Kill the Messenger - Monkey Business - Jennifer K. Abelson
Police stopped Jennifer K. Abelson (29) for a traffic violation (24 Apr 03). Several days later she filed a complaint against the officer in which she said that he made a sexual advance. The officer (still anonymous) denied the accusation. On the recommendation of Sandra Kay Pailca, Director, Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), City Attorney Thomas A. Carr brought criminal charges against Abelson for filing a false and misleading report.
[Pailca - Seattle Office of Professional Accountability - OPA]
City of Seattle prosecutors filed two charges for making a false statement to a public servant. If convicted on this gross misdemeanor, then Abelson could receive punishment of up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. City of Seattle prosecutors have only twice before asked the city attorney to consider charges against citizens for making false complaints. Abelson’s case probably ranks as the first prosecution of its kind in Seattle.
Hector Castro, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, wrote (24 Jan 04) about a scheduled hearing (26 Jan 04) in Seattle Municipal Court. There the paper trail started and any coherence to the story ended which arouses mistrust in the reporting by both the newspaper and OPA. Castro did not write the usual follow-up article and has since neglected to explain the information gap after three requests to do so. [Paper Trails]
Understandably, neither Abelson nor her lawyer James C. Egan would talk to Castro about the case at that time. Egan sought a deferred prosecution; however, court records do not show disposition details. Egan wonders whether OPA mission statement only protects its own since the officer's family apparently wants to sue Abelson based in large part upon the OPA investigation.
Egan, a criminal defense lawyer, also a former prosecutor and public defender, handles legal issues that involve civil rights and other misdemeanor defense cases in Seattle and surrounding cities and towns. Seattle Municipal Court (SMC) ranks as the largest State of Washington limited jurisdiction court with eight elected judges and five appointed magistrates. SMC adjudicates all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, infractions, and civil violations authorized under the Seattle Municipal Code and certain Revised Code of Washington statutes. The final decision to file charges with SMC rests with Thomas A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney.
Castro quoted Ken Saucier, president Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG), as saying that he supported the charges in the Abelson case. He said: “We need to cut the bogus complaints", adding that he thought OPA did not act aggressively enough in requesting charges. Conversely, he should aggressively investigate the false and misleading complaints filed against elderly people in collaboration with police officers by Council House directors.
According to Castro, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske claimed that he takes complaints against his officers seriously and that Seattle Police Department (SPD) spends one million dollars annually investigating them. He said that gives more reason to punish those who abuse the system - a quote that will probably return to haunt him when independent investigators eventually inquire into the willful acceptance of false and misleading reports by his officers for political expedience. [Monkey Business]
Sandra Kay Pailca said that OPA investigators gave Abelson an opportunity to retract her statement but Abelson refused, then OPA referred its report to the Seattle City Attorney's Office. Castro cites OPA policy that claims investigators must have strong evidence that the complainant knowingly made false statements and that they did not just disagree about interpretation of an event.
Castro wrote that recommendations move up the chain of command to Pailca who makes the ultimate decision of whether to forward the case to Carr based upon whether she finds that the accused willfully manufactured evidence. At this point, a blatant conflict of interest occurs.
Pailca, a lawyer, politician, program director, and former labor representative paid by Seattle Police Department, poses as an unbiased civilian mediator. Simultaneously, Pailca decided whether Abelson should have criminal charges preferred against her.
Any reasonable person can see that Pailca has competing professional and personal interests which make it impossible for her to perform her duties without bias. A mere appearance of prejudice undermines confidence although no evidence of impropriety may exist.
[Pailca - Seattle Office of Professional Accountability - OPA]
Egan claimed that Office of Professional Accountability, in a guise of genuine concern, gleefully participated in prosecution of Abelson after she spoke with them about perceived sexual harassment. OPA conducted an investigation of Abelson which they forwarded to prosecutors who aggressively prosecuted.
Normally, police officers must give a Miranda warning before they interrogate criminal suspects in police custody that relate to commission of crimes. Police did not technically have Abelson “under arrest” and did not read her a Miranda warning. However, the investigating officer had previously seen a video tape and interrogated her as a criminal suspect, according to Egan.
United States Supreme Court (1966) mandated Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona) as a means of protecting Fifth Amendment rights of criminal suspects and to avoid coercive self-incrimination. Under that legal precedent, police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address without reading a suspect a Miranda warning. They may not interrogate further without a warning.
The Abelson case lacks transparency and does not have a clear disposition. Municipal Court records remain incomplete. A prepublication message to Pailca requested an explanation and documents within ten days; however, she did not respond or send information on how her actions complied with municipal and state law. Neither did she respond to a request for records by providing copies of documents or indices in accordance with state law RCW 42.17. City of Seattle Attorney’s office shows a pattern or practice of silently withholding documents contrary to state laws.
The non-response of Castro exhibits a continuing non-cooperative posture by Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It reinforces the publication of politically expedient propaganda and omission of sensitive follow-up information. The current neglect to respond shows similar behavior to the way the paper handled a case of malicious libel published by one of its reporters (not Castro) almost four years ago.
Roger Oglesby, Publisher, and David McCumber, Managing Editor, have still not addressed outstanding libel complaints by this reporter despite a recent Washington Supreme Court ruling that substantiated the claims of malicious libel. They have still not tried to mitigate that libel and have not published details of the recent supreme court decision which vindicated the reporter that they maligned.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer has neither published a retraction of the original article nor properly reported the supreme court ruling which unanimously reversed the original biased and libelous findings that it willfully published. The three articles in question still appear on their web site almost four years later without any annotation about the challenge to the politically expedient and libelous content.
[Nmesis]
Print - Portable Document File (PDF)
