[What follows is the post-hearing brief submitted by Bill Lueders to the Madison Police and Fire Commission on Nov. 5, 1998.]

BEFORE THE BOARD OF THE FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS
OF THE CITY OF MADISON

_________________________________________________________

BILL LUEDERS,
Complainant
vs.
LT. DENNIS GEORGE RILEY,
Respondent,

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

The Respondent's defense, in sum, amounts to denying the obvious. Is it reasonable to believe that Lt. Riley completely forgot these letters, even after being prompted to the point of hearing them read aloud? Of course it isn't. It is plausible that Lt. Riley would completely forget not only these letters but also two conversations he had with others regarding their content? Of course it isn't. Does Lt. Riley's conduct after our conversations suggest an innocent officer taking appropriate steps or someone trying to avoid culpability for what he knew was a lie? The latter is obviously more credible, but the Respondent insists it's not so.

Madison Police Department rules require officers to "tell the truth at all times and under all circumstances, whether under oath or otherwise." At all times, and under all circumstances--no exceptions. Is this a good rule? Maybe not. Certainly, there are times when it may be appropriate for an officer to say something that's not quite true. But this was not one of those times. What Lt. Riley said to me was not that kind of lie. It was a lie motivated by his desire to avoid accountability.

I think it's obvious why Lt. Riley lied, but the issue of matter in this proceeding is, Did he lie? Did he lie to me when, on Feb. 5, he told me he had no knowledge of receiving Patty's letters? Did he lie to me when, after I read parts of the letters to him, he claimed to draw a complete blank? "I do not remember the letters," he said. "I do not have the letters."

This is where it gets complicated. We can't get inside Lt. Riley's head. We can't possibly know what he was thinking as I questioned him about these letters, as I read parts of them over the phone. Is it possible he really did just forget?

Of course it's possible, since anything is. But it's not reasonable, plausible or credible. People claim memory loss because they know how hard is it for anyone who doesn't share their cranium to refute this contention beyond any doubt. It's a very clever lie, but it is one that binds the teller to itself. Having told me during our call that he did not remember the letters, Lt. Riley had to maintain this contention even though it would subsequently come to light that he received and discussed these letters with others and made determinations regarding what should be done with them. He had to stick to this contention despite revelations that, just days before, he stepped front and center as the department's expert regarding this case in conversations with health professionals that were prompted by my inquiries, which incidentally concerned the same issues as the letters themselves. Lt. Riley was forced to maintain this representation, and even augment it with claims that entire conversations also just slipped his mind, apparently for good.

Is it possible that Lt. Riley forgot? Perhaps. Is it reasonable? No it's not. Is it credible? No, it's not. Is it plausible? No, it's not. Let's review:

Lt. Riley supervised an investigation in which lies were told to a suspect in order to get her to confess. He knew that weeks earlier, Capt. Jeff. LaMar announced his desire to issue a press release on the case, should the report prove false. On Oct. 24, 1997, three days after this release was issued, Lt. Riley received two letters from Patty making extremely serious allegations of police misconduct.

On receiving these letters, Lt. Riley purportedly had brief discussions with Det. Woodmansee and Capt. LaMar, and paid so little mind to either that they fell completely from his recollection. I submit that this account is incompatible with Lt. Riley's acknowledged duties as a police supervisor to take such communications seriously and make several determinations as to what to do about them.

I also submit that Lt. Riley has advanced an interpretation of these letters that is incongruent with their content, further undermining his credibility. Lt. Riley claimed in his sworn testimony, "I didn't have a clue what they [Patty's letters] were in response to," (Transcript, P. 201), despite the fact that the letter addressed "Dear Supervisor" began, "Enclosed is a response to the irresponsible article your detectives released to the press," accompanied by a letter addressed to the Wisconsin State Journal. Add to this that the letters, Lt. Riley testified, arrived "the day after it [an article] was printed in the State Journal." (Transcript, P. 199.) While seemingly incapable of discerning the obvious fact that the letters were a response to the article, Lt. Riley simultaneously claims to have divined from a reading of these letters that they were not a complaint by rather a "venting" by someone who was upset with being charged. He testified: "I understood the nature of the correspondence to be a person who was being told she was going to be charged venting about the fact that she had a complaint about the officers that did the interview." (Transcript. P. 203.) In fact, neither letter contains the slightest expression of concern regarding any possible charges, as Lt. Riley himself admitted. Asked whether there is anything in either letter that refers to being charged, Lt. Riley answered "no." (Transcript, P. 212.)

Lt. Riley claims to have given these letters barely a thought, and then wants us to believe he was visibly upset after receiving my call not because he knew he had lied to me and was worried I would find out but because it grieved him so to have any complaint elude his attention. Again, this is not reasonable, plausible or credible.

These letters, delivered in a way Capt. LaMar remembers as "unusual," made enough of an impression on Lt. Riley that he surprised LaMar by bringing them to him in the middle of an especially hectic workday. "I remembered that something was unusual about it, that it hadn't been received through the mail," Capt. LaMar testified. (Transcript, P. 95.) He also stated, "It was a very hectic day and I was surprised he had brought this letter to my attention on that day because he was so busy." (Transcript, P. 101.) Capt. LaMar told Lt. Riley to put the letters in the case file so they would be sure to get to the District Attorney's office. But in fact, these letters were never forwarded--not for the many months during which the DA's office was deciding whether to press charges.

