Can I just say something about Andrea? We are back for part four of the Robert Divine descertification hearing. We haven't seen anything in the way of witnesses since uh part two when we paused halfway through the cross-examination of the IIA investigator Brian Holmes.

Uh part three, we got interrupted by um the fact that the interviews that uh officer Holmes relied on when he was doing his IIA investigation uh had not apparently been turned over either to post or to uh Mr. Divine himself to uh assist him with preparing his case. So uh there was a little bit of a conferencing about how that was uh going to be corrected and the possible implications of that. Uh so we are coming back now presumably to continue with the testimony.

So far we've gotten the uh we've gotten the basic outline of what the post commission is alleging. They contend that Mr. Divine uh engaged in repeated acts of misconduct. uh unbecoming as a as a police officer as well as acts of dishonesty. Uh he was found responsible for these types of violations from an IIA investigation uh back in 2015 2016. Uh and then there was a second IA investigation beginning in uh 2021 that centered around his relationship with Sandra Burmore. He is not contesting the first uh incident of of uh discipline, but he is contesting the second investigation, the the Sander Birmore involved one. So, uh we're going to go ahead and and turn back now, get ready to continue, and uh yeah, uh see where we're at. See where we're at with this cross.

I got to tell you, my my stomach is dropping a little bit at uh the the notion of having to to start in cross because I don't like this lawyer at all. Really don't. Very very unlikable person. But at the same time now, uh Mr. Holmes uh hasn't really helped himself out. He's opened himself up to some cross-examination about how he conducted his investigation, the thoroughess. uh he has insisted that he provided these uh interview transcripts to the post commission. Uh but their attorney is swearing up and down he doesn't have it and they're going back to the Stoen Police Department to get copies for everybody. So, you know, can't really give him a lot of props for uh running everything clean and uh and proper and not giving Officer Divine any ammunition to be able to work with. So with that guys, let's turn back to it and see what we got.

Do we not have sound? Not sure >> our yes. >> So let me just start recording. >> Okay. Um, good morning everyone. Today is Tuesday, July 15, 2025. The time is 10:09 a.m. This proceeding is hereby call to order. It is the third day of the proceedings for the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission in the matter of Robert Divine. The hearing is closed to the public pursuant to an order issued by the hearing officer on May 30th, 2025. We are convening in person and only necessary commission staff are permitted to observe the hearing. This hearing is being audio and video recorded and the party should speak directly into the microphone to ensure that the audio in the recording is clear. The commission is represented by attorney Shawn Martinez and the respondent is represented by attorney Robert Stowe. My name is Elizabeth Smith and I'm the administrator for the commission. The honorable Kenneth J. Fishman will serve as the hearing officer over these proceedings. And before we begin, I would like to remind the parties to use initials when referring to any alleged victims or minors and to use a pages specific dates number when referring to any exhibit. Um, and this matters now before Judge Fishman.

>> Good morning. Good morning council and state their appearances for the record, please. >> Yes. Sean Martinez for the division of police standards. Robert on behalf of Robert >> Divine Divine is present as well. Um, all right. Before we get resume the testimony, just to go over a few things. We had we suspended on June 6th because of the issue relating to um various transcripts and recordings and other materials that uh had been represented had been turned over to the commission but had not been received. Subsequently, Mr. Martinez explored that issue with Stoton Police Department was provided with additional uh transcript tapes and other materials uh from Stoton Police uh after June 6th and has shared those both with the with us and with Mr. So as well my understanding.

>> I'm uh before we go on I wanted to find out Mr. Martinez, whether the department or the chief or withever whomever you were dealing with uh ultimately indicated to you where they were located and or any reason why they're not provided initially to post. >> So your honor, I believe that the um electronic exhibits, the um flash drive that I had provided um were received from uh the investigator Lattalion um and they were on a USB drive. Uh and then the interview transcripts which were printed. Uh essentially the way that the internal affairs investigation was kept was that there was the binder with the internal affairs investigation report as well as the listed exhibits and then there was a binder with the interview transcripts and from my understanding that binder of interview transcripts was never scanned. Um, and the way that the post commission had received the internal affairs investigation with the exhibits was a digitally uh scanned copy. And from my understanding is that although there were two binders, only the one binder containing the IIA where it was originally provided.

>> So I didn't understand that until now. So you post actually had it. I mean the division had had it just hadn't scanned it. No, no. The the Stone Police Department did finders. >> Oh, they had scanned it. >> Correct. They had >> Okay. >> Yes. The the the division did do a search of our records um including the assigned investigator and we never received a copy of the interview transcripts. Of course, you just didn't scan half of your half of your binder, you know, half of your half your >> division had requested that a a few documents uh which were received uh subsequent to the hearing um be examined in camera, which you know I have done because I issued an order yesterday, I think, that indicated that I was going to honor the request to withhold them. Um, for the reasons stated in my order, I'm not going to revisit that. But, um, I I said they're properly withheld. I do want to, of course, mark those for identification and have them sealed in case there's a need for any review subsequently. So, um, can we arrange to do that?

>> All right. So, some kind of documentation as well that is uh not apparently going to come into evidence. Not quite clear about that. Or if it is coming into evidence, it's withheld. It's going to be sealed. um didn't didn't really clarify exactly what that means, but I I my impression is he is rejecting them. Uh just having the mark for identification so that uh because we talked about before they can appeal this up to superior court, Mr. Divine can if he doesn't like the outcome uh so that they have a record of what it is that he looked at and and said we aren't uh going to be able to rely on. You know, again, this is not the most thrilling stuff ever, this whole situation with the binders in the record, but I I just I got to tell you, it really it really gets on my nerves. It really gets on my nerves because it just speaks to the lack of concern that these folks can continue to have for imposing some kind of accountability for this wrong behavior, all this terrible behavior that that surrounds Sander Burmore, that surrounds Kieran Reed. Uh that, you know, now that we know from the the Proctor, text messages apparently affecting, you know, all of these other criminal cases as well. There's just this stench. There's just this stench about investigation and and law enforcement in this particular area. We are turning to post in the hope that they are as the the body that is empowered to impose some kind of discipline to say look this is the standard to be a police officer. Like this is the floor here. You got to you got to clear this bar. It's not really that high. Try not to lie and be a terrible person. Uh, so we're we're we're relying on them to impose some kind of accountability here for this guy who's not going to be criminally charged for what he did to Sander Burchmore and you know what what he what he did in the course of his leadership at the uh Explorer program. And so for them to be like so little concerned about that, you can't even bother to scan. You can't you can't even bother to scan both of your binders. Like I just I just don't I just don't get it. I know things happen, but how how do you not double check that? I mean, it's just when when you're when you're a police administrator, that's literally what you do. You manage a bunch of paperwork. You're not working a beat anymore. You're not out on patrol. You're not, you know, driving around take calls. Like your job is literally to manage the paperwork. And so just continues to show a real lack of concern that is is so troubling. It's so cavalier. It's just it's so unconcerned about the effects that these law enforcement officers have on the lives of real human beings. So, I hope this is the last that we have to hear about this stuff. I know it's it's like not exciting, but like just could you just care enough to scan the stuff so you don't jeopardize this case maybe like getting thrown out or something because you didn't you didn't you didn't scan the the files. It's just it's just crazy to me and so frustrating.

>> Yeah. >> All right. um the other documents that we received um have u well it really depends on how what happened to them ultimately but because there is a discrete issue about why presos about why production wasn't made originally I think as a group they ought to be marked for identification if parties want to introduce any part of that group any documents ments from within that group as exhibits. They just would move those into evidence during the course of this hearing and we could rule individually on those documents. But I think the group it's important to have a group of documents recently obtained by the division and provided to respondent and to the commission be uh be marked as a group as the next u exhibit for identification. So, yeah, we're also going to be making a record of everything you didn't turn over, >> what those identification numbers are. Okay, >> your honor, if I may, I did submit a flash drive with >> um the transcripts on them, >> right? >> I believe they were scanned in by um um by Miss Smith and I thank you for your persistence. Um I got a PDF yesterday and it's 190 pages. I believe that is the the physical transcripts that are involved. So I I I had intended to try to introduce some today as we go, but >> so they're part of the the larger body of documents that were received by division and provide to us that were marking for ID. I you certainly can move any document from that group you into evidence and we'll see what there's any objection. I'll deal with it. So you have it it's in a workable form now because they were scanned in and you just at the appropriate time why don't you just move them into evidence. >> Okay. >> All right. Is that okay? >> Yes. Yes. But um the first page on it is actually one I did was my letter to um Miss Smith saying that here's what they are. >> Okay. >> So I know that that's should be in there shouldn't be in there. reactor later on. But it's part of >> I don't know that it needs to be a record for the hearing. It's part of the doc documents received by the it's a cover letter is what you're saying, >> right? Yes. Um >> but I'll be referring to the uh of the when they were scanned in they're scanned in 190 pages. So I went to the 190 pages. >> We don't care. So when we got to the >> Are you not enthusiastic about getting to the evidence? Once we get past these preliminary, >> we don't care about you scanning your cover letter. >> Feels appropriate to move them in at that time. >> You wanted an evidence, move it in. >> You can work with them if you need to work with them during the course. >> It's normal trial practice. >> Let's see. Um, your honor, as to those new documents, if they're I I do expect to reference one more. Um, did does the um hearing officer and staff have access to that one drive folder or should I have separately sent the the file that I expect to refer to >> within that that's contained within that one drive >> folder. Yeah. >> Can you pull documents out of the one drive? >> Yes, I have access to it. Um, so if you just tell us what the document is when you introduce it, we can pull that out. >> Thank you. So uh before we get on with witnesses, are there any other preliminary issues that the either party wants to make the division?

>> Um, so I believe collectively the parties have um submitted all of the interview transcripts for admission as well as the um uh interview warnings that uh Mr. Divine uh reportedly signed. Um, I do think it would make sense at this stage to introduce all those. Um, >> okay. See, so you both want all the transcripts of all the interviews in. Is that what you're saying? >> Uh, so >> yeah. Yes. >> If we're in agreement, I I think you had left out um or or Mr. Excuse me, attorney still had left out one transcript um which I submitted this morning and then the interview warnings which I also submitted this morning. >> Oh, okay. So the 190 page uh submission plus the two that you proposed today correct >> are what you both proposed would be introduced in evidence wasn't produced since we were here last transcript was from before assuming others at the time. So I think that there may be some confusion. Uh, I if you uh if I'm able to >> me you're saying that was part of the recently received transcripts. >> So essentially there there were two folders. One from the USB drive and one from the interview transcripts. The the USB drive had the same most of the transcripts but in word form and then the interview transcripts were in PDF form. I think that I think that may be where the confusion lies. Um, >> which did this come from? >> So, that certainly came from the PDF files that were scanned, but let me double check if it's in the it. Oh, actually, it is in both. Excuse me. It was in both folders. Well, one was I believe originally word format and one was PDF format, but it is in both folders. >> Mr. St. You seem to be indicating that you thought this came from some other >> I thought about it before. I thought it was in another format. I didn't think it was provided recently. Doesn't judge me. >> Are you objecting to it? >> I don't object. >> By the way, it it has a cover sheet and is that the way it appears in the how you received it? a interview or is that something that you folks had? >> So, the hard copies had those cover pages. I don't believe that the the copies on the USB drive did. Um, and I think, for example, the the copies of the transcript that um, attorney provided are one or two pages off from my notes. And I believe that that's the reason is because there's two different there's essentially two different forms of each interview transcript. Are you trying to make this even more confusing? >> I I've been uh you know doing mental cartwheels all morning trying trying to figure out where where those page numbers went wrong and I think that's it. >> Well, it shouldn't be necessary. Um, you don't actually have to submit like multiple different formats of the same freaking thing. Um, but nevertheless, I I find it interesting that they're going to introduce all of these things, all of these interviews into evidence. Uh, because this is a record and at least in theory, the presumption is that it should be public. Now, they're not telling us names of people, uh, but these are interviews that were conducted over the course of the IIA investigation. And so if the reason why we're not hearing about some of these other details and materials is because they're subject to the federal investigation protective order, these interview transcripts are not going to fall under that. It doesn't have anything to do with the FBI. This is Brian Brian Holmes's work product. Uh, so I'm a little uh I guess I I mean I don't I don't even quite know how to react to that. Like this is a presumably a large volume of information that the Stoen Police Department relied on to reach a conclusion that he had this inappropriate relationship. Uh, and you know they didn't they didn't want him want him being a police officer not only with their department. We heard from Chief N McNamer if he'd still been employed uh when the findings came in, she would have recommended that he be terminated. But they also don't want him to be able to be a police officer again. Like is that bad? Is that bad? And so we're just is this like one of those discovery dump types of approaches where um it's just such a high volume of stuff that the the really bad stuff gets gets buried. Is is that going to be part of the philosophy here? I don't know. Are they having faith that this is all going to stay shut up behind closed doors? Hard for me to imagine that that's the case, but I don't know. I don't know if anybody's requested them. I certainly haven't.

