The following is a rebuttal prepared by the Akron Police Department Internal Affairs Unit in response to a recent series of articles in the Akron Beacon Journal. The articles questioned the integrity and abilities of those performing an investigation into Chief Edward Irvine.

1.) The Beacon writes the city failed to, "Follow Ohio's preferred arrest statute and charge the Chief even though the experts-and the Police Department's own legal advisor-said they had probable cause to do so."

The Beacon Journal reports this out of context. They extract specific lines taken from Sgt. Caprez's paperwork and highlight them.  So, for the sake of fairness we want to reiterate exactly what Sgt. Caprez wrote in his confidential report:

"I then went to the station and telephoned PLA Tom DiCaudo directly. Without disclosing the identities of the alleged victim and suspect, I reviewed the facts of the incident with DiCaudo. DiCaudo then gave me the same advice he gave officer Lilly. DiCaudo DID NOT recommend signing a charge. For my own clarification, I asked DiCaudo if we would be delinquent in our duty or negligent in any way if we did not sign a domestic violence charge, and he said that we would not."

Why, in their zeal to highlight Sgt. Caprez's confidential, was that statement ("DiCaudo did not recommend signing a charge.") left out of this "fair" report? It is a very potent statement and should NOT have been left out. It leaves the reader with the impression that Sgt. Caprez disregarded legal advice, went out on a limb and made a poor decision. Nothing could be further from the truth, which is what the Beacon Journal is supposed to report.

2.) No immediate arrest. The Beacon Journal writes, 'Experts say that the Akron police officer who responded to the domestic violence call at St. Thomas Hospital on October 15 erred by not arresting the Chief as soon as an emergency room doctor told him the facts of the case."

This statement is so ludicrous it barely merits any effort to try to reason with it. To infer that a patrolman, based on hearsay from a doctor, should immediately arrest his Chief of Police without any type of investigation, prior to conference with his superiors, or without conferring with police legal advisors is absurd. The unidentified "experts" that proffered this statement should be disqualified as experts based upon the ignorance of this statement alone.

3. The Beacon Journal makes numerous mentions of law enforcement placing the ultimate burden of prosecution on the victim, Geneva Irvine. Here are a list of some of their writings:

A.) "Akron authorities place blame for the investigation going nowhere squarely on the shoulders of Geneva Irvine."

B.) "Without her signing a complaint against her husband, Akron authorities said, they could not arrest him"

A&B) Who made those statements. The Beacon doesn't attribute them to anyone specifically. Secondly, within the first 5 minutes of the absolute first contact between investigators and Geneva Irvine, Mrs. Irvine alleges she fabricated a story implicating her husband. Investigators could have easily said, "OK, thank you, have a nice day" and left her house. That is not what happened. Investigators moved forward, because Mrs. Irvine does not call the shots. Investigators took photos and asked her numerous specific questions. She was asked about her drinking, medication, medical records, attorney information, how the event actually occurred, where her liquor bottles were, if she was comfortable talking with us, if there were other incidents of abuse, the location of her home's bathrooms, and why she chose to use the one upstairs, where her husband was at the time of the incident. These are not the types of questions an investigator would ask if they were covering up or afraid to get at the truth as to what happened.

C.) Gael Strack, expert from San Diego stated, "Akron chose to put the burden of prosecution on the victim, rather than on law enforcement, where it should be. In doing so, it was Geneva Irvine, rather than the police or the prosecutors, who was maneuvered into the position of calling the shots on whether to proceed with the investigation."

Ms. Strack states that law enforcement "maneuvered" Geneva Irvine. That word implies that investigators had a plan, a strategic plan to intentionally place the burden on Mrs. Irvine. Is there any proof to support that allegation and the use of the word "maneuvered?" There won't be, because that did not happen.

D.) "Now we do not ask the victim if she wants to press charges." Mrs. Irvine was asked that question one time, and one time only. She was asked that question at the very end of the investigation. The only reason she was asked then was because we wanted to make certain that she was aware that was a viable option available to her. We felt we might be negligent if we didn't ask her.

