Patty files PFC complaint

[What follows is the letter and complaints filed by Patty on Dec. 16, 1998, with the Madison Police and Fire Commission.]

12/14/98

Dear P.F.C. Board Members,

This complaint was the last on my list of projects to get anyone to accept some accountability for what's happened to me.

I've tried letters to anyone I thought would listen, with no avail. No one cared enough to listen.

I've sat through some P.F.C. hearings about my complaints. All I got out of that was to hear with my own ears how little, if any, regard every one involved gave to these very serious, heartfelt letters.

I even went as far as to look into possible lawsuits to find the financial and emotional draining not worth it. I've asked the department to investigate, but they haven't. I've asked the mayor to help, but she's refused, urging me to move on.

My New Year's resolution is to quit crying over this devastating year and fight back. Only then will I "move on."

This past year has cost me many, many thousands of dollars not only in relocating when police told me they had no intention of looking for a rapist, but also the cost of defending myself against being charged with a crime I never committed, as well as paying for eye doctors and psychologists to prove what everyone else already knew. This leaves me with no money for representation. So I'm on my own. I've asked my brother to help; he said he would but has little knowledge of the law. I've also asked Mr. Lueders to help but he's leery and thinks the PFC will let me get beaten up by lawyers and then rule against me.

I'll hope you accept this complaint from me anyway and I'll see what I can do to compensate.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Patricia [last name redacted]

On Sept. 4, 1997, I was sexually assaulted in my home on Fairmount Ave. in Madison. Immediately afterwards, I called 911 and police responded. One of the police supervisors on the scene looked around the room and commented, "This guy’s definitely done this before." The case was assigned to Det. Tom Woodmansee for investigation. Det. Woodmansee talked to me in person only twice. Then, on Oct. 2, 1997, our third meeting, I came the police department’s detective bureau, as he had asked, saying he needed additional samples. When I arrived, thinking there had been a break in the case, I was taken into a tiny interrogation room, an old cell with a sink, where Det. Woodmansee and Det. Linda Draeger confronted me.

He told me that they thought they knew who did it--me. He talked about my psychological history. He said he knew there were two suicides in my family and that I had attempted to commit suicide (more than a decade ago). He said he knew my eyesight was not impaired, which is untrue. Woodmansee said he knew I was not getting along with my boyfriend. He said that nobody believed that I had been assaulted, that the nurse at Meriter had said there was "no evidence" that I had been raped, that the State Crime Lab found "no evidence" I was raped, that "the 12 cops on the case" didn’t believe I was raped. He said even my boyfriend, Mark, didn’t believe I was raped. He said that a State Crime Lab test for "rubber residue" from the condom my rapist used came back negative. He said he wasted a lot of time on my case that he could have spent on several child-abuse cases assigned to him.

Det. Woodmansee told me that if I just "told the truth" he would help me save my reputation and that the matter would "go quietly" away. Otherwise, he said he could hold me on a "suicide watch," and I’d have to stay in jail overnight. He said if I didn’t confess, he would call my boyfriend Mark, my daughter Misty and Dominic, the man I suspected of raping me, to tell them I had made the whole thing up. He said, "If you thought I was good working for you, you should see me working against you." He told me that I didn't "act like a rape victim."

I felt threatened and isolated, like no one was going to believe me. I thought, "Why did I even report this?" I was worried about being put in jail overnight, because I had to work the next morning. I asked to come back the next day with a lawyer or a psychologist and he said no, because I’d "just change my story." I felt defenseless. I told them I would say whatever it is was they wanted to hear. And I did--just to get out of that room.

Madison Police Department rules state, under section 2-1816, that "Members of the Department are required to speak the truth at all times and under all circumstances, whether under oath or otherwise." I believe Det. Woodmansee violated this rule in several instances, and he has admitted to doing so in open court. On July 9, in a proceeding before Judge Jack Aulik, Det. Woodmansee admitted that he told me to come to the detective bureau under false pretenses, saying he needed samples when his actual plan was to confront me. He admitted he concocted a "ruse"--that is, told a flat-out lie, in claiming the test for rubber residue came back negative, when in fact there is no such test. He also admitted that he did not accurately convey the findings of the State Crime Lab or of the nurse at Meriter. All of these things were lies, and all are public record.

Judge Aulik ruled that the law allows police to lie to suspects in getting them to confess. But Madison Police Department rules do not allow cops to lie, under any circumstances. I believe it was wrong for him to lie to me, a rape victim, so that he could get me to recant, so that he could charge me with a crime for lying.

