Dorner v. LAPD: The Evidence So Far

To review, Chris Dorner is the man who has allegedly gone on a killing spree.  He began by killing the daughter and son-in-law of the man who represented him at an administrative hearing in which he was ultimately fired from the LAPD.  He has since shot two police officers and killed a third.  In addition to that, two innocent people were shot by spooked officers.  It is unclear at this time whether those shootings were justified, but needless to say I am looking pretty askance at that.

In addition to that, Dorner has released a manifesto which I previously analyzed.  Besides pointing out a few places where he states a desire to engage in excessive force—twice getting physically violent with people because they used the n-word, and even wishing he shot two men for saying it—the other thing that leapt out at me was that the man is explicitly motivated by the hope that his terrorism—and that is what this is—would lead to changes in policy.  In doing so, he was buying into a central liberal idea that terrorism was driven by injustice.  He was hoping that by killing these people he would generate sympathy for the injustices he claimed to face, and he could reasonably expect that this would happen, given the way that the left has done the same thing for other terrorist acts.  Conservatives have long argued that these searches for “why they hate us,” actually gave an incentive to others to resort to terrorism and in this case more than most that appears to be exactly what has happened.

And last night, I examined a newspaper report that his claims of grievance were simply untrue.  So all the people expressing sympathy, calling him a hero, etc. look extra dumb because now it turns out that not only was he murdering and shooting pretty much everyone but the people who had aggrieved him, but now it turned out he was lying about his grievances.  So today the LAPD released some documents related to his case and it started to turn up on a number of sites, including this one.

As I have said, Dorner’s central grievance is that he lost his job in the fallout following an incident at a Doubletree hotel.  It involved his training officer, Theresa Evans.  Up until now I have only identified her as T.E. but there are now too many sites identifying her full name to make it worthwhile for me to bother keeping her real name out of it.  On the other hand, I do feel sorry for Ms. Evans to have her name splashed all over the media, but it has gone beyond my ability to control that reality.  As it is, these documents put out a great deal of personal information—even about Mr. Dorner—that should have been responsibly redacted by the media at large.

Anyway, a lunatic named Christopher Gettler was wandering around at the Doubletree, bothering the guests in the way lunatics tend to do.  The police were called in, and Dorner and Evans responded.  Eventually a scuffle results and Dorner attempted to cuff Gettler after Gettler fell into a planter filled with bushes.  In the process there is no question that Evans tasered Gettler twice after a warning.  However, in his manifesto Dorner claimed that Evans also kicked the man three times, twice in the chest and once in the head.  Evans claims she never once kicked the man.  He did have a scratch on the face, but on the other hand, he had just taken a nosedive into a bush.

Let’s start with the “addenda.”  Feel free to click away and read it for yourself.  It is not clear what this is addenda to, but they appear to be copies of the police reports including documents related to the use of force.  There is some suggestion that these kinds of paperwork are necessary because of the consent decree mentioned all the time.  Mostly it gives you the first draft of the story, a police report and various other documents that said nothing about the kicking.  Dorner claimed that he had chosen to be quiet about it for the time being.  One thing that leapt out at me in the UOFS, is that they mention that photographs were taken of Gettler’s face.  As I mentioned he had been scratched and it was noted that there was no bruises.  This is important later, because this is deeply inconsistent with a kicking.  Most of the time if you are kicked, you are also bruised; cutting is the more rare effect and even then there would still usually be bruising accompanying it.  In addition you see that they took photos of the defendant’s full body, although it is not clear in these notes if the defendant’s bare skin is shown.

Next we have a complaint form.  This was apparently used to initialize the administrative hearing where all of this went down.  It doesn’t say a whole lot, but feel free to take a look.  According to Dorner in other documents he was initially silent about the excessive force, but then felt increasingly guilty about it until he decided to say something about it.  Evans hastens to point out that his guilty conscience forced him to speak up right after she gave him a poor review.