In addition to above, in meetings between investigators, Deputy Mayor, and the Law Dept. it was discussed who would actually sign the criminal complaint if Mrs. Irvine refused to. That is documented in the investigator's notes, which were also provided to the Beacon Journal. So, NO, it was not Mrs. Irvine who determined if charges would be brought forward.

E.) "The way the law reads and the way they operate in Columbus, if the victim doesn't cooperate, that doesn't stop the investigation down here."

The investigation did not stop when the victim did not cooperate. From her first dealing with police officers, Mrs. Irvine did not "cooperate." That didn't stop the investigation. Chief Irvine dispatched investigators. Investigators moved forward. The investigation intensified after Mrs. Irvine didn't "cooperate." Investigators went to the hospital. They spoke with the doctor. They spoke with the counselor. They spoke with the triage nurse. Investigators spoke with relatives and friends. Investigators paged the Mayor on a Friday night. They met him on a Saturday. They suggested re-opening the case to him. He then ordered it. Investigators tape recorded many of the interviews. Investigators included those statements in their entirety in the investigation. Investigators met with the Law Dept. in an effort to subpoena medical records, which to this day, based on court rulings, cannot be ordered. Investigators met frequently with Deputy Mayor Romanoski to keep him appraised of any developments. So, did the investigation end during the first 5 minutes? No. The investigation just started. in fact, the Beacon Journal lauded this same investigation for its thoroughness in an earlier published editorial.

One question regarding this same quote. On December 7, 1998 Geneva Irvine called into the office of Internal Affairs. She left a voice mail message stating that she had nothing else to say and did not want to talk about it anymore. If above quote is accurate, how does it come to be that, two days later on December 9, 1998, investigators interview Norma Lamtman and Debbie Gomberg anyway? If Mrs. Irvine called the shots and held the burden, why do investigators even go forward with further interviews?

These are all very damaging statements. It would be a far better situation if they were, in fact, true.

4. Recanting stories. The Beacon Journal makes numerous references to it being a relatively common thing for domestic violence victims to recant their stories. "They recant for fear. They recant for love. They recant for so many different reasons." One other issue comes up when talking about why victims recant. Is it possible that during an emotional moment, a perceived victim may make utterances that they were abused, when in fact, they were not. Then in a later, more stable moment they recant their original story? Do victims ever recant because they were not truthful in the first place? Were Beacon Journal experts asked that question? If not, why not? If so, why weren't their responses to that question reported? In fact, one of the Beacon Journal's experts, Gael Strack, states that, "Probably 70-80% of the time, our victims recant. I usually get suspicious when they don't recant." What is Ms. Strack saying here? What or whom does she get suspicious of? It appears as though Ms. Strack is saying when victims don't recant, she thinks they may be lying. Well using her math, that would be 20-30% of the time. I guess that's OK, as long as you're not the 1 in 4 that gets wrongfully accused and charged. This is not to infer that Mrs. Irvine was lying in this case. What it does infer is that the credibility of any perceived victim should be considered.

5.  Mr. Jim Brown, another one of the Beacon's experts says, "I firmly believe that had this been a plumber, this would have been a criminal case that would have gone through the court. The problem is police officers and prosecutors worry about what case can we win? And in domestic violence, there is no winner when you back away from it."

One question, what is the conviction rate of Cincinnati's domestic violence cases? How does it compare with Akron's? Once again, that's OK, unless you're the plumber that gets wrongfully accused. As far as his inference that this case was backed away from, I can only assume that he either wasn't privy to, or didn't read the 40 plus pages of the investigation and what it entailed.

6.  One of the absolutely most flagrant violations of fair reporting was the Beacon Journal's comparison of the Gerald Williams case to the Chief Irvine case. The fact patterns in these cases are drastically different. Williams broke his wife's jaw. Officers were on scene immediately after the incident occurred. Williams called into supervisors shortly after he fled the scene of the incident confessing that he hit her and inquired about his expected arrest. He then followed that up by lying to investigators. Williams was relieved of street duty due to the high likelihood that he may come into contact with parties involved in domestic disputes and might possibly not be able to treat those cases impartially.

