Richmond Victim Text Messaging 3 RPD ...

Richmond Victim Text Messaging 3 RPD Officers

Posted in the Richmond Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Justice Polling

Shepherdsville, KY

#1 Feb 21, 2010
Any thoughts about what this is all about? It does sound strange that a victim who has been supposedly threatened by the cops would send friendly and complimentary text messages to their phone while a No Contact Order is in place. Wonder if Madison County Citizens have only heard one side of the story so far. Just a guess.
Right

Richmond, KY

#2 Feb 22, 2010
In my opinion we have just heard one side. The side that tells about what happened by the three pieces of scum and now another set of lies and untruths from them.

Heres the answer. We know you are guilty! You sub human pieces of white trash!

Thats how I see it.
Technology

Richmond, KY

#3 Feb 22, 2010
Google caller id spoofing and then tell me how much weight this carries. Anyone can make any number they want appear to be the originating number. Its so simple I'll bet even the idiots at RPD can figure it out.

Want to receive text messages from RPD? It's easy. Google Caller ID Spoofing and see how simple it is.
Her attorney

Richmond, KY

#4 Feb 25, 2010
Claims that she has been coerced by the Sheriff's Dept. Unless she is misrepresenting her client, I would think that this carries more weight than any number of text messages:

"From the moment of the sheriff's entry into this private consensual matter, he has threatened and cajoled my client in an attempt, we believe, to serve his private interests. The sheriff and his agents have coerced my client in an attempt to force her and to influence her to make a false statement, have called my client a whore, all the while a deputy sheriff made an inappropriate proposition of my client while in his custody and control."

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/02/24/1155593/no...
Full Article 02-25-10

Richmond, KY

#5 Feb 25, 2010
Thursday, Feb. 25, 2010 Comments (0)| Recommend (10)
'No contact' order sought in Richmond police case
By Jennifer Hewlett - [email protected]
Attorneys for three Richmond police officers accused of trying to intimidate or tamper with a female witness have asked Madison County Circuit Court to expand a "no contact order" to include representatives of the county commonwealth's attorney's office and sheriff's office.
The attorneys for Sgt. James Rogers and officers Garry Murphy and Brian Hensley indicate in a motion filed this week that the female witness has been intimidated by the commonwealth's attorney's office and sheriff's office. The motion indicates that the woman had plans to file a civil rights lawsuit against employees of the two offices because of their words and actions in the case involving the three officers.
The officers were alleged to have had sexual contact with the woman in the fall of 2009, but no charges of a sexual nature were filed against them.
Three Richmond officers plead not guilty to intimidating witness
3 Richmond police officers indicted
A Madison County grand jury indicted the officers on other types of charges in connection with the case. Rogers was indicted on a count of intimidating a witness or tampering with a witness. Murphy and Hensley were each indicted on a count of complicity to commit the intimidation of or tampering with a witness. Murphy was also indicted on a charge of fourth-degree assault for allegedly hitting or smacking the woman.
The woman, referred to as the "alleged victim," went to Kentucky State Police to report wrongdoing by the commonwealth's attorney's and sheriff's offices the day before the commonwealth's attorney's office obtained the indictment against the three officers, according to the motion.
According to the motion, Madison County Sheriff Nelson O'Donnell told The Richmond Register newspaper that the woman liked to be dominated during sexual activity. According to the motion, the sheriff asked the woman if Richmond Police Chief Larry Brock had ever made any kind of "sexual innuendos" to her and told her he did not like Brock. Also according to the motion, O'Donnell tried to get the woman to give him a copy of a draft of her potential lawsuit against him and others, saying it "would be the best Christmas present you could ever give me."
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Jennifer Smith, according to the motion, told the woman that her lawsuit was bogus and asked the woman if it was better for her to be honest instead of trying to cover for the officers, because she could lose her children over the matter.
The motion relies heavily on a recording and transcript of an interview the woman had with a state police detective in the presence of her attorney, and letters from that attorney — Mary Sharp — to the sheriff and the assistant Commonwealth's attorney.
In one letter to Jennifer Smith, Sharp says: "From the moment of the sheriff's entry into this private consensual matter, he has threatened and cajoled my client in an attempt, we believe, to serve his private interests. The sheriff and his agents have coerced my client in an attempt to force her and to influence her to make a false statement, have called my client a whore, all the while a deputy sheriff made an inappropriate proposition of my client while in his custody and control."
A hearing on the motion has been set for March 4.
bah

Richmond, KY

#6 Feb 25, 2010
If her cell phone records show she sent the message,(and I'm sure the defense will subpoena them to that end, then there will be no question to The Court), that she sent the message. If it was spoofed via the numerous means by which it can be done, it can and will be determined easily enough.

