REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ISSUED PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SECTION 190.85 SUBDIVISION (1)(b)

THE GRAND JURY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS

THIS GRAND JURY WAS IMPANELLED UPON APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT ABRAMS ON FEBRUARY 29, 1988 BY THE HON. ANGELO J. INGRASSIA. JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

INTRODUCTION

Tawana Brawley, a black, fifteen-year-old high school student from Wappingers Falls, New York, did not return to her home on the evening of Tuesday, November 24, 1987. She was found at approximately 1:30 p.m. on Saturday, November 28, by residents of her family's former apartment complex, partially clothed, with feces smeared on her body and racial epithets written on her torso and clothing. She appeared to be dazed.

An investigation of this incident was initially undertaken by the Dutchess County District Attorney. On January 20, 1988, after determining that a conflict of interest prevented him from proceeding further, the District Attorney applied for the appointment of a Special District Attorney under the provisions of County Law Section 701. A Special District Attorney was appointed on January 21, but that individual applied to be relieved on January 22, citing a conflict of interest.

On January 26, 1988, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Law Section 63(2), the Governor issued an Executive Order requiring the Attorney General to supersede the District Attorney of Dutchess County for the purpose of conducting an investigation before a Grand Jury into the following matters:

(a) any and all unlawful acts or omissions or alleged unlawful acts or omissions by any person in relation to an incident involving Tawana Brawley;

(b) any and all unlawful acts or omissions or alleged unlawful acts or omissions by any person in relation to the investigation of an incident involving Tawana Brawley; and

(c) any and all acts and omissions and alleged acts and omissions occurring heretofore or hereafter to obstruct, hinder or interfere with any inquiry, prosecution, trial or judgment pursuant to or connected with this requirement.

This Grand Jury was impanelled on February 29, 1988, to carry out the investigation. The Grand Jury sought to determine whether a crime was committed; if so, the nature of that crime and when, where and by whom it was committed; whether any law enforcement official attempted to conceal the commission of a crime or the identity of its perpetrator; and whether evidence sufficient to return an indictment or indictments existed.

During the course of our investigation, the Grand Jury heard in excess of 6,000 pages of testimony from more than 180 witnesses, and received more than 250 exhibits into evidence. Tawana Brawley did not testify.

In addition to hearing numerous witnesses who did or potentially did have direct knowledge relevant to our investigation, the Grand Jury also heard testimony from experts in a variety of fields, including forensic serology, hair and fiber analysis, latent fingerprint identification, document and handwriting analysis, firearms and tool mark identification, forensic chemistry, forensic pathology and forensic psychiatry.

With the aid of expert testimony, we examined and evaluated physical evidence pertinent to our investigation, including clothing, fibers and other evidence found at or near the scene of Ms. Brawley's discovery. We also examined medical records and other documentary evidence.

A Grand Jury can return an indictment charging a person with a crime only if it finds competent, credible evidence of every element of an offense and a defendant's commission thereof. Based upon our investigation, the Grand Jury has found no legally sufficient evidence to charge any person with a crime or to establish that a crime occurred.

Ordinarily, such a finding would conclude the work of a Grand Jury. However, public accusations were made that certain individuals committed crimes against Tawana Brawley. One of the individuals publicly accused was Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones, a public servant. Mr. Pagones waived his statutory and constitutional rights to immunity against self-incrimination and testified under oath before this Grand Jury. During the course of his testimony, Mr. Pagones requested the Grand Jury to issue a report to clear his name.

Pursuant to Section 190.85 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Grand Jury may issue such a report if, after investigation of a public servant, "it finds no misconduct, non-feasance or neglect in office by him." The nature of the allegations in this case may be properly interpreted as an accusation that a law enforcement official used his position to force sexual relations and that he participated in or enjoyed the benefit of a cover-up. Thus, this Grand Jury concludes that the public accusations against Mr. Pagones were allegations of "misconduct, non-feasance or neglect in office. and, therefore, that he has standing to make this request. Upon the evidence heard and after due deliberation, the Grand Jury voted to issue this report.

The role of the Grand Jury in issuing a report exonerating a public servant for misconduct, non-feasance or neglect in office is a unique and important one. Public accusations of a crime, in addition to ruining a person's reputation, can destroy the ability of a public servant to function effectively even where a Grand Jury has found no evidence to support an indictment. This is especially true if the accused is a law enforcement officer. Public confidence in the accused official and our system of justice may not be fully restored and maintained without some means of putting the accusations to rest.

For these reasons, this report reviews the public accusations, as well as the evidence obtained during our investigation. Our review of the public accusations is legally limited to whether or not they are valid. We do not believe that questions of the motivation of those making them are legally within the purview of this report.

The Grand Jury entered this matter to investigate any unlawful acts that may have been perpetrated against Tawana Brawley. Although we have not found any evidence to substantiate her allegations, we remain concerned about the welfare of this young woman who was only 15 years of age in November of 1987.

It goes without saying that Ms. Brawley's testimony would have been of inestimable value to our investigation. As a result, we extended two written invitations to her and ultimately voted to subpoena her. However, we have heard testimony that Ms. Brawley did not return to school in Monticello, New York at the start of the school year in September, 1988, and has enrolled in high school in another state. We concluded that the two previously extended invitations have sufficiently notified Ms. Brawley of our desire to hear from her and that this report need not be further delayed. Accordingly, we withdrew our subpoena.

Finally, the Grand Jury recognizes the limitations that the law places upon Grand Jury reports. There may be questions that some think should be answered that are not dealt with by this report. The Grand Jury, however, may not go beyond the limitations imposed upon it by law. We believe that we have answered all those questions that we were lawfully permitted to address.

THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE DISAPPEARANCE AND THE DISCOVERY OF TAWANA BRAWLEY

Ms. Brawley's Residences and Family Background

On November 24, 1987, Tawana Brawley was living at 4-D Carmine Drive in Wappingers Falls, New York, with her mother Glenda Brawley, her mother's companion Ralph Ring and her halfbrother Tyice.

Tawana Brawley had lived with her mother until she was approximately six months of age, when both she and her mother moved to Monticello to live with Juanita and Matthew Strong, Glenda Brawley's sister and brother-in-law. Glenda Brawley subsequently moved to another apartment in Monticello and later to Poughkeepsie, leaving Tawana Brawley in the care of the Strongs until about age 5. Tawana Brawley then returned to live with her mother in Poughkeepsie until sometime in 1983 when, at age 11, she went back to her aunt and uncle in Monticello. At that time, Juanita and Matthew Strong, who have since been divorced, obtained legal custody of their niece, which they continue to hold jointly. At the age of 14, Ms. Brawley returned to her mother and lived with her, first in the Montclair Town Houses and later at Apt. l9A Carnaby Drive in the Pavillion Apartment complex, both in the Town of Wappingers. In November, 1987, they moved to the Carmine Drive address in Wappingers Falls.

On Monday, November 23, 1987, a week after transferring from John Jay High School to Roy C. Ketcham High School, Ms. Brawley "skipped" school and, with her friend William B. (a pseudonym), who drove her in his car, visited friends at John Jay, her old school. After visiting Poughkeepsie High School and spending some time at John Jay, Ms. Brawley and some friends went to McDonald's for lunch. She then stayed at William B.'s home until approximately 2:30 p.m., when she was driven to the location in Wappingers Falls where, had she gone to Ketcham as usual, she would have been dropped off by the school bus.

On the following day, Tuesday, November 24, 1987, William B. and another Ketcham High School classmate met Ms. Brawley near her home in Wappingers Falls. Rather than proceeding to Ketcham for classes, Ms. Brawley asked the driver to take her to Newburgh.

At that time, witnesses agree, she was wearing acid washed jeans and jacket. Witnesses could not agree on the color of her blouse or the color of her shoes. One witness recalled she was wearing a gold necklace and two rings. She was carrying a small black pocketbook with a black strap, school textbooks, a binder and a spiral notebook. She had a skirt and blouse on top of the books.

In Newburgh, Ms. Brawley, carrying her books and clothes, went to the apartment of Cathy W. (a pseudonym) on Clinton Street, arriving between 7:15 and 7:30 a.m. She did not leave anything in the car. A friend of Cathy W. then drove her to the apartment of Cathy W.'s mother on Smith Street in Newburgh. There she changed into a green-black acid washed skirt, black stockings, black shoes and a black blouse.

Ms. Brawley and Mrs. W. took a cab to the Newburgh bus station and then a bus to the Orange County Jail in Goshen where David W. (a pseudonym), who is Cathy W.'s brother and a former boyfriend of Ms. Brawley, was incarcerated. According to David W., he and Ms. Brawley had gone out together for approximately five months in 1986 and then had broken up, but they continued to see each other on and off throughout 1987. He was incarcerated on October 13, 1987, and was released on February 9, 1988.

In order to gain admission to the jail, Tawana Brawley represented she was Mrs. W's daughter. She and David W. spent 15 to 20 minutes with each other.

There had been an incident at the Orange County Jail on the night of November 21, 1987, in which some of the guards were accused of wearing sheets on their heads. David W. was aware of the incident, but did not see it and was not involved. He testified that he did not mention it to Ms. Brawley during her visit on November 24 but did tell her that he had recently had an altercation with two corrections officers. A press account of the alleged incident with the white sheets appeared in a local newspaper on November 24.

Mrs. W. appeared as a witness before us and testified that, upon leaving the jail, she and Ms. Brawley were passed on the street by a red pick-up truck with gray stripes and twin vertical exhaust pipes behind the cab. Mrs. W. said the pick-up truck made a U-turn and passed them again. The truck contained two white men, who "stared hard" at Ms. Brawley. According to Mrs. W., the truck did not return. Mrs. W. and Ms. Brawley waited in Goshen for the bus, rode it to Middletown where there was a layover and then to Newburgh. They then went from the Newburgh bus station to Mrs. W.'s apartment. At no point did Mrs. W. see the pick-up truck again.

They arrived at the apartment at approximately 5:25 p.m. Mrs. W. testified that she urged Ms. Brawley to catch the 6:00 p.m. bus home, but that Ms. Brawley was reluctant to leave. When Mrs. W. told her, "If you don't catch the bus, you'll get in trouble," Ms. Brawley replied, "I'm already in trouble." Ms. Brawley told Mrs. W. she had returned from a party at 5:00 a.m., two hours after she was supposed to have been home. (Other testimony established that the party in question occurred on November 7, 1987.) As a result of her returning home late, she was "grounded." She said that her mother had verified her story about why she got home late from the party but that her stepfather was keeping "on and on and on" and "wouldn't let go." Mrs. W. offered her the opportunity to spend the night, but at approximately 8:00 p.m., Ms. Brawley took a cab to the Shortline Bus Terminal in Newburgh. At this time, she was wearing the acid washed jeans and jacket, a black blouse and black shoes. She was carrying her other clothes in a supermarket bag, her school books and a round, black bag.

