We’re not against the police. We’re not against the police department, but we are against police who commit misconduct (and those who help cover it up).
This is part two of two. To read part one click here.
After this, I’ll probably go into hiding for awhile.
Before I get started let me be clear that I am fully aware of the fact that whenever the name Christopher Dorner is mentioned the naysayers want to automatically discredit him by saying that he was crazy, that he never should’ve been hired, yada yada yada. As the song goes, I’ve heard it all before.
My response to that is Dorner has paid the ultimate price for his actions. He is dead and gone. Now it’s time for the Department to own up to the role it played in creating the environment that gave birth to Christopher Dorner’s rage and the rage that so many other officer’s carry around every single day due to an unfair disciplinary process that favors some over others.
Below through internal LAPD documents that I’ve been able to procure and through reports that the Department has released itself, I will prove that the firing of Dorner wasn’t on the up and up as Chief Charlie Beck, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Los Angeles Police Commission promised us it was.
Did the LAPD know about Sergeant Teresa Evans domestic violence issues and did they purposefully omit that information from the record?
Yes. In a never before publicly released intradepartmental correspondence memo dated October 25, 2007 to the Commanding Officer of the Criminal Investigation Division (Captain Jeri Weinstein) from Detective Shelley Gallegos (CF No. 07-004281) on page 5 in the fifth paragraph it says the following:
Dorner stated that he had not had any problems during his probation. He stated that he asked for reintegration training because he believed he was a little behind on some things, but he never had a negative rating.5 Dorner believed that Evans had a lot of things going on in her personal life, and that he believed that Evans was arrested by the Long Beach Police Department for a domestic violence incident.6 Dorner believed that Evans provided false and misleading statements during the UOF investigation, which cause him concern about her character.
6 Gallegos discussed the complaint that arose from the Long Beach incident (CF No. 07-003277) with Captain II Jeri Weinstein, Serial 2433, Commanding Officer, Criminal Investigation Division, who advised that it had no bearing on this complaint.
Why did the Department bury Evan’s domestic violence report?
Did then Officer Teresa Evans provide false and misleading statements during the Use of Force (UOF) investigation?
Yes. In the Los Angeles Police Commission’s own Review of Christopher Dorner’s Termination conducted by the Office of the Inspector General Alex Bustamante and dated June 21, 2013 on page 5 section C reads as follows:
C. Unresolved Issues Regarding the Training Officer’s Credibility
Dorner accused the training officer of writing the portion of the arrest report that discussed the use of force and specifically omitted any reference to kicking the suspect. During the complaint investigation, the training officer denied writing any portion of the arrest report. At the Board of Rights hearing, however, the training officer testified that she did sit at a computer and edit portions of the report because Dorner failed to understand how important it was to be very “specific and detailed” when recounting each and every action during the reported use of force.
The training officer was never questioned during the Board of Rights about the potential disparity between her initial statement during the complaint investigation and her later testimony during the hearing.
In the Use of Force portion of the arrest report, the training officer reported that she approached the arrestee in the planter during the struggle and took control of the arrestee’s “head and neck.”
However, in her subsequent statements during the misconduct investigation and at the Board of Rights, the training officer said that she approached the arrestee to gain control of his arm, with no mention at all of the head and neck.
The training officer was never asked during the Board of Rights to address which account of her actions was accurate, and why the accounts differed.
And even with this admission, the OIG and the Los Angeles Police Commission both signed off on Dorner’s firing as being justified.
No one, the media or otherwise, has ever questioned why the Board of Rights never questioned Evans about her conflicting statements.
This is important because Dorner was being accused of providing false and misleading statements regarding Evans’ use of force during an arrest that occurred on July 28, 2007.
Evans, as documented, made numerous false and misleading statements regarding the misconduct investigation and at the Board of Rights hearing.
Add to that, LAPD policy dictates, “for this or any other police department to maintain the confidence of the public, it must be clear to officers that they are expected, above all, to be consistently honest in their personal and public life.”
Their words, not mine.
Sergeant Teresa Evans (and Officer Dominick Fuentes for that matter) at the very least should have been disciplined for providing false and misleading statements to the Long Beach Police Department and the LAPD about their domestic violence incident but they were not.
The question that you and the media need to be asking is why was Evans spared from termination for lying on multiple occasions when it is documented that she provided false and misleading statements?
Did the Department withhold exculpatory evidence from Dorner and his attorney?
Yes. The Department intentionally withheld Sergeant Evan’s Long Beach Police Department report that corroborated Dorner’s statement about Evan’s state of mind and her problems at home. Then the Office of the Inspector General and the Los Angeles Police Commission perpetuated that lie to the public in their Review of Christopher Dorner’s Termination dated June 21, 2013 on page 6 section III:
III. Analysis of the Process
As previously discussed, the OIG reviewed all the documents, records, and transcripts related to Dorner’s Board of Rights hearing. In examining the record, the OIG noted that there were no significant issues with the process. The OIG found no evidence to suggest that the Department did not provide all relevant and potentially exculpatory evidence to Dorner and his attorney.
They found no evidence because as documented above in the intradepartmental correspondence memo dated October 25, 2007, between Commanding Officer of the Criminal Investigation Division Captain Jeri Weinstein and Detective Shelley Gallegos, Gallegos was told not to include it because “it had no bearing.”
In laymen’s terms, the evidence, which was the Long Beach Police Department’s report was not admitted because Captain Weinstein told Detective Gallegos not to admit it and those directives were documented in a LAPD memo.
Why did Captain Jeri Weinstein instruct Detective Shelley Gallegos to withhold Evan’s police report and why did she feel it had no bearing?
Did members of Dorner’s Board of Rights hearing have a conflict of interest?
Dorner’s Board of Rights panel consisted of Captain Phillip Tingirides, Captain Justin Eisenberg, and City Attorney Martella.
Captain Phillip Tingirides was and is known throughout the Department to be a very close friend of Sergeant Teresa Evans from when they were both working out of Harbor Division. In fact, the rumor is that they had a sexual relationship.
And while I cannot corroborate the sexual relationship yet, I can say that just the rumors alone should have been enough to have him recused or removed from the panel, but it was not. The fact that they were and are close friends is no secret within the LAPD and that too should have been just cause for his not serving on Dorner’s Board of Rights hearing panel.
Why wasn’t Captain Phillip Tingirides excused from serving on Dorner’s Board of Rights hearing?
So there it is, irrefutable proof that the Los Angeles Police Department conspired against Christopher Dorner by covering up for his training officer Sergeant Teresa Evans.
Does it absolve Dorner of his own crimes? No it does not, but it does shine a glaring light onto the Department’s role into his madness and how unfair and rigged the disciplinary process is.
I want to thank the person who risked their own career to get me the intradepartmental document between Captain Weinstein and Detective Gallegos.
I think it’s now time for the media to come out from under Commander Smith and Chief Beck’s spell. Any rank-and-file cop will tell you that as long as practices like this are going on within the Department, the issue of Christopher Dorner will never be over. Do you really think that cops won’t ratify a new contract over just salaries and overtime pay?
This biggest lie ever told to the public about the firing of Christopher Dorner was the one where the Chief said with a straight face that “the record is clear that Dorner fabricated allegations against his training officer, and later, against his peers and superiors. The decision to terminate Dorner was sound and just.”
This little Internet blogger just proved, with the help of people in his own Department, that simply was not true.
Private eyes, they’re watching you too and since LAPDgate broke Google has had about 50,000 new email addresses created in the L.A. area.