Читать книгу Soul Murder - Daniel Blake - Страница 9

Tuesday, October 12th. 10:08 a.m.

The police look after their own. Always have, always will.

The inquiry into what had happened in Shaniqua’s house was conducted by Allen Chance, one of a triumvirate of assistant police chiefs referred to, not entirely without irony, as the three wise monkeys.

The Pittsburgh police department boasted three divisions: administration (the back-room bureaucracy which kept the whole place going), operations (uniformed officers) and investigation, Chance’s crew, which along with Homicide included Burglary, CSI, Missing Persons, Narcotics, Robbery, Sex Crimes and Financial Crimes.

Not far north of five foot six, with rimless eyeglasses and the neatest of side partings, Chance looked – and thought – more like an accountant than a cop. Murder clearance rates, targets, statistics: Chance crunched them all with a zeal the Federal Reserve would have envied.

He also knew that the quickest way to send those numbers the wrong way was to hammer the morale of his officers, and the quickest way to do that was to leave them dangling when the heat was on.

So his investigation into Patrese’s conduct was perfunctory almost to the point of insult. Independent? Not a chance. Pragmatic? You bet.

Beradino, called as a character witness, testified that Patrese was an excellent detective, that the situation had been fast-moving, and that Patrese had done what any well-trained officer would have.

The suspect had ignored two warnings before making a sudden movement for a hidden object, Beradino pointed out. Patrese’s only option had been to shoot.

Chance made appropriate noises about the death being a tragedy. Not the only tragedy of the victim’s truncated life, if the toxicological reports were any guide.

On legal advice, Chance did not offer condolences to the deceased’s relatives.

Summing up, he declared Patrese’s actions and behavior to have been beyond reproach. No charges would be brought, and Detective Patrese would continue with his duties as usual. A press release to that effect would be prepared and released to the media.

Patrese couldn’t help feeling he’d dodged a bullet.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS REPORT OF INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

INSTITUTION: SCI MUNCY, P.O. BOX 180, MUNCY, PA 17756

DATE OF INVESTIGATION: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14TH

EMPLOYEE IN QUESTION: JESSLYN H. GEDGE

POSITION: DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

CASE HISTORY:

Complaints against JESSLYN H. GEDGE were brought on June 23rd by inmate MARA E. SLINGER, number A/38259728-2.¹

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS:

Inmate Slinger alleges that Deputy Superintendent Gedge:

1 entered into a non-consensual sexual relationship with her;

2 used her position and influence within the institution to maintain this relationship for several months, substantially against inmate Slinger’s will;

3 eavesdropped on inmate Slinger’s confidential telephone conversations with her attorney;

4 took revenge when inmate Slinger finally terminated their sexual relationship in the following ways:

4.1. carried out repeated personal searches, strip searches and body-cavity searches on inmate Slinger, sometimes in public owing to the alleged lack of suitable private facilities;

4.2. scheduled repeated dental examinations for inmate Slinger, knowing that inmate Slinger has a phobia of dentists, and that no inmate within the state DOC system has the right to refuse such an examination;

4.3. otherwise harassed inmate Slinger on repeated occasions, applying maximum penalties for minor infractions of prison regulations, including but not limited to: failure to use the shortest route when traveling between two points in the prison complex; stepping out of line in the dining hall; bringing books or papers into the dining hall; giving part of her meals to other prisoners; not taking a full set of cutlery at mealtimes; not eating all the food accepted at mealtimes; and talking to inmates working on the refectory serving line.

4.4. withheld packages addressed to inmate Slinger, or removed certain items before handing such packages over;

4.5. repeatedly confiscated inmate Slinger’s prison ID card, in full knowledge that inmates must carry said card at all times except when showering, and that inmates must pay for replacement cards if they lose, destroy or damage said card;

4.6. planted contraband (including money, potential escape tools e.g. nail files, unprescribed pharmaceuticals, illegal narcotics paraphernalia, weapons) in inmate Slinger’s cell during searches, and forbade inmate Slinger to be present during such searches on the grounds that her presence would constitute a threat;

4.7. held inmate Slinger down and forcibly shaved her head;

4.8. refused to hand back personal items upon inmate Slinger’s release.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSE:

Deputy Superintendent Gedge responded to the allegations as follows:

1 She admitted that she and inmate Slinger had conducted a sexual relationship, but maintained that it was entirely consensual, and that inmate Slinger had in fact initiated sexual contact in the first instance.

