On January 24, the Hopkinton Independent reported on the press release the Town of Hopkinton recently issued, requesting a “recall” of documents the town published that revealed the identity of former Deputy Chief Jay Porter’s alleged victim. While some of what the Independent wrote was true (or was extracted directly from the press release), the article contains glaring factual inaccuracies that risk confusing readers, and worse, further harming the victim.
>> RELATED: The Hopkinton Dependent?
To set the record straight, we have provided commentary on the Independent’s article below.
“The Hopkinton Police Department on Tuesday evening announced that it is recalling the interview transcript between Sgt. Tim Brennan and investigators from Kroll, the consultant hired by the town to review allegations of officer misconduct. The town was prompted to recall the document after learning that the version published Friday evening following Brennan’s Loudermill hearing on his possible termination was missing necessary redactions — including identifying information about the person suing former Deputy Police Chief John “Jay” Porter of three counts of sexual assault.”
Hopkinton Chief of Police Joseph Bennett released the documents on Friday, January 19, and it was, in fact, a crime to do so. It violated MGL Part IV, Title I, Chapter 265, Section 24C, which reads in part: “That portion of the records of a court or any police department of the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions, which contains the name of the victim in an arrest, investigation or complaint for rape or assault with intent to rape … shall be withheld from public inspection“. The statute goes on to outline the punishment for this violation; a minimum of $2,500 to a maximum $10,000 fine.
Furthermore, and of paramount importance, is that the victim is not “suing” Porter. In fact, she filed a criminal complaint against him, and Porter was subsequently indicted by a Middlesex County grand jury. With this reckless statement, the Independent risks casting the victim as greedy and litigious, and shifts the responsibility to her.
“On behalf of the Town of Hopkinton, I sincerely apologize for the publication of the transcript in that form,” Town Manager Norman Khumalo stated in a press release Tuesday night. “In our effort to be prompt with open and transparent communication with the public about police matters, our efforts fell short of the paramount concern to protect private information in this sensitive matter. We are committed to take whatever further steps are necessary to correct this mistake.”
“The release stated that the town’s legal counsel will carefully re-review and re-redact the transcript, and only after that review is complete will the town republish the transcript on the Hopkinton Police Department blog. The town must publish a redacted form of the transcript because it is a public document and subject to disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law; however, the unredacted transcript and other unredacted documents will not be published or otherwise produced by the town.”
The HopNews Editor-in-Chief opined on this half-hearted apology in an editorial published yesterday. The apology is simply insufficient to address the full scope of the potential damage the town caused the victim by their carelessness.
“The Kroll report noted that Brennan had previous knowledge of accusations of child sexual abuse against Porter that went unreported by Brennan to the department. Kroll’s investigation found 11 instances in which Brennan’s conduct violated the HPD’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures and special orders.”
The Kroll report alleged that Brennan had previous knowledge. Further, the majority of the policies the report cited were not policies when Brennan was alleged to have violated them, as was noted by Select Board Chair Muriel Kramer during the public hearing.
“The Independent originally received a 36-page redacted Kroll report in October after the newspaper filed a public records request. This report detailed the allegations made regarding Brennan’s failure to report what he knew to his superior officers.”
This is a significant miss. It has been widely reported that Chief of Police Joseph Bennett and Deputy Jay Porter, both Brennan’s superiors, had a very close relationship. Readers must look no further than this recording from the Select Board meeting on October 5, 2021, where Porter refers to Bennett as his “life partner”. The context that is missing is the environment Brennan was operating in, one that made reporting what he knew to his superiors untenable and potentially dangerous to the victim.
“According to the Kroll report, Chief Joseph Bennett was informed on Aug. 24, 2022, by investigators from the Massachusetts State Police assigned to the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office that they needed to interview Brennan as part of a criminal investigation into Porter’s conduct. On that day, Brennan did not officially notify anyone in the HPD of what he knew.”
As established at the Loudermill hearing, and in the Kroll report, the people scheduling the interview for Brennan (State Police Detectives from the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office) told Bennett of the interview and the scope and purpose. This was the entire point; to notify the chief. This did happen; for Brennan to do so would have been redundant.
“Bennett placed Porter on leave the following day pending the outcome of the investigation. Porter on that day resigned from HPD”
This is factually inaccurate. Porter was placed on administrative leave on August 25, 2022, and retired (not resigned) on April 28, 2023, days before he was indicted. He was given sufficient time by the town and the chief to get his affairs in order, rather than being terminated for cause.
“In May 2023, Porter pleaded not guilty to three counts of child rape in Middlesex Superior Court. Porter was accused of assaulting a Hopkinton High School student when she was 14 while he was working as the town’s school resource officer in 2004 and 2005. When Porter was promoted to detective, Brennan assumed the SRO position, and he met the alleged victim. According to the report, Brennan continued to be in contact with her after he was promoted to detective in January 2008. During this time frame, the young woman related details of the alleged assaults against her to Brennan in fragments during the course of their friendship.”
