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

111. Lieutenant Willauer’s report concluded that the complainant’s investigationof the incident at Lee’s was inadequate in a number of respects andhighlighted the inconsistencies between the complainant’s testimony aboutwhat Marlon and Roshana told him and their accounts to Sergeant Driscolland to him. He concluded that he could not “surmise” any motivation forRoshana or Marlon to lie and that the complainant was the only partyquestioned with any motivation to be dishonest. R-11.112. Lieutenant Willauer conceded that civilians at a crime scene don’t alwaystell the truth. TR p. 386.113. Lieutenant Willauer never questioned Roshana about her relationship toJoel or whether she had a problem with police officers. TR p. 391.114. Lieutenant Willauer did not investigate whether Marlon had a criminalrecord, although it came to his attention that he did prior to his issuing hisreport, but he did not include it. TR p. 392.115. Lieutenant Willauer conceded that at no time had Roshana stated that shehad seen a gun. TR pp. 396, 397.116. Lieutenant Willauer conceded that if the complainant’s draft affidavit weretrue, that paragraph 4 would be properly included as exculpatory evidence.TR p. 482.117. Lieutenant Willauer was not aware of any effort by Sergeant Driscoll tocontact the complainant about the discrepancy between the complainant’sdraft affidavit and Sergeant Driscoll’s account of Roshana’s story from thetime Sergeant Driscoll became aware of the conflict until the time hePage 18 of 56