7.  The Beacon writes, "Police tapes also show that she called an investigator on November 18 and replied "uh-huh" when asked whether she would sign a waiver for her medical records."

During an interview with Beacon reporters, investigators questioned this statement. Reporters stood by it. Investigators later revisited the audio recording of this conversation.

How their reporters deduced that she was in agreement with the idea of her being willing to sign medical waivers from that conversation is questionable at best. At its worst, it's an out and out lie. Sgt. Brown asks Mrs. Irvine about her ribs. He asks her when the injury to her ribs occurred. She responds that he should check hospital records. He then asks her if she is willing to sign a medical waiver. It appears as though she interjects a brief "uh-huh" as a way of acknowledging his question. She immediately follows that up with an attempt to try and explain when that incident happened. She stops herself and says, "No. I can't do that. I'll talk to you when I see you."

8. Word choices. We want to list a few examples of the Beacon Journal's choices of words used to depict a fair representation. Here they are:

Inquiry FLAWED ('In dispute" instead better, fairer description?)

Series of BLUNDERS ("Conflicts" possibly a better word?)

Effort to CONCEAL (Two Beacon personnel notified at beginning)

Avoided AGGRESSIVE pursuit (We guess 40 plus pages shows a lack of aggression)

IGNORED numerous leads (Question-Who specifically was ignored?)

Did the MINIMUM they had to (All 40 plus pages of it)

Geneva's "ACCIDENT" Using quotation marks around accident

FAILED to subpoena Geneva's medical records (We tried-Couldn't legally be done)

FAILED to follow arrest policy. (How so? Wasn't there documentation as to why no arrest was made?)

FAILED to pursue with same tenacity as with Gerald Williams (We disagree)

For if there was any TENDERNESS remaining between the two of them
How can you affirm their level of tenderness? Define that for us.
What qualifies Beacon personnel to affirm the Irvine tenderness level?

Whole MYSTERIOUS episode. ("Unresolved/Unknown" could be better/fairer words)

Lilly phoned Caprez with the NEWS FLASH... ("Information" better/fairer word)

He made out what turned to be a FATEFUL decision ("Informed but controversial")

Police and Abuse. She says these are the classic excuses used by POLICE OFFICERS accused of domestic violence. (What, are these excuses exclusive to police officers?)

Since the HUSHED-UP report... ( Publisher of Beacon was one of the first to know)

They arrived at the Irvine home, TAPE RECORDER IN HAND.. (You infer that possibly intimidated the victim? At least ours was in our hand and not concealed like some peoples')

She stuck with her REVISED account (Can you prove that that wasn't the real account?)
How about using, she stuck with the story that she told officers .... ?

The report was DIVERTED to the Chief ("Forwarded" a better word, like other incident reports that have the potential of ending up in Internal Affairs)

In the OFT-SECRETIVE department (Just ask Jack Porter and the other dozen or so recently disciplined officers about that. We do have great success in keeping things secret around here)

It appeared as though DAMAGE CONTROL was up and running (Right, that's why the Chief notified Beacon, Mayor and Internal Affairs.)

As well as the SUBSEQUENT DISAPPEARANCE of the police report... The report never disappeared ... Beacon personnel themselves knew of its existence.

The case was closed and TUCKED AWAY in police files ... (Where else would it be?)

Conducted a QUIET PROBE ... How was it quiet? Everyone in the police department had heard of the investigation. How did Sgt. Ball know to call us? Numerous hospital personnel knew. The BEACON knew. We find it hard to describe the investigation as "quiet."

whether to take this STILL-SECRET probe... (Beacon personnel were briefed first)

9. Fairness of report. The Beacon profiles a biography of their 5 experts used. As it turns out, only one of them provided a favorable report on the investigation. His assessment merited a whole 16 lines out of the thousands of lines printed thus far.