In short: The fact that it Can Be done doesn't necessarily mean that it Was done. The evidence will tell the story.

And postulating that she was coerced into sending that message will be impossible to prove without a specific recording or viable, incriminating testimony - either the person who allegedly coerced the woman admits to it, or the alleged coercion was recorded or otherwise provable.
Part 1

Richmond, KY

#7 Feb 26, 2010
Officers’ attorneys also allege intimidation

By Brian Smith
Register News Writer
A motion filed Monday by attorneys for three Richmond police officers accused of witness intimidation accuses prosecutors and Madison County Sheriff Nelson O’Donnell of the same offense, and seeks to have a no contact order enforced against them.

The motion alleges that Commonwealth’s Attorney David Smith, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Jennifer Hall Smith, O’Donnell and his deputies intimidated the woman, April McQueen, who is at the center of the case against Richmond Police Department officers Sgt. James Rogers and patrolmen Garry Murphy and Brian Hensley.

McQueen and an attorney, identified in the motion as Mary Sharp, are described in the motion as having contacted Kentucky State Police Post 7 in Richmond on Jan. 27, prior to indictments being returned against the officers, to report “wrongdoing by the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney, Sheriff O’Donnell, the Madison County Sheriff’s Office and others.”

A complete transcript of an interview conducted with McQueen and Sharp by a state police detective has been filed under seal with the court, along with partially unredacted transcripts and audio recordings of the interview.

In portions of the interview included in the 15-page motion, McQueen and Sharp allege that Jennifer Smith repeatedly stopped the tape recording of a November interview about the case, referred to Sharp as “a defense attorney for cops” who was “just trying to cover the cops’ ass and not yours” and advised McQueen not to talk to Sharp.
Part 2

Richmond, KY

#8 Feb 26, 2010
Sharp, a Louisville attorney, is referred to on her firm’s Web site as having a law practice “dedicated exclusively to representing law enforcement officers in any legal issue they may encounter during their employment.”

Jennifer Smith also is quoted by McQueen in the interview as saying,“April, don’t you think it’s better if you’re honest instead of trying to cover for these cops?”

Smith issued a brief statement to the Register on Thursday denying the allegations.

“We do not intimidate witnesses and we deny the allegations set forth in their pleading,” Smith said. She declined further comment, citing legal limitations on her ability to comment on the case, but said a written response to the motion likely would be filed.

The motion also accuses O’Donnell and his officers of misconduct in the case. A footnote on Page 2 of the motion refers specifically to statements attributed to O’Donnell about McQueen’s alleged sexual preferences in Register articles, and quotes McQueen’s interview with Kentucky State Police.

“You know, I like cops in general, and this is what I’ve done for years,” the footnote quotes McQueen.“You know, I mean, nobody wants to sit there and tell their own mom that. That’s humiliating. And then he also put in the paper that I like to be dominated during sexual intercourse. That is private. I mean, you know, that is my personal business. I just — the whole thing is humiliating to me.”

After the initial story about the incident appeared in the Oct. 30, 2009, edition of the Richmond Register, McQueen contacted multiple reporters at the Register and asked to be interviewed about the incident.

McQueen canceled two scheduled interviews with Register reporters in early November and later said her attorney would be releasing a statement on her behalf. No statement has been issued to the Register.

When reached by phone Thursday, McQueen said she was willing to comment on the case and scheduled an interview for a later date.

O’Donnell also is accused in the motion of asking McQueen for a copy of a lawsuit Sharp was preparing to file against the Madison County Sheriff’s Office alleging civil rights violations.

