Quantcast
Channel: PE.com Blogs» LAPD
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10

RIVERSIDE dithers as LAPD announces Dorner reward

0
0

Karen and Jim Reynolds were tied up by Dorner. Karen eventually called 911. The couple will receive 80 percent of reported $1 million reward, says  LAPD. (Staff photo/STAN LIM)

Karen and Jim Reynolds were tied up by Dorner. Karen eventually called 911. The couple will receive 80 percent of reported $1 million reward, says LAPD. (Staff photo/STAN LIM)


The LAPD has announced that four people will share the roughly $1 million reward for helping law enforcement track down Christopher Dorner. Three ex-judges — two federal, one from the CA Supreme Court — weighed all claims before allocating the money. This is how the process should work and it makes Riverside’s evasive double-talk even more embarrassing.

On Feb. 12, at the urging of Mayor Rusty Bailey, the City Council approved a $100K reward “for information leading to the arrest and conviction” of Dorner. The reward offer could be revoked or withdrawn by a “majority vote” of the council.

On March 25, in a wide-ranging LA Times story about the reward, Riverside spokeswoman Cindie Perry said, via email, that because “the two conditions set forth in the (City Council) resolution were not met,” the city will not pay its $100K pledge.

Mystery: Who decided the city would not pay?

Not the City Council. It hasn’t voted on the matter since Feb. 12. Who, or what, prompted Perry’s email to the Times?

In late April, Mayor Bailey told me:

The “time frame” on the reward “ran out.” But the reward was good for 60 days, until April 12. Perry sent her email on March 25.

Bailey also said “no decision” has been made about paying the reward, saying the city attorney is reviewing claims from reward-seekers.

Time frame ran out? No decision made? Still reviewing? Makes no sense.

Again, I asked Bailey who made the decision that led to Cindie Perry’s email.

“Good question,” he replied. “It could have come through the police to the PIO (public info officer).”

I asked RPD Police Chief Sergio Diaz. “I don’t know who made the decision.”

I asked Perry. “The City Council as a whole made the decision when they approved the resolution.” But the resolution says the council must vote to withdraw or revoke. It didn’t. Besides, the city says the reward’s still on the table, which doesn’t seem to square with Perry’s email to the Times. Sheesh.

Explaining their decision to award the $1 million, the ex-judges wrote: Although the reward was based on information that led to the arrest and conviction of Dorner, for purposes of the Procedures adopted for the Panel, there is no requirement that a conviction have resulted, which of course would be impossible in view of the fact that Dorner is dead… As for an actual arrest or capture of Dorner, the Panel deems that Dorner was constructively arrested or captured when law enforcement surrounded the cabin on the afternoon of February 12, 2013. There was no escape.”

This reasoning smacks of basic common sense and contrasts sharply with what we’re hearing from leaders of a city that lost a police officer in this murder spree.

The tail, whether it’s the learned city attorney or someone else, keeps wagging the dog. The City Council has proven so adept at rolling over and playing dead. But I keep waiting for it to wake up, pay up (now they even have a roadmap!) and stop making this most intelligent city look like the laughingstock of SoCal.

 

Reach Dan Bernstein at 951-368-9439 or dbernstein@PE.com

Facebook: PE Columnist Dan Bernstein

Twitter: @DbernsteinCol

 

 

 


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images