The latest from the Globe is pretty damning.
Testimony from witnesses and police officials directly contradicts recent statements by Republican congressional candidate Jeffrey D. Perry about his actions as a Wareham police sergeant in the early 1990s, when a subordinate officer illegally strip-searched two teenage girls, according to transcripts and police reports obtained by the Globe.
As you may recall, there are two strip-searches in which Perry had some involvement as the then-supervisor of the offender, former Officer Scott Flanagan. For one, from 1991, Perry was at the scene, but recently claims not to have seen the illegal strip-search occur. But … uh oh.
Flanagan strip-searched a 14-year-old girl, and stuck his hand down her underwear, near a cranberry bog in 1991.
Perry said in last month’s interview that he was at the scene but did not observe anything inappropriate. “It did not occur in my presence,” he said.
But in sworn testimony in a deposition for civil suits filed by the two girls’ families, Perry said he was in a position to have seen and heard everything and that it did not happen, according to a law enforcement specialist, Lou Reiter, who reviewed Perry’s deposition, wrote a report, and testified for one of the plaintiffs.
Flanagan later confessed that he had strip-searched both girls, pleading guilty to criminal charges. The contradictory statements – Perry saying nothing happened, and Flanagan later admitting it did – led Reiter to conclude that Perry was “not being truthful.”
Reiter, former deputy police chief in Los Angeles, was hired by the victims, who won a jury verdict against the town in one case and settled the other before trial.
Awkward. For the other search, from 1992, Perry was not on the scene, but accompanied the offending officer to the victim’s house afterward. His memory seems to have failed him as to just how “good” his “police work” was.
In one case, the officer, Scott Flanagan, made a 16-year-old girl drop her pants as he shone a flashlight on her naked body. Perry asserted in an interview last month that he notified his supervisor and had Flanagan write a report as soon as he found out about the incident, which, according to police reports, was an hour after it happened. Perry, a four-term state representative, called his actions “good police work.”
But during a Wareham disciplinary hearing for Flanagan shortly after the 1992 search, Perry’s supervisor testified that he did not hear about the incident until the next day, when a police officer from neighboring Bourne called him.
In addition, the Wareham supervisor, Captain Paul Joseph Cardalino, said Perry made an unauthorized visit to the girl’s house, according to a hearing transcript. And later, when the girl’s family went to the police station to report the incident, Perry met with them but neglected to have them fill out a complaint, Cardalino testified.
I stand by my previous comments about Perry’s being unsuitable for Congress in light of his “mindless, uncritical, authoritarian way of thinking” as shown by his miserable conduct in these incidents. And now it looks like either his memory is worryingly bad, or he’s trying to sanitize his story.
Kudos to the Globe, and particularly to the Cape Cod Times (here are two recent articles reporting some of what’s in the Globe story before the Globe had it – HT Cape Cod Democrat), for sticking with this story. Perry has a lot to answer for, and he ought to start doing it.
which is too bad. An apparent case of some particularly loathsome testilying by Perry.
Lying to suspects is a primary tool of police investigation. They do it every day: “If you’ll just admit your guilt, it will all be over soon.” “We have all the evidence we need to send you to prison for hundreds of years, so you might as well confess.” “Your buddy already told us you did it.” Police lie when it suits their aims, and we expect them to lie to suspects. Why should we pretend they won’t lie to us, if they think it will keep them out of trouble? It happens all the time.
<
p>Of course, politicians lie, too – but there are no parts of their job where we accept their lying as being OK, the way we do with cops. When we find that a cop has lied to us about a criminal matter, our response should have sufficient force to discourage further such offenses. It often does not. When we find that a politician has lied to us about a criminal matter, our response often does have that force (unless it’s a Republican president, of course).
<
p>Perry can’t win at this point. He escaped the consequences of his lying when he was a cop – because was a cop. Now, he’s a politician, and his lying about what went on back then doesn’t get the same leniency.
<
p>At least, I hope it doesn’t.
As far as I’m aware, there’s zero evidence of Perry being a “sexual predator.” What he appears to have done, rather, is instinctively and uncritically believe a fellow officer over victims of an illegal strip search, however implausible the officer’s story may have been, and then distorted the truth after the fact to minimize his role. That’s plenty to disqualify him from a congressional seat, IMHO. We don’t need to sling around unwarranted accusations like “sexual predator.”
not the Father Shanley, of this situation.
