The Sergeant Nephew.
By Jim Conley • Nov 9th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
I wonder if we can get the internal investigation report - concerning allegations of police mistreatment during May 24th’s Brawl at Town Hall - into the time capsule placed in the monstrosity above the wine store at Coolidge Corner. It is the narrative for Brookline at the dawn of the millennium.
And the passage that should be highlighted for our progeny is that which deals with attempts to restrain Conquest, a town meeting member, from attending public meetings and, at the same time, advises him that he (Conquest) will be charged with assault.
Who made these advisements? Why, the nephew of the complaining witness, a nephew who also happens to be a sergeant on the force.
According to the internal report (Page 5), the decision to curtail Mr. Conquest’s personal liberties was the product of a confab between the sergeant nephew, his uncle and town hack lawyer Jennifer Dopazo. And, oddly enough, the ruling came down after Conquest was told he was free to go by other officers.
So how does this look? There’s no action taken by the first responders and they cut Conquest loose, but then the sergeant nephew arrives and Conquest’s re-detained…and then the sergeant nephew is issuing an instant restraining order to Conquest and advising him of an impending charge? I’d say it looks like someone’s got some ’splainin to do.
If you’ve been around town hall since, say, May of 2000, you know that there’s been a movement towards cronyism, nepotism and anti-intellectualism. But when the institutional corruption creeps into law enforcement, the implications are chilling.
And there’s not much prospect for change appearing on the horizon. There is no progressives in Brookline who will stand up to our local right wingers - they’re busy abetting them. There are no local civil libertarians willing to compromise their prospects of future favors by speaking out. And there’s no courage among the few principled officers of town government.
Let’s call it what it is - an unprincipled government, unrestrained in its abuse of the public trust.
There is them and there is us. Stay on your side of the line and you’ll be fine.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
In Lt. Burke’s report, the last interview is that of Town Counsel Dopazo. I wonder if she was actually the last person interviewed by Lt. Burke, and if so, whether Town Counsel was aware at the time of the substance of interviews of the others. I wonder, because as I have pointed out in comments on related posts, the interview by Lt. Burke of Town Counsel doesn’t mesh with P.O. Ford’s Incident Report or Lt. Burke’s interviews of P.O. Ford and Sgt. Campbell as it relates to the “No Trespass” order. In the interview of Town Counsel (p.p. 21 & 22) “Ms. Dopazo told Sergeant Campbell, ‘Do what you normally would do after you speak with Mr. Kaplan.’ She also told Sergeant Campbell, ‘Send me the written report and we’ll (Ms. Dopazo and associate Town Counsels) review it to see if anything should issue from my office in writing.’”
What written report was being referred to? Was it the Incident Report to be prepared by the primary, P.O. Ford, who was not then present on the sixth floor? Or was it some other report. Assuming it was the Incident Report, presumably it would have been available to be furnished to Ms. Dopazo and associate Town Counsels on Friday, May 25th, or Saturday, May 26th, or Sunday, May 27th, or Monday, May 28th, or Tuesday, May 29th, before court prosecutor Lt. Harrington told Conquest that he would no longer be restricted by the “No Trespass” order. Did Ms. Dopazo and all three assistant Town Counsels review the Incident Report and perhaps determine that nothing should issue from Town Counsel’s office in writing? Did it take four attorneys to make that determination? (No jokes about how many it takes to change a light bulb, please.) And what was the legal basis of that determination? Confidentiality?
According to Lt. Burke’s interview of Sgt. Campbell, the latter went to the sixth floor, apparently not encountering Conquest and others in the lobby. When Sgt. Campbell responded to the general dispatch broadcast, was he aware that Town Counsel in her 2222 non-emergency line call to the police had said to dispatcher Yost after requesting that an officer be sent over to the sixth floor right away: “There’s an altercation with Arthur Conquest and one of the zoning board of appeals members.” Presumably Sgt. Campbell was aware that his uncle Kaplan was a member of the ZBA. Did he know before the call/general dispatch broadcast that his uncle was serving on a ZBA panel that evening? Was Sgt. Campbell concerned that his uncle might be involved or did he first learn of this upon his arrival at the sixth floor? Lt. Burke’s interview of Sgt. Campbell does not provide answers; nor does the remainder of Lt. Burke’s report.
Sgt. Campbell was the assigned patrol supervisor for the shift that evening, according to Lt. Burke’s interview. He and Sgt. Kelliher had made the decision on the sixth floor before P.O. Ford, the primary, was called to the sixth floor, that a report would be made. The Incident Report was made by P.O. Ford and approved by officer Gerald Joseph McGrath. Did Sgt. Campbell review the Incident Report before Conquest filed his Citizen Complaint? When did Sgt. Campbell become aware that the Incident Report did not mention that on the elevator ride down from the sixth floor to the lobby that he had told P.O. Ford that Kaplan was his uncle? When did it become publicly known that Sgt. Campbell was Kaplan’s nephew? The answers to these questions are not revealed in Lt. Burke’s report.
PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN (BROOKLINE VERSION)
Recall the concluding episodes of Seinfeld when he, George, Kramer and Elaine ended up in a mythical western MA community where they witnessed a rather obese person just across the street being robbed, assaulted and car-jacked? Seinfeld et al were amused by the obesity of this individual and entertained us with one-liner after one-liner. But then the police came and arrested them under a recently enacted municipal ordinance referred to as a Good Samaritan Law requiring people to come to the aid of a person in a situation similar to the obese young man in this Seinfeld episode.