A passenger told us that he initiated a conversation with Ms. Brawley and found her to be friendly. On the bus, the driver recognized Ms. Brawley as the stepdaughter of his fellow employee Ralph King and as someone who had previously traveled on his bus. The passenger got off in Fishkill, leaving only Ms. Brawley, one other passenger whose identity was never learned, and the driver.

Ms. Brawley expressed her desire to be dropped off in Wappingers Falls, but the driver testified that since the bus had gone via Fishkill to drop a passenger, he was required to proceed on Route 9 through the Town of Wappingers rather than on Route 9-D through Wappingers Falls. He told Ms. Brawley he could not go off route to take her to her front door. When he prepared to pull over in front of a Mexican restaurant on Route 9, a spot where he knew Ms. Brawley had met the bus on previous occasions, she asked him to drive further north.

When they arrived at Paino's Mobil station at the intersection of Route 9 and Meyers Corner Road, she asked him to stop. The Mobil station was open and several people were buying gasoline, according to the driver. When Ms. Brawley told the driver there would not be anyone to meet her, he suggested that she call from a phone at Paino's. She replied that her family had just moved and did not have a phone yet. There was testimony, however, that the phone service at the new apartment on Carmine Drive had been turned on four days earlier on November 20, 1987, that the same number was retained from the previous apartment, and that Ms. Brawley had made several calls from her home on the evening of November 23.

The driver said Ms. Brawley got off the bus and walked south on Route 9 toward Meyers Corner Road. She did not leave anything on the bus.

Glenda Brawley at the Pavillion Apartments

The Pavillion Apartments in the Town of Wappingers is a condominium development comprised of 18 two-story residential buildings, each of which has 16 apartments, grouped in units of four. The buildings are situated along two roughly parallel roads, Carnaby Drive and Scarborough Lane. Carnaby loops slightly at one point, and intersects and terminates at Scarborough, which continues on and ends in a cul-de-sac. The development has its own sewage treatment plant on Carnaby Drive directly opposite the building which contains the units 17, 19, 21 and 23 Carnaby. The rear of that building and a number of other buildings on Carnaby share a large open grassy back-yard area with several buildings on Scarborough. A number of residents of this building own dogs, and the common area in the vicinity of Apt. l9A was strewn with dog feces in November 1987.

On Saturday, November 28, 1987, Glenda Brawley arrived at the Pavillion Complex between 1:00 and 1:15 p.m. She was observed by neighbors sitting in her car in front of l9A Carnaby for a period of time from approximately 1:30 to 1:45 p.m. She later stated to law enforcement officials that she picked up her mail inside the hallway of 19 Carnaby Drive from the mailbox, which was full, and went inside her former apartment, l9A, to see if her daughter was there. She also reported having found the apartment "spotless" and "immaculate." She said she saw a pair of white boots in the closet that did not belong to any member of the family.

According to the mail carrier for the Pavillion Complex, he had delivered the mail on November 28 at approximately 1:00 p.m. On November 30, the following Monday, he noticed that the mailbox for l9A still contained mail from previous deliveries. He removed the mail and returned it to the Post Office.

The Discovery of Tawana Brawley

At approximately 1:30 p.m., on Saturday, November 28, a Scarborough Lane resident, who was vacuuming, looked through her sliding glass back door across the common area between the Carnaby Drive apartments and the Scarborough Lane apartments and observed Tawana Brawley in a squatting position. She was just behind the building which contained units 17, 19, 21 and 23 Carnaby Drive, a few feet from the back door to her family's former apartment at 19A. There was no one else in the area.

According to this witness, Ms. Brawley, after looking around for a couple of seconds, stepped into a large plastic garbage bag and pulled it up to her neck. She remained stationary for another couple of seconds and continued to look around. She then hopped two times and lay down on the swampy ground beneath an air conditioner on the back wall of an apartment at 17 Carnaby Drive. When she did not move, the neighbor called the sheriff.

At 1:44 p.m., the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office received the Scarborough Lane resident's call. A few minutes later, the woman and her husband -- he had just come home -observed a Sheriff's car arrive and drive past the front of the building behind which Ms. Brawley was lying. The Sheriff's Office then telephoned the woman and asked for further directions. The woman's husband and another neighbor he had summoned went out, met the deputy sheriff and, at approximately 1:58 p.m., led him back to Ms. Brawley.

The Grand Jury heard testimony from the residents and the deputy. They described Ms. Brawley as lying in a fetal position directly behind unit 17 with the garbage bag up to her head. She did not appear fully conscious and did not respond when the deputy talked to her and moved her. She did not speak, but twice opened and immediately shut her eyes.

There was a strong smell of feces emanating from the garbage bag and Ms. Brawley's clothes, hair, arms, chest, stomach, calves and feet were smeared with feces, though her face was clean. She had a grayish, cotton-like substance in her nostrils and ears. She was dressed in a dirty and torn pink blouse which had lettering on it,/1 acid washed jeans that had been burnt in the crotch and were missing a portion from the rear, and one pink shoe which had been cut. She was not wearing any panties or bra. She had a black blouse wrapped around her head upon which she was biting down. Her clothes were dry. Her hair was short and matted.

After observing Ms. Brawley's condition, the deputy radioed for an ambulance. The Sloper-Willen Ambulance Service, located nearby on McFarland Road, received the emergency call from the Sheriff's Department at 2:03 p.m. An ambulance with two emergency medical technicians aboard arrived at the Pavillion at approximately 2:05 p.m.

