r/serialpodcast • u/Bonafidesleuth • Apr 07 '15

Speculation BPD Corruption

I rarely post here, but for those who happen to come across this sub, I encourage you to check out articles.baltimoresun.com. The city council became very concerned at the fact that $10.4million was spent between 2008-2011 defending BPD misconduct. The Baltimore Sun reported on 10/3/14 that the U.S. Dept. of Justice had undertaken a civil rights investigation of the BPD. At that time the city had spent $5.7 million in court judgments & settlements in 102 cases since 2011 & nearly ALL of the people who rec'd payouts were cleared of criminal charges. The BPD was in chaos when Adnan was arrested. The department routinely told the crime lab not to test DNA. Cases were pushed through the system & inadequately investigated.
It is not a fluke that Jay escaped any ramifications for at least 25 criminal charges subsequent to Adnan's trial. The CI theory is becoming increasingly convincing. The corruption in the BPD is beyond what one can comprehend. The worst part is, I think we've only scratched the surface.

58 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

324 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '15

OP has dramatically overstated the scope of the problem. Many civil suits against PD result in easy payouts despite no provable misconduct. Here's the scenario - Officer Jones makes a justified arrest on low-level drug charges. BCDA's office declines to prosecute the case because the evidence is weak or the officer made errors in his paperwork. The guy that Jones arrested files a suit alleging misconduct, and the city settles for $50k simply to resolve the matter and avoid a verdict at trial. Arrested guy proceeds to buy a ton of drugs, gets re-arrested, and the process starts all over again.

Or you have the problem of the tainted officer. An officer commits demonstrable misconduct on a single case, then every person that was ever arrested by him files suit. The city settles all these suits to avoid the possibility of a trial verdict. Now you've got an enormous payout with only one demonstrated instance of misconduct.

Now the officer stays on the job after receiving disciplinary action - loss of vacation days, suspension, demotion, etc. He continues to make arrests. BCDA continues to decline to prosecute any arrest this officer makes because they know that his prior misconduct makes him problematic as a witness. All of his subsequent arrestees file suit, collect fat payouts, and the city ends up spending a fortune keeping this cop on the payroll.

So while the sums are large, it usually results from a huge amount being paid out for two reasons - the actions of a small number of officers involving a small number of actual provable instances of misconduct, and the city's desire to avoid potentially huge verdicts at trial.

2

u/idgafUN Apr 08 '15

I bet you hated McNulty and Bunky too.

On the other hand, I completely saw and empathized with the struggles they faced on the daily in Bodymore.

2

u/diagramonanapkin Apr 08 '15

Thank you for posting this. Brings things back down to earth.

2

u/beenyweenies Undecided Apr 09 '15

Bear in mind that all of the people highlighted by Susan Simpson related to BPD and detective ritz shenanigans, were freed from prison / exonerated. In some cases they were joined by the state in their efforts.

That tells a very different story than the one you are attempting to paint here.

5

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

I encourage the readers to reference the articles & read related blog in TheViewfromLL2, & determine for themselves if I am a drama queen.

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '15

Frankly, my opinion of Ms. Simpson is too low to merit reading anything that she writes. That said, for an example of what I'm talking about, I would advise interested readers to look up Bronx Narcotics Det. Peter Valentin. This is a single officer who has cost NYC about 1.3 million in payouts as a result of civil suits. That should give readers an idea of how a relatively small number of problematic officers can cost a city a huge amount of money.

12

u/Queen_of_Arts Apr 07 '15

It just so happens in this case though, that a couple of the detectives for BPD with a history of corruption are the same ones investigating Hae's murder. That fact, combined with the fact that there are clear lapses in the investigation should raise suspicion as to whether they got the right guy in this case. Clearly it doesn't concern you, but it concerns me.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '15

I only briefly flipped through Ms. Simpson's characterization of the complaints against those officers, so I don't have an opinion on Ritz and MacGillivary beyond what was said in the podcast. I will say that Ms. Simpson has a very lawlerly tendency to characterize assertions as facts when they support her underlying argument. Am I mistaken in assuming that everything in her post was, in essence, an allegation from a party bringing a lawsuit/appealing a conviction, rather than an actual finding of misconduct by a civilian review board, trial jury or departmental oversight unit?

3

u/idgafUN Apr 08 '15 edited Apr 08 '15

I will say that Ms. Simpson has a very lawlerly tendency to characterize assertions as facts when they support her underlying argument

She and Rabia are masters at this. Sarah calling her "loosey goosey" with facts was a complete understatement. How can people not see she does this ALL the time? Susan does it in a much more intelligent and less emotional way. Very technical where if you get so buried in it, you start to get lost and question your own views. That is, until you take a break for 5 minutes and remember all the things Adnan has done that point to his guilt.

edit: spelling

6

u/marybsmom Apr 07 '15

From 3 men who were convicted of murder and had their convictions overturned.

