Hey, there! Log in / Register

Ed Repeat Davis: Lying REALLY a fireable offense this time

Adam posted earlier about Ed Davis swearing that lying will get you "fired". It may sound familiar.

Circa July 2009:

The words an officer writes down in a police incident report, the statements an officer makes to Internal Affairs investigators, the sworn testimony an officer gives to a grand jury or in court - it has to be truthful or else, Davis says. “The penalty will be termination, no matter the officer’s reputation. First one - and you’re out.’’

Circa today:

Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis will fire any officer convicted of perjury or shown to have lied during internal department investigations

Inquiring minds would like to know what happened to Patrick Wood, author of Jamaica Plain Babies Pushed Into My Cruiser. Also, what happened to Rance Cooley, author of Criminals I Recognize?


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!



But at least you get it.

Voting closed 0

It basically has quotes from police-union types saying the policy isn't new. The real question, then, I guess, is why Davis felt like reiterating it now. He doesn't strike me as somebody who would just blurt out something for the hell of it.

And a question: Why do this as a separate post instead of continuing the discussion on the article?

Voting closed 0

Then I ask the commissioner if he’s ever fired an officer for lying, either in Boston or in Lowell where he was that city’s police chief. He says no. OK, then what do you say to those who might consider this new get-tough stance his own public relations moment? Who say Davis may find a test case, but then it will be back to business as usual? Who say the police have never been good at policing its own?

Davis finishes his coffee and stands. “My answer to that is: ‘Watch me.’ ’’

A new ‘Bright Line Rule’ against lying
By Dick Lehr | July 31, 2009

Voting closed 0

Compare and contrast how the Herald uses names at liberty and names a number of cases, whereas the Globe deliberately goes out of its way to avoid names, except for Pulido. Also: reading the descriptions, you'd almost think the Herald and the Globe are talking about two different cases.

Herald, which claims the policy is new ("Until now, the BPD had no set punishment for lying"):

Accusations of lying by Boston cops have hurt the department’s reputation in recent years.

In September, Boston firefighter Wayne Abron was acquitted in a domestic assault case amid questions about whether two BPD cops beat him and lied about it. On Dec. 16, Abron filed a civil rights lawsuit against the department in Suffolk Superior Court.

In May 2009, a federal judge found that Boston cop Rance Cooley falsely testified in a gun case. Internal Affairs is investigating. In 2006, nearly a dozen officers were suspended or reprimanded and four were imprisoned for involvement with the “Boom Boom Room,” a Hyde Park sex and drug den. Cops were punished for lying, using steroids and going to the Boom Boom Room while on duty.


especially after an internal investigation into steroid use led to disciplinary action last year against 11 officers for a variety of violations.

“Officers told Internal Affairs one thing and told [a federal] grand jury the truth,’’ Davis said, referring to a case that sent some officers to federal prison for drug trafficking. “They clearly put more stock in the grand jury process than the Internal Affairs process. We really can’t have that happening. There has to be serious ramifications.’’

"In July, the Globe reported that 11 Boston police officers had been disciplined for their roles in a steroid scandal that humiliated the department, forced officials to tighten their drug policies, and resulted in prison time for four patrolmen.

Seven of the disciplined officers admitted to using steroids at some point in their careers. Their punishments ranged from a written reprimand to a 45-day suspension without pay.

The punishments resulted from a three-year investigation into steroid use at the department that began in August 2006, soon after the FBI arrested Officer Roberto “Kiko’’ Pulido for trying to traffic cocaine. The FBI found that Pulido was a steroid user who guarded parties at an after-hours club in Hyde Park, where prostitutes and dancers mingled with police and where alcohol and drugs were available."

Voting closed 0

Circa July 2009: "But the reform turned out to be a hollow public relations moment"

Circa today: ??

(Is it the same, a hollow public relations moment? Is Davis trying to close the book in the issue without a policy change?)

Voting closed 0

The first article said Davis was nearing completion of the policy. The second article said the policy is now in place. Is this merely a cry for reading comprehension skill training, or is there some other point this poster is trying to point out?

Voting closed 0

Can you?

As proof he means business, he discloses he’s putting the finishing touches on a new policy he’ll call the “Bright Line Rule.’’ “If our own internal process determines that an officer has been untruthful, the punishment will be termination.’’ Lying, he says, will now be a firing offense

That was in July of '09- using words like "finishing touches" and "will now be". It's almost February of '10. How far off was "now"?

Voting closed 0

c 2010

Voting closed 0