>> Okay. Well, let's do this. I'm going to and and you know that it's not just the interview that the division is proposing over and above the submission that you've prepared that's been scanned. It's also uh has indicated a uh warning that indicated reportedly signed by Mr. Vine and those are being proposed. Do you have any objection to those? >> All right. So I don't know if that's the next one. >> Yes, that's the next one. So >> So the the warnings will be exhibit number 12 and the interview will be 13 and then the submission the remainder of the interview transcript will be as a group. Mark the next exhibit after that 15 I >> um >> or whatever you however you say. >> 14 I believe. >> Yes. Yeah, that's true. 14 comes after 13. 13 minutes after 13. >> Thank you. >> So there is there anything else then we have to deal with preliminarily >> there is a we forgot to miss reached out to him recently had back so we don't expect him to >> okay so we we his his affidavit is part of the record so we're not Um, we can talk about that afterwards. We won't expect him today. Let's talk about whether how you want to deal with it, whether not today would be acceptable both parties or whatever. But but thank you for letting us know. I gather Holmes is still is here today. >> Yes, that's all. >> We'll continue with this crossexamination. Why don't we bring him in? want to get them. >> Holmes, I'll remind you that you're still under oath and would you state your name for the record, please? >> Brian Holmes. Thank you. We were in the midst of uh crossexamination of but uh we suspended so you ready to continue. >> Sorry, please. >> I just reminded everybody still under >> um Mr. Holmes, I believe when we left off, we had to discuss an alleged an account an encounter alleged by SB that on March 19 or March 19, 2020, she had met with a rob and um she later recounted that version of what happened on 8:16, 2020 and described it differently. Do you recall that, sir? >> No. Would you read me? >> I remember going through a series of questions. I don't remember that one specifically. Okay. I um I asked if he has the Egypt. I ask you to look at the exhibit pages 502 through 513. Sir, >> 502. >> Oh, yeah. All these messages. I remember this now. You're 502. I want want you to read 502 through 513 to yourself. See if it refreshes your memory, sir. >> Just want to make sure I'm right. I'm reading in the right spot. Council. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Got you. No bites. >> Okay. Is that correct? >> Uh, everything except for that last part. I didn't see that, but um I agree that we we talked about it. >> Attention page 513 514 and last entry on 513, sir. >> Yes, I see there on 514. and on I14 BK1 right >> now sir I want to draw your attention to page 526 30 Okay. Um, so two different versions of the same event. Correct. >> Yes. >> Now turn to 538. And um I want you to read the pages pages leading up to that 5:30 through 538. >> Oh my good lord. >> Okay. On five. And is that a continuation of the exchange? >> Yes. Regarding that's regarding the same, right? >> Yes. Okay. And um did I say that correctly, sir? >> Yes. >> Well, what would that mean, sir? If if you're recall, what is your understanding? What that mean? >> Objection, your honor. >> Rounds. >> Uh calls for speculation. >> No, I'll answer. It It means sir. And that was on August 16 of 2020. Correct. >> Yes. >> Do you recall if SB stated how she went over to Rob's house for that event that she was describing in two different fashions here? >> I remember being mentioned. I don't remember when. I want to draw your attention to page 541. >> I'm sorry. 5 what? >> 541. Now throughout this email change, sir, it would be that Billy Farwell looking for story. Objection. >> So this is with Billy Farwell. >> Was acting like a wasn't sir. >> Objection. He's active. >> Yes. >> Well, you know Mr. Divine, right? You know who he is? >> Yes. >> You know his wife, right? >> I do. You know his children, correct? >> Yeah. To a lesser degree. Yes. >> Uh he's got a daughter. We just asked her earlier last time we were here. Correct. >> Yes. >> He's got a son. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> You know his son's name. >> So he's also has a couple big German shepherds. Never stop barking when you call. He has he has a couple of German shepherds, sir. >> No. >> No. You're not you're not familiar if he hasn't I know he had a dachshin a mix I think I don't really you guys kind of dissolve a friendship correct >> yes so she represent that she just kind of went over to his house that right this did you have a you collected 50,000 plus pages of text messages and email messages. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> All kinds of phone records, right? >> Yes. >> Did you ever find a phone call from Mr. Divine to SB asking her to come over? I I found an audio call, Facebook audio call. I didn't find any phone call um that I can recall. found an audio. Did you hear his voice in an audio call? >> No, it was just a record that an audio call through FaceTime was made somewhere in this record. >> Did you identify that as evidence in the case at all, sir? >> It's it's in the exhibit. Was that part of the race exchange? >> Yes. >> Okay. So back on I I want to talk back on March of 20, did you find any communications between SB and Mr. Divine requesting or having SB go over to his house? >> This is like a terrible This guy is not good at asking questions. Hi. Hi there, Gus. uh because he's just told you there was a a Facebook a Facebook audio call between Marty Riggs and Sandra Birmore and he is taking the position that Marty Riggs is your client and if you're trying to say you you're you're you're try you're trying to like point out I guess that he didn't use his own like personal cell phone or or traceable identification to communicate with her. Okay. But you're you're not articulating that very well. He's just going to repeat that your client was Marty Riggs and so this Marty Riggs Facebook call is is the one that they think is is where he told her to to come over or invited her to come over or whatever. And it's and it's there in the exhibits. You should know it's there. I I can't quite tell what this lawyer is doing here. >> No. So, there's nothing to corroborate her even going to his house, correct? >> No. >> No, there's nothing to corroborate or No, >> there's nothing to corroborate other than the substance of the text messages exchanges uh coming from her to Billy. And there's never been any uh phone calls that you've been able to directly connect to Mr. Divine. Is that correct? >> I don't believe so. No. >> So, you're aware that Mr. Divine has a daughter and a son who would be home, most likely be home at this time, correct? >> His kids would be home. This is This is a terrible excuse. Th this is um this is starting to get into the kind of um just this is this is a red flag when I'm talking to somebody that absolutely did it, okay, but isn't going to admit it and they're in massive denial that that they did it. And one of the approaches that they will take to try to persuade you is to uh make it like it's impossible that this could even have happened. And usually it's it's rare that it's impossible. And if it is impossible, like that's it. That's definitive evidence. You can definitively, for example, be placed somewhere else. And here's how we can prove it. And that's it. You don't have to have like 500,000 reasons for why this is this whole accusation thing is is incorrect. Uh like like that's it. Um his kids could have been home. That's supposed to like make it highly improbable that this happened. Number one, I I don't have any reason to believe his kids would have been home or not. I don't know anything about his kids' schedule, his kids having babysitting, school, sports, you know, uh, and hate to say it, but the kids being at home with dad doesn't rule out dad doing some nasty stuff with the kids around. kids go wait outside. Daddy's got some important business to take care of. Like that's impossible or something. I just This is a terrible line of defense because it's not impossible. And you've just now kind of invited me to think about like yikes. If that's on your mind, well, but the kids were home. Yeah, that's that's not inviting um good good thoughts about this guy. And look look at look at how he's sitting there smug in his chair that that that kind of like half eyebrow up and that that just that posture. How are you going to deal with that? It's my kids were home. It's impossible. No. No, dude. Like I think you maybe just just made it worse. Did you just tell us your kids were home when when when you did this? Gross. >> Stay in that form. >> Well, Mr. Divine had a a daughter and a son. Is that correct? Back in March of 2020. >> Yes. >> Would it make sense to you that this young woman would just show up at his house at Jack's friend? >> It's the same. Sir, you were doing an evaluation of this evidence. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And when you do your evaluation of the evidence, you look at things that make sense to you. Is that correct? >> Sure. >> And you track down things that make sense and don't make sense and kind of evaluate the evidence in that fashion, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. When you were evaluating this evidence, did you ever say, "Listen, uh, we've got this text message that says she just showed up at his house out of the blue." Did you ever think while you're doing your evaluation that this didn't make any sense? That's a tough question. I mean, you're talking about something that I was doing uh years ago. I mean, I was looking at the evidence and evaluating it. >> That's not a good >> evaluating the evidence. Would you look at this evidence in your normal fashion, your normal practice, and say, "Hey, listen. >> We need to find out who might be home at that time." No. No. >> You wouldn't have done that? >> I don't think so. I don't believe I did. now during the same time frame March of 2020 through August of >> I mean I'm still trying to kind of wrap my head around how the expectation is that the IA officer should have investigated who was in his home a year before or you know three three quarters of a year nine months something like thought Sandra died in in February 2021. We're talking about March March of 2020. A year earlier on any one random day he should go find out if the kids were home. This is this is just not a reasonable expectation. And and look look at the smile on that guy's face. that that little smirk like he really thinks this is this is getting somewhere. I Is is this is this just me or is is everybody else like not remotely bothered by Officer Holmes not finding out who was home? Like if somebody was home, why don't you go ahead and and put that person on the stand? I mean, is Mr. Divine We already know Mr. Divine's going to get on the stand, and I have a feeling it's going to be a train wreck, but um so great. Is he going to tell us? It's impossible. My kids were home. Like, they really think they got something here. And it it's it's it's not landing with me. I guess that's all I can say. >> 2020 when we had the change in the first. Um, she was also having communications with the Joshua Bell. I'm on Joshua Heel. Is that correct? >> Yes. Want to draw your attention to page 401. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. 6 608. I'm sorry. It was 41 de. >> Okay. 608. >> Okay. Now, I actually want you to go up to page 605 and read through 608 labeled different way. There are other numbers. >> Yeah. >> 605 607 is very last text is overwritten. Okay. 605 to 607. Do you know who that's an exchange between, sir? The conversation from 605 to 607. Did you ever follow up on who this conversation was with? Who these people were? Um, so this is black case. Uh, this is in sporadic order. I I may have identified who it was through Celre. I I don't remember right now. >> What's the word you use? Black case. >> Black case is the uh original data format that I received the thumb drive on. Uh later after the cell phone was cracked, uh, it came in cell form. Gotcha. Were you ever able to confirm that there was a communication between Mr. Dan and anyone regarding people coming to his house on September 29, 2019? >> No. And is that something you would have checked? I may have. I don't know. There was a lot of data poured through, a lot of work that went into this. >> Now, I want to go Mr. He um page 608. Okay. Read page 608 through 610 yourself, sir. You said stop at 610. >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. Could you tell me the participants to that conversation, sir? Uh, >> so whatever Rob is at this point, she doesn't want anything to do with it. Correct. according to this. Yes. And that was on April one of 2020. Right. Yes. And she never mentions the name Divine in this exchange. Correct. >> Right. Now talk briefly about um these text messages and what you have and what you don't have, what you could extract and not extract. And are you aware that SB has had text messages back in 2017? Um vaguely familiar with the time frame. That sounds accurate. >> But the only documents you got were for approximately a year that you produced to us were for a year and there were 50,000 pages in approximately a year of her communicating with others. Objection. >> I actually don't understand the question. You want to rephrase that? >> Well, it's not a question. approximately 50,000 plus more than 50,000 plus pages of texts and email messages correct that you secured from SB's phone >> uh to put a number on the black case file it was somewhere in the neighborhood of anywhere from 30 to 50,000 uh and then Cellbrite I couldn't even give you a number or a time frame >> was more >> a lot more so 100,000 pages >> I said I couldn't even give you a number It's a lot for for for years of extraction of records. Is that correct? >> Sure. And how is it you put together these documents these documents part of the report? How did you pick these specific documents out of all of those? So there was um basically anything that had evidentiary value or anything that uh that was um conversations with SP and anybody who was involved with this case >> and and the documents you have are PDF searchable, aren't they? >> The black case was PDF searchable. Uh, Celbrite was uh you'd have to select stuff and and print and it's more like an Excel format. >> And did you just type in the name Rob and this is what came up? >> I did. And a large amount of filtered searches uh you know so using Celbrite program you you'd go in you select um the file you were working on and you you could put in anything anything for search criteria. >> And you put in search criteria for the name. Is that it? Okay. And this is what came up, >> right? >> Uh not in these documents. Um, so Celbrite was was a lot more selective, a lot more refined to be able to filter searches. >> And so far the only reference to divine was a conversation from 2019 that we can't identify the participants and that begins at page 605. H >> there's no there's no reference to divine that I located everything is referenced as wrong >> now in this and SB kept her text messages back to kept text message back to 2017 didn't she >> I don't know when she kept it back to I think >> so there is a reference to divine that's what he just told us there's a reference to divine in one of her conversations with somebody she's having with somebody that that's unidentified and it's back in 2019. So, she's talking about divine in the text messages and of course we don't get to see what she said but uses the name Divine on this one occasion and then the rest of the time he's referenced as Rob. I don't have the context for all this, right? But the hearing officer is going to. And so far, I mean I mean just my knee-jerk reaction is that if the name divine is in her communications, unless the communications make it real clear that like this is a one-time reference. It it kind of seems to make it maybe more likely that Rob was divine. Does she ever say [ __ ] in her text messages? Since that's seems to be who you want to blame it on. Does she ever say Cune in her text messages? I'm guessing if she did, you'd mention it. So if I don't hear that, all I'm going to hear is she talks about Rob and she talks about divine. And those things kind of seem to go together, don't they? >> Sir, take a look at page 57 just before we leave this. Make sure I'm following this. If you look at page 605, So am I reading this right? >> Yes. >> Okay. I thought I just heard there was no mention of divine and maybe I misunderstood. >> Sure. I stand correctly. >> That's I I believe judge my my question is geared toward the only reference we have is between the divine was between these participants we couldn't identify at the end of page 605. >> Because we don't know who's talking here is what you're saying. >> Correct. >> I got you. >> And it's from 2019. >> Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. >> Page 572. Sir, I believe my question was whether or not >> SB kept her records back in 2017. >> I I I I don't even get where this is going. Like the the time frame. Are you saying you have just one year's worth of communications or are you saying you have them back to 2017? Like the whole significance of this divine is only in there once if it's one year. Like is that what you're is that what you're saying? It's one year and divine's in there once or are you saying it's multiple years and divine is in there once? This is this is really terrible questioning from this lawyer because I I just I don't understand even what like fact that he is trying to establish let alone what's the significance of it. The fact that divine is in her text messages at all is probably not great. I mean, you know, I don't know. I can't see the conversation. It's going to depend a lot on the details on that conversation, isn't it? And the hearing officer is going to see those, so he'll know. But the conversation with Billy Farwell apparently about Rob certainly sounds pretty incriminating. So, she's talking about Rob and she's talking about divine to to somebody else. I I don't know. I I don't I don't see this being helpful. I don't see that I would be drawing attention to this. If I'm Mr. Divine, especially if my only defense is couldn't have been because surely my kids would have been home. It would be impossible. And this is like on the I don't even sweat, you know, kind of kind of level of no, it's not possible excuses. My kids were home. So what >> did you read the first entry on page 572? Read some more. Why not? >> SB had text after their text messages back in 2017. Is that fair to say? >> According to this, yes. >> Page 579. You read page 579. >> The last entry on our page, sir. SB rights. I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong page. 539. That's correct. So would you have text messages from your extraction that go back to 2017? Sir, >> I don't remember reading anything. >> And the ones you did search and you searched for Mr. vine. This is the only thing you came up with was what we have here. This exhibits in this in this form. Correct. >> Correct. >> So once again in this narrow segment of her text messages for one year despite them having other years worth of them that aren't even being discussed here apparently. Uh, she talks about Rob and Divine Divine once Rob multiple times and you think this is helpful >> according to what we've reviewed here today? Yes. Now I want you to read pages 580 to 587. 580 to 587. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> This is just period. >> There appears to be an exchange between whom? >> We can't see or know what any of this is. I the user is not identified. I can't say that it's somebody from the department. I'm not the person she graduated with who was a dispatcher at the time who worked for the police department was a Mr. Kavanagh. Is that right? >> Yes. >> We briefly discussed Mr. counted on all before. And in the meantime, you provide us his transcript, right? Well, you've been provided the transcript. >> He was a witness in this case >> and he was a dispatcher that you interviewed. >> He was graduated with her. >> Yes. >> So, someone reading this would lead you to believe that this was Mr. Kelly, correct? >> Objection. No, I'll whether that's what you concluded at the time. >> I identified I later identified uh through Selbright Mr. Kavanaaugh having conversations with SP and he was identified as a witness. I can't say that it was this one text exchange. >> So in this exchange the name Robert Divine comes up. Why? Why? What's the significance of that in this exchange? >> Objection. So again I'll allow your state of mind at the time that saw the name Rob where you conclude Rob any talking about Rob Devon that that's along and the short of this conversation they've they've eliminated Robert Dvine in this conversation correct? Yeah. I mean, I'm not seeing where, you know, we're not seeing that in this conversation. They're trying to identify somebody at the PD. They're figuring out that it's a dispatcher. So, and I didn't draw any one conclusion based on this one exchange. >> Now, I want to draw your attention to page 589. Another conversation from 2019. This is approximately two weeks later from the ones we were just looking at, I believe. Okay. Yes. >> So those people are so popular with her that they actually have codes between these two people, right? I mean, I was aware that there were she created codes um and she talked about it. >> It wasn't a code from Robert Divine, was there? >> Apparently not. >> He wasn't in there, was he? Well, sounds like he was Rob. >> I mean, I didn't draw that conclusion from this. >> He wasn't significant enough to them to have a code for him because they didn't talk about all the time, right? >> Objection. >> They didn't have a code for Mr. Divine, right? >> I I don't know that they Why did you select this particular exchange, sir, as evidence in this case? >> Objection. What was your state of mind? >> You're asking why he included that in this report. >> Yes. >> Overruled. >> So the whole the whole thing is an exhibit. The whole exchange um all of it is an exhibit. Um, it wasn't just one exhibit. So uh in totality uh there was pieces of each of these conversations that were evidence. Why would you select this particular uh entry from August 25, 2019? Uh your honor, I'm going to object again because the division are the ones who selected these this group of text messages that that's how the exhibits for this were created. >> It wasn't attached to his uh investigative report. So it's from my recollection it's included in the hard drive but not in the IIA report. >> Yes. Look at it right now. >> Do you see any significance to this exchange as it relates to Mr. And when I say the exchange, I I I'm specifically referring to pages 589 to 590 from a conversation on August 25, 2019. I mean, the significance is that he's mentioned uh it's noteworthy that the codes ABCD and E or whatever she ended up having. Um, oh, if if you if you was suggesting that uh he's eliminated from this, then I don't disagree with you from the codes. Okay. Did you ever go back to try to find out who the persons identified as A, B, C, D, and E were? >> I probably didn't. >> Did you put that in your report? >> I probably did not. >> Would you have kept any notes anywhere about who these people are? >> Um, maybe. I mean, it's a pretty large case file. I mean, the entire Cellbrite uh hard drive is an exhibit in this case. Um, >> well, well, Cellbrite is in your notes, is it? >> Cellbrite is not my notes. >> Did you keep any notes relative to who A, B, C, and D were? >> Any uh I don't think I wrote down who ABC, CD, D, and E were. Did you find any communication from Rob Divine as set forth at page 589 on about August 25, 2019? I'm so sorry. What are you asking me? He did. >> Did you find any kind of communication between SB and Robert Divine that you could attribute to this statement? >> Uh just the communication with the uh Facebook alias. >> Well, this is 2019. The Facebook alias is what Facebook alias? >> Mighty Riggs. >> Okay. Mighty Riggs wasn't until November of 2020. >> Okay. >> Right. So this is 2019. Back in 2019 on about August 25, 2019, did you find any communication between Robert Divine and SB that you could attribute to her response? Now I want to draw your attention to um judge. This is the uh a photograph. >> We're just not going to put that up screen. >> I draw your attention to a photograph uh email page 603. Okay. So further and this is part of that exchange we already discussed from August 16 of 2020. >> Yes. >> What is your understanding as to what that was? >> I mean I have to go back and establish why it was in there. I mean >> okay you can go back. Please go back and refresh. See what it says. So you are drawing the conclusion that that is a picture of this or not. You're not >> what I I don't I don't want to know more about this. I don't I don't want to know more about the the the dickpicks. I really I really don't. It's No, no, don't. You shouldn't be sitting there smirking while we're having a conversation about about whether you send her a dickpick or not. It's It's not

A good look. Those penises are, I don't know. We don't know. You ever try to find out if there was an exchange between SB and Mr. Divine wherein he sent her a picture of his penis? We first had to identify what account he was using. So, we did our best to try to discover whether or not anything like that happened.

>> Okay. And you found, aside from the Mighty Rig documents, leave those aside, you found nothing that was an exchange between SB and Mr. Divine that you could link to this photograph. Correct.

>> That's correct. Is it like impossible for him to use a burner phone or something, you know? Is that am I supposed to believe he's like never heard of something like that? No. You have no communication at all between them except for what you claim is the migration files, right? I don't believe I located any other communication other than the Mig's account.

>> So, she seems to be like sharing it with somebody else saying it's Divine's.

>> And so, they're trying to like impeach that. It's not not his. She's lying about the dickpick.

>> I want to draw your attention to page 612. 6:12.

>> You did. Did you ever find, before the Mighty Rig documents, which are in November of 2020, did you ever find any communications between Rob Divine and SB that could be attributed to her um texting Rob on or about May 14, 2020?

>> You set up other than Mighty Riggs.

>> Yes.

>> No, I didn't.

>> Mighty Riggs didn't. We agree the Mighty Riggs started till November.

>> I'd have to read it, but if you're saying that that's what the case file says, I'm not disputing that.

>> Page 614. So, like I'm just, I'm just trying to kind of make sense of what this, this theory is, right? The theory is all the things that she is telling other people Robert Divine did, conversations they had, images that were shared, so forth. Um, she made it all up. And so for what purpose? We're just at such a disadvantage not being able to see the substance of all this stuff. And I, I, I just, I find it, I find it kind of irritating. I really do. I mean, I, I understand the privacy concern, but you're using it as evidence. And you're using it as evidence on a matter that is, is kind of important for public purposes. Should this guy be a cop or not? This hearing officer is going to make a recommendation to the commission as a whole whether he thinks this evidence substantiates that Robert Divine engaged in misconduct with Sandra Burmore. And so unless he like doesn't consider any of her statements, which he might do because as they keep pointing out, she's not here to be cross-examined. So there are some, uh, some, some hearsay problems potentially, uh, with maybe a lot of these communications. Uh, so I mean, if he just doesn't rely on them at all, okay, I guess. But it's just, they're, they're being used as evidence. They were something that that the IA investigator relied on for an IA report, IA action being taken. I don't, I don't, uh, particularly love this, uh, this invocation of of privacy. I really don't. Like, it's just, it's gone beyond that by, uh, by by bringing it into this kind of adjudicative process. There's, there's no way to be able to evaluate it if we can't see it for ourselves.

>> Um, do you know who that exchange is from?