Police Department rules also state, under section 2-1810, that "Members of the Department shall submit reports which are accurate and complete, and which distinguish between fact, hearsay, opinions and conclusions." I believe Det. Woodmansee violated this rule when he loaded his 49-page report with hearsay and yet failed to mention the lies he told in the course of securing a confession. This, too, is something he admitted to in the hearing on July 9.

Department rules require, under section 2-300, that officers must show "courtesy in all public contacts" and state that "discourtesy under any circumstances is indefensible." They also state, under section 2-1806, that "Members of the Department shall not be overbearing, oppressive or tyrannical in their relations with members of the community." I submit that lying to me, yelling in my face, "It didn’t happen!," threatening to keep me in jail overnight and saying, "If you thought I was good working for you, you should see me working against you," violate these rules. I felt threatened and afraid of the way he was doing his job. As I said in my letter to Lt. Riley, I think he put myself and other victims at risk by sending a message that we are not to be believed.

I ask that the PFC discipline Det. Woodmansee for his violations of these rules. Someone needs to send a message to officers of the law that they are not above it, especially when they are dealing with victims of sensitive crimes. I think Det. Woodmansee, among his other appropriate punishments, should be forced to issue a public apology to me and the community for his blatant disregard for my rights and the police code of ethics.

In late October 1997, I sent two letters to Lt. Dennis George Riley, a supervisor of detectives with the Madison Police Department. One was addressed "Dear Supervisor," the other to the Wisconsin State Journal. Specifically, the first letter alleges that "your detectives" coerced me into confessing that I made a false report of sexual assault. It says I was interrogated at length and believed the detectives were not going to let me leave "until they heard what they wanted to hear." It says I asked to leave the room and was told I could not. It says I now know "everything these people said in that room was a lie." It says that, whereas I previously would have urged a sexual assault victim to go to the police, my advice now would be: "Prepare to be victimized again."

The letter to the newspaper, dated Oct. 22, says the detectives, in getting me to admit I made a false report, made "many threats," including: "If you think I was good working for you, you should see me working against you." It says I was told the matter would go away quietly if I confessed; otherwise the media, my boyfriend and the man I suspected of raping me would be notified. (All these actions were in fact taken.) The letter concludes, "The investigating detective on my case was not only unprofessional, but may have put myself as well as other women in danger by not taking my complaint seriously. He is sending out the message that we are not to be believed."

The Madison Police Department's policies regarding "Complaint Acceptance and Investigations" are set forth under section 6-500. The rules state that the Department "is committed to investigating complaints in an open and fair manner with the truth as its primary objective." It says that "supervisors assigned to investigate a complaint against an employee will be responsible for conducting a thorough and fair investigation." But Lt. Riley never assigned anybody to investigate the matter, and in fact gave the only copy of my complaint to Det. Tom Woodmansee, the accused officer, to put in his case file. I believe this violates several areas of the policy, including:

6-500.1, Responsibility for Accepting/Referring Complaints, sub A: "Every employee of the Department has the responsibility to insure that a citizen complaint, on being expressed, is received and referred to the appropriate unit or supervisor." Lt. Riley apparently did nothing to either investigate the complaint or call it to the appropriate unit's attention.

6-500.1, Responsibility for Accepting/Referring Complaints, sub C: "Unless the alleged conduct described is minor, citizens...who wish to make a complaint against a member of the Department...will be referred to the Professional Standards Unit." Lt. Riley made no such referral. (Sub B defines minor complaints as those that, if proven true, would result in actions less than a letter of reprimand; My allegation of coersion, if true, would hardly qualify under this definition as "minor.")

6-500.1, Responsibility for Accepting/Referring Complaints, sub D: "When the Professional Standards Unit is closed, citizens with non-minor complaints will be referred to the employee's commanding/supervisory officer, or, if unavailable, to the Patrol unit leader, who will forward the information, in writing, to the Professional Standards Unit, as soon as practical. A written summary of non-minor complaints shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the complaint, a description of events, the names of any witnesses, and how the complainant witness can be recontacted." Lt. Riley evidently produced no such written summary.

6-500.2 Options Available to the Complainant, sub A: "Unless the complaint is of a minor nature, citizens will be advised by the Professional Standards Unit, or the responsible supervisor, of the following categories of complaints available to them." A list of four complaint options follows. Lt. Riley did not notify me of any of these options.

I ask that the Commission discipline Lt. Riley for his violations of Department rules. I think he should be suspended without pay or demoted, and that he should be required to make a public written apology for his failure to follow the rules he took an oath to adhere to.

[End of document.]