Saturday, December 05, 2009

Parrinello Pounds GPD On Sloppy Evidence Handling

The D&C reports that Roderick Scott's Attorney John Parrinello focused questioning on three areas in yesterday's court proceedings:

  • Why Officer Roger Cole (retired), an evidence technician, didn't use a special light to determine whether Cervini's blood could be found on the driveway or garage door at 39 Baneberry. Parrinello said the use of the light could have proved or disproved anticipated testimony by Cervini's cousin, James Cervini, that Cervini was shot near the garage door while he had his hands up. Cole said that he didn't use the light because of the weather conditions and the danger of wrecking its sensitive electric system in the rain.
  • How Cole's name wound up as co-author of a report detailing measurements regarding the bullet found lodged in the house. Although Cole said he took photos and assisted with the bullet's recovery, he said he didn't write the report and never saw it until Parrinello showed it to him on the witness stand.
  • How the jacket that was cut from Cervini, which was thrown into the street from the ambulance about 20 feet from where his body was found, was moved back to where his body had been. McKeon said he photographed the jacket next to where the body had been after Dep. Chief Mackin, who has since retired after being suspended in an investigation that has gripped the police department this year, picked up the coat and searched its pockets for a cell phone and iPod that were collected as evidence. But McKeon said he didn't know how the jacket was moved from where it had been next to the ambulance, or who moved it.
SCATS ~~ Have these guys ever watched CSI? I'm particularly interested in hearing the explanation for how Off. Cole's name got onto a report he "co-authored" but never saw until Parrinello showed it to him on the witness stand! WHERE IS BRIAN BALL IN ALL OF THIS? It appears GPD's problems go much deeper than corrupt leadership!


Graehaven said...

Holy red flag-a-thon! This is ridiculous.

When it's this blatant - it's a clue to dig there - dig deeper.

Anonymous said...

Guilty of manslaughter; worst case. But for certain, guilty of something!!!

Anonymous said...

Anyone interested in starting a petition to eliminate the Greece Police Department in favor of adopting the Monroe County Sheriff as the only authority in this community?

I think the time has come. Enough is enough.

Just remember - regardless of which side of this shooting you are on - the incident was either self-defense, or was excessive use of force on an individual resulting in manslaughter - imagine - for just one moment - that this was YOU.

Is this the type of shoddy police work that YOU would want handling the case of someone you loved or even yourself in such an incident?

Remove the emotion and the opinion and the message is clear - the Greece Police Department needs to be dissolved.

From a financial aspect, the savings to the taxpayer would be immediate since they are already paying for the Monroe County Sheriff's department in addition to the local GPD.

From a moral and ethical aspect, the BS that has plagued this community resulting in the supervisor himself having to spend nearly a million dollars to prove that HE didn't do it either should receive the full support of Auberger and the Town Board in supporting a public vote on whether or not to put this comedy of errors out of it's misery.

SCATS said...

To 10:55AM ~~ I would help you to collect signatures on an actual paper petition. I've read that online petitions very seldom result in anything constructive (and I am aware that the exception to this rule involves the petition to halt the required NY license plate replacements).

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid I think it is dumb to think that one deserves to die for being out late at night and being a delinquent.

You can criticize Cervini and his family all we like. It does not justify Scott's actions.

Scott is accountable for his use of a gun on a bunch of kids trying to open car doors. I'm not saying convict him of murder but he did the wrong thing.

I get worried when I hear the kind of talk which makes every kid into a hard core criminal. We have to be able to use judgment in such a situation, which is why we have police (okay maybe not the Greece police but you know what I mean) to make a more seasoned judgment of a threat.

SCATS said...

To 12:20PM ~~ Scott is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY and the burden of proof is on Cervini's side. If Scott's side can get the jury to agree that any reasonable person would have pulled the trigger when he did given those circumstances at that moment, then Scott will be innocent. What happened prior to that point is pretty much irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

No one deserves to die for being out late and ransacking cars, however, no one desrves to die because they think, well, it's just a kid. Let me tell you a kid can kill you as quick or quicker than an adult. This kid came at Scott, he (Scott) had a few seconds to react, in his mind he thought it's me or the kid. What did you expect him to do, lay down his life for a drunk, drugged kid (just because he was 17)?

These days there is no assurance that because they are children, they won't take your life. They are more likely to kill you than an adult, because obviously, this kid was not thinking right, had no maturity or life experience to make the right decision to run away from that scene. Any normal person when confronted while doing something illegal, would get out of there as quick as he could. He would be alive today if he had.

Anonymous said...


It's true that we should wait on the trial - although it seems to be fatally tainted by GPD incompetence.

On the other hand Cervini is not convicted of any crime in this matter and obviously can't defend himself
so we need to be careful there too,

But the ethical and political issues remain and the question of accountability is not just a legal matter.

Scott still has to answer for his use of a weapon. This did not and should not have to end in a death.

SCATS said...

To 1:26PM ~~ While I completely agree with your conclusions, I totally disagree with your statement: "No one deserves to die for being out late and ransacking cars" ... because what you are really saying here is that anyone who decides to engage in criminal activity doesn't deserve to die. That's utterly ridiculous! It's a risk you take when you make the decision to engage in crime.

