Patty asks PFC to investigate

[What follows is the letter sent by attorneys Mike Short and Mike Rieselman to the Madison Police and Police Commission, asking it to investigate Patty’s charges against Madison Police Detective Tom Woodmansee on its own authority.]

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

PATTY [Last name redacted, hereafter substituted with "Patty"],
Complainant,
v.
DETECTIVE TOM WOODMANSEE,
Respondent.

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO LIMIT ISSUES
______________________________________________________________

Complainant hereby submits the following response to Respondent's Motion For A Protective Order and Motion To Limit Issues:

[Patty] will be unable to present evidence to the Police and Fire Commission (PFC) as previously planned due to limited resources and the PFC's legal responsibility to fully investigate this matter. Complainant simply cannot afford the cost of discovery disputes, trial preparation and trial, especially given that the Respondent apparently intends to spend unlimited amounts of time and money in an effort to keep the PFC from hearing evidence in this case.

For these reasons, Complainant withdraws her complaint. Rather, Complainant hereby requests the PFC to conduct its own investigation into this matter as provided by PFC Rule 7.03(a). Complainant hereby requests the PFC to utilize the hearing dates previously set in this matter to complete its own inquiry. Complainant will cooperate fully with such an inquiry.

[Patty] would like to remind the PFC of the reason why she brought the complaint in the first place. On September 4, 1997, a man entered [Patty]'s apartment and sadistically raped her at knife point. She suffered knife wounds, bruises, abrasions and an internal laceration. She notified the Police Department of the crime and Detective Woodmansee commenced an investigation. During the course of a bizarre, incompetent investigation, for reasons that remain unknown, Det. Woodmansee became convinced [Patty] fabricated the rape. He requested [Patty] come to the police station to provide hair samples in order to aid the investigation. When she arrived, he took her into a small holding room and, along with Det. Linda Draeger, confronted her with his suspicions.

Det. Woodmansee's testimony under oath admits to the most bizarre conduct (e.g. telling the victim she failed the "latex residue test," a non-existent test which Jack Aulik, the trial judge in the criminal case, did not even understand and distorted into a lack of "fingerprints on the condom" in his ruling on the motion to suppress). Det. Woodmansee lied, cajoled and brow-beat [Patty] until he felt he had elicited a confession from [Patty]. The confession was nothing more than a natural response to an impossible situation. But what makes this case so egregious is the fact that Det. Woodmansee neglected to forward crucial crime scene evidence to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab prior to confronting [Patty]. [Patty] was subsequently charged with resisting or obstructing an officer based on Det. Woodmansee's selective judgment as to what constitutes an admission. One week prior to trial, the charge was dismissed. The dismissal came after [Patty] had exhausted considerable time and expense in preparation for a trial. The District Attorney's Office deprived [Patty] of the public vindication that the trial would have provided.

As it stands now, [Patty] believes she has done everything possible to bring the perpetrator of a horrible crime to justice. She believes she has done her part as a responsible member of this community. In return for her concern for the welfare of herself, as well as others, she has been branded a liar, a criminal and mentally unstable.

[Patty] believes that Det. Woodmansee should be required to take the stand and face cross-examination for his actions. [Patty] believes that it is patently unjust for Det. Woodmansee to be afforded an attorney at public expense when she is required to provide her own counsel. She believes that such a system only fosters an environment where facts are blurred, issues are lost and attorneys' pockets are filled.

Before this matter is summarily disposed, [Patty] requests the PFC to take an extraordinary step which would restore both [Patty]'s and the community's faith in the PFC. She requests the PFC to invoke PFC Rule 7.3(a) which states, " A complaint setting forth charges may be filed by ...a member of the Board, or by the Board as a body." [Patty] realizes the Board has been reluctant to proceed in such a manner in the past but she believes the present circumstances necessitate such procedures. [Patty] believes there is no inherent conflict of interest that would prevent the Board from investigating and disciplining Det. Woodmansee. Many other professional organizations both investigate and impose punishment on their members.

[Patty] believes the PFC can conduct its investigation by using the police reports and a transcript of Judge Aulik's hearing. She believes the evidentiary schedule which is currently in place is sufficient to accommodate the issues that need to be determined.

The PFC need only read the subject police file and criminal court file to find multiple violations of law by the officers involved. If the PFC finds policy problems at the Madison Police Department (MPD), then it should take appropriate action to correct the problems. (For instance, the MPD should have a modern Rape Response Protocol designed by experts that requires a female officer be present during any police interview of female rape victim; Special policies should apply when a victim is disabled or visually impaired so that lay officers do not appoint themselves medical experts and make erroneous conclusions about a victim's visual impairment).

Det. Woodmansee's report on this case and his testimony at the motion to suppress hearing in the criminal case prove his misconduct beyond any doubt. The PFC has the power and the evidence available to it to appropriately punish the officers for the outrageous injustices visited upon and suffered by the Complainant in this case.

[Patty] realizes that the easiest thing in the world for the Board would be to dispose of this case. She realizes that an investigation would require the Board to take a difficult and courageous step towards restoring her faith in the system. She hopes the Board has the strength and courage to take that step.

Respectfully submitted,

[signed and dated Feb. 26, 1999]
Michael J. Short, Esq.

[End of document.]