all we have left here, but we need to find a way to replace it with intelligent thoughts, ideas, and projects.

Bryan, you say you are not employed by the Register. Are you telling us that you do not get paid by them?

One question though, in the title you say that Baskey was holding the gun, in the story you say that the police placed it on Baskey. Did you make a simple mistake with the headline or is this more sensationalized reporting.....sorry I meant blogging.

Bryan Dubois

Wayneonwayne, speak it brother.

I don't mind bringing up my "criminal" past.  I wasn't convicted of anything.  Look it up.  I'll strive to be more accurate with headlines - and you can strive to be more fair with your comments. 



I just did some looking up.  Sure, technicaly you were not convicted of anything, you entered a diversion program in exchange for testimony from what I can gather.  I will give you that.  But you were not found innocent either.  Charges dismissed because of a diversion program will still lead to additional criminal history points under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

I could not find the outcome of the domestic violence charges though.  

I will speak it, if you will start practicing it. 

Bryan Dubois

From your internet sleuthing could you tell if the "guidelines" were followed on my participation in the diversion program?

They weren't.  (Can you spot how?) 

Diversion in my case was lawyer-speak for, "We want to get rid of these charges, and this is the easiest way.  Will you cooperate with us?"  Being tired of litigation and not being required to even enter a plea on the charges, I accepted the terms.

I did the right thing. 

I told my story to the prosecutor - which never changed from day one - and was restored back to my family.  The case never went to trial.

DV charge dismissed by Sandusky.  No billed by Erie County grand jury. 

By the way, it's impossible to be found "innocent" in a court of law.  That's not how it works.   To say I was never found "innocent" seems like a desperate attempt to cast doubt on whether I was guilty.  {That would be an attempt to smear - which ironically is the same thing you accuse me of doing.}


No smear attempt just following the logic.  You were not found innocent, nor were you found guilty.  You agreed to testify against your business partner and co-defendant.  After that  and a year of good behavior they "got rid of the charges", correct?

Bryan Dubois

Wayne, I testified on the internet for a year before that.  I testify here, I testify there.  It never changed.  Look it up.

Bryan Dubois

Wayne, prosecutor wanted a year.  The judge said, 'no, six months is all your gonna get.'  And she never asked for me to enter a plea.  Court system must be corrupt, huh?

And yes, after that six months, the charges were gone.  I moved on with my life and am all the better for it.

Chung Lee

OJ was innocent too! So when will people stop calling OJ a killa?

Bryan Dubois

OJ was not found "innocent", Chung.

Chung Lee

Chung Lee said nothing about found innocent.  Chung Lee said he was innocent.  He was found not guilty.  Accept it because you can't keep a good black man down.

Chung Lee

In da hood we call that being a "snitch"

Bryan Dubois

Whaddya call it when you hide behind a screen name? 

I'll give you a hint:  It rhymes with snitch.   :)

Chung Lee

Why so hateful?  Here Chung Lee thought you were above all the name calling.  Seems that rules only apply to other people. Seems to Chung Lee when you had your other operation you operated under a screen name? So what exactly does that make you?

Bryan Dubois

"Seems to Chung Lee when you had your other operation..."


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines


I can't believe the SR  allowed  " coon"  on here without the moderator pulling it.


there were no person attacks in my comment it just goes with a comment another left there is nothing wrong with saying....

Bryan hid behind his sn and continued to bash on SPD officers every chance he got until someone finally pointed out who he was and I believe he would still be hiding behind his sn if someone had not.

How come mine gets erased for saying the exact same thing Bryan said about another commentor on here and his didn't get erase??? Is it because he may have flagged it because he didn't want the truth?