A bizarre criminal case involving two Poland Springs water coolers taken from the Law School's Harkness Commons has put the senior leadership of the Harvard Police Department effectively on trial.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts yesterday presented its case in Middlesex County district court that University security guards George D. Perry and Michael J. Auterio are guilty of larceny of property worth less than $100. Perry also stood trial on a count of receiving stolen property.
The two men remain employees in good standing with the Harvard Police Department, even as senior management argued yesterday that they are guilty. Perry and Auterio are accused of stealing water coolers rented by the University for June's Commencement ceremonies from a Law School room generally reserved for recyclables.
But numerous police officers, including several of those involved in the case, don't believe that Perry and Auterio should be convicted. Still, the police and prosecutors are pressing on, and department management will now have to answer publicly for the decisions it made in investigating two of its own.
At the same time, there is another group of police department employees prepared to testify in defense of the two men.
Acting Police Chief Lawrence J. Murphy, Crime Prevention Officer The senior police officials were joined by fiveof the department's 13 sergeants, two detectives,three police officers and University AttorneyAllan A. Ryan Jr., who offered little explanationfor his unusual presence at the unusualproceeding. Police officers in attendance at yesterday'strial refused to comment, citing the ongoingnature of the case. But another reason for their silence, someofficers and sources privately suggest, may bethat the seemingly minor case has pitted colleagueagainst colleague in a department already reelingfrom internal divisions. And what is perhaps most threatening about thecase is that it reflects poorly on one of thepolice's most respected units--its criminalinvestigations division--where some of its mosttalented and experienced professionals work. Police sources familiar with the case allegethat there were numerous irregularities in theinvestigation of Perry and Auterio. And duringcross examination of witnesses offered by thestate yesterday, attorneys for Perry and Auteriorepeatedly referred to these allegedabnormalities. That legal strategy appears to be working. Whenthey first were charged this summer, Perry andAuterio faced multiple counts of larceny,receiving stolen property and breaking andentering. After the prosecution rested late yesterdayafternoon, the charge against Perry of receivingstolen property was thrown out. When the defensepresents its case sometime in the near future,each man will be facing a lone charge of larceny. But at times during yesterday's proceeding, itwas the Harvard University Police Department--andnot Perry or Auterio--that faced serious charges. The testimony of Rooney, the criminalinvestigations head, held many of the day's mostdramatic moments. Under intensive cross-examination by WilliamHolman, who represented Perry, Rooney acknowledgedthat the department had submitted falseinformation on a sworn affidavit in order toobtain a search warrant for Perry's home. In the affidavit, Rooney wrote that the coolershad been stolen from a "locked, walk-in"refrigerator. In his testimony, however, thewell-tanned lieutenant acknowledged the walk-inrefrigerator he referred to was likely not awalk-in, and he could not be sure that the coolershad been stored in the refrigerator at all. "I thought...it was true then," Rooney said. In addition, Rooney acknowledged that he hadbeen incorrect when he argued in an August 12probable cause hearing that the coolers had comefrom the refrigerated room. Rooney told defense attorneys in crossexamination that his initial description in apolice report of the coolers as "orange igloocoolers" was also incorrect. Instead, the coolerswere brown plastic with a clear bottle perched ontop. While volleying Holman's pointed queries,Rooney also made some of the most damningallegations of the day against Perry and Auterio. The lieutenant said that both guards changedtheir stories during his interviews with them thissummer. Rooney said that while Perry at firstindicated he acted alone in taking a cooler out ofan area which the guard believed was reserved fortrash, he later implicated Auterio. And Auterio, Rooney charged, first said that hehad taken two coolers himself before laterrecanting and saying he took only one watercooler. Perry and Auterio have yet to testify and willnot comment on specifics until after they havedone so. But the two men are likely to say thatwhile they made a mistake by taking the coolersout of an unlocked area used for "trash," they didnot intend to steal anything. Auterio may testifythat he removed a cooler from a trash dumpster onthe loading dock next to Harkness Commons. The lone eyewitness to the alleged theftwas Mark Urciuoli, a Prospect Cleaners employeewho until recently worked nights as a cleaner atthe Law School. Testifying for the prosecution, Urciuoli atfirst refused to say he'd seen anything out of asecond-floor Pound Hall window on the night ofJune 10. At one point, a clearly frustrated MarcA. Eichler, the assistant district attorney, askedthe judge's permission to treat his own starwitness as hostile. Speaking almost inaudibly, Urciuoli eventuallyrecounted how he had looked out the window as heset up for a special Law School event and at thatpoint saw Perry and Auterio each carry a watercooler to Auterio's red pick-up truck. In cross-examination, defense attorneyssuggested that Eichler had been pressured byRooney into reporting to have seen the two guardscarrying the water coolers. The attorneys chargedthat Rooney had in fact intimidated Urciuoli byfirst asking him whether he had stolen