Today’s Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper story concerning the Arfee saga is headlined Arfee inquiry nearly done.
The article included two photos, both claiming to show Coeur d’Alene Police Department Lieutenant Turner making measurements on Craig Jones’ van in which his dog, Arfee, was shot by a Coeur d’Alene Police Department officer.
OpenCdA urges our readers to read today’s newspaper article and carefully examine the photos.
From our perspective, the article and photos raises the question: Is the City of Coeur d’Alene diligently investigating the Arfee shooting or is it engaging in theatrical public relations?
More precisely, we would like to know when and where were the photos accompanying today’s Press article taken? The credit line below the photo says “Tess Freeman/Press,” so we will assume the photo was taken by Freeman, an employee of the Press. Look at the Freeman photo immediately below and captioned “Lieutenant Turner measures Craig Jones’ van for his investigation regarding the shooting of Jones’ dog Arfee on July 9, 2014.” As you look at it, note that LT Turner is positioned at the passenger’s side and Freeman has taken the photo from outside through the driver’s side window.
Now for comparison, look at the photo immediately below which accompanied the KREM-TV news story by reporter Briana Bermansolo. Her story was posted on KREM.com with a date/time stamp on July 9, 2014 at 1:28 PM. July 9, 2014, was the date of the Arfee shooting incident, and the posting time was within four hours of the shooting.
Notice that in KREM’s photo immediately above and taken on the day of the incident, the purported bullet hole is clearly visible and the window glass, while fractured, is still present.
Now look again at the Freeman photo which appeared in today’s Press article.
Notice that in the Freeman photo appearing in today’s Coeur d’Alene Press, the driver’s side window glass has been almost completely removed.
Clearly, the Freeman photo in today’s newspaper was taken after the KREM news photo. The question is, how long after? The coincidental availability of the broken window glass to dramatically frame the “investigation” photo seems to us to be a little too artistically convenient. It is also inconsistent with a properly preserved crime scene and evidence.
Where was the photo taken? Was it taken at the shooting scene before the police released it? If so, how was KREM able to photograph the driver’s side window glass with the bullet hole? Why wasn’t the van processed for evidence before the window glass was removed as shown in the Freeman photo?
Or maybe the Freeman photo was taken in a police impound lot where the van had been towed to be secured until it could be processed for evidence? Not likely. If it had been timely and properly secured so it could be processed for evidence, the driver’s side window would have been in at least the condition shown in the KREM photo.
At the moment custody of the vehicle was released by the Coeur d’Alene Police Department, the value and admissibility of any evidence the van might subsequently yield would be significantly diminished. If the police did not properly secure the van so it could be processed for reliable and admissible evidence, then why did the Press represent in its photo caption that LT Turner was doing exactly that?
Let us bluntly ask: Was the Freeman photo taken in conjunction with a press availability/photo opportunity staged for the news media by the Coeur d’Alene Police Department and the City? When and where was the Freeman photo taken? Were other news media representatives present or was the Coeur d’Alene Press the only participant? If LT Turner is actually investigating as the Freeman photo’s caption asserts, why are any news media even there? Is this an ongoing investigation or a public relations stunt?
But even if the two photos in today’s Press were taken at a press availability/photo-op, why would it matter?
Aside from the ethical photojournalism question raised by staged photo-ops, there is the question of Mayor Widmyer’s and acting Police Chief Clark’s truthfulness in promising the public that the results of the investigation would be released only after the completed investigation results had been reviewed by City officials and by an impartial third party. That was restated in today’s skewspaper article by Coeur d’Alene Police Department spokesflack Sergeant Christie Wood when she was quoted, “We hope to have all of these steps completed in the next few weeks,” Wood said. “Mayor Widmyer has stated that once the process is completed, the information will be released to the public with the exception of any documents related to personnel.”
So if Coeur d’Alene Mayor Steve Widmyer and the Coeur d’Alene Police Department are working in collusion with the news media to selectively release dribs and drabs of information before the entire report is made public, wouldn’t the public be justified in questioning not only the accuracy and completeness of that report but the underlying honesty of the Mayor, the police, and news media who participated in its preparation, approval, and presentation?
I’m a little behind local news this month. Has anyone asked for an incident report? It is a public record regardless if under investigation. Often that excuse is given and they get away with it because it is not challenged.
Comment by Gary Ingram — August 13, 2014 @ 10:39 pm
Gary,
I understand that the Spokesman-Review has asked at least twice for several documents pursuant to the public records law, and the newspaper’s requests have been denied.
Comment by Bill — August 14, 2014 @ 6:37 am
Honestly, not quite sure what is taking so long. Couple of options or thoughts.
If the guy measuring there is doing what I think he is doing, he’s measuring what looks to be a bullet hole and in looking at the hole in the glass it was clearly close to the door which then means it was in a mostly horizontal slightly upward angle.
So, to me it shows a startled discharge of the gun. As if peeking around the door on approach like officers are trained to do.
For it to be a deliberate shooting of the dog it would have been in a more calculated angle than what appears to be in the photo’s.