Massachusetts does have laws providing limited legal protections to good Samaritans who voluntarily come to someone’s aid, such as a doctor or nurse might. But there is no law in Massachusetts that REQUIRES someone to be a Good Samaritan.
The back story on Conquest’s Citizen Complaint was a ZBA hearing attended by Conquest and other concerned Brookline residents. The ZBA panel made a decision that disturbed these residents. One such resident, a 60ish 5-foot tall grandmother, took issue with the decision AFTER the hearing had been completed. She told the Chair of the ZBA panel (Gordon) what she thought of the decision. Then she told another ZBA panel member (Geller) what she thought of the decision. Both Gordon and Geller ignored these critiques and left the room. The grandmother then told the remaining ZBA member (Kaplan) what she thought of the decision. Did Kaplan, a partner in a large prestigious national law firm headquartered in Boston, ignore and walk away from this “feisty” grandmother? No. Instead Kaplan launched into a response described in Lt. Burke’s internal affairs report that became louder and louder. Kaplan did not wish to be criticized having worked for free for 19 years as a ZBA associate member. How dare this grandmother tell him it was a lousy decision.
Conquest, in another area, heard the loud noise of the discussion between the grandmother and Kaplan and went to her aid, telling Kaplan not to talk to her like that. Lt. Burke’s report relates the recollections of the various witnesses to the confrontation between Conquest and Kaplan. Conquest was coming to the defense of this 60ish 5-foot tall grandmother (even Kaplan concedes this). This was not only a demonstration by Conquest, an African-American, coming to the aid of a white 60ish 5-foot tall grandmother, of chivalry but also of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke) in the New Testament.
Conquest volunteered as the Good Samaritan. Society can benefit from such volunteers. Who, even members of the Brookline Police Department, would not want their grandmother (even a feisty grandmother) defended in this manner? But what happened to Conquest as a result of his chivalry and being the Good Samaritan? It’s set forth in Lt. Burke’s 30-page report for all to read. And what might be the moral, the Brookline version of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, based upon Lt. Burke’s report? Might it be, “If you’re an African-American in Brookline, don’t come to the defense of a white 60ish 5-foot tall grandmother”?
By the way, the 60ish 5-foot tall grandmother was apparently on to something when she said the ZBA panel made a lousy decision, as subsequently the ZBA panel reopened the hearing - which is quite unusual even for Brookline’s ZBA - and reversed its earlier decision. Mea culpa? How dare this 60ish 5-foot tall grandmother challenge the lousy decision by exercising her First Amendment speech rights! But she was effective. Mea culpa? Now where is the justice for Conquest?
WHAT IF ….
What if Sgt. Campbell had not told P.O. Ford on their elevator trip from the sixth floor to the lobby that Larry Kaplan was his uncle? Might P.O. Ford have completed his investigation as primary by getting Conquest’s version and the versions of the several persons who had been with Conquest during the incident? Or was P.O. Ford’s mind made up that the fault was on the part of Conquest? Did the fact that Sgt. Campbell was the assigned patrol supervisor for the shift influence his decision not to follow up with Conquest and other witnesses assembled in the lobby?
Lt. Burke’s internal affairs report conclusion (which starts at page 22) states at page 25: “During my interview with P.O. Ford he agreed that it probably would have been best if he went back and obtained a full version of the incident from Mr. Conquest in fairness to him.” Then on page 27: “As stated earlier in my discussions with P.O. Ford on this incident, he agreed that a more complete interview with Mr. Conquest to obtain his version of the sixth floor incident would have been appropriate.”
This demonstrates an incomplete investigation on the evening of May 24th when it was decided that an assault charge should issue against Conquest. In effect, P.O. Ford listened to one side of the story only. Was this fair to Conquest? After all, the incident was not witnessed by the police and there was no blood on the floor or on clothing; nor signs of physical injury.
WHAT IF (2) ….
In the Conclusion portion of Lt. Burke’s internal affairs report, he observes (p. 26):
“The inquiry [by the police in the Town Hall lobby] was prompted by Mr. Conquest’s indication to the officers he was involved in the incident. If Mr. Conquest had not indicated his involvement he could have left Town Hall without any police encounter at all.”
Is this a suggestion that Conquest brought upon himself the matter that resulted in his filing of a Citizen Complaint?
What if, indeed, Conquest has merely departed Town Hall and went home to his family? After all, it was late in the evening. But what might the police have concluded about such departure after learning on the sixth floor that he was involved in the incident? Might the police have thought his leaving was an indication of guilt? Might the police later that evening have been dispatched to Conquest’s home to question him, or perhaps even take him into custody? Or might he have been summoned by the police to come to the police station the next day to give a statement?
The trouble with “What ifs … “ is that we cannot be sure of the answers.
So why did Conquest indicate his involvement in the incident to the police? Could it be that he had nothing to hide and had 6 or 7 witnesses with him in the lobby at the time to support his version of the incident? Could it be that Conquest preferred to be questioned by the police in public with many witnesses present? As an adult African-American, his life experiences, including in Brookline, may have led him to reveal his involvement rather than hide or avoid it. He may have had concern as to what may have transpired if he had not.
What if … ?