But Lt. Riley did deliver the letters and the envelope they came in to Det. Woodmansee, with a note: "See me about this, Lt. Riley." According to Det. Woodmansee, they read the letters, discussed what to do with them, arrived at a determination to put them in the case file, and reflected that the letters were indicative of the concerns they had about Patty--all in what Woodmansee recalled "was probably a 60-second-or-less conversation," (Transcript, P. 41). Still, Woodmansee's brief exposure to these letters--which incidentally took Police Chief Richard Williams one minute and 27 seconds just to skim over at the Oct. 15 hearing--nonetheless was sufficient for him to remember them months later. Capt. LaMar also testified that he had no trouble remembering one of the letters and its contents months after the fact. Is it reasonable to believe Lt. Riley did not? No. it's not: People who have known him for years all say he is not unusually forgetful, and does not have what they consider to be a bad memory.

There's another reason Lt. Riley should have remembered the letters. He knew I was asking questions about the case, and spoke at length with two health professionals, Jill Poarch and Colleen O'Brien, separately and in detail, within a day or two of my call. Poarch testified that she spoke to Lt. Riley sometime between speaking to me in late January (Jan. 30, according to my statement) and early February (Feb. 5, by my account). O'Brien was more specific as to the time of her conversation with Lt. Riley: "To the best of my memory, it was early in the afternoon on Feb. 4." (Transcript, P. 152.) During this call, O'Brien testified, "We reviewed the process, as we were both knowledgeable about it. We just reviewed what Patty's concerns were and some of the actions involved." (Transcript, P. 155.) Both Poarch and O'Brien testified that they discussed having been contacted by me about the case, and that my name was mentioned in their conversations with Lt. Riley. They say he told them he had no problems with how the investigation was handled, after they discussed some of the same issues at the heart of Patty's letters. Lt. Riley himself recalled of his conversation with O'Brien: "Mr. Lueders was telling her that Patty said that Jill said there was no evidence." This, it turns out, is exactly what Patty was referring to in the letters, when she wrote, "It has been proven that just about everything these people said in that room was a lie."

Is it reasonable to believe that, the day after discussing this topic with O'Brien, Lt. Riley did not remember that the same allegation had been made in Patty's letters, which he had received, read and consulted with others about? No, it's not.

After denying to me any knowledge of Patty's letters, Lt. Riley spoke with several others, including Lt. John Davenport, who remembers talking to Lt. Riley within one minute of his receiving my call and after noticing that he was upset. (Transcript, P. 163) Why was Lt. Riley upset, if he truly had no memory of these letters? At this point in time, I didn't know that Lt. Riley had received these letters, and I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of his claim that he had not. I never told Lt. Riley that I did not believe him, as both Lt. Riley and Lt. Davenport confirmed in their testimony. Thus, Lt. Riley had no reason to be worried, since, at this point in time, he professedly still hadn't the slightest recollection of these letters.

Is it reasonable to believe Lt. Riley was upset by my call even though he believed he had told me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No, it's not. He was upset because he knew he had lied to me, and because he realized that I might find out, which is what happened. That's also why he also made it a point to report to Asst. Chiefs Ballistreri and Cowan.

When I asked Lt. Riley under oath why he had been upset by my call, he responded, "The fact that you had letters and I had a complaint against one of my detectives that I didn't know about." (Transcript, P. 217.) It is not reasonable, plausible or credible that a person who would react this way to news about a complaint would also manage to forget completely about the fact that he had received these letters, read them and consulted with others about them.

In fact, Lt. Riley's behavior after getting my call belies his claim that he had forgotten the letters. When Lt. Riley made this representation to me, I informed him that at least one of the letters had been seen by then Officer Tom Snyder, the department spokesperson, and suggested he obtain a copy from him. But Lt. Riley did not do that. Instead, he went to Woodmansee, and got the letters from the file. He never went to Snyder, who I indicated had seen the letters. (Transcript, P. 199.) Rather, he went right to where the letters he had supposedly completely forgotten about were. He knew where to look because he remembered them.

The Respondent maintains, as evidence of his innocence, that he contacted Lt. Pat Malloy, head of the Professional Standards Unit, and later brought the letters to him. Yet both of these points--who contacted who first, and how Lt. Malloy finally obtained Patty's letters--remain in doubt. Malloy's statement to me the day after my conversation with Riley was, "Riley basically gave this to Woodmansee to put in his file, and that's where I retrieved it yesterday afternoon." In his testimony before the PFC, Lt. Malloy stated that he contacted Lt. Riley, but then could not recall whether it was Lt. Riley, or himself, who made the initial call. (Transcript, P. 52, P. 53.) Lt. Malloy also testified, "We located the letters that were in Det. Woodmansee's case file." (Transcript, P. 66.) At any rate, Lt. Riley didn't contact Lt. Malloy until after I had contacted both Lt. Malloy and Lt. Riley to inquire about these letters.