But let’s stop right here for a moment.  If everything Dorner said was true, what he witnessed was a total of three kickings of a man, you will see, who is pretty burly himself, who was resisting arrest.  This is not exactly the Rodney King beating where the police beat on a man for around twenty minutes.  I am no expert on what does and does not constitute excessive force, and certainly no excessive force should ever be dealt out, but this is supposed to be so horrible that Dorner has to report it?  He couldn’t just say to her, “don’t do that again”?  And when he didn’t, it just ate at his conscience?  Really?  I find that difficult to believe. But feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Next we have correspondence detailing the investigation of Mr. Dorner’s complaint.  This is where things start to get really meaty.  Now the first thing that leaps out at us is that right from the beginning Dorner was being charged with a misconduct, too.  Read the listed of allegations on the second page.  They are:

Allegation 1: The Department alleges that on July 28, 2007, Officer Evans, while on-duty, unnecessarily kicked Gettler in the face and torso, causing injury.

Allegation 2: The Department alleges that on July 28, 2007, Officer Evans, while on-duty, attempted to dissuade Officer Dorner from reporting misconduct.

Allegation 3: The Department alleges that on July 28, 2007, Officer Dorner, while on-duty, failed to report misconduct.

Allegation 4: The Department alleges that on July 28, 2007, Officer Evans, while on duty, submitted an arrest report that she knew contained false information.

Allegation 5: The Department alleges that on July 28, 2007, Officer Dorner, while on duty, submitted an arrest report that she knew contained false information.

In other words, she kicked the suspect unnecessarily, asked Dorner not to report it, Dorner didn’t, and they both filed false police reports.

So the key thing to get is this: if you believe Evans kicked Gettler, it’s hard to believe that Dorner didn’t engage in misconduct, too.  If you believe his version of events he himself participated in the cover up for a while and even filed a false police report.  What he is asking for, then, is leniency for his own misconduct while asking for them to come down harder on Evans.

Only later in this investigation do you see them add charges that he lied while claiming that Evans kicked him.

On page 3 of this document, you start to see the interview notes with Dorner.  At first it raised eyebrows with me when it said he refused to give a voluntary statement, and had to be mirandized.  But this was done with all of them.  They interviewed the cops involved, they are all told they have the right to remain silent, and all of the police involved invoked that right with I think the sole exception of Officer Perez.  Then they were required to give an “administrative statement” that apparently couldn’t be used in connection with any criminal trial, but was mandatory in the context of these administrative hearings.

Let’s note one strange element that isn’t highlighted much: on page four, Dorner states that Evans made eye contact the entire time with Gettler as she allegedly kicked him.  At this time Dorner was on the ground struggling with Gettler, and Evans was to his left.  It seems difficult to see how exactly Dorner could safely look away from the suspect and look at Evans’ face at this time.

And let us note something else: “Dorner did not know why the [alleged] kicks were necessary; however, he did not believe they were wrong until he was told by Evans not to report them in the arrest report.”  So this horrible, horrible act of brutality, didn’t really seem to be a very big deal to him.  Yes, I suppose a cover-up is a clue something was wrong, but it does suggest that if it really happened, this wouldn’t have eaten at him as he suggests.

And it leaves open the question, why didn’t he report it, then?  After the UOF (use of force), Officer Jackson interviewed him about what happened.  At this point in time, in his version of events, Evan had not told him to be silent about the kicking.  And yet, “Dorner gave a detailed account of his and Evans’ action, but did not include any mention of the kicks.”  And his excuse for not mentioning it?  He claimed to investigators that at the time “Dorner believed the kicks would be documented in the UOF report, so he believed it was not necessary to tell Jackson.”  Or at least that was one version.  The original explanation is that he said he was scared of retaliation.  So he is giving two different and contradictory explanations as to why he didn’t mention it.

And the subject should have come up.  There is no question there was a scratch on Gettler’s face, so any reasonably diligent officer would ask, “do you know how he got that scratch on the face?”  This story is not adding up.