What you write in your first paragraph accords with my imagination. How do I know that’s not my prejudice though?
…is that in addition to being a horrible police supervisor he’s also a horrible liar. He says he could see and hear everything and was directly contradicted. It would be one thing to take a “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” attitude, but he can’t even stick to his own story!
The editorial supporting/ sucking up to him called it a “temporary lack of judgment”! But, even if the face of unassailable facts, Perry still thinks it was “good police work”. Someone this delusional should not be in any position of public trust.
<
p>I’ll give Jeff credit for one thing, though “that’s not my memory” is gold! I’m going to use that from now on: “Honey, I know you think you told me you didn’t want me to go golfing today, but that’s not my memory. I always try me best to remember what you say to me.”
…the CC Democrat cited Brennan’s two stories, but neglected to link to the editorial mentioned by ‘grassroots’ – LINK HERE.
<
p>Here’s their overall conclusion –
<
p>
<
p>Just to flesh out the linking here.
<
p>The irony is that the chronic overstatement (‘predator’) used by the Democrats is what makes the accusation less credible.
<
p>And as I’ve said before, many people knew of this story ten years ago, it was reported then when Perry defeated former Rep. Ruth Provost, and voters decided it was not compelling, despite the incident being ten years ‘fresher’ in people’s minds. Personally, I was afraid this publicity would be around Labor Day, not Flag day, and Perry wouldn’t have time to respond. As it is, people can assess and decide if the incident he was privy to, but not party to, is enough to cause them to vote for another.
why is Petty trying to sanitize the story. I didn’t hear of it before and my first thought is saw a non-story. But as more comes out and Perry’s statements are making this a story. I think he’s making it worse by not confronting it. One thing I know of certain, more will be coming out. CC Times is digging and now that the Globe and other papers are asking questions they can no longer ignore CC Time’s requests.
I agree that overstating the already devastating truth about Mr. Perry is inappropriate and damages the credibility of those who seek to set a higher standard, and I fervently hope that such overstatement doesn’t continue.
<
p>In my view, if the voters of the 10th District want to be represented by a man who enables adolescent sex abuse by police, who lies about his role in such crimes, and who participates with the abuser in attempting to intimidate the family of the underage victims, then those voters should get exactly what they desire.
<
p>Ever the optimist, I want to believe that the impact of the truth about Mr. Perry’s role in this will be undiminished by being widely publicized around Flag Day. In fact, I hope that the larger media window provides more opportunity for the voters to learn more precisely how unsuited this man is to hold national elected office.
<
p>Apparently you have no problem sending a man to Washington who, while in the uniform and carrying the weapon of a policeman, intimidated the family of a 16 year old girl and simultaneously made coarse and crude observations about her to her father (“Oh, by the way …”). Apparently you have no problem sending a man to Washington who lied to protect the same perpetrator who similarly abused an even younger 14 year old.
<
p>Apparently you are willing to write off this aberrant and misogynistic behavior as “temporary lack of judgment.”
<
p>I am not.
if he’s going to help secure a stable economic future for my children.
Well, let’s hope you don’t have daughters who run into Perry while he’s in the company of a child molester, as Perry’s not likely to intervene on your daughter’s behalf should the child molester decide to act on his urges.
<
p>Securing “a stable economic future for [your] children” apparently doesn’t include respecting the privacy and dignity of 16-year-old girls. Thanks, but I’ll pass on your vision of the future.
Perry’s a Republican, so he’s not likely to help you there.
A lot of very bad people accrued a lot of power because everyday citizens used reasoning like that.
<
p>Many of them secured a stable economy compared to what had been. And they also did many, many, many very bad things.
<
p>I thought you were a man of history, Joe.
I’ll remind you that Charles Manson’s followers hacked to death a pregnant woman who was roughly 38 weeks into her 40 week pregnancy.
<
p>Family values guy, that Charles Manson. Interesting that you would trust this man with the future of your children.
<
p>You really should think a bit more before you post. Sometimes, JoeTS, the responsible, ethical, and moral thing to be is NOT a knee-jerk Republican.
I’m usually the one making utilitarian arguments.
<
p>Did voters have all the information they needed to make informed decisions?
<
p>Were all the principal characters, specifically Perry, forthcoming about their roles?
<
p>Was there adequate journalistic coverage?
<
p>Might the trauma have been too fresh for the family of the victim to mount an adequate or effective protest of Perry’s candidacy?
