Letter From DA John Pavlock
on Mayor Tom Riel's Speech
I am writing to you to address several recent statements made by Bradford City Mayor Tom Riel regarding the handling of a McKean County criminal case that I believe are misleading, inaccurate and incomplete. However, before I do that I want to make it clear that I am making this statement because I believe that the public is entitled to have correct facts and information about their criminal justice system. I am not doing this because of any animosity toward Mayor Riel. I have worked with Mayor Riel and Chief Close regarding several important issues since the Mayor took office. I believe that, despite our clear disagreement regarding this one issue, overall we have had a productive working relationship with the Mayor’s Office. Although I strongly disagree with several of the Mayor’s recent assertions, because I believe the public needs solutions from its elected officials and not squabbles, I will continue to try and productively work with the Mayor and I hope he will continue to do the same with our office.
I recently read the article in the Bradford Era regarding statements made by Mayor Tom Riel about: 1) a “clumsy plot” against him by a “few rogue members of law enforcement;” and, 2) an assertion, implied or otherwise, that the case against Dennis Fuino was affected by this “clumsy plot.” Since it specifically deals with operations in my office, I first want to address the Mayor’s assertion regarding Mr. Fuino’s cases. I have thoroughly reviewed all aspects of our handling of Mr. Fuino’s cases and, again so that the public will have correct information, am releasing the following outline of facts.
Attached hereto is a Memo that I had Assistant District Attorney Raymond Learn prepare for me. I had Mr. Learn prepare this Memo because he is the prosecutor who prepared to handle this case at trial and, therefore, is very familiar with it and its procedural history. As this Memo reflects, there was both direct eyewitness testimony that Mr. Fuino was the individual who robbed the Crosby Mini-Mart and strong circumstantial evidence. In addition to the evidence outlined in Assistant District Attorney Learn’s Memo, I recently received another statement regarding this case. After the Bradford Era ran a story about the Mayor’s claims on December 31, 2008, Trooper Theodore Race of the Pennsylvania State Police, who was at the District Attorney’s Office regarding another matter, advised me that Mr. Fuino, while being transported by him to a court proceeding, admitted to being the individual who robbed the Lewis Run Mini-Mart. Mr. Fuino told Trooper Race that he was sorry he committed the robbery and he only did it because of drug dependency issues. Since this information came to light after Mr. Fuino already plead no contest, it was not previously provided to defense counsel. However, I have now asked Trooper Race to prepare a formal report regarding his conversation with Mr. Fuino and will provide a copy of that report to Mr. Fuino’s defense attorney as soon as I receive a copy of it.
Also, there is no summary in the attached Memo of specific conversations that I had with Attorney Dennis Luttenauer and Attorney Ronald Langella who represented the defendant. Very early in the case when Attorney Langella was appointed as defense counsel, I advised him that there was an issue involving Mr. Fuino that I had referred to the Attorney General’s Office. I explained that, since the matter that was referred did not involve Mr. Fuino as a defendant and I did not see any connection between it and the current case, I did not believe that our office had any conflict with prosecuting the Lewis Run Mini-Mart robbery case. I specifically indicated that I would not speak about any matters that the Attorney General’s Office was handling and the Attorney General’s Office should be contacted if there was any question about their investigation. When Attorney Lutttenauer took over this case I had a similar conversation with him. Up until the Mayor’s December 30, 2008 speech, no one has ever indicated that they believed our office had a conflict with this case or asked that I refer the robbery at the Lewis Run Mini-Mart over to the Attorney General’s Office. Also, based on the numerous times that they spoke with me and my office about this case, their testing of the strength of our case and the hard fought nature of their plea negotiations, I have to strongly disagree with the Mayor’s third party assertion that Mr. Fuino’s defense attorneys did not care and/or neglected his case.
