The Documents: 209A violation charge

On July 18, 2003 a 209A (restraining order) violation charge was filed against me by Foxboro police officer Scott Hodson, at the request of Cynthia Whelahan. The best summary of the situation was published in Massachussetts Lawyers Weekly and can be found here. The report, along with the police log entry (which comes into play again later in this story) is here. Hodson's testimony at trial is here. Whelahan's testimony is here: Part 1 and Part 2. My testimony is here: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

If you've read all that, please consider two questions. First, who do you believe as to what the content of the message left was? Second, would you hire Scott Hodson to pick up dog crap from your lawn? That boy is dumb as a stump, ain't he?

One more question: Does it strike you as odd that this message on an answering machine wasn't preserved as evidence? If you were going to charge someone with leaving a message, wouldn't you keep it to prove that they did it? Of course you would...if you weren't lying about what was said. And if you didn't think the question would ever get to trial. But, as she testified on pages 63-64 of the trial transcript (Part 2 link above), she didn't keep the tape and it was conveniently unavailable to be played at trial. Or was it?

I'm going to get into this document in much more detail later in the story, but this is a letter to me from Foxboro police chief Edward O'Leary explaining the outcome of an "investigation" conducted by FPD Internal Affairs on several complaints that I filed immediately after the July 2004 trial. Look at page 3 of that document, in the paragraph numbered 4 which states as a finding of this "investigation": "That recording was preserved by Ms. Whelahan and could be produced for court presentation if needed." This is an official finding of a police investigation conducted after Whelahan gave sworn testimony indicating that she did not have the recording and didn't keep it because a Foxboro cop, Scott Hodson, told her she didn't need to.

Most people plead these things out for fear of a bad outcome at trial. I had (and declined) the opportunity to have the charges "Continued Without a Finding" which would have had them dismissed after a year. But that requires an "admission to sufficient facts" to prove guilt, and I wasn't guilty of anything, so that was out. Still, most people take the deal. Most people. The cops and DA's count on it. If everyone exercised their right to a jury trial, this corrupt system would be brought to its knees in short order and this sort of nonsense would stop.

UPDATE: Memo to Cindy, since she's reading. Remember that smug, condescending attitude and that smirk on your face on the day in question when I was at the house getting some of my things and learning that you'd decided to steal the rest from me? You know, that attitude you were throwing at me while you were charming your new buddy Scott Hodson who somehow couldn't remember having been there an hour or so before the two of you decided to dummy up a new criminal charge to hang on me. How's that holding up these days, Boots? Do you still find all this funny?

Addendum: It also bears noting that the 10 day hearing on this restraining order was conducted first thing on a Monday morning, piggybacked on the A&B arraignment, less than 24 hours after the order was served leaving me no opportunity to get a lawyer or to really understand the implications of the order, let alone prepare a proper defense, gather witnesses, etc. This thing was extended for a year without me having any real opportunity to fight it. They pass these things out like candy, and they really don't care about having any sort of fair, reasonable hearing on them.