Hey, there! Log in / Register
Former police commisisoner wants more of the Rose file released; blasts Janey
By adamg on Wed, 04/21/2021 - 11:26am
The Globe reports former Police Commissioner Paul Evans says the limited Patrick Rose documents released by City Hall yesterday do not tell the full story of what happened after Rose was accused of child molestation in 1995, that he did everything he could to get rid of Rose, but there was only so much he could do when the alleged victim, 12 at the time, declined to go forward with the criminal case and that Acting Mayor Kim Janey should be ashamed of herself for suggesting he somehow abetted Rose's continuing at BPD.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Thumbs up
Let the circular firing squad begin...
Sadly no
It's going to be a circle of people who were in positions of power, all blaming this person who was 12 at the time and whose own child later became a victim of Rose. Terrible.
Paul Evans is a decent snd honorable guy
Maybe he didn’t make the right decision with Rose. But it certainly wasn’t based on a desire to protect Rose.
Honorable people do not allow
Honorable people do not allow child molesters to continue having positions of power, especially when that position can be used to cover up further instances of child molesting.
Both Nee & Evans knew about this. They are both culpable.
Serve and PROTECT.
He lied, flat out, And people suffered
He said he wasn't made aware. He was.
That right there is enough for me.
what?
when did he deny being aware? His statement to the Globe clearly includes being aware and actively trying to pursue means of getting Rose fired.
Do the digging
He denied any knowledge of this earlier this year.
This is a lie.
He never said he wasn’t aware. Your credibility is now shot.
Knowing the victim personally
Knowing the victim personally, Evans, nee and Dunford convinced the victim to recant his story. Protecting the image of one cop was more important than a child
criminal charges aren't necessary to fire someone
Atrocious person with an atrocious argument.
That applies to the private
That applies to the private sector. With BPD, courtesy of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association (where Pat Rose was the guy in charge for a few years) even criminal charges + public outrage are not always good enough to terminate an officer.
you can view the contract yourself.
don't be so quick to absolve the police department leadership for letting a pedophile remain on the force.
https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/BPPA%202007-2010_tcm3-4848...
Evan's rebuttal never says the termination process was followed, he very bluntly blamed the victim for his own inaction.
Stay angry.
All depends on the contract
Remember when the T had to rehire a trolley driver caught sleeping at the wheel and then failed a drug test?
https://www.wbur.org/news/2011/08/03/mbta-rehire-fired-employees
Breach the contract
Notice how the public knows about this trolley driver but Patrick Rose’s assault did not appear in the press until 25 years later?
The WBUR article notes that “The Boston Police Department decided not to fire [Rose]...after the union threatened to file a grievance.”
Force Rose and the union to file the grievance and bring the battle into the public eye. Go ahead, tell the world you are fighting your employer who believes you sexually assaulted a child to get your job back.
Maybe the city loses, but the “we did everything we could” argument becomes more credible.
THIS
Would the union really want to fight in the public eye to protect a likely pedophile?
I mean people shoot up pizza places with imaginary basements because some idiot on the internet tells them children maybe got molested in the imaginary basement.
Notice how the public knows
That's because on-the-job misbehavior is treated differently from off-the-job misbehavior. The trolley driver was snorting coke and snoozing while clocked in. Rose was probably not in uniform while committing his crimes.
How did Rose know his victims?
On what information do you base this speculation? Why give Rose the benefit of the doubt that he did not leverage his badge and position of authority to prey on these children?
This isn't super helpful but...
at one point, early on in the reporting of this, it was inferred that Rose was familiar with the victims socially.
I may be misremembering this as I can't find the details or perhaps the details were scrubbed from reporting in accordance with current accepted best practices of not identifying victims?
just what are you saying?
That evans was right in not even trying to fire a known pedophile? He certainly could have fired the man, but didn't and he very much takes the blame for this horrible crime. Just because you weren't wearing a uniform when you are credibly accused of committing a heinous crime means you get to keep being a cop. That's not how being a trusted law enforcement officer works.
Expect more, this is Evans failure.