<
p>Even you, Peter, must acknowledge that what counts NOW is what Perry actually did or did not do at the time of the incident. The passage of ten years does not, in any way, absolve Perry of his moral and ethical responsibilities in this matter. Indeed, I would argue that his bankrupt behavior now simply underscores his lack of fitness for the office he seeks. Clearly, he has not gained much respect for the dignity of 16-year-old girls or gained much wisdom about ethical law enforcement in the intervening years. That should disqualify him right there.
Not only does Mr. Perry feel he did nothing wrong, but is in fact proud of his behavior.
<
p>At the time, he also signed the petition protesting Flanagan’s firing.
And I find the lying by Perry is this story more concerning than the initial lack of judgement.
<
p>What bothered me about Edwards was not the womanizing but the lying, the stealing from the campaign fund, the dishonesty and willingness to try and fool people who were trusting him to lead.
<
p>If Edwards had said, “Yeah, I had an affair, get over it.” and not tried to cover it up, made that Young fellow lie, had the elderly supporter buy the house (etc.)… well…it would not have bothered me much at all.
<
p>I find dishonesty so distasteful that it is impossible to support someone once I see them as a liar. Not a matter of parties, even, that.
<
p>As to the impact of social workers who lie and say they make visits that they do not make – that is a life threatening lie, at least potentiallysee
<
p>Unfortunately, I see this sort of thing – police who lie about what someone did when it turns out they were not there, social workers who say they visited a client when they never went at all, occasionally saying they visited on a date and time when I was there…and they sure weren’t.
I abosolutely agree that what counts is what did or did not happen. But calling names and stating opinion as fact does not mean anything did or did not happen. Calling his behavior ‘bankrupt’ because he is presenting his side of the story is questionable – should he not respond instead?
<
p>Two out of three news items were posted, so I linked to the third (which is how this discussion started). Calling Perry a molester as if convicted when he was never even charged (which is part of the problem, as how do you prove a negative?). Much is made of a 12 hour gap in filing the police report (But IIRC, it was New Year’s Eve, usually a busy night for police). And so on.
<
p>I had never met Perry until 2000. I only saw him as a representative. He works hard, takes care of his constituents, and is an intelligent person. Every time he has run for reelection, he has won by a greater and greater percentage, indicating that his district has been happy with his performance and work ethic. He is entirely capable of doing a good job as a Congressman.
<
p>Voters will need to decide if these stories are credible and should bar him from office.
<
p>Sadly, the facts strongly suggest that he is not “presenting his side of the story.” Unless his “side” is located in the neighborhood of make-believe.
<
p>
<
p>Only one person here has said anything about Perry being a molester, and that person has been admonished by management not to do so.
<
p>
<
p>Yes … but he had time to make a weird visit to the girl’s parents. More to the point, what he’s been saying lately about the sequence of events is not consistent with the facts.
How should the incident been handled?
<
p>There should have been NO searching, grabbing or stripping. It should have been:
<
p>Officer: You don’t have any drugs, do you?
<
p>Girl: No, Officer
<
p>Officer: OK, have a nice day
<
p>That would actually be better for public order.
<
p>These freaks want to be able to probe ANYBODY who pisses them off, and that’s what this is about.
<
p>Go ahead, babies, elect Perry because he goes after the immigrants.
<
p>Get people like him running Congress, babies. If you piss the wrong people off, they will put you in JAIL even though you did nothing wrong.
<
p>All kidding aside, let’s remember that 99.75% ++++++ of us have “holes”.
<
p>Holes that these guys want to probe looking for contraband.
I could do without the continuous predictions of orifice probing. It didn’t happen, and there’s no indication – other than your repeated claims – that it will happen. Please try to tether your comments at least loosely to reality.
<
p>Thank you
I don’t think he’s any sort of molester or child molester or any of that nonsense, but it is the fact that he didn’t recognize this as a sexual assault, and stood with the officer.
<
p>Think of it… a strip search of a young girl, and he tried to make it go away. Make it go away and he can do it to another unsuspecting girl who was unlucky enough to come across his path.
<
p>Perry knew what happened. Didn’t immediately report it to superiors. Went to the house to try and help cover it up, and see to it that it didn’t get reported. Didn’t have the father file a complaint when he came to the police station the next day.
<
p>It speaks to the man that he is at his core. Joe Malone isn’t great, but he’s better than this guy. I hope the GOP voters see that.
<
p>It makes my skin crawl to think of it…