The Virginian-Pilot
©
Beware jailhouse interviews.
Remember Roger Keith Coleman? For more than a decade, this charming inmate seduced anyone who would listen with his crocodile tears, proclamations of innocence and righteous indignation over the miscarriage of justice that landed him on Death Row.
By the time he was executed in 1992, Coleman had cultivated a global fan club.
But 14 years later, after DNA test s on evidence from the murder scene, gullible journalists and death-penalty do-gooders were shocked to learn that not only was Coleman a homicidal maniac, he was also a liar.
Some of us weren't surprised.
Which bring us to Renaldo Turnbull Jr.
Turnbull is no Roger Coleman. He's just a local convict with a larcenous bent.
Yet he gave an astonishing jailhouse interview that, if true, is a n indictment of the Chesapeake Police Department.
Should we believe him?
In a front-page story in The Pilot last week, Turnbull not only claimed to be one of the confidential informants Chesapeake police relied upon to get a search warrant for the address of suspected drug dealer Ryan Frederick earlier this year, but he said the cops knew in advance that he and another thief were going to burglarize Frederick's property.
Ryan Frederick - as everyone in Hampton Roads knows by now - is charged with capital murder for the death of Detective Jarrod Shivers, who was shot while trying to execute a search warrant at Frederick's house Jan. 17.
Because Turnbull has gone public, Chesapeake police Chief Kelvin Wright says he's now free to ignore departmental policy that would preclude him from talking about informants.
Turnbull is lying, the chief told me Wednesday.
The admitted burglar is not one of the informants police used in the Frederick case, Wright said, and his officers weren't even aware of Turnbull's existence until after January's deadly encounter.
"He (Turnbull) has some knowledge of the informants," Wright said, adding cryptically that Turnbull has a "self-serving motive" for making these false statements to the newspaper.
The chief dismissed Turnbull's claims that he had a private phone conversation with Shivers in which the detective gave him permission to burglarize Frederick's garage.
It was Shivers' partner who was the lead investigator on the Frederick case, Wright said, not Shivers himself. Besides that, Chesapeake officers communicate with informants only when another officer is present.
Wright said that when the inmate claimed he had an incriminating conversation with Shivers, he cast aspersions on the only officer in the city "who cannot defend himself."
The chief, who has been with the department for 26 years and took the top job in April, categorically denied that the police ever use felons on reconnaissance missions, as Turnbull claimed they did.
"That didn't happen," he said flatly.
"The Chesapeake Police Department does not condone, encourage or approve informants of any sort to commit burglaries in order to gather evidence to obtain a search warrant," he said. "Such an action is illegal and we would not be party to an illegal act."
Wright is aware that rumors about misconduct by some of his officers are rampant in the community as a result of the Frederick case.
"We're waiting for the tr ial to clear up the misconceptions," he said.
OK, time to decide.
Whom should we believe, the guy behind bars or the man behind the badge?
Kerry Dougherty, (757) 446-2306, kerry.dougherty@cox.net
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
snitch testimony
I am amazed at all the idiots that believe that a snitch's testimony must be true if it helps the police but if it hinders the cops they must be liars. Some informants are paid with cash but most are paid with something better than money, freedom. Of course if the defense paid someone to testify they would go to jail. Only the cops/prosecutors get to do that. Yes the defense (and prosecutors) can pay professionals, (like DNA experts) but only the ones that the courts allow and approve of.
Interesting
"So, who to believe the men behind the badges or the jailhouse informant?"
How about taking BOTH with a big giant grain of salt until the court trial?
Informants are used every day, in every jurisdiction, to bolster and support arrests and convictions. Most of these informants have unsavory records yet their testimony is "believable" enough to warrant their use. I'm certain you can find both lies and truth in their statements.
Police and officials have been known to miscarry justice, lie, and generally practice CYA in countless ways, places and throughout history. Doesn't mean they are corrupt or incorrect in this case but it does speak volumes about blindly giving police a blanket pass on truthfulness.
Leave the case here. Frankly, something stinks big time and I'd like it dissected in our jurisdiction, where the event took place.
I think I'll wait
for the courts, judge the attorneys to make their call instead of an arm chair opinion.
Thank you for the info DDS
As much publicity as this is obviously generating, trying to find all the little details in the Pilot is difficult, at best. This is very interesting information you present. I hope the defense attorney has filed a motion to suppress the warrant based on this. That may put the whole thing to rest right there, or not. Again, thank you.
violating the fourth amendment
OK, based only on statements by the prosecutor and on Det. Roberts affidavit requesting the search warrant and not at all on statements by the defense or Turnbull, we know the following:
The police were working with their informant on marijuana charges for Frederick in Nov. The informant burglarized Frederick garage three days before the warrant was served Jan 17. I personally heard the prosecutor say their informant was in the garage and stole half of the marijuana he alleges he found there. The affidavit says the informant was in Frederick's property within 72 hrs earlier, but did not mention it was to burglarize the property.
Roberts had been working with his informant for two months and knew all this, but did not mention the burglary by his controlled informant in the affidavit. Had he done so, the warrant would not have been granted, so it was obtained fraudulently.
Unreasonable search and seizure?
The thing that bothers me most about this case is that on a night in mid-January, the police rammed their way into someone's home, and he reacted in a way that would have been applauded if the intruders were voilent criminals. According to the Bill of Rights, aren't we supposed to be protected from such actions? Why would such a search be executed under dark of night and with such force? They were not looking for a suspected murderer or rapist. The end result is a tragedy for both Detective Shivers and Ryan Frederick, and certainly for their families. If it is conclusively determined that the search was based on information obtained through the known illegal activity of felons, then we're all in trouble.
Question for DDS
"What the police have done in obtaining that warrant was an assault on all of us."
What did the police do in obtaining and warrant, and how did you come about this information?
I am not being sarcastic either, I do want to know, there are a lot of accusations flying on this case, and I have no idea who is telling the truth.
Michael C
Please tell me exactly how evading the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in our Bill of Rights is "doing the right thing"?
That really has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Frederick on any of the charges.
What the police have done in obtaining that warrant was an assault on all of us.
Some of us still take that Constitution stuff seriously.
KoolAid Alert
OK, folks, it goes like this. First, in any system that administers justice to millions of people, there will be injustices from time to time simply because we aren't perfect. We have to accept that, just as we accept the bottom feeding lawyers and idiot judges who turn murderers and rapists loose on technicalities. Criminals are wrongly freed far more often than they are wrongly convicted, so let's not lose the big picture. Second, the reason why Chief Wright has chosen to speak out now is that the more stories the jailbirds circulate in the media, the harder it will be to find an impartial jury. As a jury foreman on two previous felony trials, I can tell you what a problem that is. Third, it's hard to understand why so many of you are drinking the KoolAid these bums are putting out and dumping on Chief Wright. Of course he is backing up his people, because they were doing the right thing. It's pretty clear to me who has the credibility here, and it's not the guy in the orange jumpsuit. As the saying goes, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Cops Never Lie
"Whom should we believe, the guy behind bars or the man behind the badge?"
Remember, if someone is in jail or arrested, they are guilty. Cops wouldn't arrest someone unless they were guilty. I don't even see why we need a court system. They also never screw up and are infallible and nver make mistakes or stretch the truth. This is something every journalist knows and no journalist would be so naive as to write a comment such as the quote above if this were not a universally known truth. /SARCASM OFF