I am also troubled over the Mayor’s apparent refusal to speak to me about his concerns regarding my office’s handling of the Fuino case. The first time that I was aware of Mayor Riel’s concerns was Tuesday, December 30, 2008 when the Mayor expressed concerns about the handling of the Fuino case in a public speech. He had never expressed concerns to me about how our office handled this case prior to making this speech. The Mayor certainly has had opportunity to express any concerns if he had them. I would have gladly either spoken to the Mayor if I was available or returned a call if he left a message for me. Also, I did have two brief conversations with the Mayor about Mr. Fuino prior to the Mayor making his speech and he could have told me what was on his mind then. However, he not only didn’t express concern but specifically indicated that he did not believe that our office had done anything inappropriately. The first conversation occurred shortly after the Mayor took Office. Since there had been a change in administration, the County Detective and I, at our request, met with the Mayor and Chief Close. During that meeting to our surprise the Mayor indicated that he was aware that allegations had been made about him and he was going to get to the bottom of it. This surprised me because, as I explain below, I had referred a claim of this nature to the Attorney General’s Office and I was concerned that, since the Mayor already knew that Mr. Fuino was involved, someone had leaked information to the Mayor. I advised the Mayor that, if there was an investigation or even an allegation regarding him, I would refer it to the Attorney General’s Office because I clearly would have a conflict with the case. The next time I heard anything from the Mayor was in a very short telephone call which, to the best of my recollection, occurred in August 2008. My office received a call from staff at the McKean County Jail and was advised that Mayor Riel had shown up at the Jail on a non visiting day, demanded to speak with Mr. Fuino and was “causing a scene.” Apparently, when he was told that he would have to come back on a regular scheduled visiting day, the Mayor became very angry and demanded to speak with Mr. Fuino immediately. He then told the staff at the Jail that he knew that this was “all a cover up.”
He indicated that he would get Chief Close to the Jail if that was what it took and then left. When I was advised about this incident, I first contacted Chief Close to see what this was about. When Chief Close indicated that he was not involved in an investigation regarding Fuino and did not know why his name was mentioned, I contacted the Mayor directly. I explained what I heard and specifically asked him if he had concerns about how my office was handling the Fuino case. He said that he had concerns about allegations made regarding him but that he was not claiming that we had done anything inappropriate. I made it clear that I did not care how much he talked to Fuino and had nothing to do with the Jail’s policy. He said he understood and that was the end of the conversation. On December 30, 2008 when I read a story on the internet about the Mayor’s allegations, I attempted to contact the Mayor and schedule a time to meet with him to discuss this matter. I wanted to set up this meeting so that I could provide the Mayor with the facts that I have and look into any concerns that he has. I left a message for the Mayor to call me either that evening or first thing the next day. Although I have received confirmation that the Mayor received my message on December 30, 2008, he has yet to return my call. I am still willing to meet with the Mayor and will set up such a meeting if he ever returns my call.
Regarding Mayor Riel’s second assertion, which again is an assertion that there was a “clumsy plot” by a “few rogue members of law enforcement,” I can confirm several things. First, I confirm that I referred two separate but related matters to the Attorney General’s Office regarding the Mayor. Initially and before he was sworn in as Mayor, I referred an allegation regarding drug use by the Mayor to the Attorney General’s Office. I referred the matter to the Attorney General’s Office within an hour of hearing about it. After that initial referral and after Mayor Riel took office, Mayor Riel approached me and told me that he was aware that an investigation was under taken involving him and the claims were “bogus” and “illegal.” I then immediately referred the Mayor’s claims of wrongdoing to the Attorney General’s Office. In accordance with the law, I am obligated to refer a case to the Attorney General’s Office when I believe that my office has a conflict of interest or a possible perceived conflict of interest regarding a case or investigation. Of course, since: A) the Mayor oversees the operations of the Bradford City Police Department; B) the Mayor and City Council set the budget of the Bradford City Police Department; and, C) my office works closely with the Bradford City Police Department, it was clear that I had a conflict with both of these matters. The referral of a case is in no way a reflection on the strength of the underlying allegations. If I believe our office has a conflict of interest I don’t even get into the underlying facts. Therefore, no one should draw any conclusions regarding the merit of these underlying allegations simply because I referred them to the Attorney General’s Office. I also note that it is my decision and my decision alone regarding referral of a McKean County case to the Attorney General’s Office. Therefore, Mayor Riel’s assertion that he initiated an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office into any matter is incorrect.