Well guess what? IF you make that choice, and it IS a choice, then you just might find yourself paying consequences! And those consequences just MIGHT result in your death, especially if you make another poor choice and DECIDE to lunge at a person who tells you: "Stop! I have a gun and my wife is calling 911!" Chris Cervini made quite a string of "bad decisions" the night he died. He decided to go out and drink and smoke after 3AM. He decided to try entering other people's cars. He decided to continue doing so after a neighbor on one street yelled them out the window of her home (I read this in a statement made to police).

Chris Cervini is no victim in this incident. Chris Cervini is dead because OF HIS OWN LOUSY JUDGEMENT, period.

SCATS said...

To 3:30PM ~~ Scott had every right to leave his home. He had every right to do so with that gun in hand. He had every right to confront the three punks (It is the only word that fits a group of insolent teens with prior records who engaged in drinking, smoking and entering other people's cars at 3:30AM on a cold, rainy & snowy night!) He had every right to yell "Stop! I have a gun and my wife is calling 911!" Roderick Scott had EVERY RIGHT to do all of those things. None of those actions is illegal.

On the other hand, Cervini & his pals had NO right to sneak out in the middle of the night. They had NO right to be smoking cigarettes (illegal at their age) and in fact, broke the law again when they STOLE liquor and DRANK (also illegal) it from the one boy's home. They had NO RIGHT to enter anyone else's car without permission.

The ONLY issue here is whether Scott was self-defending at that moment when he pulled the trigger given the circumstances. He did not know the age of Cervini. He did not know if Cervini was armed. It was dark. It was wet and cold. And it was a stupid act for an unarmed teen to charge at a guy who just told you "I have a gun."

In the end, Chris Cervini had an obvious issue when it came down to complying with authority. It cost him his life. He should get a Darwin Award for it.

Anonymous said...

Respectfully, I think you go too far in defending the right to use guns without a clear basis to do so. Clearly one has no absolute right to use a gun on another without a sufficient cause. I think this point was discussed when the case first came up. There has to be a clear threat to the person or her property in order to justify the use of guns in that situation. Isn't that what is up for the jury to decide.

Second I wonder if many of us haven't on occasion as teens been out late with too much to drink and maybe we were under aged at the time. We did not all end up violent criminals.

As we get older we tend to be uncomfortable with young people in groups in the malls and elsewhere. We just can't assume they are all murderers lying in wait.

I recall some kids with the kind of bad judgment you refer to, but they were not murderers. They seem to hold decent jobs now.

Anonymous said...

SCATS it is not illegal to smoke under the age of 18; it's illegal to purchase them.

SCATS said...

To 6:54PM ~~ Thank you for making the distinction. You're right. Of course, it's also illegal to steal them which is apparently how these three obtained them. That is the reason cited for looking for cars to open ... to obtain more cigarettes.

SCATS said...

To 6:42PM ~~ It is reasonable to assume that someone who "comes after" me once they are told I have a weapon is armed themself. In that event, the threat is clear whether a weapon is present or not.

Read the newspaper. Look at all of the teens who are shooting to kill each other and police officers even. Ask Off. Diponzio about it ;)

Anonymous said...

But for half a mile of geography I could well be in Mr Scott's shoes.

This is NOT Barnard out here, and the punks know full well that at 3am they can hear the Police car coming from 2 miles off without the siren. The punks also know the Cops just inform the homeowner to call their insurance company.

Why the hell isn't the cadaver's cousin being prosecuted for his violation of felony probation that night, or prosecuted for Cadaver's death? That punk was already on probation for armed robbery with a knife.

The selective prosecution of Mr Scott is occurring because a ghynoDA doesn't approve of Black men cohabiting with white women, and because the ghynoDA had to haul her butt out of bed and put her warpaint back on at 4am. This prosecution has been Green Stamped by a DA who doesn't like the suburbs going the way the City has gone.

SCATS said...

To 6:17PM ~~ I've always suspected the hasty rush to imprison Roderick Scott was to help divert attention away from GPD's other troubles at the time, most notably Nick Joseph. Let's not forget this man has already spent a week in jail at the time of the incident. The racial overtones are pretty hard to miss, too.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you 6:17. The ADA didn't even attempt to hide her disgust and disdain for Scott during her 15 minutes of fame in a tv interview last week. I think she'd personally enjoy holding the rope if she could get someone to help her with the lynching. I hope Parinello whips her good!

Anonymous said...

Can someone explain how cases are assigned among the different prosecutors? Do they choose the cases they want? Or are they randomly assigned?

SCATS said...

To 10:15PM ~~ You asked a wonderful question. Anyone know?

Graehaven said...

To 6:42pm --
Respectfully, you don't understand the current law. Research current law, and you'll find that Scott was well within his rights to do what he did. It has nothing to do with whether or not the perpetrator was underage, nor anything to do with what you or I believe. It has EVERYTHING to do with what Scott believed at the time of the incident.

If you BELIEVE that your life, or another's life is threatened - you may use deadly force. Period. The fact that he warned Cervini prior to the shooting all but makes it an unquestionably justifiable shoot.

Cervini = dead perpetrator/criminal

Scott = victim

Community: win-win

Not the other way around.

SCATS said...

Well said Graehaven.