The Beacon Journal summarizes the entire first investigation in two paragraphs. 11   lines. Minimized are interviews with Dr. Shuckman, Ms. Sotcan, and the hospital social worker. We guess asking Dr. Shuckman how he thought the injuries could have occurred was not significant. Minimized are the conversations with legal advisors. Minimized is the interview with Geneva Irvine and the direct, probing, uncomfortable questions asked of her. The Beacon successfully condensed 9 pages of investigation into 11 lines of reporting.

10. Concern for Mrs. Irvine. The Beacon would like you to believe that the investigators and the city had no concern for her welfare. However, even though Mrs. Irvine repeatedly alleged that she was not abused, investigators gave her their cards. In addition she, as well as Aberteen Cole, were informed that resources were available for her, such as victim assistance. She also had occasion to speak with a counselor at the hospital who was in position to provide her with direction.

How about the concern for the victim on the part of the Beacon? Let's talk about that. As Mrs. Irvine is recovering from a difficult surgery in Louisiana (They quote it a a being a "worrisome" surgery), as well as possibly recovering from some type of alcohol dependence, and in the midst of a domestic situation which possibly is not in a state of harmony, the Beacon takes it upon themselves to forward her some items. They send her copies of statements of her son and husband's interviews. What if Mrs. Irvine's receipt of those statements was enough to put her over the edge? Or at least delay her recovery? Now there's a display of compassion and concern for you.

11. What has the series of Beacon articles really uncovered in the thousands of lines they've published that we didn't really know from reading the investigation? Well, from accounts of one of the neighbors, we are told they argue. That is no surprise. Several parties interviewed told investigators that. We haven't yet found an ORC code prohibiting arguing.

We have also been told that their research has uncovered the notion that alcohol may or may not mix well with her blood pressure medication.

We have also been informed that the person named by Chief Irvine, as a possible friend of Mrs. Irvine's, (Charlotte Twitty) may not have spoken with Mrs. Irvine for a long period of time.

Two other people have called them that had not previously contacted investigators. Those two people gave information similar to Norma Lamtman and Debbie Gomberg.

We have also learned that Publisher John Dotson one week is asking Chief Irvine to join Portage Country Club with him, and the next week he is calling Mr. Irvine and surreptitiously taping their conversation. He is claiming to have been bamboozled by Chief Irvine.

12. On Thursday May 6, 1998 The Beacon reports conversations with Mrs. Irvine. Here are some of those highlights:

"But her amended falling-down-the-steps account, given on October 15 and October 16, was apparently good enough for Akron police, who investigated and closed the case without a peep of public notice-and all within two weeks."

In response to this statement and the timing of it, investigators did more than interview and rely on the interview of Geneva Irvine. The Beacon fails to mention that Akron Police met with the hospital doctor, nurse and counselor. They fail to mention that investigators interviewed uniform police officers and supervisors involved in the call. They fail to mention that Akron Police met with Law Department personnel.. They fail to mention that the ultimate disposition of the case was determined by legal professionals, not the Akron Police. Lastly, they refer to the case being closed "without a peep of public notice." Addressing that statement, Internal Affairs investigations are confidential. It is not common practice to distribute press releases on investigations conducted by Internal Affairs. In addition, Beacon Journal personnel were, in this case, some of the first to have knowledge of the investigation.

Addressing another quote from the report, "She said she couldn't understand, though, why police were telling her husband - the accused - about information they were supposedly gathering to make a case against him while she - the apparent victim - was still at risk. Do not approach my husband. Do not. Just like you told him - Why did you? - You told him I had a friend by the name of Cole."

Investigators never informed Chief Irvine of the identity of Aberteen Cole. He was never told there even was a new information source. He was never briefed on any detail of the investigation. In fact investigators, in their report, address and provide a possible explanation to Mrs. Irvine's concerns. Investigators wrote (Pg. 12 of report), "In fact, investigators had not made that disclosure to Chief Irvine. It was possible that Chief Irvine made that deduction on his own." The Beacon did not print that line of the investigation. The failure to include that line leaves the reader with the notion that investigators compromised the investigation by informing the suspect - Chief Irvine - about details of the case. That did not happen.