The emergency medical technicians, both of whom testified before us, found Ms. Brawley in the condition previously described by the neighbors and Sheriff's deputy. To them, she appeared unconscious and unresponsive. One technician ripped open the plastic bag and surveyed Ms. Brawley's body. She found no injuries, cuts, bleeding, swelling or deformity, although the burnt jeans and red marks on her thighs initially led the EMT to think she may have been burned. The technicians decided to take her to St. Francis Hospital in Poughkeepsie and administered treatments while enroute in the ambulance. The technicians' evaluation of her condition and the treatments they administered are described later in this report.

Search of Ant. l9A and Vicinity

During the afternoon, Sheriff's personnel searched the Pavillion Apartments and secured evidence. A detective from the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office arrived at the Pavillion at 2:45 p.m. and, along with the deputy who had remained on the scene, canvassed residents, searched the area in which Ms. Brawley was found and the wooded area behind the sewage plant. A garbage dumpster located approximately 50 yards from l9A Carnaby was searched, but it was almost full, and the search, which lasted five to six minutes, was limited to removing some of the garbage on the top. No effort was made to empty the contents of individual garbage bags, and no evidence relating to Ms. Brawley was found.

The plastic bag in which Ms. Brawley was discovered had been left on the ground by the ambulance technicians. A Pavillion resident who was assisting the deputy search the area lifted the bag, and a pair of black leather ladies' gloves and a black strap fell to the ground. The gloves were covered with fecal material. When the bag was removed by the deputy, he found a piece of cotton-like material resembling that observed in Ms. Brawley's nostrils and ears, three pieces of burnt cloth (which appear to be part of a face cloth or towel) and a black webbed belt which had been cut.

The detective and deputy also entered l9A, the former King/Brawley apartment. The management company had provided a key, although the front door was found to be unlocked and the windows were partially open. The electricity was on and the refrigerator was operating. (The deputy recalled finding an almost empty milk carton and one other item in the refrigerator. He could not recall what the other item was.)

The deputy observed that the apartment was "dirty" and appeared as if it had not been vacuumed for some time. There was a cracker on the floor and burnt material, which the witness thought might have been denim, scattered around. Also found were a ball of cotton-like material and a match stick. There were singe marks on the rug.

The apartment was noticeably warm. An electrical baseboard heater, turned on high, was lying face-down on the rug near the back door, and there was a strong smell in the apartment described variously as that of burnt rubber and burning wire insulation.

In a closet opposite the front door, they found a tire rim and a pair of white boots the outer surface of which appeared to have been cut, exposing a white cotton-like insulation material.

The deputy locked the front and back doors upon completion of the inspection of the apartment, but it was impossible to secure one window because of a broken lock. Items observed in the apartment and at the scene where Ms. Brawley was found were secured by the Sheriff's Department on Saturday, November 28.

Subsequent searches of the apartment disclosed additional items not found on Saturday, November 28.

On Tuesday, December 1, two detectives opened the washing machine in the apartment and recovered an acid washed denim jacket, a pair of denim jeans and a ball of cotton-like material similar to the fiber in the boots found previously. There were feces on the jacket and jeans. Rug scrapings from the living room carpet were also secured.

On December 8, investigators recovered a candle from outside the rear door, a bottle cap and burnt residue from the stove. The rug was vacuumed for debris with a forensic vacuum, and a sample of a red stain on the wall was taken with a cotton swab.

Fingerprints were lifted from the glass door, windows and washer/dryer on December 8, and again on December 13 when a portable laser unit was brought in.

On March 9, 1988, investigators recovered a two-inch double-edge razor blade from underneath a heating element, a metal nail file from the bathroom medicine cabinet, a false fingernail from the bedroom closet floor, feces from underneath the agitator of the washing machine and the contents from the drainpipe of the kitchen sink. The razor blade was recovered in the same spot at which a crime scene photo taken in December showed the glint of a metal object underneath the baseboard heater.

On June 17, 1988 (the apartment had been unoccupied since the Brawleys moved out in November, 1987) six pieces of carpet were cut from the living room. In addition, hair samples were obtained from two dogs who were regularly walked in the immediate vicinity behind Apt. l9A.

All items recovered were submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.

Events at St. Francis Hospital on November 28

The ambulance arrived at St. Francis Hospital at 2:39 p.m., and Tawana Brawley was admitted as a "Jane Doe." Although she did not initially react to voices or commands and appeared to be unconscious, the emergency room physician testified that Ms. Brawley was never unconscious during her presence in the emergency room based on several factors including a physical reaction test, the opening by Ms. Brawley of her eyes in response to the physician's voice and her ability to follow commands, including sitting up and placing her legs in stirrups. The only evidence of injuries, discolorations or bruises on Ms. Brawley were a swollen left arm where the I.V. inserted while she was in the ambulance had infiltrated, and a bruise, approximately the size of a quarter, on her scalp behind her left ear.

Her clothing was removed, and on her chest and torso, the words "KKK", "NIGG", "ETE SHI", "NIGGER" and "BITCH" were written in a black substance that, according to the emergency room nurse, resembled charcoal. The emergency room physician's evaluation and diagnosis will be discussed more fully later in this report.

A Dutchess County Sheriff's Office detective on call was dispatched at 2:10 p.m. and was the first law enforcement officer to arrive at St. Francis Hospital. He is a specialist in fire and arson crimes and was called because the emergency medical technicians initially reported that Ms. Brawley may have been burned. The detective took evidentiary photographs of Ms. Brawley. A Sheriff's deputy also took Polaroid photographs of Ms. Brawley which were used in a canvass of residents of the Pavillion in an attempt to identify her.