I can also confirm that, on December 29, 2008, I received a letter dated December 5, 2008 from the Attorney General’s Office. This letter states that the Attorney General’s Office’s investigation is complete and there was no finding of criminal activity by anyone. It is set forth in the letter that, although the single officer involved could have been more critical of the initial claim made by an informant regarding Mayor Riel, this officer did not act criminally. Since I referred these matters to the Attorney General’s Office, I cannot comment further regarding their investigation. Any additional questions regarding their investigation should be addressed to them. Also, I do not know when or if Mayor Riel was advised of the Attorney General’s office of their findings.
Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment further about the Attorney General’s investigation(s), I do have some general concerns about the effect that the Mayor’s comments may have on overall police morale. I would have relayed these concerns directly to the Mayor had he been willing to speak with me. However, as I discuss above, he is apparently declining to speak to me. Therefore, I feel compelled to express them here. I noticed that several of the blog responses to the Mayor’s comments on line are negative to the entire police force. I take great issue with these type of conclusions and statements. I know that there are many fine and extremely dedicated Officers at Bradford City. Although the Mayor has raised concerns, concerns that have now been found not to be criminal, I think that, if he was willing to talk to me, even the Mayor would indicate that he was only talking about one or two officers. In the midst of their numbers being reduced, I don’t want the Bradford City Police Department to have even more grief added to their plate. I want Chief Close, all Bradford City Police Officers and the public to know that I appreciate and thank them for their dedication and hard work. I also don’t understand why the Mayor ignores the fact that it was the State Police who investigated the Lewis Run Mini-Mart robbery and filed charges. I truly hope that he is not trying to say that all of these agencies, the Bradford City Police, the Pennsylvania State Police, the District Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office are all involved in some sort of broad plot to sweep things under the rug because, since he has provided no credible evidence to support these claims, that clearly would border on the bizarre and absurd.
Sincerely,
John H. Pavlock
John Pavlock's Letter( doc)
Pavlock Memo (doc)
I recently read the article in the Bradford Era regarding statements made by Mayor Tom Riel about: 1) a “clumsy plot” against him by a “few rogue members of law enforcement;” and, 2) an assertion, implied or otherwise, that the case against Dennis Fuino was affected by this “clumsy plot.” Since it specifically deals with operations in my office, I first want to address the Mayor’s assertion regarding Mr. Fuino’s cases. I have thoroughly reviewed all aspects of our handling of Mr. Fuino’s cases and, again so that the public will have correct information, am releasing the following outline of facts.
Attached hereto is a Memo that I had Assistant District Attorney Raymond Learn prepare for me. I had Mr. Learn prepare this Memo because he is the prosecutor who prepared to handle this case at trial and, therefore, is very familiar with it and its procedural history. As this Memo reflects, there was both direct eyewitness testimony that Mr. Fuino was the individual who robbed the Crosby Mini-Mart and strong circumstantial evidence. In addition to the evidence outlined in Assistant District Attorney Learn’s Memo, I recently received another statement regarding this case. After the Bradford Era ran a story about the Mayor’s claims on December 31, 2008, Trooper Theodore Race of the Pennsylvania State Police, who was at the District Attorney’s Office regarding another matter, advised me that Mr. Fuino, while being transported by him to a court proceeding, admitted to being the individual who robbed the Lewis Run Mini-Mart. Mr. Fuino told Trooper Race that he was sorry he committed the robbery and he only did it because of drug dependency issues. Since this information came to light after Mr. Fuino already plead no contest, it was not previously provided to defense counsel. However, I have now asked Trooper Race to prepare a formal report regarding his conversation with Mr. Fuino and will provide a copy of that report to Mr. Fuino’s defense attorney as soon as I receive a copy of it.