In the state police interview, McQueen quotes O’Donnell as asking for a copy of the suit and saying,“... that would really help me out because this could cause me a lot of trouble.”

No such lawsuit has been filed in Madison Circuit Court as of Thursday afternoon.
Part 3

Richmond, KY

#9 Feb 26, 2010
The motion also accuses O’Donnell of contacting McQueen’s mother and “insinuating that the three defendants were going to file a lawsuit against the alleged victim (McQueen) if she did not testify against them.”

A footnote on Page 7 quotes McQueen as saying that her mother had attempted to influence her testimony.

A second footnote on that page also quotes a lengthy passage from McQueen in which she alleges that O’Donnell said that McQueen’s cooperation in the case was necessary to “get rid of some bad apples on the Richmond Police Department” and identifies Chief Larry Brock and officer Kelly Rouse by name.

“He’s like, we need to get rid of Kelly Rouse and to get rid of Chief Brock,” McQueen quotes O’Donnell as saying.

Brock nor Rouse have been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. Rouse, however, testified before the grand jury in the case against the three officers.

The motion explicitly accuses both O’Donnell and the commonwealth’s attorney’s office of being guilty of witness intimidation.

“It is perhaps unprecedented to have the ‘alleged victim’ of allegations of tampering and intimidation come forward to the Kentucky State Police to expose so plainly the wrongdoing of those who hold the public trust to prevent such actions by others, and make unequivocal statements that they would lead to the conclusion that those persons of the public trust are in fact guilty of the crimes they allege,” the motion states.

The motion then quotes several letters exchanged between Sharp, O’Donnell and Jennifer Smith in which Sharp alleges that a sheriff’s deputy “made an inappropriate proposition of my client while in his custody and control,” accuses O’Donnell of contacting McQueen “with thinly veiled threats” and calling Sharp a “scumbag lawyer.”

When contacted for comment Thursday, O’Donnell said he was limited in what he could say about the case.

“Due to pending litigation in circuit court in this criminal case, I’m not going to say anything that could jeopardize the outcome of the case,” O’Donnell said.

The motion concludes by asking Madison Circuit Judge William G. Clouse to hold an evidentiary hearing on the accusations alleged in the state police interview and to expand the no contact order between the defendants and McQueen to include O’Donnell, his officers and the commonwealth’s attorney’s office.

A reference also is made in the motion to a special prosecutor being appointed “to properly oversee this matter on behalf of the Commonwealth.”

The motion will be considered at a pretrial conference scheduled for Thursday at 1:30 p.m.
Richmond Register

Richmond, KY

#10 Feb 26, 2010
Pres

Richmond, KY

#11 Feb 26, 2010
Hey! Whats this about Nelson wanting to take Brock out? Looks like ole Nelsons true colors are coming out, My money is on Brock, Nelson could'nt pack Brocks boots, Time for Nelson to go.
Richmond Register

Richmond, KY

#12 Feb 26, 2010
Published: February 26, 2010 04:09 pm

UPDATE: Woman makes contact again in RPD witness case

By Brian Smith
Register News Writer
A filing dated Wednesday indicates that the woman at the center of a witness tampering case against three Richmond police officers made another attempt to contact one of the men.

The “notice of filing” was filed Wednesday afternoon with the Madison Circuit Clerk’s office indicating that Richmond Police Department patrolman Brian Hensley received a message and a “friend request” on the social networking site Facebook from April McQueen, the alleged victim in the case.

Hensley and patrolman Garry Murphy are charged with complicity to witness tampering or intimidating a participant in a legal process for allegedly assisting Sgt. James Rogers in making threats toward McQueen in connection with allegations she made to Madison County Sheriff’s Office investigators before recanting.

Madison Circuit Judge William G. Clouse enforced a no contact order between the officers and McQueen at arraignment hearings earlier this month.

The text of the message is included in a copy of an e-mail Hensley received and forwarded to attorney Scott Crosbie, one of the two lawyers representing the officers.

The message reads as follows:“Hey please don’t hate me.....U probably do but I am so sorry for what it is worth about this thing....I promise I did not start this stuff!!!! Mary is trying to help me figure it all out. I wish u the best in life.”

