CHRO ex. rel. Donald Rajtar v. Town of Bloomfield - Connecticut ...

78. It is undisputed that the second officer was the complainant and there is noevidence in the record to even suggest that it could have been anyone else.79. Sergeant Driscoll did not know when he had talked to Roshana for thesecond time on February 16 that when she said she hadn’t beeninterviewed by the complainant (the first officer to arrive who hadinterviewed Marlon), that she had in fact talked with the complainant whenhe returned a second time, but had not disclosed it because she wasunaware that it was him. TR pp. 857, 858.80. Despite the reconciliation of the then principal inconsistency that Roshana’sstatement provided, the statement did not change Sergeant Driscoll’s initialassessment that the complainant had lied and that Roshana had not spokento the complainant, inasmuch as he could ascribe (as he testified) no motivefor her to lie. TR p. 837.81. Sergeant Driscoll then met with Chief Hard to discuss what to do next. TRp. 838.82. Chief Hard told Sergeant Driscoll to amend his write-up of the complainantand draft a new warrant application himself. TR p. 839.83. Sergeant Driscoll (despite Chief Hard’s directive that he not take Roshana’sstatement) took an additional written statement form Marlon on February 25,2004 and issued a February 26 supplement to his IA request. C-6, C-9.84. Sergeant Driscoll went to see Marlon on February 25, 2004 to “document”(Driscoll’s term) that the complainant had not interviewed Roshana orCaines, despite the fact that the complainant had never claimed he hadPage 12 of 56