◆ SpookStack

, ben ngl there: any explanation, by_one_in j & position te knou/the’ ‘mechanics at By i = ep a Fi ? weilized, OT vf. the-record-keeping _systens of the, agencies sae volved, 80 that it is impossible to independent ly ssveng she 7 we sae : : weliability of the check,—As to Shinnick, tae’ ‘Fesporize is: 2 aoe more ‘deficient. ° Yhere S_no. _weference te: an“agency chee ie} Sess oat in ‘the response, “nox: even an affidavir fron the investigating agent, The governcent. simply relies. on the Meg ay knowledga® = of the prosecutor figndling the case. These response fall: far: short of the compre echegiivencss o© the denials which have been beld to be sufficient ty. the Court. of Appeals: for. : | ‘the Thixd Circuit, see, 2.25 In re. “Horn, 438 F, ad 468, 469. | fa..3 (3d Cir. 1972), and In re Freeda, 529 F, 24 543, 549- “550 (3d Cir, 1976) . | | { ‘Wereover, none, of the Thixd Cireuit cases} ao + a have involved the national, overtones and unusual public atten-} than that are. present bers, _In addition, the Court of Appeals has. beenieritical of several of the. responses which it ‘has conk pT id : ! .. ra ah A ’ rye: ri 3 : . - os . : . othe ' vas a a ae . at Sel yt ane, Sef ge iy fil ane 2 - is ft RR wen arses yt wat ha sy : iat . 4 ath. Tere | 3 " , . 7 "sf WS le ‘eideréd. “Ses. 2.8.5 In xe Horm, supra, at 471;. and Vaited | Ss hg Dihndren 885 F. 24 1170, 1174 fa, 12 (Gd cir. 1975), . Such: | cxteiciam ts” “consistent 3 with the concern that has recently been. expressed by other courts about the seniabiniey of affi davits in support o£ Section 3504 denials. See, @.3-, In xe Quinn, 525 F, 2d 222, 225, fn. 5 (ist Cir, 1975) 3 and In xe: _Basgeon, 402 F, ‘Supp. 1239, 1240-1243 . Conn. 1975). In: View. of these consigerations, as weli vie as of the. court! 5 ask S45