>> Uh, yes. And during your investigation, you learned that, um, SB had regular communications with Matthew Farwell. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Regular communications with William Farwell. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Pretty regular communications with Joshua Heel. Correct.

>> Yes. They're all police officers working for the Stoke Police Department or animal control officer working for the Stoke Police Department back in 2020 and 20.

>> Correct. Correct. So talking to any one of them, you can get schedules from each other. Is that fair to say?

>> Um, ask me.

>> Yeah. What about withdraw? Is there a schedule that people know each other's schedules and who's working and things like that?

>> Yes. So she could get any of the information she wanted regarding, you know, where Mr. Divine might be. Correct.

>> Sure.

>> Oh, she's, she's just like those, those psychos who can't stay away from him, right? Just like the one he had to sick the police on back in in 2015 while he was still having his extramarital affair with her. Sandra Birchmore is just like that. Everything is about this guy, right? She's, she's just so obsessed that she's getting schedules from the Farwells so that she can make up stories about Robert Divine. What? Because she, she wants him so bad. Really? Really? This is this is next level.

>> Page 621. Page 620. Page 620 and 621. Now the name Rob is referenced in that exchange, sir.

>> Yes. Who's that exchange with?

>> It's another exchange with Josh Hill.

>> And that's on October 21 of 2020. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> And what is discussed in that exchange, sir?

>> Um, in the first, in the first part, halfway through page. Can you tell us why certain of these text messages have double entries in them? For example, page 622.

>> Sure. That's a technological flaw of block case system.

>> What is your understanding of the flaw?

>> It's replicating messages.

>> Are you an expert in the black case system?

>> I know I am. Sir, I want to change gears because I believe we've gone through all the all those messages documents. Now, sir, when, when entering on to, um, you have familiarity with entering on to a, uh, iMessage account?

>> How you get on to it?

>> I mean, Facebook Messenger. I'm familiar with that.

>> Okay. How does one create a Facebook Messenger account?

>> You, um, you have to have a Facebook account, I think. Download the Facebook Messenger app.

>> And, uh, who does that?

>> The user.

>> User. Is that the person who owns the account?

>> Yes. And then the owner of the account sends out messages to people for them to respond. Right.

>> Yes. So the first entries in the account should be from the person who created the account, right?

>> Sure.

>> Not always.

>> Now, it's your assertion, is it not, that there are similarities in these Mighty Rig extractions which parallel Robert Divine's life and therefore Robert Divine is in fact this Mighty Rig's character that's here. Right?

>> That mean I didn't characterize it like you described it, but

>> Why don't you use your own words? What do you, what do you, what you know the evidence that drew the inference that it was your client?

>> And you drew the inference that it was a Stoic. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Despite the fact that my documents never even mention the word Stoic. Correct.

>> I mean, it may I have to look at

>> Oh my good lord. He just said you can infer it from the evidence. He didn't specifically say Stoton. Yeah. You know, Amber Heard didn't specifically say Johnny Depp either. That's what an inference is. Th this is this is not good impeachment. Inference is by by definition. They didn't say it outright. He inferred it from the context. If you want to explore that, maybe explore how we reach that inference. But the fact that explicit things are not there isn't contradicting that at all.

>> Oh, thank you. You found other aliases.

>> Um, I don't remember if I did.

>> Tara Michelle, remember that?

>> Yes, she was identified.

>> And you put her in the report, didn't you, sir?

>> I believe I did.

>> It's at page, uh, page 40.

>> You want to page 40? Do, do you, when you drafted your report, what was the significance of this alias showing a flying against Mr. Divine?

>> So she, and you recall getting another finding another alias of Superman 167?

>> I, I vaguely remember that. Yes. I don't remember if I put it in here or not.

>> Soupman.

>> Go back to page 355.

>> I'm just, I'm lost on the significance of this. So, there's multiple people who have aliases and handles and whatever. Is that

>> So what?

>> Part of your claim against him for actions on becoming an officer?

>> I believe it is.

>> Page 385. I want you to read page 385 through 3860 or so.

>> Okay.

>> Is that the, is that, does that document what you're claiming Mr. Divine did as Martin Rose?

>> Amen. Well, you'll agree with me, sir, that there What is a Chateau? First of all, it's a restaurant.

>> And where is the Chateau in Stow?

>> The 1100 block of Park Street. And you're aware that there are 10 Chateau restaurants,

>> are you? Sir.

>> I know they're a franchise.

>> Franchise. There's one in Norwood, right?

>> Yes.

>> There's one in Branley.

>> All right.

>> Don't know where the other ones are, but I know that there's more than one.

>> Franklin, Norton. Those ring a bell?

>> No.

>> How close is Bra?

>> 20 minutes.

>> How close is New?

>> 20 minutes. When was SD living owner number 2020?

>> Uh Ken, I believe anywhere in this document. Sorry. You said there was another location in this, in this document, sir. References. Yes, I remember reading it.

>> Possibly you can find it for us.

>> Try the pages you just referred to. Sorry. Uh, between 416 and 422, your honor. Okay. Uh, I think that was it. I didn't read the very beginning of of the uh conversation. Could have been more, but that's my memory. Those are the, uh, those are the references. So those are references, right?

>> Yes.

>> And as you're reading through these documents, you see a lot of

>> Yes. So when the exchange was made on page 385 and the conversation was on page 385, you know the tense of the tone of the message, whether or not all was funny. There was a, they were joking around.

>> Oh boy.

>> Can you tell? Is there anything

>> Tone.

>> That SB actually went there?

>> Uh, other than the text messages, no.

>> Is there anything following up that corres? And you're surmising that this is Marty Riggs's Robert Divine. Why? Because he's having a conversation, uh, with SP. Uh, the timeliness of him being admitted to the bar, uh, is in sync with the discussions in here. Um, he's a movie fan. I know that he likes movies because I like some of the same ones. Um, it would not be unrealistic for him to pick a name like that for a screen name. Uh, and then the conversation that that he ends up having with SB. Um, and then, you know, knowledge of the town, things like that.

>> The timing of his admission to the bar sounds kind of a big deal.

>> It was common knowledge

>> Around the ST Police Department that Mr. to violence becoming a lawyer. That fair to say?

>> Yes.

>> And was it common knowledge when he was going to be sworn in?

>> I don't, don't know. It wasn't something that was talked about. So,

>> But everyone knew he was going to law school, right?

>> Yes.

>> Oh, so she stopped that, too. She hunted it down so she could make

>> I'll acknowledge if he was being sworn on a particular day.

>> Or somebody else.

>> If he talked about it. I'm sure.

>> Somebody else now is victimizing Divine pretending to be Marty Riggs.

>> And you understand that Mr. Divine says that this Marty Riggs is not him.

>> Right.

>> Right. So the only communication you have with the Divine that you believe can draw is 2 and 1/2 months of communications that is the my rigs communications we have here. Okay. I mean, it sounds accurate what you're saying. There could be other references in this case file, but off the top of my head, that sounds accurate.

>> You had how many people working with you on this case?

>> Myself, uh, mainly one guy and then two additional people that were helping out.

>> Mr. Fry.

>> Yes.

>> Lieutenant Bob Fry, retired MSP. Uh, he was in the district attorney's, uh, detective unit. I think in the Cape and Plymouth County. Um, retired, got his private investigator's license and he does part-time police work for some small towns in Plymouth County.

>> Mr. Patali.

>> Paul Littleene, sorry.

>> Retired captain, Mass State Police. Same scenario. Um, you know, he did work for the, uh, different investigative units of the Mass State Police. Came highly recommended. Um, and then there was a Sergeant Mike Bates who ran a private IT company. Sergeant Mike Bates.

>> Sergeant Mike Bates.

>> So, he helped you with the IT?

>> Yes.

>> And beyond those three individuals, did you have any other help or

>> I mean, town council helped out with reviewing documents. Uh, other than that, no. Well, you also had help, did you not? State police trooper done.

>> Uh, Lieutenant Fanning was the guy who was sharing information with me.

>> Lieutenant Stanning. He would give you information, right?

>> Yes. And he was investigating this as well. So, you had the state police and you had three individuals assisting you. You had you and you had town council going through all these records. Right.

>> Right. And but based upon a joint effort, it's your opinion that the only, or the only, sorry, that the only records you file that you can attribute to Mr. Divine, the entire life of SB, are was here in Mar, two and a half months. Is that correct, sir?

>> Could you ask that again?

>> The entire life of SB. She represented that. She kept her records back in 2017. She didn't delete anything. Right. In her entire life, the only communications you can, or you are claiming or you found that you are claiming or alleged are these Marty Riggs documents, which is a two and a half month window in time.

>> Objection. The question has taken information far outside the relevancy of this hearing. If he's asking about her entire life.

>> No, I'll allow it. Just see if you had any information beyond what's been referenced.

>> Sure. What you describing is there.

>> Okay. Two and a half months is Marty Riggs. Is that a defense? I'm not, I'm not getting it. I'm just not. He found two and a half months of Marty Riggs. Doesn't mean that there weren't others, you know, burners or other ways of communicating.

>> Now,

>> Things deleted that weren't recovered from the celebrate.

>> I message account. They can create a username. Is that parasite?

>> Sure.

>> And, um, that name can be changed on the account can be changed anytime they want, right?

>> Yes. And you're aware that, um, that, um, SB created her own name for the account, right? She have a signing name or anything like that. I mean, she's a user. It's obvious from the content here.

>> And she can change her username to anything she wants. Is that correct?

>> That's correct. Now, we know that between March of 2020 and August of 2020, SB created a version of fact which she had a relationship with Miss, uh, with a raw, and is that correct?

>> Yes. Yes.

>> She created a version of fact with a relationship with Rob. Is that how he described it? You could just be a normal human being and say Sandra Birmore described a relationship with Rob in March to August of 2020. You could just say that they're like so bending over backwards to smear her and impugn her and, you know, oh, she, she made this up or she lied about that that they, they can't, they can't just be normal, even with something like this. That's all you got to say. March to August of 2020, she claimed to have a relationship with Rob. She created a version of fact. It's like, it, this, this just makes you look worse. It does because you look so defensive. You look so aggressive with your smearing when it's not necessary. And that's that's part of your overall credibility here. You know, are, are you, are you able to connect on a reasonable person kind of level? We're going to see things the same way. I don't think anybody but you is seeing she created a version of fact with a relationship with Rob. Everybody else is thinking she claimed to have a relationship with Rob in this time period. She described it. It sounds like maybe she described it in some somewhat inconsistent ways. Are those like real significant or, you know, differences or not? I don't know cuz we don't get to see them. But that's how I think normal people are looking at this. And so by leaning on this, she created a version of fact like you gotta, you got to phrase everything like, so she told this lie that, you know, um, it's, it's going to be very, very off-putting to anybody who isn't already sharing that assumption.

>> And she started telling people about it, such as, uh, um, Mr. Healed on April 1. Right. All right. And we know from the context of his communications that Billy Farwell was trying to get more stories out of her. Is that correct?

>> That's correct. And you know from your investigation that SB gravitated towards to dramatic drama.

>> Yeah, I, I can agree with that.

>> Her aunt, I think it was her aunt who told you, right? Her cousin, second cousin told you that

>> Probably, if you're referencing.

>> Second cousin.

>> Should probably go with that. Did you read any of the interviews before you came here today?

>> No.

>> I'm not convinced you did.

>> But she liked drama.

>> Lawyer.

>> She liked create drama.

>> Right. Sure. I'm going to switch gears. I mean, so that's going to be the explanation for why she's, she's talking about Rob Divine.

>> Last year, we discussed questions out here.

>> She's creating drama.

>> Oh, I victim.

>> But we didn't have the transcripts. We've got the transcript since you're, you're aware of that, correct?

>> I am now. And, um, I'm going to take them in order.

>> Oh, you're back.

>> You, um

>> Interviewed him.

>> Is that correct?

>> It did.

>> Who was it? She lives in Salty and I, she was a, I don't know if it was a second cousin of SB.

