MPD’s internal investigation report

[What follows is a text version of the Madison Police Department’s report on its internal investigation into the conduct of its detectives in Patty’s reported rape.]

Date: November 3, 1998
TO: Mayor Susan J.M. Bauman
FROM: Ted Balistreri, Assistant Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Complaint Investigation

I am responding to you after having reviewed almost all the reports involved in the "Patty" matter, discussed this case with District Attorney Diane Nicks, Deputy District Attorney Jill Karofsky, Professional Standards Lieutenant Patrick Malloy, and the case Lieutenant, Cheri Maples. I have listened to all the Police and Fire Commission hearings on Mr. Lueder's complaint against Lieutenant Dennis George Riley, and after being briefed on Judge Aulik's decision regarding "Patty's" interrogation, I am, confident that no wrong doing occurred.

I would like to address several issues which seem to be paramount to this case. The first issue is the interrogation of "Patty". The interviewing Detective was accused of lying and forcing a confession. In July, Judge Aulik ruled that "the statements made by the defendant to the police on October 2, 1997, were voluntary and not the result of any coerciveness or any improper police tactics." This decision was reached after our Detective was cross examined by "Patty's" attorney under oath. It is legal, but not common for a Detective to use a ruse in interviewing a sexual assault victim, however, it was the opinion of our Detective that "Patty" was not assaulted and hence, not a victim. It seems that even after a judge's ruling there are still assertions of coercion.

The second issue relates to "Patty's" letter to Lieutenant Riley. She apparently wanted it viewed as a complaint, however, a review of the letter does not draw me to that conclusion. In fact, it ends with a statement, "use this as you wish". Lieutenant Malloy has been informed that she wished it viewed as a complaint. Chief Williams will soon be responding to "Patty", but to date, Lieutenant Malloy's investigation reveals no wrong doing in the handling of "Patty's" correspondence.

The third issue relates to the charge against "Patty" for obstructing. There was sufficient evidence to convince our department, as well as the District Attorney's office, that "Patty" made up the story about being assaulted. There were many inconsistencies in "Patty's" story and comments she made that led us to conclude that she was not being truthful with us. Lieutenant Maples had indicated a willingness to sit down and discuss with "Patty" the 41 points which led us to believe she was lying, but she did not return Lieutenant Maples's phone calls.

Lastly, the Madison Police Department has indicated a willingness to pursue the sexual assault investigation of "Patty" by another law enforcement agency. In fact, we had asked Rape Crisis to convey to "Patty" our willingness to have the investigation continued. Several months ago, the Rape Crisis Center spoke to "Patty" indicating that we would ask the Department of Criminal Investigation (DCI) to reinvestigate the sexual assault if she wished. She was asked only to convey her desire to Lieutenant Maples, which she never did.

In reviewing the matter, I do not believe there was any wrong doing. If done over, would the Department do things differently? More than likely we would, however, we could all say that about many of our work products after the fact. This entire matter has been taxing on many of us, including "Patty". I can only hope that at some point we can all put this behind us and move on.

If there are any questions you may have concerning this investigation, please feel free to contact me.

[signed]

TED BALISTRERI
Assistant Chief of Police

[End of document.]