Continuation of Part One, Part Two, and Part Three:
As I mentioned previously, I’m still confused about now “Major Justin Lundgren” being promoted from “Lieutenant Justin Lundgren”. As for as I know Justin Lundgren was never a Captain so I’m curious as to whether or not SPD is going back to the Kirkpatrick era where SPD had “Majors”, or whether this is a NEW exempt position that has been created.
I will see what I can find out, but as my readers know Public Information Officer Teresa Fuller, hasn’t been very cooperative with me and refuses to respond to my emails seeking answers to simple questions.
I think the email interaction between the players in this case has pretty well been covered in previous stories, and you certainly should draw your own conclusions regarding whether or not Furiture-gate is the product of the “self-serving, cowardice, fear of demotion, want to be somebody attitude of Police Leadership again gets in the way of what is right and best.” I described in my first story lead in.
While you are drawing your own conclusions you might want to consider this section of the Spokane Police Department Policy Manual.
So we now move on to “The IA Investigation”, and today cover the recorded statement of Interim Chief Miedl.
The best place to start is almost always with “Who Pitched The Bitch!”
According to Interim Chief Meidl it was “I da Little Boss”, “Who Pitched The Bitch!” on the day the move was taking place.
The images above demonstrate what I always refer to as “Oh shit…I better cover my ass better or the investigator forgot to ask something statement additions.” You see them all the time, and there is nothing wrong with them as long as they are handled properly.
If you were doing Deposition Prep the obvious questions for both Meidl and Lundgren would be; “What did you talk about during the one minute the recorder was off and who was the answer to this question important to?”
“Assistant Chief, how did you first become aware of this complaint?”
The question of course should have been asked during the intial statement but wasn’t. The problem as I see it is once Meidl answered the question it opened the door to a line of questioning that never took place. For example:
1) Then if I’m understanding you correctly Chief you are stating that this “complaint” the one I am investigating was actually the “complaint of Judy Knight?
(*The honest answer to that question would have to be “Yes” based on what Meidl stated.)
2) If I understand correctly Chief you received Knight’s complaint on the day of the move about “mid-morning”?
(Yes)
3) By “mid-morning” December 29th,2015 the furniture from the DTP had been moved to the Intermodal, is that correct?
(Yes)
4) You characterize Knights call to you as “a courtesy” to let you know the furniture had been moved into the Intermodal. So just to be clear was Ms. Knight’s call to you “a courtesy call” or a “complaint”?
( Who knows what the answer would be, but lets assume since he said it was “a courtesy” call he would stick with that.)
5) So once you received the “courtesy call” from Knight you went directly to Chief Dobrow to inform him that the furniture had been moved and had a discussion with Chief Dobrow?
(Yes)
6) Can you tell me when, and where that discussion took place and exactly what was discussed?
( Who knows…how Meidl might answer that one)
7) To be clear after you met with Dobrow you chose to determine if the information you received from Knight was “one hundred percent accurate” you chose to call Lt. Bart Stevens into your office and question him regarding the furniture?
(yes)
8) Why did you elect to bypass the Chain of Command and contact Lt. Bart Stevens to obtain “one hundred percent accurate” information?
Well any way… you can see that honest answers to honest questions can in most cases shed light on a lot of things. The responsibility of an IA Investigator is to gather the facts and try and get to the truth, no matter who’s feet might get stepped on.
According to Major Lundgren’s IA Report Meidl came to him on 12/30/15 “at the direction of Chief Dobrow”. What that means of course isn’t clear, because it isn’t pursued but it does give us a demonstartion of the FAST time line to IA Complaint in this case. December 29th, 2015, the day of the move to the next day December 30th, 2015…is pretty darn quick in cop time.
As for “at the direction of” that is Cop Vernacular for the following two basic meanings depending on the circumstances and it always has to be clarified. There are other meanings but these are primary.
It could mean:
1) We discussed it add he gave me some direction but left it up to me.
2) The Bad Boy gave me a direct order so I had no choice.
I had intended to go into more depth regarding the Meidl statement but some folks requested I get this out today…so here it is, and there will be much more to follow. When I took this job I didn’t know my readers were going to be assigning my deadlines! 🙂
Buffalo Brian Breen 