anythingfrom the Law School himself. Both Rooney and Eichler denied that suggestion."I didn't say anything like that," Rooney said. Urciuoli's testimony contradicted Rooney's in anumber of details. Perhaps most noteworthy wasthat while the lieutenant said he had spoken withUrciuoli several times before the alleged theft,Urciuoli said he had never met Rooney before theirinterview on the guards' matter. Rooney also testified that he had interviewedUrciuoli as part of a series of interviews withHarvard employees who had reported larcenies. ButUrciuoli, Holman noted, is neither a Harvardemployee nor had he reported a larceny. The prosecution presented two witnesseswho said the guards were not among thoseauthorized to enter the area where the coolerswere stored. Elizabeth Davidson, food services director atthe Law School, testified that only members of herstaff and officials of the Coop were allowed toenter the area. She said the room where shebelieves the coolers were stored--a recycling areanear the loading dock off of Harkness Commons--wasnot for trash. The question of whether the guards thought thearea was for trash or for recycling is central tothe case, police officials say. While there isgenerally nothing wrong with removing items from atrash area, deliberately taking coolers from arecycling area might indicate an intent to steal. Davidson's testimony also provided the basisfor the charge against Perry of receiving stolenproperty. She said Perry told her in a phoneconversation that he took her set of keys tovarious Harvard buildings from the Law School'slost and found and forgot to return them. The keys were later found by Harvard PoliceSgt. Kathleen Stanford during a search of Perry'shome. The keys, however, did not open the areawhere the coolers were stored, and the charge ofreceiving stolen property was dropped. Witnesses said they did not know if there was asign on the door of the room where the coolerswere stored. Sources close to Perry and Auterioinsist that a sign on the door read "trasharea--do not lock" until just three days aftertheir arrest this July. Observers said they were most surprised by theprosecution's apparent unwillingness to questionthe work abilities of Perry and Auterio. Ininterviews, other security guards have questionedthe ability of the two men to patrol the LawSchool. That possible area of attack may have beenclosed by the decision of Dowling, the manager ofoperations for security, to testify as a defensewitness. Outside the courtroom yesterday, Dowling wasasked if the guards had done a good job patrollingthe Law School. "Certainly have," he said. "Otherwise, theywouldn't be working here." Defense attorneys also suggested thatmembers of the criminal investigations divisionwere pursuing the criminal charges on their own.The attorneys repeatedly noted that PolandSprings, the owner of the water coolers, neverreported a theft and did not pursue a criminalcomplaint. The criminal complaint, in fact, wasfiled by Rooney himself. In addition, the attorneys frequently notedthat more than a month passed between the theftand the arrest of the two guards. Using this fact,both Holman and Buckley attempted to cast doubt onthe timeliness, thoroughness and seriousness ofthe investigation. For example, the witnesses from the Law Schoolfood services, attorneys noted and Rooneyacknowledged, were all interviewed by police afterthe arrests of Auterio and Perry in July. "They were trying to build a case after thefact," one police department source charged in aninterview with The Crimson. The defense attorneys did not raise the issueof how the search warrant was served asextensively as many close to the case hadexpected. Holman questioned Det. Richard Mederos, whoserved the warrant, about the matter. But he nevercharged that the warrant to search Perry'sSomerville residence, issued for daytime, was usedafter 11 p.m., as some sources expected. Mederos said the warrant was initially servedbefore 8 p.m., when it was valid, and he and twoother officers returned later only after Perrygave his consent to the search. Sources said Perrymay dispute that he gave his consent when hetestifies. Sources close to Perry and Auterioindicate that both men could pursue civil suitsagainst the University to recover lost wages. Thetwo guards were each suspended without pay formore than six weeks over the summer. The two guards have charged that the departmentdragged its feet in dealing with a union grievancethey filed over the suspensions, with Police ChiefPaul E. Johnson taking nearly two months to holdan appeal hearing. In fact, a senior police official who has dealtclosely with the case acknowledged in an interviewlast month that the investigation of the allegedtheft had been mishandled. The official, who spokeon condition of anonymity, said the matter shouldhave been handled internally without filingcriminal charges. The possibility of a civil countersuit may wellexplain the presence of Ryan, the Universityattorney, at yesterday's trial. Ryan, who hasdefended Harvard in a number of recent claimsfiled by police department employees, conferredfrequently with the assistant district attorneyand, a source said, sat in on a midday conferencewith the judge. Ryan, for his part, said he was present becausethe University was involved and because he had tobe in the County Courthouse for another matteryesterday. But before any civil suit comes the resolutionof the criminal trial. And police officers saythat whether or not Perry and Auterio areconvicted, the case has already done much todamage internal relations in the department. "Everyone in the department is aware of thecase," said Officer Robert Kotowski, president ofthe police officers' union. "But no one has anyknowledge of particulars. It's going to beinteresting to see the outcome."
Read more in News
Jury Deadlocked On Flood Charges; Hearings Go On