The detective secured all the clothing that had been removed from Ms. Brawley in the hospital. The clothing had been pushed underneath the bed by the foot of one of the emergency medical technicians. All the clothing items were eventually forwarded to the FBI for analysis. A broken, orange-colored pill was discovered on top of the pile of clothing as it lay underneath Ms. Brawley's bed. It too was sent to the FBI lab.

The material that had remained in Ms. Brawley's nostrils was removed and discarded by the emergency room physician. The physician testified that the material appeared to be rough and of a synthetic nature which was different from the cotton balls used in the hospital.

Because of the racial epithets written on Ms. Brawley, the detectives at the hospital felt there was a possibility of a civil rights violation and the Sheriff's Office notified the FBI in Newburgh and New York City.

At 4:30 p.m., in the hospital, Ms. Brawley's body was washed with a wet cloth except for the pubic perineal region which was not washed, douched or placed in contact with a change of clothing. None of the fecal material or the charcoal-like writing material that was removed from the body was saved.

The detective assigned to the Pavillion testified that at about 5:35 p.m., a resident identified a photograph which had been brought from St. Francis Hospital as a photograph of Tawana Brawley. The detective called Glenda Brawley from the resident's apartment at approximately 5:50 p.m. and informed her that her daughter had a problem and was in St. Francis Hospital. He said he wished to come to Carmine Drive to show her a photograph in order to obtain a positive identification, and at approximately 6:25 p.m., the detective and the deputy who had been searching the scene met with Glenda Brawley. Also present was her young son, Tyice.

Glenda Brawley identified the photograph as being of her daughter. She also provided identifying information such as full name and date of birth. In response to the detective's questions, Glenda Brawley said that her daughter had run away from home to Newburgh on Tuesday, November 24, to visit her boyfriend in jail. She said that Juanita Brawley had made several trips to Newburgh to find Tawana Brawley and that Ralph King had also gone once. When asked if her daughter had any psychological problems that may have prompted her running away, Glenda Brawley said there were no psychological problems but that she had stayed late at a party two weeks earlier, was on punishment, and was not allowed to go out.

According to the detective and deputy, during their conversation, Glenda Brawley appeared calm and collected. She said she would not be going to the hospital because Tyice had a cold. She showed no signs of emotion until receiving a phone call from Juanita Brawley who was already at St. Francis Hospital. Glenda Brawley then became very upset, saying, "They cut my baby's hair! They cut my baby's hair!" She left immediately thereafter for the hospital.

At the hospital, the Sheriff's detective made several requests of the emergency room physician to utilize the rape kit protocol. At the time, however, the physician had found no physical evidence of a rape -- unconsciousness, bleeding, injuries or bruises in Ms. Brawley's pelvic area -- nor had Ms. Brawley made any statements that she was raped. Thus, the physician felt that the rape kit examination was not appropriate.

During the afternoon, a detective assigned to the Sheriff's Juvenile Aid Bureau, which deals with crimes committed by and against children, arrived at the hospital, as did a deputy, a uniformed lieutenant and the lieutenant in charge of the detective bureau from the Sheriff's Office. No detective was able to interview Ms. Brawley because she did not respond to their questions. The family requested a black police officer. In response to the family's wishes, the Sheriff's officials arranged for a black police officer from the Poughkeepsie Police Department to attempt to interview Ms. Brawley. They also informed Juanita and Glenda Brawley that the FBI had been notified.

The black officer arrived at 7:45 p.m. and interviewed Tawana Brawley in the presence of her mother and aunt. Ms. Brawley's eyes were open, but she had an "extremely spacey" look on her face, according to the officer. She communicated to the officer through nods of the head, shrugs of the shoulder, and notes written on the officer's notebook. She uttered just one word during the 20-minute interview. This interview is detailed later in this report.

The story she conveyed was that she had been repeatedly raped in a wooded area by a group of white men, at least one of whom was a "white cop." She did not accuse anyone by name.

After the interview with the Poughkeepsie police officer in which Ms. Brawley indicated that she had been sexually abused, the emergency room physician administered the rape kit regularly used by the hospital and provided by the New York State Police.

Upon completion of the protocol, the rape kit was sealed by the emergency room nurse and turned over to the detective, who stored it in a refrigerator at the Sheriff's Office until December 2, when he sent the sealed rape kit to the FBI lab. The kit arrived, sealed, on December 3, 1987.

The staff social worker for the Victims Assistance Program at St. Francis arrived at approximately 9:30 p.m. and interviewed Tawana Brawley. The social worker observed that Ms. Brawley appeared exhausted and dazed but able to comprehend the information conveyed to her. Ms. Brawley told the social worker she was having difficulty talking because her throat hurt, but she did manage to answer several questions regarding her family and school by nodding and speaking in a very soft voice. Ms. Brawley also told the social worker that she did not want to talk any further to the police. In response to a question, Ms. Brawley told the social worker that there was someone in her family she felt close to and with whom she could discuss what had happened to her. Additionally, she asked the social worker if it was Thanksgiving yet, and the social worker informed her of the day and date.

At 10:00 p.m., Ms. Brawley was put in a wheelchair and discharged. She had no physical injuries that necessitated her hospitalization and did not complain of being unable to walk.

The treating physician testified that the family had requested hospitalization, but, as the patient required no medical treatment, the doctor felt that her apparent traumatic experience could best be dealt with at home with people she loved, rather than in the hospital. The family was told that if they did not agree, Ms. Brawley could remain in the hospital and that if they found anything that needed further attention, they were welcome to bring her back to the hospital. The family then voiced no objection to her discharge. Ms. Brawley was given referrals to a gynecologist and the crime victims agency.