2 The answer to this point is implicit in her answer to point 1.

3 On the occasions that she did overhear such conversations, it was while she was monitoring technical faults with the institution’s telephone system, and she stopped listening immediately when she realized the conversation was subject to attorney-client privilege.

4 Termination of the sexual relationship was mutual and amicable, and therefore Deputy Superintendent Gedge felt no need for revenge.

4.1 Deputy Superintendent Gedge carried out all searches in strict accordance with institution policy. On occasion, when all private interview and meeting rooms were being used, searches were carried out in public. Deputy Superintendent Gedge strove to keep these occasions to a minimum.

4.2 Deputy Superintendent Gedge scheduled all inmate dental examinations in strict accordance with institution policy.

4.3 Deputy Superintendent Gedge enforced all regulations in strict accordance with institution policy.

4.4 Deputy Superintendent Gedge checked mail sent to inmate Slinger, removed contraband items, and read letters when she had reason to believe they were being used to plan an escape or other illegal activity. This was all in strict accordance with institution policy;

4.5 Deputy Superintendent Gedge maintains that inmate Slinger mislaid or deliberately destroyed her ID card on several occasions;

4.6 Deputy Superintendent Gedge absolutely denies planting contraband items in inmate Slinger’s cell;

4.7 Deputy Superintendent Gedge maintains that inmate Slinger shaved her own head to remove traces of illegal drugs in her hair follicles;

4.8 Deputy Superintendent Gedge denies this absolutely.

SUPPORT FOR INMATE SLINGER

Inmate MADISON A-S. SETTERSTROM, prisoner number A/73647829-5, was a former cellmate of inmate Slinger.

She testified that inmate Slinger had repeatedly confided in her that she was unhappy with Deputy Superintendent Gedge’s advances towards her, and only acquiesced for fear of negative consequences if she did not.

Inmate Setterstrom said Deputy Superintendent Gedge’s behavior after the end of the relationship indicated that inmate Slinger’s fears of such consequences had been largely justified.

Several other inmates, speaking on condition of anonymity, also voiced their support for inmate Slinger.

SUPPORT FOR DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT GEDGE

Lieutenant VALERIE Y. MARGRAVINE testified that the Deputy Superintendent was well respected among her fellow Corrections Officers for her attention to discipline and detail.

Several Corrections Officers stated that Deputy Superintendent Gedge is a devout Christian and a lay minister who presides over services of worship in the institution’s chapel on Sundays and other days.

OTHER FACTORS

Inmate Slinger is a high-profile individual whose original conviction attracted substantial media attention, as did the subsequent overturning of that conviction by the Appeal Court. She remains a newsworthy individual.

Any similar media attention in regard to this procedure would be undesirable. The department therefore believes a quick and final resolution to be in the interests of all parties.

Inmate Slinger has signed a confidentiality agreement preventing her from disclosing details of this investigation and hearing to the press, on condition that Deputy Superintendent Gedge receives appropriate punishment.

Deputy Superintendent Gedge has also been the subject of previous complaints from inmates (see cases T637-02, T432-00, T198-96, T791-89).

VERDICT

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections? code of conduct expressly and absolutely forbids all corrections officers from conducting sexual or intimate relationships with inmates.

Irrespective of the validity of the other allegations, Deputy Superintendent Gedge’s maintenance of a relationship with inmate Slinger qualifies as gross misconduct and is by itself grounds for immediate dismissal.

Consequently, Deputy Superintendent Gedge is dismissed from her post with immediate effect, and is disqualified from holding any other position within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for a period of no less than ten years.

Signed

Anderson M. Thornhill

Anderson M. Thornhill

Governor, SCI Muncy