LAPD Concludes Fuhrman Lied About Misdeeds

A Los Angeles Police Department investigation involving 224 interviews, more than 250,000 documents and more than $400,000 has determined that former Det. Mark Fuhrman was lying when he boasted on tape about an array of officer misconduct, including torturing suspects.

But the investigation’s executive summary--a copy of which was obtained Thursday by The Times--has angered the department’s civilian bosses, who contend that the LAPD’s analysis of the case is so poorly reasoned and incomplete that it may complicate an ongoing federal investigation of the Police Department. The Police Commission has directed Police Chief Willie L. Williams and his staff to rewrite the document.

The allegations involving Fuhrman came to light after his testimony in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, which was rocked by revelations that the now-retired detective had given extensive, tape-recorded interviews to an aspiring screenwriter. On those tapes, which were played in open court, Fuhrman bragged of beating suspects, duping Internal Affairs Division investigators and fabricating evidence. Fuhrman, who earlier this month pleaded no contest to perjury charges growing out of his testimony in the Simpson case, also implicated other police officers in wrongdoing.

According to the 30-page summary of the LAPD’s still-secret investigation, five teams of department investigators probed 29 allegations of misconduct against Fuhrman. Time after time, the investigation turned up incidents that paralleled some of the details Fuhrman provided to the screenwriter.

In almost every instance, however, the inquiry concluded that Fuhrman was exaggerating or lying outright. As a result, the executive summary states that LAPD brass, including Williams, have decided not to sustain charges of brutality, racism and excessive use of force.

Police commissioners and others who have read the report say they are concerned about how it will be received, particularly by the U.S. Justice Department, which has formally requested a copy of the Fuhrman probe when it is complete. Some commissioners fear that the report does not candidly examine how an officer who demonstrated Fuhrman’s racism could be promoted through the ranks. As a result, they worry that it may provoke federal authorities to step up their ongoing inquiry into the LAPD’s operations.

“The commission is quite concerned that the executive summary did not adequately describe the various incidents,” said Raymond C. Fisher, president of the city’s Police Commission. “As for the department’s analysis, we are not sure that it completely addresses all of the issues. We are particularly concerned about how someone with Fuhrman’s attitudes could [be promoted]. . . . We still have not heard an explanation of that.”

Williams--who, like Fisher, expressed dismay that the report had been obtained by The Times--defended his department’s work. The chief conceded that the commission was unhappy with the executive summary and had asked his staff to prepare a new draft. Williams promised that the new draft could be completed in a few weeks.

Throughout the investigation, Fuhrman and his lawyers have maintained that his tape-recorded comments were boasts intended to impress a screenwriter, not an accurate portrayal of his actions. Among the controversial allegations reviewed as part of the Fuhrman inquiry:

* Fuhrman’s statements that he tortured suspects and beat them “to mush” in the aftermath of a 1978 ambush in East Los Angeles were found to be untrue. “Each of Fuhrman’s statements is refuted by the evidence, witness statements or a combination thereof,” the executive summary states. It does not explain how that conclusion was reached.

* Fuhrman told the screenwriter that an officer named “Tom” tore up driver’s licenses and used racist slurs, among other things. Police investigators identified that officer but found that the statements about him were unfounded. “None of the seven witnesses stated that [the officer] tore up driver’s licenses . . . and there is no physical evidence that [he] tore up driver’s licenses,” according to the report.

* Fuhrman described a police chase in which he said officers rammed a suspect’s vehicle and then struck and kicked him. Investigators found an April 24, 1986, pursuit that matched some of Fuhrman’s claims, but concluded that photographs of the truck and of the suspect’s injuries did not match Fuhrman’s description. Although the suspect was adamant that Fuhrman struck him, police records indicated that Fuhrman was not there at the time, so police concluded that the suspect was lying.

* Fuhrman’s claim that police allowed a suspect to die in custody rather than let him receive treatment from a paramedic was ruled unfounded, even though evidence surfaced showing that police did block paramedics during an April 9, 1977, incident. The executive summary attributes that to a “misunderstanding,” and adds that the delay did not appear to contribute to the death of Lee Roy Dean, a suspect who had been shot by police. “The suspect was never observed breathing after the shooting and was undoubtedly deceased as he lay on the ground,” the report states. It does not say what the “misunderstanding” was or why it was not treated more seriously, given the suspect’s death.

Responding to those findings, the commission’s recently appointed inspector general, Katherine Mader, criticized the department for “shading” its interpretation of that incident. Such shading, she said in a memo to the commission also obtained by The Times, “plays into public perception that police reports are not written in an objective manner.” That problem is especially serious in a report of this kind, she added in her memo, because it has been reviewed by high-level officials including the chief.