Upon returning home, Juanita Brawley contacted a New York City television station and requested that a reporter visit Ms. Brawley. She also called the FBI, indicating that the family did not trust the police and feared that this racial attack would not be handled correctly.

On Sunday morning, November 29, the social worker from St. Francis Hospital visited the Brawley home and observed that although Ms. Brawley's voice was weak, she was alert and able to answer questions, though none were asked about the recent events. Ms. Brawley did exhibit some animation when discussing school sports, answering some of the social worker's questions with sentences. When advised that victims are sometimes threatened so they will not cooperate with the police and then asked if this had happened to her, Ms. Brawley nodded affirmatively. She did not say who had threatened her.

Glenda Brawley indicated to the social worker that a reporter from a New York City television station would be coming to interview Tawana Brawley that day. The social worker advised Glenda Brawley that if Ms. Brawley were interviewed, her name would be used on television. Glenda Brawley said she was sure her daughter's name would not be used because she was under age. The social worker then spoke with Tawana Brawley, telling her that she had a right to decide if she wanted to be interviewed. The reporter subsequently arrived and interviewed Tawana Brawley, her mother and aunt.

Following the interview, Tawana Brawley indicated to the social worker that she did not want it shown on television. Both Glenda and Juanita Brawley urged her to allow the interview to be shown and Tawana Brawley consented. The social worker again told the two adults that a victim, particularly a teenager, may have difficulty coping with publicity, but they insisted that they feared the incident would be covered up. They told Ms. Brawley that she had to be strong, that they all had to be strong.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF WHAT WAS DONE TO TAWANA BRAWLEY

The Grand Jury's investigation has been hampered by not having had the benefit of testimony from Tawana Brawley. We have, however, heard testimony from a number of witnesses with whom Tawana Brawley and members of her family have spoken since the incident.

Interviews with Law Enforcement and Medical Personnel

Ms. Brawley's first description of what happened to her was given to the black Poughkeepsie police officer who spoke to her in St. Francis Hospital on the Saturday she was discovered.

Ms. Brawley did not respond when the officer first asked her what happened, but while questioning her, he leaned over the bed, and when he asked if she could say who did it, she grabbed the silver police badge on his uniform coat. The officer asked her what she meant, and when she did not respond, he gave her his duty notebook on which she wrote the words "white cop." When he asked her if she meant that a cop had done whatever had been done to her, she nodded. The officer then asked Ms. Brawley where it happened and she wrote the word "woods" in his notebook. The officer asked Ms. Brawley where the woods were located, but received no response. He then asked Ms. Brawley if she was raped and she wrote the words "a lot." The officer asked by whom, and she wrote the word "first" and drew an arrow towards the words "white cop." When the officer attempted to get a description from Ms. Brawley, she was unresponsive and stared off into space. At one point, because Ms. Brawley was not giving any verbal response, the officer had her bat her eyes once for yes and twice for no. The officer also asked Ms. Brawley if the person was black and when she did not respond, he asked if the person was white and Ms. Brawley nodded yes. Ms. Brawley did not respond when asked if there had been one person or two. The officer asked if there were three, and she nodded. Ms. Brawley also nodded affirmatively to the officer's questions about the person's clothing being dark and black and about the person's age being close to his own, which is 32. The officer asked if the person's vehicle was light or dark and Ms. Brawley wrote the word "dark." The officer asked if Ms. Brawley knew the person driving the car and she wrote the word "no." The officer asked Ms. Brawley if she heard any identification used among the men and she did not respond. When he asked if anybody had had any conversation, she said the word neon.. This was the only word Ms. Brawley spoke during the entire interview. The officer then asked Ms. Brawley if someone had called the white cop "son" and she shook her head no. He then asked if the white cop had called someone else "son,. and she nodded yes.

The interview lasted 20 minutes, at which point the officer left Ms. Brawley for a period of time while medical treatment was rendered. He returned later and attempted to gain more information, in particular a physical description of the perpetrators. Ms. Brawley nodded in answer to his questions, "Was they as tall as me?" (6'4") and, "Was he thin?" When asked his hair color, she pointed to a nurse in the room who had strawberry blond or reddish-brown hair. At this point, the officer left and resumed patrol.

As a result of the information given to the Poughkeepsie police officer, a rape kit examination was performed by the emergency room physician. As part of that examination, the physician began by asking Ms. Brawley several questions which were answered solely with nods and shrugs. She nodded affirmatively to the questions: "I understand you said you were assaulted?"; "Was this by three men?"; and "Were they white men?"; But when Ms. Brawley was asked, "Were there more?", she shrugged her shoulders. In response to the question, "Did they hit you?", Ms. Brawley pointed to an area of her scalp behind her left ear. When asked, "Does anything hurt?", Ms. Brawley again pointed to the same area of her scalp, where the physician found a round, flat, discolored bruise approximately the size of a quarter. The bruise did not appear tender or fresh, and when it was pressed, Ms. Brawley did not wince or pull away in pain. The physician asked Ms. Brawley if she was grabbed, pushed, twisted or hurt anywhere else, and Ms. Brawley shrugged her shoulders, indicating a negative answer.

When asked if anal sex had occurred, Ms. Brawley shrugged her shoulders and shook her head from side to side. When asked if oral sex had occurred, Ms. Brawley indicated yes by nodding. When asked if vaginal sex had occurred, Ms. Brawley "nodded in sort of a half 'no' and shrugged her shoulders again, according to the physician.