13. Let us examine a line of questioning as reported by the Beacon Journal. In the Friday May 7 article, the Beacon reports on an interview between investigators and Detective Elizabeth Baker. The Beacon does not identify the particular investigator doing the questioning. They write, "We don't want to upset you by calling you down here. But we have heard this. Individuals have told us this, and we wanted to give you an opportunity, if it were true. Or if it were partially true or if it was totally false, to put your experiences or version on the record. So, on the Chief s behalf, this is isn't true, according to you, right?"

 

The Beacon Journal wants the reader to believe that the investigator was asking a highly leading question. What they fail to report though is that the above quoted question was asked at the end of her interview as a final confirmation of what she had earlier stated. That earlier line of questioning that the Beacon Journal failed to report on went like this:

Lt. Duvall: Information had been received that you had been assaulted by Ed Irvine in the past. Do you want to respond to that?"

Det. Baker: "I can respond to it, yeah."

Lt. Duvall: "Sure"

Det. Baker: 'It's not true that I was assaulted by him"

Lt. Duvall: "And basically at no time you've never been struck, or physically assaulted or kicked, or hit or anything by Ed Irvine?"

Det. Baker: "No, I've never been physically assaulted by him ever."

Lt. Duvall: "OK Very plain and simple and to the point. And again, hypothetically, if you were and were afraid because we're going to go back and report to the Chief ... We report to the Mayor's office. We can't guarantee that someday the Chief s not going to know the results of this investigation, but we're here to tell you that if anytime something happened to you, in this particular case, the target of this investigation per our assignment is Ed Irvine. If that's untrue or not true, most excellent, it's on record and we have no problem But, if at any time, anything comes to your attention that you want to talk to us about, our chain of command for this specific investigation is to the Mayor's office."

14. The Beacon Journal reports on an interview conducted with Pierre Irvine, the son of Chief Irvine. They state that the interview "began with an apology." The reason that occurred was twofold. One, it is an investigative technique to help put the interviewee at ease and, two it genuinely was a sensitive situation.

The Beacon Journal reported on the responses Pierre gave investigators to specific, direct questions. Examples of that were regarding photographs of injuries to his mother, previous living arrangements of his mother, the stair incident, the spitting incident. The Beacon states, "But upon questioning, he acknowledged that she had shown him a picture of a bruise." Investigators had to rephrase a the question about his knowledge of photographs of injuries three different times before he provided this response.

For the Beacon Journal to report on Pierre Irvine's responses, he must have been first asked the question, correct? Then those reponses must have been included in the investigation, correct?

15. BOTTOM LINE:
Possible victim of domestic violence shows up at hospital. Officer responds. Officer gets alerted as to who the victim is. Officer notifies supervisor. Supervisor instructs officer to treat this case no differently than any other. Supervisor contacts Captain who instructs him to treat the incident no differently. Supervisor and officer contact police legal advisor. During conversation, the Police legal advisor is not informed of the identity of the victim or suspect. He is just given a fact pattern. He recommends that NO charges should be signed. Only then is he told of who the victim/suspect is. He states that that changes nothing.

Let's stop there. That could have been the end of it. Chief Irvine, however, does not let it end. He calls the Mayor, a reporter and the Publisher of the Beacon Journal. He summonsed Internal Affairs to his office. He orders an investigation. This doesn't really fit the mold of someone who is attempting to cover something up. Keep in mind that Chief Irvine was very familiar with Internal Affairs investigators' integrity and their philosophies on how internal investigations should be conducted. He knew when he summonsed them to his office that there would be no compromising the investigation. (The Beacon Journal would like the public to think different.)