Williams attributed the commission’s unhappiness to its sense of how the document should be written, not to what it should contain.

“The department writes an official police report in a certain fashion,” Williams said. “They do not tell a story as you would get in a novel that you bought off the shelf. The commission wants us to digress from the typical police reporting approach and tell a story.”

Williams also downplayed concerns that the report might displease the Justice Department. If prosecutors were troubled by anything in the report, Williams said, “they’d come to us and sit down and ask questions . . . and any question they asked could certainly be answered.”

The exception to the department’s rejection of the claims against Fuhrman involves his treatment of women while working at the West Los Angeles police station. In investigating comments made by Fuhrman about female officers there, department investigators identified 10 officers, including Fuhrman, who allegedly were part of a notorious group known as Men Against Women.

Those officers are named in the report, and some of them still could receive reprimands for their alleged involvement in incidents demeaning their female colleagues. The report does not explain what discipline those officers may receive, though it suggests that they might be reprimanded for drinking in a public park during a meeting of Men Against Women.

In her memo to the commission, Mader expressed dissatisfaction with that recommendation and with the portion of the report that deals with Men Against Women. In addition, she criticized the LAPD’s handling of sexual harassment generally.

“The hostile work environment was allowed to continue for a decade at [West Los Angeles] because of a failure of command staff to take the issue seriously,” Mader’s memo states. “No member of command staff or mid-level management has ever been held accountable for allowing the hostile work environment to persist at [West Los Angeles].”

Because Fuhrman has retired from the department, there is little LAPD authorities could do to him. They could issue a reprimand, but that would have no effect on his pension.

As a result, much of the interest in the Fuhrman probe has focused on other officers who might be implicated in wrongdoing and over whom the LAPD might still have control. Aside from the officers mentioned in connection with Men Against Women, the report does not suggest that any of the other officers identified during the investigation are likely to face discipline.

In one case, for example, a witness complained that Fuhrman pulled him from a telephone booth and struck him eight times with his baton as he lay on the ground. The witness, Michael Seaman, identified Det. Dennis English, who is still with the LAPD, as having watched the altercation and as having failed to intervene.

But English told investigators that it was he, not Fuhrman, who pulled the man from the phone booth. And authorities concluded that the use of force was proper.

“This was thoroughly investigated and properly reviewed at the time and found to be reasonable, necessary and lawful,” the report states. “The use of force was within department guidelines.”

Although commissioners have some questions about the thoroughness of some aspects of the LAPD investigation--sources said they are particularly interested in the case involving the paramedics and the man who died after being shot by police--most of the concern about the document has focused on the Police Department’s analysis of the case.

In particular, commissioners are concerned about the final section of the Fuhrman document, titled “Administrative Insight” and written by Williams’ top aides. Commissioners and some LAPD officials had hoped that section would explain in detail how a person harboring evidently racist views and boasting of them during a 1983 pension case could be promoted through the LAPD to the rank of detective.

Instead, the insight portion of the report lists varied accomplishments by Williams, ranging from the LAPD’s drafting of a mission statement and strategic plan to creation of new human relations training and establishment of a training video library.

“After much thought and rereading the report several times, I was beside myself,” said Commissioner Edith Perez. “We haven’t come as far as I thought we had in terms of [Men Against Women] or in terms of the department making a very concerted effort to be objective about itself.”

Perez contrasted the Fuhrman report with an audit of the sexual harassment issue in West Los Angeles in 1994. “That report contained some criticism about the department, which made that report extremely credible,” she said. “Because it was balanced, it was credible. We didn’t see that here.”

To the extent that the LAPD acknowledges any internal problems, the summary suggests that they are not the department’s fault.

“Although the department has been successful in many areas, there are problems that still exist,” it says. “Many of these are the result of funding inadequacies for personnel or other resources. The department is working on resolving these difficulties.”

To improve, the report says, the LAPD needs several things. Chief among them: full implementation of a computerized officer-tracking system, full implementation of a career development unit and expansion of the Internal Affairs Division.

However, Williams recently said it was his decision to shift new positions out of Internal Affairs, a move he defended as prudent.

Despite the language of the executive summary, Williams on Thursday again defended that decision.

“I take responsibility for a decision that was concurred with by the mayor, by the City Council and by the Police Commission to delay the expansion of” the Internal Affairs Division, Williams said. “Do I stand by that decision? The answer is yes.”