An October 18 Denver Post article regarding a criminal investigation into how Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez obtained information for a controversial ad attacking Democratic candidate Bill Ritter uncritically reported Beauprez's claim that it was “absolutely indisputable” that the man pictured in the ad was a “heroin trafficker” who “was put right back out on the street” while Bill Ritter was Denver District Attorney.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation launched an investigation into the Beauprez campaign on October 13 after Ritter accused Beauprez of illegally obtaining information used in an attack ad called “Case File.” As The Denver Post reported on October 14:

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter Friday accused Republican rival Bob Beauprez of breaking the law to gain information for an attack ad.

Beauprez is running an ad that accuses Ritter of plea bargaining to probation illegal immigrant and accused heroin dealer Carlos Estrada Medina. Medina, the ad says, was later arrested for the sexual abuse of a child.

However, Medina's name does not show up on court files in either Denver or California -- where Beauprez's campaign says he was charged. Beauprez's campaign contends that Medina used aliases in both cases.

Ritter said Beauprez used non-public law enforcement identification numbers to make the link between the aliases and Medina. He has asked the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to investigate the charge.

The Rocky Mountain News reported on October 17 that "[t]he Ritter campaign quickly demanded that Beauprez explain how he knew the defendant identified in the ad as 'Carlos Estrada Medina' was the same man named 'Walter Noel Ramo' in the Denver court case and identified as 'Eugene Alfredo Estrada-Acosta' in the San Francisco sex offense."

CBS4 reporter Raj Chohan also reported on the confusion surrounding Medina's identity in his written version of an October 12 “Reality Check” analysis of the anti-Ritter ad. According to Chohan, “I'm not sure who Carlos Estrada Medina is, because the guy pictured in this ad was arrested in Denver under the name Walter Ramo. The Beauprez campaign says Ramo is one of about seven aliases Estrada Medina uses, but I haven't been able to independently confirm that claim. The Beauprez campaign says the information comes from a proprietary source which they can't reveal.”

In the October 18 article by staff writer Chris Frates about Beauprez's continued silence on the source of the information contained in the ad, the Post reported, “Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez on Tuesday defended how his campaign obtained information for an attack ad, saying his staff did nothing wrong. But Beauprez refused to say how the campaign got key facts, citing an ongoing Colorado Bureau of Investigation probe.”

The same Post article noted the comments of Ritter spokesperson Evan Dreyer, who said, “If the congressman, once again, refused to say who provided him with this information and who verified it, really the only logical conclusion is that he has something to hide.” But the Post uncritically reported that “Beauprez said it was 'absolutely indisputable' that Medina was a 'heroin trafficker' in Colorado.”

Contrary to Beauprez's unchallenged assertion, other media outlets have cast doubt on whether it is “absolutely indisputable” that the man pictured in the ad was a “heroin trafficker”

The written version of an October 11 KUSA 9News “Truth Test” analysis of the anti-Ritter ad stated, “Denver District Attorney's Office spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough said the only witness to Ramo's alleged heroin dealing was the driver of the car he was arrested with. Ramo had no drugs in his possession when he was arrested and the heroin was found in the floorboard of the driver's car. Criminal background checks on the driver revealed a prior felony conviction for drug dealing.”

Similarly, the written version of CBS4's “Reality Check” from October 12 reported that “Kimbrough said the case [against Ramo] had evidence problems.” CBS4 further reported:

What kind of problems? Before police arrested Ramo in 2001, he was spotted getting out of a car. Police arrested the driver of that car, and found him with drugs. The driver said he bought the drugs from Ramo. When police caught up with Ramo, they found he had no drugs, and no criminal record in Colorado. But the driver who told police about Ramo did have a criminal record. So prosecutors found themselves wondering who to believe.

So they sent Ramo to drug court, where Lynn Kimbrough tells me, the standard procedure would have been to refer Ramo's illegal immigration status to federal immigration authorities. Kimbrough could not confirm whether this happened in Ramo's case, just that it was policy at the time to do so.

From the October 18 Denver Post article by Chris Frates, “Beauprez mum on tipster”:

Last week, Beauprez's Democratic rival, Bill Ritter, accused the congressman of illegally accessing a restricted crime database to gather nonpublic information for a negative advertisement.

The ad accuses Ritter of plea-bargaining a case against illegal immigrant and accused heroin dealer Carlos Estrada Medina. Medina, the ad said, was given probation and later arrested for the sexual abuse of a child.

However, Medina's name does not show up on court files in Denver or California - where Beauprez's campaign said he was charged. The campaign contends Medina used aliases in both cases.

“What started this was the fact that an illegal was arrested for heroin trafficking, was put right back out on the street, later commits a pretty heinous crime again against a minor ... ” Beauprez said. “Somehow I'm the bad guy in this? I don't think so.”

Beauprez said it was “absolutely indisputable” that Medina was a “heroin trafficker” in Colorado.

“I'm absolutely convinced that this is the same person,” Beauprez said. “If somebody wants to come forward and say 'no it's not,' let them bring their evidence forward.”

But Evan Dreyer, a Ritter spokesman, called Beauprez's challenge “a ludicrous statement.”

“If the congressman, once again, refused to say who provided him with this information and who verified it, really the only logical conclusion is that he has something to hide,” he said.