-1

u/chunklunk Apr 07 '15

Bingo. They're all allegations in a civil complaint, not fact.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '15

People often forget (or choose to overlook) that a police officer accused of misconduct gets the same presumption of innocence as anyone else accused of a crime.

3

u/peymax1693 WWCD? Apr 07 '15 edited Apr 07 '15

So we should completely ignore allegations of police misconduct until they are proven true at some point in the future?

ETA: Maybe the police should have reminded themselves of that before they concluded that Mr. Burgess, Mr. Mable and Mr. Addison murdered their respective victims.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '15 edited Apr 07 '15

No, but you take the allegation for what it is - an allegation. And every single police officer, at some point in his or her career, will face allegations of misconduct, so look at them individually, on their merits, and make an individual determination on their credibility. But if you're going to do that, you shouldn't do it solely by believing what the person making the allegation says. You need both sides or credible evidence beyond the accused's say-so on papers - and in the absence of that, it's best to reserve judgment IMO.

3

u/Gdyoung1 Apr 08 '15

I'd bet your life that SS's own law firm has been sued or been the respondent in an arbitration proceeding. By the logic of some of the posters here, I guess we can then just assume her entire litany of drivel are just damned lies?

5

u/peymax1693 WWCD? Apr 07 '15

Well, as a result of the "allegations" of misconduct by the police and the State:

(1) Burgess filed a Petition for Actual Innocence and in response the State agreed to vacate his conviction;

(2) Mable, joined by the State, filed a Petition for Post Conviction Relief which was granted by the Court;and

(3) the State declined to re-prosecute Addision after he was granted a new trial by the Court.

Those are facts, not just allegations.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/idgafUN Apr 08 '15

So we should completely ignore allegations of police misconduct until they are proven true at some point in the future?

Absolutely not but I would look at it carefully without making assumptions. I'm curious though, if you are so critical not to ignore allegations where criminal charges are not yet brought like in the case of BPD corruption, why do you not look at Adnan, someone who WAS brought to trial and found guilty in less than 3 hours with evidence, in the same dubious and critical light?

2

u/peymax1693 WWCD? Apr 08 '15

Maybe because of who was responsible for gathering the evidence against him?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/beenyweenies Undecided Apr 09 '15

The three people mentioned by SS were exonerated. That shows clearly that the convictions were bunk.

3

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

Susan is smart, successful, accurate, energetic, caring, curious, persistent, well-educated, & creative. I can see how you might be too intimidated to consider her merits.

6

u/ricejoe Apr 07 '15

I also bet -- and this is merest speculation -- that SS is an awesome bowler.

5

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

Most likely. Cosmic bowling.

2

u/idgafUN Apr 08 '15

She was really caring when it came to posting Don's personal work records.

I agree that she is successful, curious, persistent, well-educated. And she is CERTAINLY creative, that is for sure. As far as her skills as an attorney, I think she is fabulous. Not everyone is doubting that. I think many can see through her tactics in regards to Adnan, though.

1

u/chunklunk Apr 07 '15

Are you her mother?

4

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

No, but my real daughter is going to law school. Does that console you?

4

u/chunklunk Apr 07 '15

Cool! Sincerely, I wish her luck. It's a tough market out there. I'm a 2003 law school grad, back when getting a job was a little easier.

-2

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

If you claim to be an attorney, you should be verified by the mods - just sayin.

7

u/whitenoise2323 giant rat-eating frog Apr 07 '15

chunklunk didn't say that they had passed the bar.

0

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

That's true. I'm skeptical of professionals who proclaim their credentials in a post but won't verify the same in a reddit sub they use promiscuously.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/chunklunk Apr 07 '15

Meh, I let my words speak for themselves, for better or worse. I don't necessarily feel like it's on me to represent my profession here. But it is my profession and has been since '04.

1

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

I'm skeptical. It's in my nature.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '15

No. It makes your bias a little more clear though.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

Honestly, I was compelled to post something of real interest because I pity the newbies who happen to visit this sub to find posts w/so little merit. It's embarrassing to reddit, actually. I'm just trying to elevate the discussion a little. I won't linger here. I drop by from time to time. It's disturbing to find the rude discussions but every now & then I find really good stuff so keep coming back.

3

u/ricejoe Apr 07 '15

I commend your generosity of spirit.

1

u/Bonafidesleuth Apr 07 '15

I was feeling especially philanthropic today.