At approximately 2:17 p.m. on Sunday, November 29, detectives from the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office attempted to interview Ms. Brawley at her home. At the time, according to the detectives, she apparently was asleep on a sofa in the living room. Glenda Brawley, Ralph Ring and, primarily, Juanita Brawley told the detectives what had happened to Tawana Brawley -- that she had come back from Newburgh on a Shortline bus between 4 and 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 24, and got off the bus at the Exxon Station on Route 9D. A dark-colored policetype car with two white men inside pulled up. One of the men got out, grabbed Ms. Brawley by the hair and pulled her into the car. She screamed and called for the police, but the man said, "I am the police," and struck her on the head. She was taken in the car to a wooded area, in an unknown location, where there were four or five men in addition to the two in the car. Ms. Brawley was sexually abused, defecated on, urinated on and tortured for four days. She had also been raped, sodomized and had feces rubbed on her body and hair. Her hair had been cut, and on her chest were written the letters "KKK" and other words. The detectives left without talking to Tawana Brawley.

On Monday, November 30, at approximately 1:05 p.m., a detective from the Sheriff's office; two Senior Assistant District Attorneys, one of whom specialized in the prosecution of child sex abuse cases; and a Special Agent for FBI civil rights investigations arrived at the Carmine Drive apartment. Present in the apartment and also present during the interview were Tawana Brawley, her cousin, her mother and aunt, Ralph King, and an attorney with the Public Defender's Office who was also president of the Newburgh Chapter of the NAACP.

Tawana Brawley was lying on a fold-out couch in the living room and appeared somewhat dazed and disheveled, apparently lapsing in and out of consciousness. She did not appear to be fully aware of what was going on around her. She answered most of the detective's questions with a monosyllabic whisper or nod of her head such that he was usually unable to either hear or understand the response. Because of this, her aunt or her cousin related most of Ms. Brawley's answers. In order to obtain a response, the questions generally had to be asked in a leading or suggestive manner.

Ms. Brawley indicated in response to the detective's questions that a friend drove her to an apartment in Newburgh. She did not know what time she arrived. She then went to the jail in Goshen with her boyfriend's mother, for a visit with her boyfriend. She stayed at the jail for about two hours and took a bus back to Newburgh. In Newburgh, she took a cab from her boyfriend's mother's apartment to the Newburgh bus station and arrived in the Town of Wappingers after dark. She got off the bus at the service station across from the the Key Bank and started walking alongside the road over a hill. A dark four-door car with two men inside approached, and a white man wearing a black jacket with a silver badge hit her, pulled her by the hair into the back seat of the car and got into the back seat himself. Ms. Brawley was lying down on the seat and did not see what the driver looked like. She recalled being at a place where there were three men dressed in dark clothes, but did not know where she was, although she thought she was in the woods. She was struck again on the head by the man who had previously hit her. One of the men was tall with blond hair and a mustache He was also wearing a shoulder holster. She recalled feeling cold. The men urinated on her and in her mouth. Ms. Brawley had no recollection of what happened after that, nor of what happened to her on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday, nor of how she arrived at the Pavillion Apartments.

The interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. It was the last time Ms. Brawley communicated in any manner whatsoever with anyone from a law enforcement agency.

Additional Statements of Ms. Brawley

The limited information that Ms. Brawley provided at St. Francis Hospital on Saturday, November 28, and at her home on Monday, November 30, was the only information that Ms. Brawley ever gave to law enforcement. Neither meeting can truly be called an interview as that term would be commonly understood At the hospital she spoke but one word to law enforcement and often communicated by accepting the options offered to her by the questioner. The height of an assailant was, for example, the same as that of the officer interviewing her and the assailant's hair color was the same as that of the nurse in the room.

The interview in the home on Monday, November 30, was similar. Ms. Brawley's answers were often suggested or filtered through members of her family. One person present at this meeting told us that Ms. Brawley responded only to leading questions.

The information derived from this interview differed in some significant respects from the information the family had provided to the police on the day before. The account her family provided was more specific and graphic than the information Ms. Brawley related. Moreover, the time she got off the bus varied by approximately three hours, and the location where she got off the bus was on a different road about a mile away. There was, however, no opportunity to reconcile these discrepancies.

The Grand Jury sought to determine if Ms. Brawley had provided anyone with a more detailed account of what had occurred. Most of the witnesses who testified about conversations with Ms. Brawley after Saturday, November 28, said that she declined to discuss the incident or that they had felt that it would be inappropriate to raise it. One witness testified that Ms. Brawley had written to him and said she would tell him "anything you want to know about anything one day."

The Grand Jury did, however, learn of a few conversations that may have been relevant. On Monday, November 30, she told a relative that she wanted whoever "did it" to her to be killed. The next day she mumbled to a friend, without elaboration, the words "six cops." To another friend on the same day she said that "they lied," without explaining what she meant.

In one conversation with a friend, Ms. Brawley said that press accounts that she was not raped were untrue and that press accounts that she was made to perform oral sex were also untrue.

A witness told us that Ms. Brawley "was definite that there were at least three" assailants. That same witness also testified that she believed the claim of six assailants came from a relative of Ms. Brawley's because that number may have sounded more "effective."

The Grand Jury heard recordings of two conversations that Ms. Brawley had with a friend who agreed to record them at the request of the State Police and Dutchess County Sheriff. The calls were made on December 22 and 23, 1987.

In the first conversation Ms. Brawley initially told the caller that she did not want to talk about the incident. The conversation continued however and included the following:

C: Caller; B: Ms. Brawley)

C: Is it true what they be writing in the paper?

B: No.

C: It ain't?