>> And, um, she met through Facebook. Is that correct?

>> I'm sorry. Yeah, she Facebook. Recall that.

>> I don't. Can we double stream it?

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Um, I have the, uh, transcripts and I want to go to page 35. The transcripts that I think that's in the new documents yesterday.

>> I think it was August yesterday. Yes. I'm sorry. I was, that was 190 pages you were referring to.

>> Yes.

>> Oh, this is just excruciating. I lost my glasses.

>> This is the most meandering, seemingly pointless cross. It's just, it's a, it's a shotgun. It's disorganized. He doesn't know where his stuff is. He's not prepared because he's really, it seems like he's kind of winging it with what does he even want to say?

>> Yes. This one is the individual one.

>> Because if you knew where you were going, you'd have planned this out. You'd know where your reference should be. Page four.

>> Oh, you have it that way.

>> Yeah, we're pulling up the binder now.

>> We can do it that way, too.

>> Want to do them individually with page numbers, but I think one of them doesn't have page numbers.

>> Okay, if that works for you. But I think we can also pull up the binder we just found.

>> Well, we have it here right in front of us. Right. We have the transcript in the report.

>> Right. But one of the transcripts that plan use doesn't have page numbers. All the other ones do. What's the page yet again?

>> Should be pages. There should be 190 pages. I think that's just 200.

>> Lizzie, could you just send me the link again?

>> Yep. Over email. 35.

>> Yes. Um, and this is of the like full combined, uh, pages, correct? Just the one that the parties have. You want that?

>> Just agreed to today.

>> Yeah. Okay. That's the, that's the original one. What is he doing? Yeah.

>> That's what.

>> Yes.

>> Sorry. There's something documented that you see.

>> I mean, just really landing this point here. It's going to be a real devastating one, isn't it? With all this, all this effort that we're taking to set up something with the interview with the second cousin of Sandra.

>> Sorry about that.

>> Before we go there, how much more time would you estimate he'll be with us?

>> Oh god.

>> Could be here a couple hours. I'm sorry.

>> You have a couple more hours with him? I may have another. You have to go through. I, I plan to go through the transcripts because they contain a lot of

>> Information that we didn't know about before. I can't hear you. I plan on going through the trans.

>> And then, then we have a journal.

>> Okay.

>> He's just really communicated to you that he's done. He's done. You don't have a point. If you did, you'd have gotten to it already. So, he, he gets the picture. He gets the picture. You're arguing Sandra made all this up for whatever reason. Uh, somebody else pretended to be Marty Riggs, who also, you know, targeted him. Uh, the conversations about Divine, I guess. What are these? The ones that couldn't work because the kids were home? Uh, like if you had a better point than that, I think we'd have gotten it already. He's telling you loud and clear. Whatever you're doing here ain't working. And you had an opportunity to maybe buy a little good faith back, you know. Oh, well, your honor, I guess I can. No, a couple hours you're going to take because of these transcripts. You didn't have them before. So, there better be some good stuff in these transcripts, but somehow I doubt that there is. Or you would have focused on that and not wasted our time with whether or not it's possible that Mr. Divine's kids were at home during this meeting time that Sandra apparently described to somebody else. Oh, sorry. I believe I asked you that, um, she reached out to, um, strike that. You, you took the, you did the, uh, interview of. Is that correct?

>> I did.

>> Okay.

>> And she told you that she was re, that, um, SB reached out to her through Facebook. Is that correct?

>> Hey, I can't remember. If it says that that's, uh, that's what she did, then that's what she did. Okay. She get out to. That's incorrect. You get out of the, the halfway through 3/4 way down. It says, Is that, uh, Facebook? She Facebook.

>> Sure.

>> Because it seems that SB Facebook everybody. Facebook was her favorite way to communicate with people. Did you get that impression as you went through the these interviews?

>> No, I mean, you communicated with a lot of people. I agree with you.

>> Thousands of, uh, within a year was tens of thousands of communications, right?

>> Yes. It's, it's, it's an insane amount of communications. Would you, would you agree that just, it's, it's, it's raised a question of her mental state?

>> Objection.

>> He's not impressed with that. Insane amount of communications. So, she talked a lot. So, she talked a lot. And you're, you, you're going to try to turn that into indication of mental problems. I mean, I don't, you got to have some kind of foundation for that. That was not impressive to the hearing officer. Did you hear that tone?

>> Sustained. So, she learned about her pregnancy from SB, correct?

>> Yes.

>> And, um, can you tell me what page you're on?

>> So, and remember that in your conversation page 42 halfway down. So, is that what you told me, sir? I got the sense that was trying to provide some life coaching to SB. That's accurate.

>> That's accurate what you said, right?

>> Yes.

>> So when I go through your IA report, you conjure up the image of SB having a mental deficiencies. Correct.

>> Sure. I'd agree with that.

>> But here's her cousin who spoke with her and she thinks she's making the right decision. She's grown up, right?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

>> But her second cousin questioned her honesty, didn't she? At some point in the conversation, I remember sports to that effect.

>> Now, that never made it to your IA report, did that question, your honesty?

>> Sure.

>> It's right in the transcripts, which is part of my report. Well, your IA report is on the right, sir. Any narrative of it? We could scroll down page on the right. Page 44. I'm sure you should have page 44. Um, he wasn't provided the additional, uh, documents that were submitted, um, via the flash drive on the right. The right side is Page 44.

>> You never, you never included in your IA recorder narrator about your interview that she challenged the the honesty of SB, did you, sir?

>> No.

>> Okay. But your memory is that she did challenge her honesty?

>> Yes. On page four. No, I think I get the wrong page here. Okay. Can I go to page 35 again? Paragraph. It was her opinion, was it not, sir, that she told you that when she spoke and trooper done that SB was putting a lot of pressure on, correct?

>> Yes. And throughout your investigation,

>> It was your belief that in fact Matthew Farwell was the father of the child, right?

>> Generally, yes. And we now know

>> Objection.

>> He's not saying objection. What's the objection? Uh, he, he's going to, uh, I expect attorney Stow is going to cite to, um, unsubstantiated media reports about, um, DNA testing that was done.

>> Is that where you're going?

>> I am, judge. I can't get the record.

>> But there's been there's there's been

>> I don't know what that means. Information, mean people saying in media?

>> It's in the media. Yes, sir. I'm going to sustain the

>> So SB was trying to get Matthew Farwell to change his life and become part of her life and participate in the birth child of the baby. Right.

>> Correct.

>> And the aunt was cons, and the cousin was concerned about that. Right.

>> Right. And the cousin actually met with her, right?

>> I don't remember. Well, told you that she had access to

>> Hearing officer rubbing his eyes there.

>> One of the things you asked her, sir, was whether or not she ever heard the name Robert. Correct.

>> I'm sure I did. Mhm.

>> What was her response?

>> Think she said no.

>> Did you put that in your report, your IA report?

>> I did not.

>> Is that a summary of the interviewer?

>> So, it could be in there. I don't remember.

>> Here's a summary. We can, you go through it. It's what, uh, page 44. I believe you should have in front of you, sir.

>> Oh, good lord. So Sandra didn't tell this guy about this, this cousin.

>> It didn't police academy. You were trained that anything that was relevant should go in your report. Is that correct?

>> It's in the transcripts. So it's in my report.

>> Oh, you didn't provide the transcripts. You didn't see the transcript until now, right?

>> It's not on me. I provided everything that I thought I was supposed to do for post to post.

>> But you never put into your IA report that she never heard about the name Robert Divine. Is that correct?

>> That's correct. Page 49. Now we asked you if, if she had met with her a few minutes ago. Do you remember that, sir?

>> I do.

>> Hey. Hey.

>> We scroll up a little more. Go down. Down a little more. Sir. Okay.

>> Buffy.

>> It was a response. Is that correct?

>> That's correct. So this is a person who had communication with SB, met with SB one month before her death, right? So she connected with her.

>> I don't see where it says they met.

>> And she confided in her cousin about the birth of the child, about pregnancies. Is that correct?

>> Yes. She confined her cousin about her sexual relationships with with Matthew Barwell.

>> Yes.

>> And when you asked her about Robert Divine, she never heard of him.

>> Right?

>> I mean, if that's what the record reflects, then that's what I asked her and that's what her answer was.

>> I, I just, I'm not, I'm not buying the importance of this because, um, it doesn't seem like Divine mattered at all. Him to her or her to him. So why would, why would she bring it up? People don't like randomly bring up your ex when you're telling your, your friend or your cousin or whoever about your new dude or like this is what's going on in my life right now. Nobody, I don't think is saying she's got some thing going on with Robert Divine that like matters to her right then. It, it, it's just, it's frustrating because I wish, you know, we don't know, we don't know what she says happened between them. We don't get to know any of these details. So, it's just so hard to tell what the significance, if any, of any of this is, but it, it, it just, it doesn't sound like a significant thing. We've heard she went to his house. We've heard something about a dickpick. This does not sound like serious relationship making stuff. I just, I, I don't, I don't, I don't know why we would assume that she would tell the cousin if she did have something going on with Robert Divine at some point.

>> Correct.

>> Correct. Okay, next one. Um, it's the original documents page 48. Sure. You, uh, interviewed a, yes, I need no was SB's roommate in college in years 2019 and 2020. Correct.

>> Yes. And he was kind of more than a roommate because he went out with her all the time, right?

>> I mean, look at the roommates. They knew each other. I remember they took a car trip. Stoen. Um, it's in the transcripts. Whatever the, you know, whatever he told me.

>> I don't remember that. Page 185 of the of the new stuff. He told you.

>> He didn't. Did that ever make it into your report?

>> Nope.

>> And

>> What? He had a relationship with her.

>> Told you that, didn't you, Sean?

>> That should have gone.

>> That's what the record shows and that's what he told me. Is that correct? How is that exact in 2020?

>> That he lived with her.

>> Right?

>> Yes.

>> And he was actually her roommate before CO struck and then they broke up for and they got back together, uh, and two other roommates, right?

>> I, I don't remember that part about getting back together, but, uh, what you're saying about COVID and things coming to a halt is accurate.

>> Okay.

>> Well, you never put in your report that he denied knowing.

>> Right. Right. And this was a person whom she drove around with and she confided in him that she had slept with Matthew Farwell and William Farwell several times. That's correct.

>> If that's what's reflected in the record, then yes.

>> Now, you also showed him a text message, sir. You asked if you wrote it. Remember that, sir?

>> I don't. 181. 181. You showed him a, a, a text message that actually had his name, right? You identify with his name on it.

>> I don't think I did.

>> If I may, I didn't, I didn't have this on the drive, but this was an attachment to, um, to this transcript. Recently provided material.

>> Yes.

>> Yes, I do.

>> Are you offering it?

>> That's fine.

>> The next exhibit. What are we up to? Um, so that would be the respondent exhibit 457.

>> Sir, I showed you a, uh, text message string and on it has handwritten. As long as the go actually.

>> Um, I can make a copy. Is this related to?

>> I think it's too.

>> You know where the text message is for 89, sir?

>> Uh, I don't. Let me ask something. You see, you see in your interview, um, there's two. Oh, you're right. His father sat in on the interview with him.

>> Oh, and that's Jeremy. Yes, sir.

>> Jeremy asked, "What's the date in that?" Is that right?

>> Yes.

>> Answer is 89.

>> Yes. And in the document we both have in front of us, which is now exhibit to.

>> So the hearing officer is just going to take.

>> The third line of the text message, sir.

>> I see that.

>> So he can get the stuff that's useful. Okay.

>> Are you showing him the text message, sir?

>> I believe I showed him this.

>> Okay. You showed him that?

>> I believe I did.

>> And that was his phone number that you had put in the square, correct?

>> I believe it was.

>> And it says the sender is that phone number, correct?

>> Yes.

>> And he stated to you, I'll just take it at that. What's the point? Well, the point is just that question.

>> Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, he's getting less and less patient as this is going on. What's the point? I've been kind of saying that for like an hour now. What's the point?

>> Well, I'm not sure where we're going anymore.