Also, there is no summary in the attached Memo of specific conversations that I had with Attorney Dennis Luttenauer and Attorney Ronald Langella who represented the defendant. Very early in the case when Attorney Langella was appointed as defense counsel, I advised him that there was an issue involving Mr. Fuino that I had referred to the Attorney General’s Office. I explained that, since the matter that was referred did not involve Mr. Fuino as a defendant and I did not see any connection between it and the current case, I did not believe that our office had any conflict with prosecuting the Lewis Run Mini-Mart robbery case. I specifically indicated that I would not speak about any matters that the Attorney General’s Office was handling and the Attorney General’s Office should be contacted if there was any question about their investigation. When Attorney Lutttenauer took over this case I had a similar conversation with him. Up until the Mayor’s December 30, 2008 speech, no one has ever indicated that they believed our office had a conflict with this case or asked that I refer the robbery at the Lewis Run Mini-Mart over to the Attorney General’s Office. Also, based on the numerous times that they spoke with me and my office about this case, their testing of the strength of our case and the hard fought nature of their plea negotiations, I have to strongly disagree with the Mayor’s third party assertion that Mr. Fuino’s defense attorneys did not care and/or neglected his case.
I am also troubled over the Mayor’s apparent refusal to speak to me about his concerns regarding my office’s handling of the Fuino case. The first time that I was aware of Mayor Riel’s concerns was Tuesday, December 30, 2008 when the Mayor expressed concerns about the handling of the Fuino case in a public speech. He had never expressed concerns to me about how our office handled this case prior to making this speech. The Mayor certainly has had opportunity to express any concerns if he had them. I would have gladly either spoken to the Mayor if I was available or returned a call if he left a message for me. Also, I did have two brief conversations with the Mayor about Mr. Fuino prior to the Mayor making his speech and he could have told me what was on his mind then. However, he not only didn’t express concern but specifically indicated that he did not believe that our office had done anything inappropriately. The first conversation occurred shortly after the Mayor took Office. Since there had been a change in administration, the County Detective and I, at our request, met with the Mayor and Chief Close. During that meeting to our surprise the Mayor indicated that he was aware that allegations had been made about him and he was going to get to the bottom of it. This surprised me because, as I explain below, I had referred a claim of this nature to the Attorney General’s Office and I was concerned that, since the Mayor already knew that Mr. Fuino was involved, someone had leaked information to the Mayor. I advised the Mayor that, if there was an investigation or even an allegation regarding him, I would refer it to the Attorney General’s Office because I clearly would have a conflict with the case. The next time I heard anything from the Mayor was in a very short telephone call which, to the best of my recollection, occurred in August 2008. My office received a call from staff at the McKean County Jail and was advised that Mayor Riel had shown up at the Jail on a non visiting day, demanded to speak with Mr. Fuino and was “causing a scene.” Apparently, when he was told that he would have to come back on a regular scheduled visiting day, the Mayor became very angry and demanded to speak with Mr. Fuino immediately. He then told the staff at the Jail that he knew that this was “all a cover up.”
He indicated that he would get Chief Close to the Jail if that was what it took and then left. When I was advised about this incident, I first contacted Chief Close to see what this was about. When Chief Close indicated that he was not involved in an investigation regarding Fuino and did not know why his name was mentioned, I contacted the Mayor directly. I explained what I heard and specifically asked him if he had concerns about how my office was handling the Fuino case. He said that he had concerns about allegations made regarding him but that he was not claiming that we had done anything inappropriate. I made it clear that I did not care how much he talked to Fuino and had nothing to do with the Jail’s policy. He said he understood and that was the end of the conversation. On December 30, 2008 when I read a story on the internet about the Mayor’s allegations, I attempted to contact the Mayor and schedule a time to meet with him to discuss this matter. I wanted to set up this meeting so that I could provide the Mayor with the facts that I have and look into any concerns that he has. I left a message for the Mayor to call me either that evening or first thing the next day. Although I have received confirmation that the Mayor received my message on December 30, 2008, he has yet to return my call. I am still willing to meet with the Mayor and will set up such a meeting if he ever returns my call.
