New Haven Independent

Posted by: jms | March 30, 2007 6:52 PM

I don't know what to think about any of this mess but I know Pat Redding is a good guy... for whatever that's worth.

Posted by: Nancy Drew | April 1, 2007 3:44 PM

Responsibility and no consequences?!! What is this nonsense!! Do we interpret this to mean he personally rescinded the transfer of Billy White?

Then he would have to explain why he made that decision. Don't count on the truth from John DeStefano, count on a fiction concocted to save face.

Remember, the transfer was rescinded the day before the police union vote of no confidence.
The DeStefano priority was maintain a positve image for his gubernatorial run.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 1, 2007 4:33 PM

Nancy Drew
I think it means he knows we have him pegged and he is losing votes by the day because he would not admit to his involvment in this mess, so he had no choose but to admit to some kind of involvment but I am sure his staff told him to keep it general soooo...basicly we really got no answer.

What mad me laugh was " Personally, I take responsibility for that, as does the chief" He could not just say "I" he had to throw the chief in! Come on he is still lieing about this and is still useing the chief. I wish he would just come out and say he I screwed up and I take the blame! At least the cheif did not dodge it he said it right from the get go, the mayor was doing everything his power not to have to say that.

And hey when are they busting the other officers. I wish they would just do it so we can see where we stand and then maybe we can move on.

Posted by: WTF | April 2, 2007 3:08 PM

I cant stop laughing...sorry!

Why would the mayor surround himself with someone of the character of boise kimber during the investigation of crooked cops? Am I correct, in that Boise, a church minister, stole funds from an elderly citizen?

I guess the best way to pray for Crooked cops is to have a crooked preacher...thats a whole lot of crooked people around Johnny Boy. Please keep ya nose clean...

Is the goal here to be surrounded to deter people from asking me more questions as to how messed up this situation is?

Posted by: guest | April 2, 2007 5:31 PM

JMS, you say 'for what it is worth.' What is it worth? - I don't care if Lt. Redding is a good guy or not, and don't know how you define a good guy.

The question is, did he carry out his duties in Internal Affairs and will he perform his duties as chief of detectives? Chief of detectives is a prize position. Lt. Redding was just given a reward.

Frankly, I am tired of everyone's personal loyalties but New Haven never seems to tire of them. New Haven created Billy White when the police commission gave every one of the wiretap figures a pass. They repeated this mistake several times again and there is no reason to believe there was anything anomolistic about that. Indeed, the contrary.

Notions that nothing in Billy White's actions reflected systemic issues in New Haven or the PD, that it was by nature an isolated discrete phenomenon, is blatant misinformation being churned out by Destefano et al. This is self-evident to anyone who knows how elements of the criminal justice system have to work together - city hall, courts, prosecutors, and so on. It simply is not possible.

New Haven is responding the same way this time as it did for the wiretaps, and several scandals since then, despite the fact that the feds have billy. The same damage control, the same New Haven ways that preserve corruption. It's a city that just can't surmount its machine politics and personal loyalties -- the personal ties that supersede loyalty to office, professionalism and truth.

This city is an arm-twisting boiler room. With few exceptions the official response has been a cynical moral failure. It is a city with low standards for integrity and has been demonstrating that to those sophisticated enough to notice it throughout its response to this "scandal."

By the way, this is not the biggest police scandal in New Haven history, as it is being described by some. The biggest, arguably, was the wiretap scandal, where billy again, was in the thick of things and which cost New Haven millions paid out to NHPD's victims.

Another juicy bit of blatant misinformation -- 'the corruption was so hard to find' the FBI had to tap Billy's phone for a few months. It took almost no time at all. Rather than deep, it was found by scratching the surface. Secondly, it was in investigation of an officer the state's attorney, FBI, US Attorney, City hall/Corp counsel and state police already had enough serious doubts about to act on. It was an investigation that unearthed only the latest shenanigans, not one that revealed shenanigans where we were confident there could be none. Don't believe the spin. Demand clean government. Even the chief concedes, or not even concedes, offers, that the net affect of Billy's tenure on New Haven crime may have been to increase it -- so much for all the Dirty Hairy Hollywoodisation of him by some.

Posted by: guess | April 2, 2007 5:48 PM

There were people who didn't want to see the right thing done - billy white fired or moved out of a position of real responsibility. Most recently in 2005, and those people are hiding right now.

We want them to step forward. IF we know who they are and why they did it, we'd have at least a chance to prevent this in the future.

Know this, if we don't get that information, city government is going to do this to us again and again.

The press should be focused on getting this information furiously, if only to learn it doesn't exist and some strange set of facts exist instead. It is the key and should be the highest priority for reporters working on this story.

There may very well be people with influence sitting pretty right now who shouldn't be so darn comfortable. The press will bave failed spectacularly if it fails in this. It is the one black box remaining in this scandal. Pop it open and move the reporting to a whole new level.

Posted by: guest | April 2, 2007 6:43 PM

Mr. Lawlor, did you advise the departnent under White that it should not send affadavits signed by White to the state's attorney's office?

Mr. Lawlor, considering the history of White's tenure and grave doubts about his credibility for decades, were you comfortable entrusted him to oversee affadavits by underlings?

Mr. Lawlor, if you are a major liason between Michael Dearington's office and the narcotics and detective units, did you work closely with White's crew?

Did you or Mr. Dearington go to the scene of major homicides and drug busts? If so, how often? Did you talk on the phone with White or his underlings during such investigations, frequently, daily, weekly?

Did you trust White and his supervision implicitly?

Mr. Lawlor, how much do you personally care about your integrity and did you ever feel that prosecuting cases overseen by White compromised it?

Mr. Lawlor, do you beleive you or Michael Dearington should answer questions from the public on this matter?