Court documents included in the case file for the officers indicate McQueen has retained Louisville attorney Mary Sharp to represent her.

The “friend request” message appears to be an automatically generated form message from the site, according to a copy of the message filed with the court.

Chief Larry Brock said Friday that the Richmond Police Department does not yet have a policy regarding the use of social networking sites like Facebook by sworn officers, but that a model policy being developed by the Kentucky League of Cities may be implemented “in some form” in the future.
thinking

Richmond, KY

#13 Feb 26, 2010
“friend request are not automatically generated the person that has the account has to add a person to there friends and the site does not automatically send messages the account holder has to type out a messages then hit the send butten i know this to be a fact i have been on there and i have a friend that uses that site all the time and things like that just dont happen they can call the site and the people there will tell them the same thing it just does not happen
lol

Nicholasville, KY

#14 Feb 27, 2010
I would have to agree with "thinking" on this one. The "victim" would of had to write out the message herself and hit the send button and as for the friend request, she would of had to search for the officer's profile and hit the "add as friend" button. However, there are SOME accounts out of how many millions on facebook that DO have automatically generated friend requests, but never an automatically generated message. I also use facebook and have gotten a couple of those "automatically generated" friend requests. They are really annoying!
PumpUpTheJam

Richmond, KY

#16 Feb 27, 2010
I bet the next thing you all are gonna think is that the police officers broke into her house...sent a text from her cell phone...AND signed into facespace page and sent a message on there.

Maybe we have only heard one side of the story. Maybe it was her that sent the text and the message on mybook.

Hopefully it will all come out in court. If they are guilty they should go to jail....if she has been lying the whole time, she should go to jail.
thinking

Richmond, KY

#17 Feb 28, 2010
this came out of the news paper she said she did send them messages so who is telling the truth,, the 3 cops are telling the truth about everthing,, All of the messages were sent on Feb. 14.

McQueen admitted sending the text messages to Rogers during a brief telephone conversation with the Register on Thursday.
lol

Nicholasville, KY

#18 Feb 28, 2010
This whole thing has turned into a circus in my opinion... I don't know who to be upset with; the three officers for their private lives or her for letting things go so far before speaking up and allowing our tax dollars to go to waste for what she says was nothing.... Kind of a tough call on that one, but I think I'm leaning more towards being upset with her. I work hard for my damn money, I don't want her to be allowed to waste it!
Another Point

Richmond, KY

#19 Feb 28, 2010
lol wrote:
This whole thing has turned into a circus in my opinion... I don't know who to be upset with; the three officers for their private lives or her for letting things go so far before speaking up and allowing our tax dollars to go to waste for what she says was nothing.... Kind of a tough call on that one, but I think I'm leaning more towards being upset with her. I work hard for my damn money, I don't want her to be allowed to waste it!
Private lives are just that, private. Regardless of what people feel are moral or immoral, that is simply a matter of opinion. It's funny that at one point there had to be all least a half-dozen threads on here bashing the police, their morals, their jobs, their character, etc.

Now that it is looking like the shoe is on the other foot, the bashers seem to have disappeared.

I guess the fuss of this incident was more based on bias and peoples views of law enforcement in general then the facts of the case.
Friend of Flanagan

Carbondale, IL

#21 Dec 4, 2010
I would not put anything past the crooked police force of Richmond KY. They routinely lie to cover up their misdeeds and the crimes of their siblings.
Brocks way or the

Richmond, KY

#22 Dec 4, 2010
Not know more you guys have to understand that the old commission would not let Brock let all the bad ones go. But this is why you all should have hope there is a new commission and will let Brock take them all out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
next to walgreens. 26 min blahblahblah 2
I Don't Know What The Future Holds, but 35 min Cornell Woolrich ... 101
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr Pikeville Parent 163,551
Newer Dixie Park Trailer Info 4 hr better yet 19
Song Title Game (Aug '09) 7 hr Jennifer Renee 41,214
wheres renee deborde (Jan '09) 10 hr Friend nomore 14
Austin @ the blue moon 12 hr Almost 7

Richmond Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages