In case some might forget, I do not think anyone was been harder on DA Peter Gilchrist than me. The Kim Thomas case alone shows that.
However, in light of the Arvin Fant developments this week, we have to ask some hard questions with potentially troubling answers.
Gilchrist’s office over the years has implied that the quality of the evidence CMPD brings them does not always support the charges. Hence all the plea deals. This is another way of saying that the detective work is not up to snuff. The performance of Det. Fant in the Demeatrius Montgomery case and in previous cases would tend to support that view.
And so do other other recent cases of police misconduct. Pundit House recalls that former CMPD officer Brian Cloninger resigned after charges arose that he was fixing line-ups. Then we have the Marcus Jackson affair, the Fuel Pizza on-duty sex-up, the cocaine dealer with CMPD protection. Clearly, it is getting harder and harder to sustain the notion that there is “just one bad apple” in the CMPD bunch.
No one wants to tar all the good, hardworking CMPD officers — but how to proceed? How does one see these things and not, at some point, say “Hey, we have massive institution problems here.” And to my mind the Fant episode is the most damning, the clearest window on what had to be acceptable conduct within CMPD or it would have never happened in such a vital case, a double homicide of beloved CMPD officers.
Which brings us to the mutually exclusive part. If Fant’s performance on this case was a complete and utter freak-out, not at all indicative of CMPD’s body of work, which is exactly what an awful lot of local legal types and Chief Rodney Monroe have said, how in the world did it happen in this case? See, saying it was not part of any pattern of misconduct does not deflect criticism, in this case it invites more. CMPD can either answer for the pattern or answer for the exception. Pick one. You do not get to say, well, most cops are good, so the department is A-OK.
How did the ball get dropped to such a spectacular degree that the right and proper — in my view — punishment for a serial cop killer is not possible? How is it that the prosecution may have to cop a plea in this case to assure the Clark and Shelton families of some conviction that will not be overturned on appeal?
And, hey, look where we are — talking about copping a plea in order to get a conviction. Doesn’t that describe the Gilchrist regime perfectly? Doesn’t that make you look around, swallow hard, and say, “Maybe I was wrong.”