Internal Affairs then meets with victim. Within first 5 minutes of her interview she states that she fabricated story. Investigators are not satisfied and move forward. Investigators are aware of several inconsistencies in different accounts of what happened up to, on the night of, and days after the alleged incident. Investigators meet and inquire with the Law Department about the possibility of filing subpoenas on Mrs. Irvine's past medical records. It was determined that could not lawfully be done without the consent of the person involved. Investigators interview doctor, nurse, counselor, officers, supervisor. Investigators consult with Law Dept. personnel. The domestic violence case against Chief Irvine is cleared "UNSUBSTANTIATED''

Shortly thereafter, new information comes in. Investigators act quickly. They go outside the chain of command and page the Mayor. The Mayor meets with them on a Saturday. Investigators suggest the case be re-opened. He agrees. The case is re-opened. Numerous interviews with relatives and friends take place. All this occurs even though the victim, Geneva Irvine, has not been cooperative. Poignant questions are asked. How do you think the Beacon Journal knew of previous falling incidents, Liz Baker, Catherine Simmons, a pill incident, a separation, a choking incident etc.? That was all because investigators asked about them and included that information, in its entirety, in the investigation. Once again, not hardly acts consistent with those of an individual/unit who is less than zealous in handling this investigation or one who is attempting to "hush-up" things. As far as the incident report goes, investigators knew that a Beacon Journal reporter was made aware of the incident. We knew he would ask about its completion.

The investigation was overseen by Deputy Mayor Romanoski. Mrs. Irvine was informed that her husband was out of this loop, and that we were reporting directly to his boss. Frequent meetings were held with him and the Law Department. Meanwhile, the victim was uncooperative and had left the state. In addition, no witnesses were ever uncovered who could actually state that they had observed abuse taking place on October 14, 1998, or to any other specifically mentioned incident of alleged abuse. Had there been, charges would have been signed. Ultimately the investigation closed with no charges being signed. Shortly thereafter, the City and investigators open themselves and the investigation up to a lengthy press conference. The next day, the Beacon lauds the work of the investigators. (A copy of that editorial is included in this report).

In response to some of the concerns raised by the Beacon, we want to say that we agree with a portion of them. We were concerned about Mrs. Irvine's two different stories, that is why we went forward with poignant questions to her, even after she claimed it was not her husband's fault. We were also extremely concerned with the content of the statements of Aberteen Cole, Norma Lamtman and Debbie Gomberg. They were disturbing to us. That is why they were recorded and included in the investigation in their entirety. Investigators were also very concerned about the credibility of Marcella Campbell.

 That is why the investigation is the greatest source of all the Beacons' information. Because the information was solicited and included. That is why, we as investigators, took the initiative to make an audio recording of Mrs. Irvine's phone call to Sgt. Brown. That is why we immediately took a recording of that phone call to the Law Dept. and Mr. Romanoski. That is why we approached the Chief and informed him it would be necessary for us to circumvent the traditional chain of command. That is why discussions took place regarding another agency being used as the investigative body. Many of the thought processes being experienced by Beacon Journal personnel were consistent with those of the investigators.

The job of the investigators is to gather, report and forward information and evidence (there is a difference), and we did that.

All along, investigators kept their supervisor, legal personnel and the prosecutors' office informed. Investigators complied with Deputy Mayor and Legal Dept. recommendations. It was the investigators who prompted the mayor to reopen the case. The Beacon Journal, however, wants the reader to infer that the Internal Affairs Unit was compromised. They want the reader to believe that there was a huge cover-up. However, it bears repeating now that the vast majority of the information the Beacon Journal reported on was taken exclusively from the written report compiled and submitted by the investigators. That is hardly consistent with an alleged cover-up.

One thing to consider is that major problems can occur when an individual or organization attempts to make inferences about circumstances which, in reality, did not exist. As has been detailed above, misinformation and misrepresentation result. That is what happened in this case.

This investigation was conducted fairly and in good faith. We stand by it.

 At this time, we'd like to quote some statements from The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:

-Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent.

-Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

-Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context

-Show compassion for those who may be adversely affected by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

-Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

-Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.

-Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

We sincerely wish, in the future, the Beacon Journal would devote as much attention to this code as they did to their recent expose/attack.