Now, it should be noted that some support for his story comes in the form of the statement of a friend of his, Officer Perez.  Dorner called Perez and told him about alleged kicking.  Only one kick was mentioned, according to him, but the call’s reception was apparently pretty awful.  That provides some collaboration, about a week after it happened.

Next we had Christopher Adrid, a bellman at the Doubletree.  They key statement is that “he was sure that no officer kicked Gettler.”  He also did see the scratch on his face but also observed that several of the branches in the bush was broken, and assumed that Gettler got the scratch from one of them.

The next interview is an Ashley Perez (no relation), who worked as a Guest Services Agent at the Doubletree.  She saw the entire incident.  She not only did not see Evans kick Gettler, she didn’t even see Evans get close enough to kick her.

Next up was Katherine Nixon, who worked at the front desk.  She’s the one who called the police.  She remained inside until she thought she heard a taser go off.  Nixon also stated that she would have seen if Evans had kicked her, and she did not.

Officer Hernandez was also called in that day to give assistance.  He did not observe Gettler being kicked or anyone saying anything about him getting kicked, although it sounds like he did not witness enough of the encounter to personally rule it out.

Next up is Officer Jackson, who investigated the UOF (use of force).  He came in after Gettler was in the patrol car.  Evans said she hadn’t kicked Gettler and Dorner, interviewed separated, agreed with her.  Jackson also tried to interview Gettler, but Gettler wouldn’t talk to him.

After that is Officer Evans herself.  It is worth noting that Dorner had no lawyer, but Jackson and Evans both had the same lawyer, Robert Rico.  She unsurprisingly denied kicking Gettler or even taking action that might have been mistaken for kicking.  She did not believe he could even be honestly wrong about this.

She also contradicts him on another point.  Dorner claimed he didn’t read the report before it was submitted; she claimed he did.  But I would submit, even if he didn't, isn't that wrong, too?  To allow a police report to be submitted without checking if it is accurate?

And she notes he was struggling as an officer.  Dorner failed to take cover in a dangerous situation.  Dorner suggested that his recent deployment in Iraq might have disrupted his training some.  And there was a paper trail showing Dorner demanding reintegration training.  And according to her, he was talking about suing the department for being racist when he came off probation.

On page 17, they note that Gettler’s grandmother believed that Gettler could not communicate effectively.  It is interesting that they also spoke with Gettler’s father, who made no mention of Gettler being kicked.

It is also worth noting that while these are investigators’ notes, all of these notes are based on interviews that were recorded.  We might even be able to recover them.

Next up we have more correspondence.  It starts with them informing them a new charge had been added: that Dorner had filed a false complaint alleging the various kinds of misconduct he was alleging against Evans.

You see another copy of the complaint form in that document, but keep scrolling because then it gets to... the adjudication.  They decided that the excessive force was false primarily based on the claims of the three hotel employees.  They also found the delay in Dorner’s reporting destroyed his credibility.  Likewise all the charges of false reports, withholding information were logically dropped.

So then they arrived at the new charges against Dorner.  This is called page 23, although it is not the 23rd page of the PDF.  These charges boiled down to his initial complaint being false, and his statement to internal affairs in support of it were also false.  The logic was pretty simple.  They didn’t just feel that they didn’t have enough evidence to prove Evans had kicked Gettler; they felt that she was positively innocent of kicking him.  So that meant Dorner was, in their minds, definitely guilty of lying about it.

But it is worth noting this line: “The allegations brought forth by Dorner were extremely serious in nature, and if true, would likely have resulted in serious discipline or removal from the Department from him and Evans.”  In other words, if they had believed him, his job would have been in serious jeopardy.

Now, this was only the conclusion of the investigation.  After that, was a Board of Rights hearing, which I don’t see very much information about.