Regarding Mayor Riel’s second assertion, which again is an assertion that there was a “clumsy plot” by a “few rogue members of law enforcement,” I can confirm several things. First, I confirm that I referred two separate but related matters to the Attorney General’s Office regarding the Mayor. Initially and before he was sworn in as Mayor, I referred an allegation regarding drug use by the Mayor to the Attorney General’s Office. I referred the matter to the Attorney General’s Office within an hour of hearing about it. After that initial referral and after Mayor Riel took office, Mayor Riel approached me and told me that he was aware that an investigation was under taken involving him and the claims were “bogus” and “illegal.” I then immediately referred the Mayor’s claims of wrongdoing to the Attorney General’s Office. In accordance with the law, I am obligated to refer a case to the Attorney General’s Office when I believe that my office has a conflict of interest or a possible perceived conflict of interest regarding a case or investigation. Of course, since: A) the Mayor oversees the operations of the Bradford City Police Department; B) the Mayor and City Council set the budget of the Bradford City Police Department; and, C) my office works closely with the Bradford City Police Department, it was clear that I had a conflict with both of these matters. The referral of a case is in no way a reflection on the strength of the underlying allegations. If I believe our office has a conflict of interest I don’t even get into the underlying facts. Therefore, no one should draw any conclusions regarding the merit of these underlying allegations simply because I referred them to the Attorney General’s Office. I also note that it is my decision and my decision alone regarding referral of a McKean County case to the Attorney General’s Office. Therefore, Mayor Riel’s assertion that he initiated an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office into any matter is incorrect.
I can also confirm that, on December 29, 2008, I received a letter dated December 5, 2008 from the Attorney General’s Office. This letter states that the Attorney General’s Office’s investigation is complete and there was no finding of criminal activity by anyone. It is set forth in the letter that, although the single officer involved could have been more critical of the initial claim made by an informant regarding Mayor Riel, this officer did not act criminally. Since I referred these matters to the Attorney General’s Office, I cannot comment further regarding their investigation. Any additional questions regarding their investigation should be addressed to them. Also, I do not know when or if Mayor Riel was advised of the Attorney General’s office of their findings.
Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment further about the Attorney General’s investigation(s), I do have some general concerns about the effect that the Mayor’s comments may have on overall police morale. I would have relayed these concerns directly to the Mayor had he been willing to speak with me. However, as I discuss above, he is apparently declining to speak to me. Therefore, I feel compelled to express them here. I noticed that several of the blog responses to the Mayor’s comments on line are negative to the entire police force. I take great issue with these type of conclusions and statements. I know that there are many fine and extremely dedicated Officers at Bradford City. Although the Mayor has raised concerns, concerns that have now been found not to be criminal, I think that, if he was willing to talk to me, even the Mayor would indicate that he was only talking about one or two officers. In the midst of their numbers being reduced, I don’t want the Bradford City Police Department to have even more grief added to their plate. I want Chief Close, all Bradford City Police Officers and the public to know that I appreciate and thank them for their dedication and hard work. I also don’t understand why the Mayor ignores the fact that it was the State Police who investigated the Lewis Run Mini-Mart robbery and filed charges. I truly hope that he is not trying to say that all of these agencies, the Bradford City Police, the Pennsylvania State Police, the District Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office are all involved in some sort of broad plot to sweep things under the rug because, since he has provided no credible evidence to support these claims, that clearly would border on the bizarre and absurd.
Sincerely,
John H. Pavlock
John Pavlock's Letter( doc)
Pavlock Memo (doc)
.jpg)
Comments