Unless otherwise indicated the addressees on all were the State Attorney, Dechovitz, Horn, Hoague, Pohl, Laeser, and me.
From: David Ranck
Sent: Friday January 23, 2004 8:36 am
Earlier this morning I was told by Susan Dechovitz that at a Chief's meeting yesterday it was determined that I was being taken off this investigation for "diplomatic reasons."
Since this police shooting I have been told that Major Butler, instead of speaking to me directly, called Abe Laeser concerning my involvement, that Laeser then spoke to Susan Dannelly and asked her to speak to me and that there was a Chief's meeting at which I was not present nor made aware of at which the above decision was made.
I feel very strongly about the way that Major Butler, Laeser, Dechovitz and the Chiefs, who I assume are Pohl, Hoague and Horn, have handled this matter and I wish to consult with counsel before attending any meeting to discuss this matter further.
I intend to fully document my role in and knowledge of this investigation, whether I remain a part of it or not, and the actions of the police and all involved members of this office and will do that also under the advice of counsel. At this time also I wish to avail myself of any State and Federal "whistleblower" protection that I may be due.
Finally, I am hereby making a public records demand for any and all State Attorney's Office emails concerning this investigation.
From Dechovitz, 8:54 am.
Let me correct some: I told David that apparently he was less than diplomatic when he spoke to Det. McCully and that everyone at the meeting thought that it was best that he not continue with this investigation.
Dechovitz' reformulation of what she said to me is not true.
From: Ranck, at 9:23,
that is not what you told me. you never said to me that i was "less than diplomatic" with det. mccully. in fact you never asked me what was said between me and mccully. you may have thought that but you never said it to me. and your exact words were "yesterday at a chief's meeting it was determined that you were being taken off the case for diplomatic reasons."
pursuant to the below request, i would also like the names of all persons present at the meeting, when this meeting was scheduled and why i was not invited. (punctuation in original)
From: Laeser, to Ranck (no other addressees included), 9:29 am
I did not tell you about any call because I was told that you were in trial and should not be bothered. I had planned to speak to you when an opportunity arose--but by then, meetings were scheduled.
On the credibility of Laeser's statements in this email:
Laeser sent this email only to me. No other addressees on any earlier correspondence were copied.
Yet, by at least noon on January 22, one of those other addressees, Howard Pohl ,knew that I was not in trial.
And sometime shortly thereafter, Laeser himself knew that I was not in trial because, he told Susan Dannelly to talk to me, and Dannelly and I spoke at approximately 1:30 pm. (see email below).
Thus, Laeser's statement to me on January 23, at 9:29 am,
I did not tell you about any call because I was told that you were in trial...
had been untrue since at least January 22, shortly after lunch, and by 1:30 at the latest.
From: Ranck to Laeser, 9:53 am.
you had susan dannelly call me yesterday at about 1:30. she and i spoke. you and i didn't.
Laeser did not respond to this email.
Dannelly told me generally that Butler, displeased, had called Laeser. That was all. She did not tell me--I do not know if she knew--what the substance of the Butler/Laeser call was. Laeser could have talked to me directly.
Thus, Laeser's statement,
I had planned to speak to you when an opportunity arose--but by then, meetings were scheduled.
is completely untrue as to having had no "opportunity" to speak to me. An "opportunity"--a whole afternoon of them--had existed if his plan had been to talk to me.
Or, perhaps Laeser meant what he wrote literally, that he would have spoken to me before the 4 pm meeting had been "scheduled," if he had had the opportunity. If that is the case, then Laeser is saying that, opportunity or not, he did not plan on trying to talk to me once the meeting was set, that the decision was going to be made without talking to me at all.
Under either of these meanings--and any at all-- given to Laeser's email, at 4 pm on January 22, he and Pohl, knowing all afternoon that I was not in trial, along with Dechovitz, Hoague, and Horn, met and decided to remove me from the investigation and all future police shooting investigations, without:
(1) Ever telling me about Butler's call or it's substance.
(2) Ever meeting with me or in any other way asking me about my phone call with McCully.
At 4:50, Laeser sent the following email, under the subject heading "LLANES police shooting," documenting the decision that had been made to Sandra Miller-Batiste (my colleague on the police shooting), Richard Scruggs (my replacement), Emomotimi Brisbe, and copied Horn, Pohl, Hoague, and Dechovitz. I was not informed even though the business day had not yet ended.
I understand that this criminal case (second degree felony murder) arose out of a burglary and a police shooting. Mr. Ranck and Ms. Miller went to the scene. The substantive case has fallen into Judge Ward's division.
The case will be assigned to Tim to prosecute, and I will be co-counsel. No pre-trial meeting has yet been set with the detectives or any witnesses. However, the '72 hour' review will be held on Thursday, January 29th. I cannot attend on that date, but I have been told that Ms. Miller and Mr. Scruggs will be able to attend that meeting. Sometime early next week I will try to get a firm handle on the charging decisions, after discussing ths issues with Tim.
Please notify me of anything which you believe may be relevant to our legal and practical decision making. Thank you.
Abe Laeser