This is true, but confusing. It reads as if Brennan learned of the allegations when the victim was a minor child. In fact, the victim was 28 years old when she first disclosed allegations that Brennan concluded amounted to Indecent Assault and Battery. As confirmed in the Kroll Report, Brennan urged her to report the crime. Further, the victim was explicit in telling Brennan that she did not want the assault reported, and would not cooperate if he did report it. Through his attorneys, Brennan asserted that the case against Jay Porter would not exist had he reported the allegations at the time.
“Also in May 2023, Brennan was placed on paid administrative leave. No details were released about the reason by the town at that time because it is a personnel matter.
Friday’s contentious Loudermill hearing revolved around the HPD’s internal investigation of Brennan’s conduct. He was accused of violating five HPD policies. They included not reporting to law enforcement the alleged inappropriate sexual contact between a minor and “the accused,” alleged sexual assault, and alleged rape of a minor. Another allegation claimed that Brennan used the alleged victim of sexual assault as a babysitter. Brennan also is accused of failing to report his knowledge that the alleged victim “was pursuing a criminal investigation and was concerned for her safety and [Brennan] failed to report her concern to law enforcement.””
But during the hearing, Brennan’s attorney noted that two of the policies Bennett said Brennan had allegedly violated were not in place until after the time that Brennan allegedly committed the infractions. One was in regard to Brennan not reporting his hiring of Porter’s accuser as his babysitter, a policy which Select Board chair Muriel Kramer noted did not go into effect until years after this situation occurred. Another charge noted that Brennan knew of an inappropriate sexual relationship between the alleged survivor and Porter in 2015. Testimony during the Loudermill hearing noted that the alleged survivor was an adult at that time.“
This omits the important detail that the “inappropriate sexual relationship” was in fact a relationship established when the victim was 18, and by the victim’s own admission, was consensual. In other words, “inappropriate” is a value judgement by Kroll and the Town, not a fact.
“While the Select Board appeared to initially lean toward Brennan’s termination, with the exception of Kramer, it unanimously voted to continue the Loudermill hearing to allow attorneys for both parties to negotiate an amicable solution by Feb. 16.”
For readers wanting to understand the sequence of events with better clarity, we refer you (and the staff at the Independent) to this timeline.
In a situation as serious as this, the facts matter. Everyone involved has a lot to lose and very little to gain. The least we can do for the victim – whose safety and wellbeing is of the utmost importance – is to ensure that the story is told responsibly and with accuracy.
This article, and the many other pieces done by HopNews in the past year or so, demonstrate why local news reporting is so important. The stuff that happens in our communities matters, and having a free and responsible press – one that goes beyond taking soundbites and press releases from politicians and reporting them as news – is crucially important.
In many cases, this stuff is more important than what happens at the federal level, which we all seem to hellbent on following.
So, to simplify things, the only law broken was by the chief, not Officer Brennan. As such, let’s turn the Chief’s accusations of ‘actions unbecoming a police officer’ against him. His gregarious ‘error’ (which I am highly suspicious it was actually an error) has once again revictimized the survivor by identifying her. I can’t imagine how fearful she is knowing she has been ‘outed’ and her perpetrator walks freely; he is supposedly wearing an ankle monitor, but it has been widely disclosed that he is a bully in uniform and within the community. Apparently he few supporters or protectors who make sure things go in his favor ie: ‘retiring’ with full pension while his actions were known to the chief and about to be made public. Let’s be clear, the chief should be charged with a crime and terminated, and officer Brennan should be reinstated because the department needs leadership and stability.
When terms like “perpetrator” get thrown around, we’d all do well to remember that Porter is yet to be proven guilty. Unless he’s admitted to this behavior – which I admit is possible and I’ve missed it in the coverage? – these remain crimes that are alleged, but not yet proven.
While it might be unpopular to say this: for whatever crimes he may have committed, I remember interacting with Officer Porter several times and he never came across as a bully. At all.
I make no claims or defense of the Chief or Town in releasing the name of the alleged victim.
Honestly, the Independent’s lost me at “…accepting the police chief’s recommendation that Brennan be fired from the force for failing to report accusations….” “Failing” is a poor word choice here. Replace with “for protecting the survivor by not reporting.” Less incriminating. Words and their connotations matter.
Psssst…Anonymous…I think you mean egregious….not gregarious. Just sayin.
Anonymous… I have noticed incorrect “facts” in other articles in the Independent. Sometimes stating as fact things which are alleged or opinion. Quoting the assertions by the chief is just that, but the “lawsuit” vs “indictment” I believe is especially problematic, and may appear as bias. It makes a real difference. As do the other non-disputed facts and timelines.