Now this would seem to be a good time also to include the video “testimony” that Gettler thought in his manifesto thought somehow proved he was telling the truth.  Here you go:

Now they call this a deposition, but in all bluntness, this is not like any deposition I have ever seen.  For instance, the questioner is never identified.  Nor is there any discussion of anyone else who might be present.  Typically opposing counsel is present.  Accordingly the evidence pulled out is highly dubious because there is no one there to object.  The questions, particularly about the kicking are leading questions.  As in “yes or no,” questions.  Typically in this circumstance, you are supposed to ask open ended questions.  “Tell me what happened on this date” and that sort of thing.  But not here.  And further Gettler only claims he was kicked once in the face.

Given what his grandmother said about him having trouble even understanding questions, I am not sure how much anything he says can be trusted, especially at some date in 2008, some time after the incident.  I am not sure he is that aware of that many things.

Next up, we have Dorner essentially appealing it to an independent court.  These only contain the allegations of Dorner’s lawyer, and they are fairly bare bones, but feel free to peruse it.  There is a decision buried in that pile of documents, but it is fairly conclusory, just declaring a winner.

A more substantive discussion, then, is found in his appeal of that trial court’s ruling.  It brings out in its discussion of the facts a few more pieces of information.

On page 4, it discusses an allegation by Dorner that someone urinated on his equipment bag, possibly in retaliation.  There was liquid and it was determined not to be urine.  There is no evidence of who might have put it there.

On page 5, it mentions that there was not only no bruising on Gettler’s face, but no bootmarks on him either.

On page 6, it noted that Dorner got a negative evaluation on August 9.  The complaint of excessive force came on August 10.

On page 8, it does note a discrepancy in Officer Hernandez’s testimony that Dorner mentioned in his manifesto.  Hernandez did say Dorner was in a dress uniform and his tie was messed up, so he told him to straighten it.  But it turned out photographs established that he was not wearing a uniform with a tie.  Hernandez was not getting things right, obviously.  But here’s the thing.  Not even Dorner said he witnessed any kicking.  Here’s where Dorner discussed him in his manifesto:

During the BOR an officer named, Sgt. [H.], from Los Angeles Port Police testified on behalf of the LAPD. [H.] stated for the BOR that he arrived at the location of the UOF shortly before I cuffed the suspect. He also stated that he assisted in cuffing the suspect and that's old the BOR he told me to fix my tie. All of those statements were LIES!!! Hernandez, you arrived at the UOF location up to 30 seconds after I had cuffed Mr. [C.G.]. All you did was help me lift the suspect to his feet as it was difficult for me to do by myself because of his heavy weight. You did not tell me to fix my tie as the BOR members and everyone else in the room know you lied because the photographic evidence from the UOF scene where [C.G.]'s injuries were photographed clearly shows me wearing a class B uniform on that day. A class B uniform is a short sleeved uniform blouse. A short sleeved uniform blouse for the LAPD does not have a tie included. This is not Super Troopers uniform, you jackass. Why did you feel the need to embellish and lie about your involvement in the UOF? Are you ashamed that you could not get hired on by any other department other than port police? Do you have delusions of grandeur? What you did was perjury, exactly what [T.E.] did when she stated she did not kick [C.G.]

Hernandez is the “H.” in all that, and all he is saying is that Hernandez lied about the tie thing.  But who knows?  Maybe he just got different incidents confused.  And certainly the hearing wasn't determined by whether his tie was messed up after wrestling with a suspect.  Who would even care overly much about that?  The issue was whether Evans kicked Gettler, and whether Dorner lied about it.  Bluntly, Hernendez’s testimony doesn’t even seem particularly relevant, just something you check for due diligence purposes.  So even if you think the worst of Hernandez—and I doubt that is warranted—it doesn’t really matter to the central issues of the case.

And we have the testimony of Richard Gettler, Christopher Gettler’s father.  It is worth noting that he does claim his son told him he had been kicked, but his story was also inconsistent: he claimed his son told him he was kicked in the chest, twice.  This is hearsay and there is a reason why hearsay is not typically admitted into evidence.

