Featured Post

PINNED POST. CLICK HERE: Keeping these 3 videos of officer-involved domestic violence fatalities on top from now on...

Officer-Involved Domestic Fatalities - 1 Officer-Involved Domestic Fatalities - 2 [WA] Tragedy Will Occur If They Don't Have ...

Custom Search

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

[MA] Cop-on-cop: Charges dropped, but, "How can she call herself a cop if she doesn't do anything to stop him?"

...[Dorchester District Court Judge David] Weingarten said that under the state statute for a restraining order, known as a 209A, the female officer does not qualify as a plaintiff... "She's been through so much," the husband said. "How can she call herself a cop if she doesn't do anything to stop him?"...

Previous post:
[MA] Accusation of Boston Police cop-on-cop stalking, rape, threats, and... - ...The [accused] officer is part of the department’s elite mobile operations unit, which includes sniper, dive, and SWAT teams... ...In the courtroom were at least half a dozen officers from the special operations division, an elite unit that includes the department's SWAT team and motorcycle squad...

Lack of evidence cited in rape case
Boston Globe
By Maria Cramer
November 3, 2009
[Excerpts] The Suffolk district attorney's office has decided not to go forward with a case against a Boston police officer accused of raping one of his colleagues and threatening to kill her and her husband. Assistant District Attorney David Deakin, who oversees all sexual assault cases and child abuse cases in the county, told the female officer that there was not enough evidence to pursue the case, according to the officer's attorney and her husband... In a statement, the prosecutors' office said investigators spent six weeks assessing the allegations before deciding they could not pursue criminal charges. “Boston police detectives have interviewed more than two dozen witnesses and have gathered telephone records, hotel records, text messages, other personal records, and testimony from restraining order hearings in the Dorchester District Court,'' the statement said. "After a thorough review of the evidence and the law, Suffolk prosecutors have concluded that the evidence in the case does not support a criminal prosecution. As a result, no criminal charges will be forthcoming in Suffolk County." The department's Internal Affairs Division is still investigating to determine whether any Police Department rules and regulations were violated... The female officer's husband said they still want to pursue the case and plan to reach out to the FBI and other jurisdictions where the officer has alleged the sexual assaults took place. The officer alleged that her colleague raped her several times during the course of a month, first in Connecticut, where they had traveled for a shooting competition, and then in the Boston area. "She's been through so much," the husband said. "How can she call herself a cop if she doesn't do anything to stop him?" During a hearing last month on a request for a restraining order, the female officer said her colleague had left her pregnant and threatened to hurt her or her family if she did not have sex with him or give him constant updates of her whereabouts. The restraining order was denied because under state statute their relationship as colleagues does not qualify either of them to obtain a restraining order. The officer's lawyer, Thomas Drechsler, said that prosecutors made the right decision and that whatever occurred between the two officers was consensual... Both officers will remain on paid administrative leave until the internal affairs investigators concludes their investigation... [Full article here]

Earlier last month, since the last post -



WBZ 38
October 5, 2009
[Excerpts] In a Boston courtroom Monday, a district court judge denied the request of a female Boston police officer to extend a restraining order against a fellow cop. That officer says she was raped repeatedly by her co-worker. The male officer insists the relationship was consensual – and that she panicked when she became pregnant... Defense attorney Tom Drechsler was quick to point out that just days after the alleged rapes, the female officer requested to be transferred into the same unit as her alleged attacker. "He threatened you, you say, to shoot your husband and harm you and other people if you didn't do whatever he said for the rest of your life, correct?" Drechsler said to the accuser on the stand Monday. "Yet you went to see [a superior] and engaged in an interview where you enthusiastically pursued a voluntary transfer into the same unit." In the weeks after the initial sexual contact, the female officer acknowledged she went to the male officer's apartment twice, late at night, when she was supposed to be on paid detail work. Drechsler says the two had sex on those occasions. There were also phone calls and text messages from the female officer during that period – 116 of them according to court records - though the content of those phone calls and text messages was not revealed. The female officer said in court that the SWAT member demanded she keep in touch with him, so he could know where she was at all times. When the female officer discovered she was pregnant, she told her husband about the sexual contact, but said she tried to hide the fact she was raped out of fear for what the male SWAT member might do. "I tried to allude [my husband] to believe that it was just an infidelity and that that was it, and to tell him not to ask me what had happened," the female officer said in court Monday... [Full article here]

