Why Lie?

People have been shocked to learn of the many examples of flagrant perjury that took place in Patrick Bradford's 1993 murder trial. E.g., the county medical examiner changing the time of death, the veteran firefighter reversing his three prior statements, a drug addict recovering a memory after reading a newspaper report, the key alibi witness utterly contradicting his first statement. These were all primary witneses meticulously prepared by prosecutor Stan Levco--all absolutely critical to the State's case.

     But these were not the only perjuries in the trial. There were several more, less prominent instances. These lesser lies are, in some ways, more baffling than the more outrageous ones.

    It is not difficult to see how a practiced and skillfully corrupt prosecutor or detectives might subvert a key witness: by appealing to their financial relationship with the county (the M.E.), by drawing them in as an insider (the fireman), by feeding critical information through the press (the junkie), or by offering a deal on a host of pending charges (the alibi witness).

     But what motivated the lesser lies? How were they brought on board?

     One example arises out of the first dispatched run Patrick made after the supposed window in his alibi (12:11). Sometime late in the preparation of the case, two officers who were present at that location surfaced with a mildly incriminating new story: Patrick took an unusually long time to arrive, and when he did, his brakes smelled hot, as though he had been driving at high speed.

     This story suggested that Patrick had come from all the way across town (the crime scene), rather than from downtown where he said he was. (Never mind that he was seen in his district at 11:45, after the state claims he was at the crime scene.)

    Officer Donald Erk, Jr. testified that Patrick was so late to arrive to transport their prisoner that the prisoner's extended family, called from somewhere, arrived before him. He also gave the story of the hot brakes. But Erk had already given a verbal account to a detective which contained none of these claims. When confronted with this under oath, he said his original statement had been mistaken (2165-86).

   Officer Robert Hahn testified also that Patrick was late, arriving after family members. He also stated that he had called dispatch to determine the cause of the delay. But there is no record of this call in the radio transcripts (2174-76).

   It would be impossible to disprove a claim that the brakes smelled hot, but the prisoner, David Bray (whose charge was dropped), testified that there was no smell of hot brakes in or near the car. More importantly, Mr. Bray testified that only his wife was present at the arrest, and no family came to the scene at all (2716-21).

  Although Mr. Bray was quite convincing, the story about a late arrival is fully refuted by another means. Patrick was dispatched at 12:11 pm, according to the radio record. He radioed that he was on the way to headquarters with the prisoner at 12:20. This gave him a total of eight minutes and 32 seconds, according to Detective Ted Mattingly, to drive from his inner city district to 2426 W. Franklin, communicate with the officers there, exchange handcuffs on the prisoner, obtain paperwork, secure the prisoner in the car, and drive away: Patrick's travel time was "not unusual" (3421-22). Why lie?

  Another lie with no apparent motivation came from a neighbor of the victim named James Lofton. Mr. Lofton testified that he saw Patrick arrive at the house on the morning of the fire, but he didn't notice smoke coming from the house. This is believable enough, because the 80 year old witness said he never looked up at the eaves or roof vents where the smoke would be escaping.

  But Mr. Lofton wasn't happy with the effect of his testimony. He went on to insist that, if the smoke had been there, he would have seen it. This was in direct contradiction of his original statement in which he volunteered that the smoke could have been there, "I wasn't looking" (1177-79).  Why lie?

  Another example of baffling perjury comes from Officer William Schaefer. Officer Schaefer was one of the first to respond to Patrick's call for assistance. In his first two statements (a written supplement and a debriefing immediately after the events) Schaefer reported that Patrick had said, "I think Tammy's inside." On the stand, Schaefer changed the statement to "She's inside." When confronted with the conflict, Schaefer first tried to deny it, but then settled on the nonsensical explanation," That was my recollection at the time" (993-94).

  It makes little practical difference how Patrick expressed his logical belief that Tammy had died in the fire. But the prosecution chose to try to make something out of it. What is significant is that Schaefer's new story must be a deliberate lie induced by the prosecution. It can hardly be a coincidence that Schaefer's reinvented version meshed precisely with the State's strategy. Why lie?

   It would be difficult to ascribe motive to each instance of petty perjury presented by Stan Levco, but it is not difficult to see Levco (or his detective surrogates) as the common denominator. There were many, many instances of perjury in Patrick Bradford's trial. All were State's witnesses. All but one contradicted prior statements favorable to the defense (Hahn did not have a prior statement). All lied in favor of the State.

   Why lie? Perhaps the question itself is inappropriate. Is there ever an acceptable motive to lie under oath?