The arrest report of a judge’s daughter was tampered with.
It isn’t what you know, it’s who you know. Especially when your father is a judge.
Almost like magic, lawyers appear out of thin air, Judges help make things “disappear,” and prosecutors use sleight of hand to alter and replace public records.
In Massachusetts, they like to call it “Troopergate.”
The young woman was standing outside the Toyota Corolla she just smashed into a guardrail. According to the officers, Bibaud appeared “lethargic and groggy.” She failed sobriety tests.
Things got worse when they looked in the car. They found a “kit” with “a dozen hypodermic needles, a metal spoon, and empty baggies.”
Bibaud told the police that she was upset enough to crash her car because her boyfriend “had used the last of the heroin.” She wasn’t “jonesing” for long. She found a way to get some more.
“Bibaud informed officers of her father’s judgeship propositioned Sceviour sexually in exchange for leniency, and offered without prompting that she had performed sexual favors in order to secure the heroin in her possession.”
That is exactly how they wrote it up in the police report. Soon, superiors were demanding they re-write it. They were to remove any mention of the judge, reports of Alli Bibaud trading sex for heroin, and all traces of trying to bribe an officer with sex to get off the hook.
They wouldn’t do it. According to a lawsuit filed by their lawyer, Leonard Kesten, “Commercial sexual exploitation is affecting every region in the Commonwealth.” Leaving relevant details out of the police report “would have put the suspect at risk for further exploitation.”
A new twist developed in the story this week. Mr. Kesten was back in court arguing why his client’s claims should not be summarily dismissed out of hand. Even judges, he argues, may have had a hand in the plot to cover up the salacious arrest report.
First of all, Kesten points out Ms. Bibaud was represented by a lawyer in court. One that wasn’t hired by her or her father. Where did he come from?
“A lawyer mysteriously appeared for (Alli Bibaud),” Mr. Kesten told the court. When he arrived, he immediately filed a motion to “impound” the police report. “very sketchy,” Kesten insists.
Mr. Kesten told reporters later that text message evidence shows “Judge Bibaud told prosecutors Oct. 17 to ‘default’ his daughter” That means “have her recorded as a no-show in court.”
Central District Court Judge David Locke was sitting on the bench the day after Ms. Bibaud’s arrest. He was the one who granted “a request from the defense that Trooper Sceviour’s police report be impounded.”
Three days later, Judge David P. Despotopoulos “approved a motion from a Worcester prosecutor to redact sections of the impounded report.”
At the civil court hearing in Boston’s U.S. District Court, Kesten argued that judges in the Worcester Central District Court were “buddies” with Judge Bibaud and “may have been participants in the plot his clients allege.”
Troopers Sceviour and Rei have avowed they “were ordered to help illegally scrub the record by former Col. Richard D. McKeon, former Maj. Susan Anderson, Secretary of Public Safety Daniel Bennett and Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr.”
When they wouldn’t do it, Kesten told the court, “It’s at that point that a scheme, possibly involving district court judges was hatched to make Trooper Sceviour’s report ‘disappear.’ They were going to create a new report, destroy the old one, and put a new one in (the file).”
The court clerk stood up for the rule of law and would not allow the original report to be substituted with one that had been redacted by the prosecutor.
“Everybody in Worcester knew,” Kesten ventured, that the case would have to be transferred to a different County because of conflict of interest.
A different judge “would be deciding about whether this report stays secret.” The prosecutor met privately with the judge, without the defense lawyer, which is a no-no, and requested the redaction.
The key to the ruse was that “although a motion was made to impound the report, that motion did not specifically mention the sensitive material,” Kesten explained. “There would be no evidence of which statements were removed.”