>> Not sure where we're going.

>> No. There was an instance where you asked, uh, officer Kavanaaugh if he was participating in an email exchange and he said he had. Remember that, sir?

>> Well, Kevin was a dispatcher. Uh, and I don't remember a lot of the interview with him either.

>> Okay.

>> I'll tell you what. It's a little after 12:30. I think we could all use a break. We'll take our lunch break at this time.

>> He's had enough.

>> Back here. 1:30.

>> He's had enough.

>> Everyone is here. Just before, um, the, uh, their exam of the women. Um, I just wanted to clarify for the record that, um, the attachment that the respondent, um, introduced will be, um, respond to 1919, just to continue with, um, our numbering, um, and we will send, uh, an updated exhibit list to the parties, um, following the hearing, just so everyone can be consistent with numbering. All right. Continue. I want to draw your attention, sir. Page 49 of the original.

>> Okay. You took the statement of an Andrea Saka.

>> I did.

>> Okay. And she connected with Miss Divine. Sorry. I'm sorry. Talking to, um, SB when SB was about 21 or 22 years old through social media. So, first off, I don't know why we get to hear this person's name when like all this other stuff is redacted, but for some reason, we get to hear this person's name. Oh, the Freudian slip. Miss Divine. Miss Divine. Sorry. Sorry, SB. Oh, that was not a good misstatement there. Let's hear about what they talked about. Maybe.

>> She had her as a student. That's when she met her. She reconnected, I believe, after she became an adult.

>> And again, that was on, on Facebook Messenger, right?

>> Yes.

>> And she confided in Saka that she was pregnant twice, right?

>> Uh, I believe so. But didn't talk about Divine.

>> Well, on page 49 of your report, which is up here, you indicated that. Correct?

>> Yeah, it should be. Yes. And that's because that's the only thing she needed help in was math, right?

>> Um, I, I don't know. I mean, she, she had a lot of social struggles. So I don't know if

>> Social struggles are not educational issues, are they, sir?

>> Oh, one has something to do with the other.

>> Well, she was struggling with the math.

>> I believe that's what was reported. Yes. And that's what Miss Woko was her math student, right?

>> I believe so.

>> And Miss Woka would said that she wouldn't call her one of the most needy students. She definitely struggled with math. So that was the main area that she needed help in. Right.

>> Sounds right. But your report makes it sounds like she has major social issues.

>> Is that true?

>> She has social issues. That's true. But she also said, did she not, she questioned SB's honesty. Correct.

>> That sounds right.

>> The report is silent as to this was so questioning SB's honesty. Isn't that true?

>> Um, I don't remember if I put it in there or not. Remember, uh, she mentioned talking about stories.

>> Well, sir, there you go. Could you please look at your page 49, 29 to 50, and tell me if you mentioned in the IA report that Miss Mosaka represented to you that SB would lie. We can go to the new documents page 17. Page, page. That's I want to draw your attention to Mr. Cavana, which I believe is the oldest documents begins at page 50.

>> Was Brian Cavanagh, sir?

>> Uh, dispatcher.

>> Sure.

>> And, um, we briefly discussed him the last time we here, didn't we, sir?

>> Yes.

>> And, uh, you discussed with him, did you not? That there was an email that SB had written that said she had gone to Rob's house with a dispatcher from Stone Police Department. That sounds familiar. It was a not an email. What was it? Wasn't an email. I thought it was a text message.

>> Text message. Any iMessage?

>> One of those. Yep. And, um, he agreed with you that it sounded like him. A dispatcher, somebody who graduates. She graduated with school Stoen PD. You remember that, sir?

>> I don't. In the new dark.

>> You looking for.

>> I want to keep that. Are you present for his, um, interview, sir?

>> Yes. Bob Surprise asks him, uh, well, there we are. Ask him. Um, he's never been to. Let's scroll down a little. Down. So, you had an email that sounded or or text message that sounded like it was Officer Kavanaaugh, but it wasn't. Is that true?

>> I'd have to see the email. I mean, you keep talking about it. An email, a text, an iMessage.

>> Is he the only dispatcher?

>> Well, that was his testimony to you. He was saving it to you, right? You found a print on it.

>> I did. That's accurate. That's a transcription.

>> So, the transcriptions are all accurate, sir. These ones are accurate. Were there any that are inaccurate? I'm sure that there's some out there in the world that are inaccurate if that's what you're asking me. I reviewed them. Uh, I kept an audio file of all of them and they became an exhibit in the report.

>> Okay. Now in your report did you

>> Mention.

>> He also told you that SB never mentioned Robert Divine in any capacity, correct?

>> That's what the record indicates, then yes.

>> But she mentioned her relationship with Matthew Farwell. Right.

>> Same answer. I mean, if that's what the record has up there, then it's that's accurate. Now, there's also a text exchange that discusses him being on probation. That exchange was was with SB. Do you recall that?

>> No. 74. Robert flies ass in the middle of the page.

>> Sure. It's accurate.

>> So, you got another email out there by someone saying that they didn't offer it, author it, that was being passed off as theirs. Right.

>> I don't follow. Well, we discussed a little while ago about an email.

>> That I believe.

>> You keep talking about this email.

>> Correct?

>> You haven't shown us the email.

>> He keeps saying it's a text.

>> Talking about the text message.

>> You said he didn't, he didn't author that.

>> Sure. He denied that that was him.

>> Now we have another email where officer Kavanaaugh says he didn't offer author that email. Correct.

>> I guess so. Okay. Now, Mr. Divine had told you that sometimes Miss, I'm sorry, sometimes SB would just show up places, right?

>> Oh, like his house.

>> Mr. Kavanaaugh, as previously discussed, um, unfriended her on his Facebook, right?

>> Uh, I don't.

>> Agreed that she would just show up at different places, right?

>> That sounds accurate.

>> I want to go down.

>> You guys got to stay off this desk. I go to, uh, transition over to Sergeant Hardy and his IE report starts at page 59. Who is S? Who was Sergeant Hardy?

>> Who is Sergeant? Roger Hardy is, uh, right now he's an acting lieutenant. At the time he was a sergeant. About 1997. And he worked with Mr. Divine. Correct.

>> He did. He started his position there in the year 2000 at Doyle Middle School.

>> That sounds right. And what was it from? Drug abuse resistance education started by Nancy Reagan. Um, those educational material, uh, usually for middle school students to come in and talk about drug prevention. And, uh, he was at the school for approximately 12 to 15 years, right?

>> Sounds right. And he recalls the, uh, RAB program. What is the RAB program?

>> It's a great aggression defense program.

>> Yes. And the RAD program. Who do you tell you was was was offering that program at the school?

>> I, I don't remember.

>> Tell you who's offering it there?

>> That sounds right.

>> Robert, right?

>> Yes.

>> He's outside, right?

>> Yes.

>> You know him?

>> I do. And, um, he told you that basically they work together in this program at the school, right?

>> Okay.

>> All right. Now remember that if it's in the record, then I'm sorry. Page 154, top of the page, highlight.

>> What's, what's the point? It was Rob Divine involved in teaching the class along with his wife, I believe. So, so his wife was at the school with Mr. Divine at the same time they were both working there with the students. Correct.

>> I don't know the construct of it. I know he referenced it based on what you have in front of us here. Now, there was something at the gym called the, at the school. When we talk about the school, it's the O'Donnell Middle School. Right.

>> Right.

>> What is the Odon Middle School? How many grades?

>> It's five through eight.

>> Five through eight.

>> Yes. Eighth grade.

>> The hearing officer is struggling.

>> So, and that's where Mr. Divine works, right? To the eighth grade.

>> Yes. How old are eighth grade students? Seventh and eighth grade, 12, 13, 14 year old kids.

>> Okay. So that would be the age group if you were, um, and they had open gym at the school, right?

>> Right. And the open gym was chaotic. Oh, right there. Did Mr. Hardy tell you that the open gym was chaotic?

>> I, I don't remember. No, it was chaotic.

>> Sorry.

>> It was chaotic.

>> Well, 30 kids a day and they running around, right?

>> It was very.

>> Well, Mr. uh, Hardy told you there was about 30 kids there, right?

>> If that's on the record, then that's accurate.

>> Next page 155. Buffy.

>> On the page.

>> And he, he called it chaotic. Is that correct?

>> How much time are we going to spend on chaos in the unrelated open gym?

>> It's up there. It's on the right.

>> And he worked at the divine with u with the open st open open gym, right?

>> Yes. And he never saw Divine disappear with any students, did he?

>> I don't believe so.

>> He also told you that he never saw Divine alone with any students, didn't he?

>> That sounds accurate.

>> Now, he also was Mr. Divine supervisor on the 4 to 12 ship. Is that right? What time frame? Um, time frame for the 4 to 2 shift or the time frame?

>> Time frame supervisor.

>> Let's go to 16 page 163.

>> Were you present for this interview, sir?

>> Which interview is that?

>> The interview with Mr. Harmony. I was.

>> In.

>> He doesn't even know what we're talking about right now.

>> So boring and pointless.

>> 63.

>> Yeah.

>> 63. I can't see him as a bat.

>> He's doing all the people abuse people.

>> I'm gonna say, um.

>> Yes, you are. According to this record, this is different individual I believe.

>> Well, that was never put in your report that he was a supervisor, right?

>> No. And he never had a problem with Divine responding to calls timely, did he?

>> I don't think so.

>> That was excluded from the report, wasn't it, sir?

>> Yes. He never saw Divine cruise around with females in a car. Lord.

>> Cruiser. Is that.

>> I believe that's accurate.

>> That wasn't in the report, was it?

>> Was not.

>> So he didn't see the things that other people reported.

>> It's in the 165 to 166. Look at the bottom. Is referring to SB on page 165 down. Did you.

>> That's correct. Off desk bullet.

>> That wasn't in the report, was it? S.

>> And in fact SB reached out to Sed, is that correct?

>> I don't know. Page 73 to 73 to 174. I'm talking about SB. He wrote at the end, did you have? He's asked, okay, so she just showed up someplace where he was and reached out to him and said, I'm joining the military. Um, in this case, no, it appears that there was a call for service and he was there. Sergeant Hardy, that is. And, um, SB lived in that neighborhood park in Hanes and she just started talking to him at the mall and she was the type of person that would walk up to you and just talk to you. Right.

>> Right.

>> That was her thing. She did. She just approach police officer Tracy. I report page 60. Now, Officer Tracy used to be a friend of Mrs. Fox. Is that correct?

>> Yes. Now, ask me this. The, the juvenile task force, um, it had an office in the.

police station, didn't it? Did. And whose office was it?

>> Two juvenile officers and the DARE officer at one point in time. And the juvenile officer who w who was in that space uh frequently was Mr. Divine. Is that right?

>> Right.

>> And that was basically his office while he was there. Right.

>> Yes.

>> Now, Mr. Tracy was so friendly with Mr. Divine that he used to call for them. Right. I don't know that, but I'm not surprised. They went to Cena Hill together for vacation at Disney. Yes. Now he worked with Divine as a school resource officer. They had open gyms at the middle school. That correct?

>> That's correct.

>> So he also worked with Mr. Divine. Right. Right.

>> Yes.

>> Now Divine's office was at the police station. Right.

>> Right.

>> And his office has a glass door on it. Right.

>> Right. And there's cameras in the building. Right.

>> No, not in that part of the building.

>> On that part of the building.

>> So he saw that he thought was a student. Right.

>> Right. Okay.

>> Now, how old are the middle school students?

>> Uh 12, 13, 14, 15. And you wrote that. So you wrote down that it was a student. Is that correct?

>> I did.

>> How old was the person?

>> The one in question in this case was 19 or 20.

>> Okay. Wasn't a student.

>> A college student.

>> A college student. Okay. Sorry, judge. Apparently, I didn't have know that.

>> I'm sorry, Judge. This is uh Brian Kavanagh.

>> Oh, more about Kavanaaugh. Should we talk about some more things Kavanagh didn't see or hear?

>> Page 94.