She accused him of rape, threats
Boston Globe
By Maria Cramer
October 6, 2009
[Excerpts] A Dorchester District Court judge yesterday vacated a restraining order that a Boston police officer had filed against one of her colleagues, accusing him of raping her and then threatening the life of her and her husband. Judge David Weingarten denied a request to extend the restraining order against the officer after his accuser took the stand and withstood about two hours of cross-examination from the male officer's lawyer, Thomas Drechsler. Weingarten made his decision based on technical reasons, not the merits of the case. The woman had previously been issued an emergency restraining order... Weingarten said that under the state statute for a restraining order, known as a 209A, the female officer does not qualify as a plaintiff. Under the statute, the person seeking a restraining order must have been married to the perpetrator, lived with him or her, be related by blood, dated, or have a child together. The female officer said she is pregnant and that the father is the accused rapist, but Weingarten said that being pregnant a short period of time does not qualify the couple as having a child together. "I'm trying to be as clear as possible that for the purposes of this statute, that the mere fact, the straightforward fact of an early pregnancy does not qualify as having a child in common," Weingarten said. The woman's lawyer, John Swomley, said he planned on going to Suffolk Superior Court today to seek a stay-away order to keep the officer from his client. That type of action is civil and could go before a jury, but it does not require the plaintiff to have the relationships defined under the state's statute. Swomley said he also wants to pursue criminal charges against the officer. Yesterday's hearing became tense and almost volatile at several points as Drechsler aggressively questioned the female officer, raising doubts about how scared she could have been of someone she contacted so often... The woman, who wore a gray blazer with a Boston police pin affixed to the lapel, told Drechsler that the officer wanted to know where she was at all times and demanded that she give him regular updates... Drechsler then pointed out that she had gone to the officer's house three times after the first assault and had "sexual relations" with him. "It wasn't sexual relations," she replied in a hard voice. "If it meant keeping him away from my family, I would do what he wanted. I didn't feel there was any other option." Drechsler also asked her why she interviewed for a job in the Special Operations unit on Sept. 1, six days after the first alleged assault. The officer, an accomplished markswoman who owns several guns, replied that joining Special Operations was a longtime dream of hers and that other officers had encouraged her to join the unit. She said she did not want to let down the people who had supported her... [Full article here]
[police officer involved domestic violence law enforcement cop on cop sexual assault massachusetts]


  1. "Defense attorney Tom Drechsler was quick to point out that just days after the alleged rapes, the female officer requested to be transferred into the same unit as her alleged attacker"

    Her APPLICATION for special operations was SUBMITTED about ONE WEEK BEFORE the the shooting competition, in Connecticut (BEFORE THE FIRST RAPE, BEFORE EVER KNOWING HIM)!

    "There were also phone calls and text messages from the female officer during that period – 116 of them according to court records"

    That's FALSE. They sure got that number wrong. Some of those text messages would have been incriminating for the rapist had the SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S COMPUTER FORENSIC UNIT not wiped out her phone!

  2. The News-media (only getting information from him and his attorney, since she follows the rules about not commenting about an ongoing investigation) reported the texts and phone calls FALSELY!

  3. Funny how evidence disappears so much. It does!!!

  4. Oh it does! And reports buried too! You can't forget the report of the confiscation of his firearms (ALL 20 PLUS FIREARMS...OOPS AND THEY DIDN'T GET THEM ALL DID THEY). The report of course was suppose to be written the same day as any other BUT it was not written till 12 DAYS LATER and written by a possible witness; 6 DAYS AFTER taken to ballistics at headquarters and 2 DAYS AFTER the restraining order was vacated on a technicality. You have to love the most corrupt city in the most corrupt county, in the most corrupt state in the union.

    For any suspect of a sexual assault especially rape or aggravated rape, they plaster his name and face or a composite all over the news but not the RAPIST MICHAEL SPENCE WHO RAPED A "FELLOW POLICE OFFICER". WHY? "He needs to be afforded the same courtesies any other police officer would be afforded if he or she was accused of a crime"; from an ADA's lips to God's ears.

  5. This blog has lots of posts about women being the aggressor or perp, but the large majority of reported incidents are accused men. One of the things that stands out to me because I talk to so many female victims is that if a female POLICE OFFICER can be so easily called a liar, dismissed, or intimidated down from implicating her male co-worker - what possible hope is there for a cop's wife or girlfriend without a badge who tries to file a report? If female officers are suppressed there's no hope for those women without a badge to feel that they can come forward.

    Sometimes in pd's like this where someone IS prosecuted I feel it's a reflection of department politics - like there are those cops that CAN be crucified, and those that cannot.

  6. And the man will always be favored when it's cop on cop rape, especially when the female is a minority (Asian). She went to some of the most elite universities, tests off the charts, gets nothing but the highest of reviews and is always the first to back her fellow officers up BUT OH YEAH that's one of the ADA's lame main reasons for not going forward because according to him, he couldn't convince a jury that someone this strong, competent and well regarded could ever be raped!

  7. The "alleged" rapist Michael Spence can be seen in this youtube video 46 seconds in. You can also see his partner (the one who was passed out drunk on the floor on the floor during the first two rapes that first night). 46 seconds in: Spence is on the far left and Harewood is on the far right. WARNING women steer clear of these two especially the one on the left! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=733zYVBqeow


Please post updates or email them to behindthebluewall@gmail.com. No cop-hating or victim-hating comments allowed. Word verification had to be added due to spam attacks on this blog.