The long-awaited report of the special prosecutor team of former Appellate Court Judge Edward Egan and Robert Boyle as his first assistant, that investigated allegations that Chicago police tortured suspects
to obtain confessions, was released yesterday.
Formal conclusions of the report ( OCR text from PDF of document ) :
After our investigation, that has taken almost four years, we judge that there are cases which we believe would justify our seeking indictments for mistreatment of prisoners by Chicago police officers. These cases are based on the complaints of Andrew Wilson, Alfonzo Pines and Phillip Adkins. It is our judgment that the evidence in those cases would be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The police officer involved in the Wilson case is Jon Burge. In the Pines case the officers are Anthony Maslanka and Michael McDermott. In the Adkins case the officers are James Lotito and Ronald Boffo.
There are many other cases which lead us to believe or suspect that the claimants were abused, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt is absent.
While not all the officers named by all the claimants were guilty of prisoner abuse, it is our judgment that the commander of the Violent Crimes section of Detective Areas 2 and 3, Jon Burge, was guilty of such abuse. It necessarily follows that a number of those serving under his command recognized that, if their commander could abuse persons with impunity, so could they.
We have considered every possible legal theory that would permit us to avoid the effect of the statute of limitations on any prosecution; regrettably, we have concluded that the statute of limitations would bar any prosecution of any offenses our investigation has disclosed.
We have also concluded that the use of the immunity statute to compel testimony and possible contempt citations or perjury prosecutions, under the evidence available to us. would constitute an impermissible procedure identified as a “perjury trap.”
We have found no evidence that would support a charge beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction of justice (or ‘cover-up”) by any police personnel. There is insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the State’s Attorney’s Office, except one person.
The evidence supports the conclusion that Superintendent Brzeczek was guilty of a “dereliction of duty” and did not act in good faith in the investigation of the claim of Andrew Wilson. Despite the fact that Brzeczek believed that officers in the Violent Crimes unit of Detective Area 2 had tortured Andrew Wilson he kept that belief to himself for over twenty yeses. He also kept Burge in command at Area 2 and issued a letter of commendation to all of the detectives at Area 2.
The inter-office procedures followed by the State’s Attorney’s Office and the Chicago Police Department during at least the tenure of Jon Burge at Areas 2 arid 3 were inadequate in some respects. Since 1999, however, there have been several improvements instituted by the State’s Attorney’s Office and the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department.
These conclusions we express are summaries. This report will express in greater detail the bases of our conclusions.
TEXT OF REPORT HERE (PDF), broken down into nine sections
with a guide to finding different sections of it.
Link to ProQuest database for DePaul users :
Report: Cops used torture
Chicago Tribune. Jul 20, 2006. pg. 1