>> I don't think we have a foundation for Kavanagh's omnisient. So, Is that what he said to you, sir?

>> That's correct.

>> Is that a question?

>> Yes, sir.

>> Sir, you ask Mr. Divine who's did you?

>> I never interviewed Mr. Divine.

>> Do you ever do you ever ask about

>> uh I never interviewed Mr. Divine.

>> Did you you you had the opportunity to send 17 questions, didn't you?

>> I did.

>> You responded, right?

>> Yes.

>> You never asked about the person in this in this narrative here.

>> No. No.

>> Actually, you never even asked about,

>> did you? Um, I don't know if that was a question um that was asked by investigator Lillian or not. I don't have it in front of me. So, he may have asked about that.

>> Um, I don't remember what I asked him. I don't know what the question said. Now sir, it wasn't the first time um that press Mr. Tracy or Mr. Tracy was pressed about the age of the individual that was in Mr. Divine's office, right?

>> I I don't remember if I interviewed him about that and and it came up more than once, then it came up more than once. page 93. I don't know. Uh I don't know what this line of question is in comparison to the other one or how you like to get it together. I'm not really clear on this.

>> It's 97.

>> Don't know what the point is.

>> Mr. You pressed Mr. Tracy about the age of this person Mr. Divine was with and you asked,

>> "Oh, brother."

>> Right. You asking me if that was my decision. Sure. That's not in your point, is it, sir? No. the agent part. And when referring to SB 99 So a few minutes ago you testified that she was an explorer and here he is telling you that the he doesn't know if the person's an explorer.

>> I testified on my own direct knowledge that she was an explorer.

>> Did you see her? Did you see Mr.

>> I did? I had my own confrontation with him about that.

>> Okay.

>> When was that?

>> I don't know. I mean, he was deputy chief. I think I might have been a sergeant at the time. Uh, the the student had been anywhere, 19, 20 years old and she was hanging around all the time in his office. And I had my own, you know, less confrontational than Detective Tracy's, but my own concern and conversation with him about what are you doing with this kid in here? You know, you should be more careful. The optics of it that they're not good. Okay.

>> So, I had direct knowledge about being in the station.

>> So, you had direct knowledge. was relevant to this internal affairs report internal affairs investigation of I

>> no mutually exclusive you're talking about a conversation that I had with your client uh and that I confronted him about having the office uh it doesn't have any place in this report we were asking the witnesses about we were asking the witnesses about people that he was in the station with and Detective Tracy answered questions about that

>> you just testified a few minutes ago that Mr. Tracy was representing that Miss was in the was in the police station and now you're testifying that you had firsthand knowledge about

>> No, I didn't say that. I miss I am I am making the uh assumption or making a an educated uh guess. I guess you could say that the person that Tracy was talking about was would right around the same time Is that fair to say?

>> Um, reached out to the department.

>> I just follow the evidence.

>> Follow the evidence.

>> Well, it's page 15. And that's what I put on page five. And that's what I put on page five. And you have a strong moral compass on these issues, don't you, sir?

>> Sure. You have a strong moral compass against um uh relationships out of marriage, too. Right.

>> I do. And did you speak to Mr. Divine about having a relationship when he and his wife separated sometime?

>> Marriage?

>> No.

>> Affairs? thing about affairs. Don't like them.

>> Not unreasonable.

>> Sir, would you agree that the intentional omission significant or pertinent facts is considered untruthful?

>> Sure. Hi Joanie.

>> 87. Sorry. 87.

>> Oh, dig around some more to find some more some more things that don't matter in the hopes that uh one of them might lead to a

>> these open gyms. There's lots of people around, right?

>> Kids are everywhere running around

>> if it was a busy day. Yes.

>> Okay.

>> And did you participate in any of them?

>> I did.

>> How many did you participate?

>> Not a lot. It wasn't my thing. Um, maybe a dozen or less.

>> Did you work with Mr. Divine?

>> Probably.

>> Did you work with his

>> I don't remember working with her. Wouldn't shock me if I did. You actually gave presentations at the explorers program on a regular basis, didn't you?

>> Uh, every year I would do CPR

>> and lots of officers were involved in that program giving um lectures and classes and teaching. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Was it kind of run as like a paramilitary organization? Do you know?

>> Yes.

>> What is that?

>> It's got a rank structure. It's um the first few first few weeks are like a boot camp. physical fitness and into the classroom. That was all advice orchestration. Right.

>> Right.

>> A little mini boot camp. you wanted.

>> Oh, sure. I want to ask you about um the interview with Mr.

>> He didn't do it. He didn't do that interview page 142. Now, page 142 of the new Now, you said these are accurate, right, sir?

>> Yes. To the best of my knowledge. Yes.

>> To the best of your knowledge, right? Before you said before you said they were accurate. I suggest the form of these questions is is sometimes attacking the witness. Well, before sir, you said that

>> I'm sorry the last objection. It's fine. Just give him a chance to answer.

>> Remember the question?

>> Um, yeah, they're accurate. To the best of my knowledge, they're accurate.

>> Well, earlier you testified that there might be other transcripts in the world, but yours were accurate, right?

>> I reviewed them before uh before they became part of the case file. Okay. So, the first question asked No, Mr. The vine was on the second group of people that um approve their employment for the police department, right?

>> I don't remember.

>> Well, Matthew Farwell, he was a transfer from another department.

>> He was

>> what department? Wley

>> and William Farwell came from the state police academy,

>> right?

>> He washed out of the state police academy.

>> Oh, he got injured police.

>> He didn't.

>> And then he How do he lift police department?

>> Regular civil service list, I believe. No. Uh, she was the kid that made contact, I think it might have been through Facebook, uh, claiming about inappropriate behavior at the, uh, open gym.

>> And that was 20 years before, right?

>> Yeah, that's I mean it could have been 15, could have been 20. I don't know as I say it right now. So it certainly wasn't the time when SB was at the school, right?

>> Correct. It

>> was well before the time SB was at the school.

>> Yes. And SP was at the school and she graduated from the school in 2016.

>> That sounds accurate.

>> And came in because she ran something in a newspaper, right?

>> I think she reached out by Facebook Messenger. I'm not sure right now.

>> She read something in the blog. Maybe

>> maybe I mean she could have been one of the ones that reached out to the state police office.

>> The inappropriate open gym goes back decades played out really what you want to elicit here.

>> She may have. Now she told you did she know that pages 52 to 56 and when Mr. Divine was interviewed nobody asked him a single question about

>> Okay. So I mean we

>> is that true? We had tried to schedule a second interview, but uh I I don't know the timets about whether or not it was information we learned after his first interview or not. Um and in the middle, Mr. Divine had retired. Right. Right.

>> And the fact that he retired is something that you held against him. Um, he talking about in my summary.

>> Yeah.

>> Draw a negative inference sort of thing.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. I think I probably did that.

>> But he he agreed to answer questions and you sent him 17 questions, right?

>> I did. None of those questions involved, did they?

>> I don't know what the questions say.

>> There was no followup. He wasn't probed. He wasn't examined. He got to plan it. Okay. So, it says it earlier in the report.

>> I wonder if it's early in the report. Page five, right?

>> Witness doesn't get sworn in.

>> That's correct.

>> We heard before that only the cop get sworn in. thought that information and you pursued that information based upon what you were told by about something about being hugged 20 years before. Right. So I again I think I I got the information through the mass police. She first spoke with them if I remember correctly and then they pass the information along to us. Well, page 56 original of the page.

>> This isn't from the mass state police, right? plus a circle. The accuracy of your report is important, isn't it?

>> Sure.

>> You've already discussed that.

>> I don't know what you're asking me.

>> Question. We have page 26 original the item now at the bottom of the page objection.

>> Yeah. This isn't uh you know quiz on the dictionary. We all agree that those are two different words with different meanings. I'm not quite sure why this is within his knowledge but I'll get to it soon as he answer the question. So as I find out what his understanding of the different you're going to tie the sub tie it up.

>> Are you able to give a You want him to define each of them?

>> Yes. Well, what's the distinction between you won't find the person you wouldn't find?

>> So, you won't suggest that it's not there. You're not going to find it. Uh, you wouldn't find it. It's, I don't know, less affirmative, softer word usage.

>> Wasn't prepared for an English quiz. Sorry. wasn't prepared for the uh

>> right

>> future perfect versus the subjunctive.

>> You wrote in your report. Nothing.

>> Nothing further.

>> Praise the Lord.

>> What a pointless cross that was. Oh my goodness.

>> Now, you testified that the record for this investigation um was at a minimum in the tens of thousands of pages. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Perhaps even tilted the 100 thousand page mark.

>> Yes. However, your report is only 60 pages. Is that correct?

>> Approximately. Yes.

>> Um, and the purpose of your report is to summarize the relevant or what you believe to be the relevant uh information for your findings.

>> Objective leading question.

>> Yeah, I'm allowing some redirect leaning on redirect. So the purpose of your report is to summarize the relevant information um and condense it. Is that is that fair use?

>> Can we pull up um in the original exhibits page 26 beginning at findings

>> findings? We're not gonna get

>> Can you scroll down just a little bit for the first finding?

>> Perfect.

>> So, uh, is it fair to say we don't get to hear any of the IIA stuff either and none of the investigative stuff. Like, this is so bizarre what we get to hear and what we don't. It's like, I'm kind of wondering why they even released this. And is your interpretation of that of his answer there is that explaining the text message that's uh exhibit 19

>> objection.

>> Yes.

>> And this is in the original batch of exhibits. Uh, can we go to page 505? Can you read the first blue text message on that page?

>> Do do you know um was a uh former police explorer?

>> Just staying with this one for a minute. Just who are those? Who's that communication between?

>> That one is between I'm sorry SB and Billy Farwell.

>> Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.

>> Sorry. Did you know um to be a police explorer?

>> I did.

>> Were high schoolers allowed to participate in the police explorers?

>> Yes.

>> Were middle schoolers as well?

>> Yes. And to your knowledge, were they in the same classroom?

>> They were.

>> Nothing.

>> With regard to the

>> exhibit that's on the screen right now, which is page 505. It says um he um right

>> he has two kids who he

>> if if this is divine Robert Divine Robert Divine have one kid he has two kids right

>> I mean I don't know from the context who they talking about he's asking

>> exactly but you'll agree with me that Robert Devon has two children he Objection, your honor, to characterize it as a story.

>> She told something differently.

>> Sorry.

>> It It doesn't change the question. So, go ahead and answer if you can. I

>> I can't. I mean, these text messages are all over the place. I don't know when that story started.

>> Well, reference is that

>> the date on this one that you just looked at that we're looking at right here. That's right. I'm sorry. I'm just scrolling to see believe it's the same. I ask you to read page 502 through page 505. Okay. Regarding your findings, uh, page 26, your findings, findings one, two, and three are made based upon the facts as they are uncovered in your investigation. Correct. He's ready to be out of here.

>> What page did you say?

>> 26. First one you're

>> Yes. So the uh findings are based on the the entire investigation totality of circumstances. So when you're asked a question, well, it doesn't say the name of doesn't say the name of this person, that person. That's that's not exactly true, is it?

>> Objection.

>> Circumstances

>> in that form of state.

>> Well, the totality of circumstances include the statements made by individuals. Correct. Objection. We're beyond the scope of redirect.

>> No. giving me a question about the findings uh in Texas over.

>> Uh so ask it one more time please.

>> Well the findings are based upon you said the totality of circumstances right

>> and the totality of circumstances means what? Um basically the whole case all the evidence uh you know things that we looked at interviews we conducted all that

>> and does the evidence include the statements of the persons involved that are that are spoken to?

>> Sure. The relevant ones are included in this uh summary report.

>> Okay. And we discussed those here. Right.

>> Right. And you included those when drafting these findings. You incorporated those into these findings by stating that they're retaliating circumstances because they're all incumbents. Well, that's a bad question.

>> Yes, it is.

