Editorial on ‘police protocol’ unfair
Nov. 24, 2010
To the Editor:
After reading the editorial in the Dorchester Reporter entitled “Answers needed on police protocol at crime scenes,” I concluded that the editorial contained unfair criticism directed at the Boston Police Homicide Unit.
The editorial suggests, “Protocols at a murder scene need to be reexamined.” Coincidentally, later in the editorial, Mr. Forry writes that he does not know what the protocol is for an outdoor crime scene. Other than highlighting that there was a deceased victim found on Mascot Street near a homicide scene that occurred days earlier, what changes does Mr. Forry suggest the police adapt?
The editorial infers that the Boston Police were inept in their attempts to locate evidence. I am confident that homicide detectives performed a canvass of the originally reported homicide scene. In addition to this, I accept the reasons that the police provided to the Dorchester Reporter for not locating the victim in the Mascot Street driveway, such as the weather and lack of information from witnesses on the ground.
The editorial also stated that this case has shaken the public’s confidence in the Boston Police and their investigation methods at crime scenes. I disagree with this assumption.
It is unfortunate that some may feel that the police do not thoroughly investigate homicides, and the aforementioned editorial certainly made no effort to dispel those fears. However, as a lifelong resident of Dorchester and a former leader of a local civic association, I have complete confidence in the members of the Boston Police Homicide Unit as well as in their commitment and protocol at homicide scenes. It is my firm belief that many others feel the same way.