The press release form the New Orleans Police Department described him as an unidentified gunmen who was “confronted by a New Orleans Police officers” then “reached into his waist and turned toward the officer.” The New Orleans Police Department told us the officer on that day, Sept. 4, 2005, fired one shot killing the suspect.

CNN's Drew Griffin talks to man who says he witnessed New Orleans Police shoot an unarmed person.

I’m guessing the New Orleans Police thought we would just take their word for it. We didn’t.

It took us more than a year, but what we found out about Ronald Madison proved justice in New Orleans is only for those who wear a badge.

Ronald Madison was a 40-year old mentally disabled man who had survived Katrina flooding with his brother Lance. On a Sunday morning they swam out of their mother’s home and headed for the Danziger Bridge. You can read more about their ordeal, and Ronald’s tragic death, in the stories below.

What you need to know now, is three years after he was killed by police, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the

U.S. Attorney’s office in New Orleans finally announced they will investigate.

Well it’s about time.

Ronald Madison was unarmed when he died. Ronald Madison was running away from a group of unidentified gunmen driving a postal truck. An autopsy showed Ronald Madison had seven gunshot wounds, all in his back.

Thee gunman turned out to be plain clothes New Orleans cops. It took us a year to find it, but after CNN revealed the autopsy and then found an eyewitness, the 7 officers were indicted. Two weeks ago all the charges against those officers were dismissed by a New Orleans judge because the New Orleans District Attorney’s office violated rules during a grand jury hearing.

All just a little too convenient, isn’t it?

So now, three years later, the U.S. Justice Department is stepping in to perhaps finally bring “justice” to Ronald Madison. Like almost everything else the Feds have done to help New Orleans recover from Katrina, it’s just too little too late.

For more info:

Eyewitness describes killing of Ronald Madison

Autopsy shows Ronald Madison shot in back

What is “gotcha” journalism?

I keep hearing this term used on the campaign trail, and I wonder what people mean by it. As a journalist I believe my job is to ask tough questions. But apparently, if they are too tough, or the person just doesn’t know the answer, or the answer is the wrong answer, the person can claim a case of “gotcha” journalism. I guess once someone claims the reporter was out to “getcha” then the focus becomes the horrible, unethical, and mud-slinging reporter, and not the candidate.
The “gotcha” excuse was used recently when I asked Gov. Sarah Palin’s spokesperson, Meg Stapleton why the governor only seems to talk about the one bridge to nowhere that she killed, when there are two bridges to nowhere, and Palin supports the second bridge being built.

Here is the exchange:

Boudreau: “When Gov. Palin is talking about the bridge to nowhere, we are thinking, she killed that bridge. But everyone locally is telling us there has always been two bridges. I mean, it’s always been referred to as the two bridges to nowhere here.”

Stapleton: “I think the media coined the bridge to nowhere.”

Boudreau: “Congress coined it.”

Stapleton: “No, the media coined the whole bridge to nowhere, and the whole focus on the bridge, has been the Gravina Island Bridge.”

Before we get to the alleged “gotcha” moment, let me give you a few details about these two bridges.

One was the Gravina Island Bridge that would connect residents in Ketchikan, to their neighboring island, where the airport is located.

The other bridge, would connect Anchorage, to Point MacKenzie, population 269, an outlying community of Wasilla, the governor’s home town.

Both of these bridges were coined “bridges to nowhere” during Congressional debates after a public outcry that the bridges symbolized wasteful government spending.

Gov. Palin killed the planned Ketchikan bridge. And she has been very vocal about how she redirected the funding for that bridge, claiming she told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

But Gov. Palin seems to have left out the fact that she continues to support the other bridge. I asked Meg Stapleton why the Governor chose to leave that little detail out of her stump speech. Here is Stapleton’s response:

Stapleton: “The national media may just be learning about it, but she has said this. The national media has focused on one [bridge] because it was perhaps the easiest one to talk about.

Boudreau: “It’s the one she continues to talk about.”

Stapleton: “It’s the one that Ketchikan residents have brought up because they felt it was sorta a gotcha moment.”

Aha. The “gotcha” moment. So here’s my question: Where is the line between a tough, but fair question, and “gotcha” journalism? And, have journalists crossed the line in questioning Gov. Palin and her record?

She said, “thanks, but no thanks,” to a “Bridge to Nowhere,” so, why didn’t Gov. Sarah Palin say, “thanks, but no thanks,” to a $26 million “Road to Nowhere?”

Here’s some background: At one point, there was supposed to be a bridge that would make it easier for people who live or visit Ketchikan, Alaska to get to nearby Gravina Island, where the airport sits. The bridge was never built, after it was publicly ridiculed by Congress as being a waste of taxpayer money.But the road that was designed to connect from the bridge to the airport was built. Now, many locals coined it the “Road to Nowhere.” And guess who paid for it? You! 

But what’s really interesting is the response we received from the McCain – Palin camp about this road.  I interviewed Meg Stapleton, a spokesperson for the campaign. Here is part of that interview:

 
Boudreau: “It’s hard to imagine that the governor wouldn’t think that this was a waste of money - taxpayer money.”

Stapleton: “The governor could not change that earmark. That earmark was given, was dictated to us, and it had to be spent on Gravina Road - and nothing else. So, the governor had no option.”
Boudreau: “Could she [Palin] have stopped construction?”

Stapleton: “Uh, my understanding is that, you know, I’d have to look in to that for you. I don’t know.”

 
In this interview, Stapleton told me there was nothing the governor could do in this case. She went on to try to explain who would be to blame for this road that leads absolutely nowhere. Here’s what she said:

 
Stapleton:  “She had no opportunity to evaluate this. The contracts were already signed and she was told she had no option but to use this money for Gravina Road.”

Boudreau:  “Who told her that?”

Stapleton:  “The state D.O.T officials.”

Boudreau:  “Wow. I would have thought the governor could trump the D.O.T.”

Stapleton:  “Well, they’re interpreting. Ultimately, it’s the federal government, you’re dealing with federal earmark dollars. So, ultimately it’s the federal government.”

About two hours after our on-camera interview, I received an email from Meg Stapleton that further explains Palin’s position. Here are a couple of excerpts from that email:

Gravina Road

• Unlike the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Governor could not cancel this road project. While Congress released the earmark for the bridge, the road was still earmarked by Washington, DC.
• It would have literally taken an act of Congress to redirect the funds away from the road project.   Even that extraordinary step would have come too late as a contract had already been signed by the previous Governor.

• To stop construction on the road would have meant for the State to pay back costs incurred by the Contractor as well as a portion of future profits.

• Bottom line: Under ordinary circumstances, Governor Palin would not have allowed the Gravina Road to move forward with the same timeline. Given the directed earmark and the signed contract, the Governor was left no viable alternative.

 
Here’s my question: Why is the federal earmark system set up in a way that it would prevent a governor from re-directing earmark money when the project doesn’t make any sense? And in this case, do you think Gov. Palin could have done more to stop this project from getting started?