Publish to Newswire
Add an EventPolicing Press Freedom in Palo Alto
Within her official capacity as The Chief of the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD), Lynne Johnson published an "Open Letter to the Palo Alto Community" warning that a recent Palo Alto Daily News article failed to satisfy her standards of journalism. She denounced it as "incomplete and inaccurate" in its use of excerpts "taken entirely out of context of the 181 page deposition transcript" . The Chief saw no need to provide a single example of the inaccuracies, nor did she specify the officially acceptable way to be complete in summarizing a 181-page document in the space of a 1-page article. Presumably, she preferred to leave that as an exercise for the reader.
The letter left no doubt about the seriousness of the article's offense, however: "The way the article was written and excerpted statements were chosen, it appears as though the newspaper intended to discredit the Palo Alto Police Department...". Yes - once again, the "civilian media" was second-guessing the police, even though it is clear that no civilian can ever surpass The Chief's expertise in discrediting the Palo Alto Police Department. Nonetheless, The Chief showed great restraint in letting the Daily News off with a mere warning for this first offense of excessive-excerpting-with-apparent-intent-to-discredit. The local press is unlikely to repeat that mistake.
Look beyond The Chief's second-guessing of the "civilian media" and a few simple facts about the case discussed in the article stand out clearly:
- After 13 years Nelson Galbraith, charged with murdering his wife, has been completely cleared. A jury acquitted him in 1998. Last week the county apologized to the family (Nelson Galbraith died in 2002), agreed to pay, and agreed to change the cause of death on the death certificate from murder to suicide.
- In 2005 the county prosecutor said the murder charge resulted from the PAPD investigation and recommendation. PAPD claimed it was led by the county coroner's autopsy. But county officials recently conducted an independent review of the original autopsy and concluded that it was wrong. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy resigned in 1998, after harsh criticism from the county grand jury.
The county has apologized for its mishandling of the case. That would include the offices of the county prosecutor and county coroner. The only agency that has not apologized, or admitted any responsibility, for its involvement in the injustice is PAPD. Instead, the police unleashed The Chief as their PR pit bull in full attack mode, incredibly arguing:
"A criminal case goes to trial only after many agencies and their personnel have reviewed the case, contributed their expertise, conducted a thorough analysis and determined that the evidence has stood up to that intense scrutiny".
That is, the answer may have been wrong but the calculation was infallible!
But in 2004, when her own gang was on the receiving end of the criminal justice system, The Chief broadcast her doubt about the system's infallibility. After two PAPD rookies (Michael Kan and Craig Lee) were ordered to stand trial for felony assault for their brutal beating of a 60-year-old resident charged with no crime, The Chief lamented: "I am extremely disappointed. All the information I have leads me to believe they should not have been held to answer". That criminal investigation was also done by PAPD, but The Chief and Assistant Chief Dennis Burns amazingly argued that the PAPD's criminal investigation was botched - without taking any responsibility!
Yet, one of the trial attorneys for the PAPD rookies, Harry Stern, blamed The Chief for that same criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution:
"Johnson mandated that the incident be handled like the crime of the century...Then the case was presented to the District Attorney’s Office, and Chief Johnson lobbied that charges be filed"
Stern claims Johnson switched after PAPD cleared the rookies in an "internal affairs" (i.e, "none-of-your-business") investigation.
But while The Chief was denouncing - not the brutal beating - but its investigation and prosecution (that she led - yet took no responsibility for), where was the local media? Apparently, to the local media (PA Daily News, PA Weekly, and Mercury News), press freedom meant granting the police chief the freedom to deceive - not freedom to press the police chief for an explanation of her duplicity. The local press kept the focus on the 60-year-old victim, falsely suggesting that he initiated the excessive force claim, when the claim was actually initiated by PAPD. That falsehood led some to the equally false conclusion that the brutal action of the rookies was resolved with the city's $250,000 settlement of the victim's civil suit (a conclusion repeated by the DA's office when it let the rookies walk free) - and to ignore that the rookies gave a black eye to the Constitution and public trust, while discrediting the Palo Alto Police Department.
Now that The Chief has rewarded the past submissiveness of the local press with a stern censure, perhaps it will rethink its role. When the Daily News didn't back down to the public attack, and stood by its story, the PR pit bull tucked tail and hasn't been heard from since on the matter. Hopefully, The Chief is now too busy practicing taking responsibility, and has no more time or desire to police the local press.
Related Links:
World Press Freedom Day
http://www.un.org/events/pressday/2008/index.shtml
Investigator tied to botched case
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-4-24-pa-yore
The Chief's Open Letter to the Palo Alto Community
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=7861
The Perfect Storm or How Two Cops Almost Became Felons for Doing Their Jobs
http://www.porac.org/ldf/articles/may%201%202006.html
Donate
$260.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.