>> I'd agree. The totality of the circumstance includes the witness statements. Is that correct? Certainly. So, when you're asked by Mr. Martinez that these findings don't include the statements of this person or that person, that's not necessarily true because they're all incorporated under the circumstance umbrella, which is why he drafted this. No,

>> I I agree with Mr. Martinez statement that the report is a summary of the investigation. The entire case file contains every single piece of evidence, every transcript, every recording, every everything including the cell hard drive. So if anybody wants to delve further into any of it, all the evidence is here as as we're seeing uh with this proceeding.

>> Well, I just want to know that when you draft included witnesses, do you consider the witness statements?

>> What are you asking me again? when you drafted these findings whether or not you consider the witness statements of the persons that are included in your report.

>> Sure. Nothing further.

>> Before I let you go, the last thing you want to do is hear a question from me as well. But uh just for clarification purposes, these interviews are recorded interviews and in each instance, did you um intend for them to be transcribed?

>> I did. And you knew in fact did you and to some extent you reviewed these transcripts after they were transcribed?

>> I didn't to compare them to the audio version.

>> I mean the audio and then my recollection of of things that were said. So yes I mean any any typos any mistakes that are in there I can take ownership of them. That's correct. And uh was it what was your intention with regard to where those trans if somebody had access to your report? What was your intention with regard to the availability of those transcripts to which you referred?

>> I wanted everything that that I had uh shared with all the appropriate agencies. So, um, you know, the standard process for me for doing an IIA, make an audio recording, send it to a transcriber, print the transcriptions, permanently preserve it.

>> In the usual course, would you intend for them to be actually uh attached to the IIA report?

>> Yes. I mean just to further explain a little bit judge um the case file for this case was two of these and then one was the uh all the all the like the report and all the other stuff and then and the second was nothing but transcriptions. So there was uh transcriptions from the interviews that that I had done. Uh, and then some exhibits for like I think the transcriptions and the state police reports that I considered for the case.

>> And back in on June 6th or 5th when we were had you here last uh was your understanding that the those two binders if you will had been provided to the post commission?

>> Yes. Um, so there was a lot happening in the department when I started sharing those files. I believe the chief might have been away at the National Academy in Quantico. Um, so it's pretty hectic time. Um, if anything didn't get shared and it's my responsibility, I take ownership of that as well. If I didn't send the transcripts, uh, that's on me. Um, the department had a lot going on at the time. Um, I'm not one to procedural or substantive due process. My to make sure that everyone was here.

>> When you testified here, did you believe that they had actually been transmitted?

>> I did. Your honor further excuse your honor. If I may, if I ask to reopen the testimony, I only Well, the journ I'd like to discuss I'd like to discuss the journ.

>> Oh, completely different topic. You had said it earlier.

>> Yes, I said it earlier and I was behind just as efforts to just how much time do you expect you object to that?

>> I I I don't object because he in theory you could recall him on on his case. So

>> that's good. I didn't even All right. But really keep it short. forgot something.

>> Keep it short.

>> This is what happens when you don't have a plan, a point, a point or a plan on your cross.

>> You finish and then you're like, "Oh [ __ ] meant to ask this thing. Maybe this is the one that will matter."

>> Would you tell us where you got that thought? Well, this was I think I got it from a box of property um that I received from the state police. Would that be part of a journal that you were provided by the family? Yeah, I don't I remember seeing a journal. May have page uh 934. Oh, sorry. 475. And that'll be part of the documents you received as well, sir.

>> It is. So, yes.

>> Okay. Should we go to page 28?

>> 28. Did I read that right, sir?

>> That right.

>> Page 28.

>> More of that. We're just calling things out not to ask questions about

>> 17. I'm on 28. I don't see that.

>> I think he said 28.

>> Got to have the answer. bring those out in your argument.

>> It would be the IA report page 18.

>> Okay. Is this part of the documents you received from attorney rule?

>> Yes. Okay. So, you're aware, sir, that uh there's an entire journal that was attached to that. Are you not?

>> I said I I don't I don't remember seeing a journal. I could have been there.

>> Could have been there.

>> Yes.

>> You only picked two pages out of it, sir.

>> Yes, it could have been more papers here.

>> Objection, your honor. He's already testified. He doesn't recall the journal.

>> Are you able to answer that question? I don't I don't remember seeing a journal. Big box of papers.

>> What it could have ended, right?

>> Of course.

>> Big box of papers you received.

>> That correct?

>> Yes.

>> Where's the big box of papers now?

>> It was returned.

>> Was returned.

>> Let's see. So, you're aware that there was there was a journal that

>> Hey,

>> was provided by Mr. Lulo?

>> Objection asked and answered that. Sweetie sustained.

>> Watch those claws, please.

>> Copy those documents, sir. Did you receive?

>> Watch those claws.

>> Copy the documents that I have in the uh case file.

>> Why did you copy these two documents?

>> They seem relevant. Why wouldn't you keep the whole journals the whole all the documents? Um, just I said I I picked ones that seem relevant to this case.

>> Well, if they excluded one person over another, wouldn't that be relevant to this case? Sir,

>> my job was to investigate policies, procedures, rules, and right violations, not investigate the death of SP. Your honor, I move uh the journal with the evidence. Well, we'll wait and talk about that until you have any followup questions on that issue.

>> Right. I'm going to excuse the witness. Thank you. Thanks, Ron.

>> Thank you. Okay, I guess that

>> What's up everybody? Welcome back in This is some of the most excruciating cross- exam I I I I've had to endure in recent recent memory. Um this it's it's just brutal. I mean, I I will grant that it's not fair because we don't get to know most of what the substance of it is, which is still now just got me baffled like why why did why did they even release this? Uh I was I was able to do a little bit of research into kind of what what the whole status of this situation is and apparently what happened is that this hearing examiner, Mr. Fishman, he filed his recommendation with the commission Uh and at that time they went ahead and and and did this release. Uh but the commission hasn't acted on the recommendation at this point and so they're not re releasing you know the rest of this information under the um deliberative deliberative process exemption something like that. not treating it as a as a public record at this point because the commission hasn't acted on it is is generally the impression I got. I don't know why they even bothered. I really don't. It's just um so much of this is is incomprehensible. But um I am certainly taking some lead from this hearing officer who doesn't seem really any better in the loop than I am. And he he can hear everything. He's got the binders there in front of him. He can flip through. He knows what they're looking at. He can read along. And even he's like, "What's the point here? What's the point? Is there a point? How much longer are you going to be? Are you going to be able to tie this in? This is just a a a meandering such a shotgun approach to try to pick apart this and pick apart that and pick apart this other. And it just leads to this impression, this very uh not credible impression of just looking for anything and everything instead of like having a a serious objection that that that you can focus on. Like what even is your objection? He's biased. These other people picked on you. They're They're targeting you. All the women All the women harass you. Sandra's a liar. Like, what is your freaking point, dude? When your point is that like everything is wrong. And by the way, this couldn't have even happened because my kids would be there. Uh, I it it looks it looks like a lot of excuses is what it looks like. Looks like a lot of excuses. Not me. It's that other It's that other Rob. Well, it sounds like the dates don't line up very well. So, now they've shifted to Oh, well, it was public information when he was in law school. So, somebody was pretending to be Marty Riggs while pretending to be Robert Divine. Somebody was pretending to be Robert Divine, pretending to be Marty Riggs. Like, we're supposed to buy that. We're supposed to buy that. I I just I'm I'm honestly lost on this. I really am. So, uh, all I know at this point is at least if what they told us before was correct, this is the last witness for post. So, they're going to rest and uh, now it's going to go on to the defense case. And, uh, I sure hope it's better than this. I mean, they've talked about having a couple witnesses besides besides Mr. Divine. Hey, don't bite me. All right, time to go down. But I have no idea if that's going to follow through or not. Uh, they had they had the one girl we had to call back and uh he's he's made a comment this time about his his other witness, a man apparently some something about him not coming. But uh I I'm I don't have a positive impression so far. This is this is the um remember I I've brought this up so many times. It was um it was I I thought just an excellent piece of writing. It was Scott Adams article about the cognitive dissonance cluster bomb goes way back uh to to the Trump election and how it just like blew people's minds um because it was so out of whack with their view of reality and but you know you take take all that as as you want but but the whole point of it was how to recognize cognitive dissonance and one of the ways to do that is when there are a gazillion reasons for something. When something is legit and principled and has integrity, there's usually like one good reason for it, maybe two good reasons for it. And that's what you get to focus on because that becomes a theme and you get to show how all of these other things are part of that theme. We we don't have that in this case. We don't have organized themes. We have just these like different lines of attack. And it's not even really clear how they fit together other than just everything everything is victimizing Robert Divine here. You know, the the cops don't like him anymore. They're not his friends. This guy this guy burns a lot of friends, doesn't he? Sure seems to lose a lot of friends. Uh, they don't like him because they don't they don't approve of him cheating on his wife. How dare they? Uh, so so so they're they're not I guess reasonable with their investigation. They're they're biased. Um, he's victimized by Sandra Burchmore. He's victimized by this other woman who, you know, he abused his authority to uh investigate. Uh, he's the victim of whoever is pretending to be him pretending to be Marty Riggs. Several people weren't told about him, whereas other people were, but some weren't. I It's just where where is the theme in all of this? If the theme was this guy is biased against me, you just you can pull out your p your your facts and you can show all that. But the problem is you don't really have a good argument for it because it kind of sounds like the the evidence speaks for itself. And so if his conclusions from it are unreasonable, that's what the hearing officer is is going to second guess. And so far, I haven't heard anything that sounds like really that unreasonable. Doesn't sound like it was that unreasonable to conclude that Divine was Marty Riggs based on the bar dated admission that Marty Riggs talks about because it's not plausible. It's really not plausible. Somebody else was pretending to be him pretending to be Marty Riggs. Like what what what even how how even do you do you come up with that? I just Oh man. But uh we definitely started getting into the smear, didn't we? Started getting into the smear. Sand Sandra's Sandra's not honest. Therefore, she made the entire thing up. I'm kind of skeptical at this point that he is going to consider Sandra Birch Moore's text messages that yeah, she she can't be asked about him. She can't be cross-examined about them. Um, she can't provide context. She doesn't have an opportunity to explain inconsistencies. Um, but it's also not clear to me that that matters because of the Marty Rig stuff. If he buys that Marty Riggs is Robert Divine, is the Marty Riggs stuff alone gonna gonna support gonna support the conduct I'm becoming? Is is it going to support his dishonesty in the investigation? I don't know. It' help a lot if I could see what Marty Rig said, but uh it's it's just it's not clear to me at this point that it even matters. But um maybe that's the bottom line is just the extent to which Marty Riggs corroborates what Sandra Burchmore is telling other people. We just uh we don't we don't get to know that because we don't get to know anything about the conversation. So, yeah, this is uh this is kind of kind of irritating being so being so out of the loop with uh with what the hearing officer is getting to look at. Well, guys, um as you can see, I got some hungry little monsters over here. So, uh, I'm going to go ahead and uh try to try to save myself at this point because I've been getting overrun for like an hour and a half, maybe two, maybe longer. But uh yeah uh hard to hard to have an impression about how well the post commission has done at this point when I don't get to know what their evidence is. But I can say, you know, I'm I'm not impressed with how the defense has been handling it. If I assume the Post Commission has a good case, it doesn't seem like the defense has done a lot of damage to it. They haven't done anything particularly effective. And uh it's just it's it's not good to uh annoy your your adjudicator like this. Waste his time. It's it's honestly it's kind of like disrespectful to just um you know be coming in and like digging through things and and making this random stuff and he's trying to do you the favor of cluing you in that he's not interested and and you you're not you're not picking that up. So hopefully um I don't know, maybe part five will be a little more interesting. I guess we'll we'll see if this is where we start getting to um to the defense case. What do you have to bring? I sure hope it's better than this. So uh we'll see guys. I will be back next time. Thank you again for joining me and uh I'll see you soon.

Get Our Mobile App

SANDRA BIRCHMORE - Decertification Hearing of Officer Devine, Part 4 - Attorney Analyzes

Transcription