We also have some discussion of an attempt to get Christopher Gettler’s testimony, which failed.  They also discussed a tape, described as an “interview” of him taken on December 8, 2008.  I don’t know about you, but I can’t hear the full name of the month in my copy of the video I showed you above, but I would guess it is one and the same.  So the court, importantly, did not call it testimony and didn’t explain anything more about it, such as who was doing the interviewing.

And they note other facts.  On page 14, they note that Gettler was wearing a white shirt.  While there was dirt on his shirt consistent with falling, there was no dirt consistent with kicking him in the chest.  They didn’t believe the older or younger Gettler because of their inconsistencies.  Richard Gettler said his son told him he was kicked twice in the chest.  Chis Gettler said he was kicked only once, in the face.  And Dorner claimed the trifecta: twice in the chest, once in the face.

And there is something else to note, going a little out of order.  On page 16, the Board of Review noted that “no other witnesses testified that Sergeant Evans kicked Gettler” besides Dorner himself.  That means that the Board of Review plainly had refused to accept Gettler’s non-testimonial interview into evidence, and had not heard anything from Gettler’s father.  So even if you found the father persuasive—and I frankly am suspecting that this was really a case of the father seeing the potentiality of a lawsuit and trying to support testimony that might get him a settlement—the Board of Review didn’t have that evidence before them.

Also, at his Board of Review hearing, the board found he had presented no good excuse for his failure to report, which further undermined his credibility.

And that’s pretty much all that can be extracted from the documents that have been released so far.

So to believe Dorner, you have to believe that he kept quiet about an incident that didn’t trouble him when it happened, just... because.  You have to believe all three hotel employees were lying.  You have to believe that Gettler was cut but not bruised.  You have to believe that Evan’s shoes left no dirt on him.  You have to believe it is entirely a coincidence that Dorner first brought up the complaint after he got a poor review.  And you have to believe that three kicks were somehow so horrendous they ate at his conscience but not enough to bring it up right after it happened.  That is not to say there isn’t any evidence besides his own word to support the claim Evans kicked Gettler, but do you find any of it credible?  You have the videotaped statement of a lunatic who had to be led to each answer, which was still inconsistent with what Dorner said, and the hearsay of Richard Gettler.

Oh and no matter how you slice it, Dorner was not being truthful about the incident, either being untruthful when it happened and failing to mention Evans’ alleged beating, or untruthful when he made the accusation, which subjects him to the devastating inqury: were you lying then or are you lying now?  That rarely ends well for a witness.

I maintain that even if he was genuinely aggrieved as a matter of policy the LAPD should not reopen the investigation or anything like that.  We should be willfully blind to his claim of grievance, if accurate, if only to avoid giving a terrorist what he wants and encouraging future acts of terror.  But at the same time, it is useful to investigate and discredit it, to make those taking up his cause see even more clearly why they shouldn’t.  I think he is flat out lying.

You know, in case the fact he has allegedly murdered the daughter of his lawyer and that daughter’s husband isn’t reason enough.  He claims he started this whole campaign of terror because he was opposed to excessive force but by what stretch of the imagination is this crime not itself excessive?  Indeed, he hasn’t directly harmed a single person who he claims harmed him.

---------------------------------------

In other Dorner news, I found this video featuring an ex-FBI profiler discussing Dorner’s psychology:

DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

And if you don’t want to watch it, or have the ability to watch it, you can go here, instead.  In addition to that, the Huffington Post has some profiler goodness of its own here.  But I will warn you that I myself don’t trust the profession overly much ever since they wiffed it during the D.C. sniper case.  I don’t know how much the rest of the nation followed the story, but needless to say we followed it very closely around here.  I remember all the profilers on television agreeing that this was probably a lone white guy in a van and numerous other particulars that turned out to be as wrong as wrong could be when they finally caught the real snipers.  It made me lose a lot of faith in this supposed science of “profiling.”

Of course, if you read the HuffPo piece I last linked to, you might see a reference to an ex-girlfriend he tried to get a restraining order against.  If you want to read more about her, read here.

Finally, ABC News has  great summary of all of the horrid events of this story so far in timeline form, here.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.