Hey, there! Log in / Register

Report says BPD moved at glacial pace in investigating pedophilia allegations against Patrick Rose

WBUR reports on yesterday's release of a review of BPD actions and inactions after Patrick Rose was first accused of raping a child in the 1990s. Rose, who eventually became president of the local police union, is now behind bars awaiting trial on charges he raped several more children.

The report.

Innocent, etc.



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


This "policy wasn't clear" bullshit got kids raped this time, opps, we'll try to clarify the policy going forward!

Despite being told explicitly that they should investigate concurrent with criminal charges, they didn't, and Paul Evans continues to lie about why. The report then makes vague statements about policy not being clear, but it fails to state why, despite firm instructions to investigate, they didn't do shit.

Everybody knows why, because laws don't apply to police. There should also be a determination of why criminal charges were dropped, because they wouldn't have been on a "civilian".

When this report says "it's cool now, though things are better!" keep in mind that they didn't even follow their own policy back then so there is nothing stopping them from just ignoring any policy today. In fact, they can ignore any recommendations by the "oversight" board if they just explain why in writing. It has, is and will all happen again because nobody controls the police.

Voting closed 0

So Evan’s is saying throw the victims under the bus? That’s what I’m getting from this. Of course he knows Janey will not do that, so he uses that to imply there is hidden evidence to support his claim that he did everything he could.

Voting closed 1

But Ii don't have enough alcohol and soap in the house to get me through it..

Voting closed 0

Anyone in a position of BPD leadership in '95 and after when this happened and that knew about this without working to get Rose out is a piece of shit.

The report elucidates for us the following: in June 95 child rapist Rose was charged in WR court; in 96 those charges were dropped (b/c it was an uncooperative child witness' fault of course!!!) in WR court BUT the Internal Affairs unit decided to sustain allegations against Rose b/c at least 1 person in BPD had some balls.

However, enough sheep exist in the BPD that they fall back to the rules.... ah yes - if there isn't a rule telling us to do it or not do it then we are not at fault.

In this case, the report effectively implies (b/c nothing in this report is clear except that whoever wrote it was dying to get it over with) that there was no rule stating that the BPD should take seriously an allegation that a fellow officer raped a kid. Guess you can't take anything for granted these days - I figured this would have been common sense.

I shouldn't be too surprised since this station is the same one that served Sean Ellis justice so corrupt that they created a Netflix documentary out of it....

Voting closed 0