This raises another question, was the gun drawn and ready on approach? While I have no issue with that, from my office chair, it seems as if he had it out and the dog scared the urine out of him and he accidently fired the gun. I say that because of the entry exit angles.
The other option is more severe. He approached the van normally, gun not drawn but from back to front like they are trained to do and got startled by the lunging dog. Then in great zeal due to anger and embarrasment of being startled, drew the gun and shot the dog.
Of course both situations require different solutions. In the first case, the officer in question needs to be revaluated, trained, duty change, etc and grateful no human was killed.
In the second case, fired from the job.
Now how and what we are told will happen has implications finacially for the city and you guys can decide which one costs more and then we will have our answer to what happened be it true or not.
Comment by Eric — August 14, 2014 @ 12:12 pm
Granted that the bullet could have been redirected as it passed through the dog but again the hole in the window is obviously from a more rear angle.
Comment by Eric — August 14, 2014 @ 12:16 pm
Eric,
The duration of the investigation may reflect how thoroughly and carefully the police are identifying, collecting, and analyzing the information — or trying to.
If you review my July 11 OpenCdA post, you’ll get an idea of how extensive the most basic information available (or not available) about the incident may be. Reviewing date/time coded audio and video records of telephone calls, radio calls, text/instant messages, and various camera recordings alone can take considerable time. Assembling a very detailed timeline, the incident’s sequence of events, does take some time.
But they also have to obtain and review victim, participant, and witness statements. The reliability of these varies, and they often seem to conflict based on the cognition and suggestibility of the witness.
And to whatever extent they have one or more crime scenes, each has to be processed for whatever information is available there.
I’m not concerned with learning the officer’s identity, but I would like to know much more about the officer’s experience, training (official and unofficial), assignments (e.g., patrol, detective, SRO, SWAT, FTO, etc.), performance and disciplinary record.
I’d like to know more about the officer’s state of mind on the day of the incident. Had the officer handled relatively low-stress calls or had s/he been hammered with very stressful calls? Had the officer handled those calls appropriately? Was the officer having personal problems that may have affected job performance?
And that’s just basic stuff about the officer who fired the shot(s). The department has to be concerned about the performance of all the people (call takers, radio operators, officers, field supervisors, command staff) who had any involvement in the incident. Was there anything in their performance during the incident or in their contact with the officer before the incident that contributed to the way the officer and others approached and handled the incident?
That the shooting victim was a dog does not diminish the significance of the incident: It was the use of lethal force by a police officer. That in itself ought to have triggered an appropriate investigation of the entire incident.
If it’s being done properly, it will take some time.
If it’s not being done properly, if the police really FUBAR’d the investigation, that will come out. For example, the police can’t say they weren’t really conducting an “investigation” or they weren’t able to conduct a proper “investigation.” The City Attorney relied on the “investigatory record exemption” of the Idaho Public Records Law to deny The Spokesman-Review’s public records request.
Comment by Bill — August 14, 2014 @ 2:55 pm
Interesting that the Spokesman-Review reported today that there were two officers who initially approached the van.
“Two officers investigating a report of a suspicious van in the area approached Jones’ vehicle around 11 a.m. to check it out. The officer on the driver’s side encountered Arfee lunging through the window, according to the city’s initial report. The officer fired, striking the dog in the chest and killing it, while his partner was on the other side of the van.”
Have I missed this dimension or is this newly released/reported information? The SR also wrote that the “eyewitness” only saw 95% of the incident; thus easing into a revelation to come that the officer’s partner witnessed the other 5%?
Additionally, the SR reported that the witness was not cooperating; thus subtly demonizing the witness (who would believe a person who doesn’t blindly obey questioning by the police?) and that the van owner would not immediately return his van into police custody; also a method to subtly cast suspicion upon the victim and future litigant in a civil claim.
What happened to the Mayor and the acting Chief saying that no information would be released until the Report was finalized and vetted? The hole keeps getting deeper–and the “fourth branch of government” (the media)seems to have fallen prey to well documented governmental tactics that diffuse, confuse, and get the finger pointing away from those at fault.
Comment by Old Dog — August 15, 2014 @ 9:28 am
Old Dog,
No, as far as I know, that has not been publicly reported.
My opinion is that the City and the Coeur d’Alene Press are trying to manipulate the public’s perception of the incident by selectively releasing information from inside the investigation before it has been reviewed by the Council and the phantom impartial third party.
It’s interesting to me that your information comes from the S-R. Perhaps Editor Graham decided to roll over and cooperate with the City of Coeur d’Alene rather than be left in the dust.
Comment by Bill — August 15, 2014 @ 10:06 am
Bill,
Agree about S-R Editor Graham not wanting to be left out, although, I suspect that since most allegations directed at the media related to “skewing” and/or selectively releasing the facts have been aimed at the CDA Press, the City HAD to bring the Spokesman on board to diffuse “guilt”.
If the Spokesman isn’t culpable, the reporter would have asked, “Why is this information just now being made public?” Or, “What happened to the promise made by the Chief and Mayor that no new information would be made public until the conclusion of the Report?” The areas roots in mining do run deep–they can’t stop digging the hole.
Comment by Old Dog — August 15, 2014 @ 10:28 am