I hate to say it because I am
I hate to say it because I am a fan of unions overall but it looks like in this case it is the Police Union that is at fault. They protected him when the charges first came out. They protested his being confined to desk duty. They elected him to be their leader. They allowed the protections that protected him to stay in place.
The Police Department is limited in their ability due to contract agreements with the Union. The Union could have chose to not intervene so vigorously. They surely did not have to elect him to be the leader. Clearly the Boston Police Union needs DOJ intervention before the city does anything else.
I am also a fan of unions and
I am also a fan of unions and a union member and have seen firsthand the good unions (even public sector ones) do against racist or sexist managers, but the police union is something else entirely. absolutely insane to defend somebody after credible allegations. INSANE to blame a CHILD for backing down when it became clear the people in authority weren't going to protect him.
that said, the city should've called the union's bluff. the city wastes money on the dumbest shit imaginable but can't commit to fighting a bullshit lawsuit for justice?
You don't have to hate
saying it. Police Unions are not "unions" in the traditional sense. They have ascended to another level. The level which, ironically, anti-union pro-cop nut jobs have fever dreams about.
They do not strike, they do not show up in solidarity at other union strikes to offer support. They don't even offer statements of support to other unions that may be striking. Their members actively engage in breaking strikes and harassing the working class. They support conservative, anti-union political candidates because those candidates will fight to get their local PD's a shiny new tank at a military auction.
They are a gang. Full stop. Organized crime. Their lawyers protect criminals and murderers, keep them out of jail and on the payroll, all at the taxpayers expense.
Not a union guy but.....
They aren't legally allowed to strike, there aren't a lot of strikes around these days to say they have or haven't "shown up" to support strikers. When the hell have they "broken up strikes? Did you come out of a time capsule from 1895?
Police unions are really just groups of people who pay attorneys to bargain for them. It isn't more complicated than that.
Coverup
Commissioner Evans please demand the release of the files on the tragic death of Reverend Accelyne Williams a beloved black reverend who died in a bungled drug raid by officers and detectives under you command.
partial releases are not helpful
Always doubt an edited video
Always doubt a partial document dump.
Both are orchestrated to show a partial story.
Always remember that no matter what you may think of the union motives, they work according to laws set by the legislature, and by proxy, us.
called it
why in the world would it take forever to redact 13 pages? There was barely anything blacked out. There were several questions left unanswered. I cannot believe all of the "journalists" jumped to conclusions and actually believed there were only 13 pages.
is he serious?
"We did a thorough investigation" really? Couldn't have been that thorough, could it? If he got away with it, over and over again.. right?
Get the f**k outta town.
You were so scared of a grievance you couldn't even put him on desk duty?
Sick f**s. The lot of 'em. Paul Evans, you had a good rep, it was tarnished and now you just flushed it down the drain.
So Evans admits
That he knew this guy was a child molester and still did nothing for decades?
He didn't reassign him to the BPD horse stables with a rusted out wheelbarrow, he didn't make him have night shifts for decades, and he didn't speak up when he ran for and *won* the position of Union President?
That's..that's not a good look for Evans.
BPA grievance threat was enough to force Evans to back down
Interesting the mear threat of a BPA grievance appears to be all that was required for commissioner Evans to back off, as far as I know none was filed. Says a lot about the power of the union. One might speculate who is actually running BPD. Hint my money is on the union.
Letter from BPA counsel to Evans
In hindsight had Evans proceeded with a grievance or attempted to terminate Rose the paper trail might look better for him, even if Rose was eventually returned to duty. Pure speculation on my part, perhaps Evans was banking on the culture of secrecy in the department and city hall to bury the issue, almost worked.
A different version
Old stories in the BPD Unions Paper (PAX CENTURION) were about an officer in Area-C that had been assigned to desk duty without any justifiable reason. The story made it seem like the officer was being punished because of Union Activities. I used to read the paper regularly and this is from memory as I do not have the copies now. I believe this may account for Rose's ability to rise to President of BPPA. Wish the membership knew the full story then.
The voters of Boston have
The voters of Boston have nobody to blame but themselves for electing officials that allowed a police union to exercise so much power.