– News and commentary about Quincy from Quincy Quarry News.
Quincy Police Department Detail Double Dipper Trial: Return of the Feds – Episode VI.
After yesterday’s striking back by a defense team that had been taking on water during the previous four days of the trial of the alleged detail double and sometimes triple dipper, today federal prosecutors went on a counterattack.
After finishing up with testimony from the Quincy Chief of Police that was most likely only telling with tells to those with local knowledge, prosecutors moved onto other witnesses.
Most of the witnesses who followed were from among the rank and file of the Quincy Police Department, with a majority of them former subordinates of the alleged Double Dipper before he was suspended from duty over a year and a half ago.
Among other things, a number of these officers variously conveyed during their respective questioning by the prosecution that the alleged Double Dipper was not exactly a day at beach as a manager, even among those who socialized with the alleged Dipper while off duty.
One patrol officer even noted that he ceased viewing the alleged Double Dipper as a friend given not specified behavior by the alleged Double Dipper in the wake of the suicide of a close friend of this officer.
This officer also expressed concerns about how the alleged Dipper might inflict retribution.
Even so, this officer reached out via text to the alleged Double Dipper right after he was suspended in September of 2015 to see how he was doing, only to have the alleged Dipper note in one text during their exchange of texts that “… (a particular officer, ed.) ratted me out.”
Per the testimony of this witness as well as that of previous witnesses , this particular officer was never otherwise mentioned as someone who had addressed any concerns to anyone that the alleged Double Dipper may have been been double dipping.
Even so, the defense endeavored to do what it could to attempt to chip away at today’s prosecution witnesses’ veracity.
Typically, such was via the defense’s addressing arguable evidence of various of these witnesses’ apparently double dipping.
Unfortunately for the defendant, however, at least some incidents could easily be explained away via but a single factor such as a supervisor’s approval to finish up on a running late detail, a computer entry not made by a supervisory officer or some other action that was within the realm of standard working practices within the department.
Perhaps the most interesting testimony of the day, however, was made by a patrol officer who was also a union rep and who was serving under the alleged Double Dipper before he was suspended from duty over dipping.
Specifically, the union rep patrol officer contradicted testimony made by another patrol officer that the union rep officer had come to him with his concerns about the appearance of possible double dipping by the now undergoing trial alleged Double Dipper.
In turn, just how then did the alleged Double Dipping come to light, not that such makes any difference as regards the jury’s deciding verdicts on the various charges lodged against the alleged Double Dipper.
This late in the trial testimony is also at least partially supportive of testimony by another witness as to how concerns about double dipping were first brought to his attention.
Whether or not these conflicting aspects of testimony offered under oath might be addressed in this particular trial remains to be seen, however.
Then again, Quincy Quarry has good reason to suspect that the final witnesses set to appear tomorrow may add a modicum of clarity to the conflicting testimony, if not also hints as to what might lay ahead.