Beyond that, there is one thing Lt. Riley did not do, one action he did not take, that would have demonstrated his honesty to all concerned, including me. He made no attempt, upon discovering that he had given me critical misinformation, to set the record straight. He says that the moment he retrieved the letters, in Det. Woodmansee's file, he realized, "the letters basically said what Mr. Lueders had said to me over the phone." (Transcript, P. 185.) He knew he had just told me something that wasn't true. Lt. Riley explained his forgetfulness to others in the department, but never to me. He never had anyone else from the department call me to say, "Oh, by the way, Lt. Riley wasn't lying to you, he just forgot." He never responded to articles and columns in which I reported that he had apparently been untruthful. He had no information to give me when I told him I was otherwise going to file this complaint. In fact, he never even publicly advanced the theory that he had forgotten about these letters until after the city hired a lawyer to represent him.

Lt. Riley, in his testimony, suggests that he would sooner put his hand into a buzz saw than contact the media to set the record straight. He suggests that the quantity of ink at the media's disposal makes any such efforts futile and foolhardy. Asked by counsel whether he thought there was any way I would run a retraction, Lt. Riley responded "no." (Transcript, P. 194.) He suggests, by inference, that a reporter like myself is so uninterested in the truth that it wouldn't be worth his while to attempt to provide it.

I submit that these are not reasonable, plausible or credible claims coming from a man who has at various points in his career consented to interviews with newspaper reporters. Similarly, Lt. Riley argues that he had nothing to say in his defense when I called him on March 27 and advised him of my intention to file charges against him with the PFC because he didn't think it was possible that I would give him a fair shake. He affirms the accuracy of the remarks I made to him as they appear in my statement:

"Hello, Lt. Riley, this is Bill Lueders at Isthmus. I feel I should inform you about an action I intend to take. Early next week, I intend to file a formal complaint against you with the Police and Fire Commission, charging you with violating department rules regarding complaint acceptance and referral, as well as the department's rules regarding truthfulness. From my understanding of the situation, you're guilty on both counts. But I am open to the possibility that my understanding may be faulty, especially given my recent experience with Lt. Maples. [This refers to a story, reported at the same time, in which I erroneously concluded that another police supervisor, Lt. Cheri Maples, had failed to forward a complaint; when I found out that Maples had, in fact, properly notified the Professional Standards Unit, I issued her a public apology.] If there's anything I'm not understanding about this situation that you'd like to tell me, I'd like to invite you to tell it to me. Otherwise, I'll see you before the PFC."

Lt. Riley, in his testimony, dwells on my comment that he appears to be guilty to justify his decision not to volunteer any explanation. But what I also said was that I was "open to the possibility that my understanding may be faulty, especially given my recent experience with Lt. Maples. If there's anything I'm not understanding about this situation that you'd like to tell me, I'd like to invite you to tell it to me." Surely, a person of Lt. Riley's uncommon integrity would avail himself of this opportunity to vindicate himself. Instead, he said, "Okay," and hung up.

The PFC has heard testimony that Lt. Riley's reputation for honesty ranges from "outstanding" to "pristine." Perhaps so, but I am not challenging his general truthfulness. I am challenging his claim that he told the truth in this instance. Perhaps the record does not exclude this as a possibility, but it is not reasonable, plausible or credible.

What kind of lie was it that Lt. Riley told to me? Was it careful and calculated and well thought-out? No, it was casual and spur of the moment. Look at the words he used. I asked him if he had gotten these letters and he said, "Not to my knowledge." I read the letters to him and he claimed to draw a complete blank. "I do not remember the letters," he said. "I do not have the letters." His lie was sudden, impulsive, couched in language he thought was safe. His goal was to give me the back of his hand--to say, go away, shoo. I think a lot of police officers would sympathize with Lt. Riley's desire to get rid of me. But he told me a lie to do it, even if it was only to say, "I don't remember." Of course he remembered. How could he not?

Put yourself in Lt. Riley's place. If it were part of your job to take certain communications seriously, would these letters slip your mind? If you knew a reporter was asking questions about whether or not a rape victim was coerced, would you forget that she made these claims in letters addressed to you?

Counsel for the Respondent has repeatedly stated that Patty's letters do speak for themselves. I thank him for this admission. I have nothing more compelling to offer you. I urge you, before you make your ruling, to read those letters. Read them from start to finish. Read them and ask yourself how long it will be before you are able to forget them. Then try to imagine a competent police lieutenant closely involved with the situation described in the letters "forgetting" about them.

Lt. Riley lied. He lied to me on the telephone, and he's lying now when he says he forgot. As a representative of the police force, his lies do damge. They call into question the integrity of the department as a whole, as well as its ability to place the interests of the community above its own. The public needs to know that police officers and especially supervisors must answer to someone when they break the rules.

It's up to you: Hold him accountable. Suspend him, if only for a day. Suspend him for six hours. Send a message that the way Lt. Riley behaved in this situation is not the way police supervisors in Madison are expected to behave.

Dated this [5^th] day of November 1998 by

[signed]
Bill Lueders
News Editor, Isthmus