B: Well, part of it is.

C: What part is true?

B: I was 15 and I (inaudible) me and I did go to Ketcham.

Other aspects of the conversation dealt with the clothes Ms. Brawley wore on November 24, her presence in Newburgh on that day, and the location where Ms. Brawley got off the bus on November 24. At that point Ms. Brawley said: "That's all I have to say. I'm not saying anything else." The conversation continued, however:

C:What this guy supposed to look like, was that part true in the paper?

B:They wrote it in the paper? I don't know what did they write?

C:About ah, green car (inaudible)

B:I don't know nothing to say about it. I don't know where they got that from.

C:What happened to the guy who was supposed to come to you with the badge? That was fake too?

B: No, that was fake. (inaudible)

A few seconds later, the caller stated to Ms. Brawley:

C: You don't know nothing.

B: (inaudible) No, I do remember (inaudible).

On December 23, a second call was made. In that call Ms. Brawley asked if the call was "being taped" and accused the caller of striking a deal with authorities.

In this conversation, Ms. Brawley said her legs hurt and complained of headaches. When asked if she was doing better, she replied: "No, it backfired. Now it hurts, I don't do nothin '." Ms. Brawley was reluctant throughout to discuss the incident.

C: I can't know?

B: You already read about it.

C: What you tell me? Half of that wasn't right, right?

B: Yeah, but most of it, the right that you read was

C: Now, now listen to you.

B: It was right. Everything. I can't tell you stuff I don't remember.

Later in the conversation, Ms. Brawley stated "But I don't remember the whole thing, so how can I tell you. I don't remember." The conversation then was:

C: You don't remember? B: No. C: Are you kidding? B: No.

A short time later, the conversation was:

C: Can, can't I know

B: Yes. But how can I tell you something I don't remember?

C: Then tell me what you remember.

B: I can tell you what they lied about.

C: What?

B: There wasn't no green car.

Later in the conversation, Ms. Brawley repeated: "I don't remember. So how can I tell you what I don't remember." She then said: "I remember more than what I told you. But just a little bit and that doesn't make any difference what I remember.

Later, as the caller continued to press for details, Ms. Brawley said:

B: You know, one of them killed himself.

C: Who?

B: One of them, killed himself.

C: One of them?

B: Uh huh.

C: Who?

B: The cop.

C: Who, what's his name?

B: The cop killed himself, committed suicide, he killed himself.

C: Where was this?

B: In Wappingers.

C: How'd he kill himself?

B: He shot himself in the head.

C: It was in the papers?

B: No, they put a news blackout on it.

C: Yeah.

B: Yup. There was like a little bit on it an article, you know.

C: You know, I mean you remember the faces?

B: One.

C: One of them?

B: Yes.

C: Who? That was the one, that what's his name that approached you on the

B: Nobody approached me.

C: Oh the one that showed you the badge.

B: Yeah.

C: And you won't tell on him?

B: I remember everything.

C: That's what I don't understand.

B: What?

C: That's what I don't understand. If they did this to you, why don't you want to tell.

B: Cause I don't know who.

C: You don't know?

B: No.

C: You don't remember, you just remember faces.

B: Yup

C: That's what you saying. Is you lying? No.

B: But I remember one of them. I may have touched him like I remember like what he had on.

C: That's the one who supposed to have shot himself in the head?

B: No, I'm not gonna say nothing. They didn't do nothing.

C: What you mean they didn't do nothing.

B: The people over here?

C: Um hmmm.

B: They (inaudible) they don't know if I come (inaudible) So they, they just said. They didn't do anything.

Near the end of the conversation she was asked:

C: Where in the hell was you during these four days?

B: I don't know.

C: You don't remember.

B: I don't know. I told you, I don't remember nothing.

To the knowledge of this Grand Jury no other calls were recorded.

The Grand Jury heard testimony from numerous police officers, medical personnel, friends of Ms. Brawley and two relatives. The Grand Jury could not find any witness who said that Ms. Brawley provided any more detailed description of what occurred to her or who was responsible than has been thus far detailed in this report.

Furthermore, Glenda Brawley told a physician at the Westchester County Medical Center on Tuesday, December 1, that her daughter had been unable to give a full account of what happened and that what she had said was neither clear nor reliable. Glenda Brawley stated that she had been trying to piece Ms. Brawley's story together over the weekend and told the physician that Ms. Brawley had been abused, raped and molested by a group of white males. Two days later, Glenda Brawley told a psychiatrist from the same hospital that her daughter was not very communicative and had not been able to say much about what happened to her.

Ms. Brawley never named her attackers at St. Francis Hospital. She has never named them to anyone in law enforcement, nor to anyone at all, to the Grand Jury's knowledge.

Ms. Brawley's "Notes"

We heard testimony that on Tuesday, December 1, 1987, Ms. Brawley wrote two or three separate notes stating, "I want him dead" and one note stating, "I want Scoralick." Ms. Brawley made no statement explaining the meaning of the note or notes, to the Grand Jury's knowledge. The Sheriff of Dutchess County is Fred W. Scoralick.

The "I want Scoralick" note was seen by more than one person, although its present whereabouts are unknown. There was testimony that the note was written in an atmosphere of hostility toward the Sheriff. The family had seen the Sheriff on television on Sunday, November 29, and perceived his statements as criticizing the family for not cooperating. On Monday, November 30, and Tuesday, December 1, members of the family and others present in the home made hostile and uncomplimentary comments about the Sheriff's appearance on television. These statements were made in the presence of Ms. Brawley.

Only one witness saw the "I want him dead" notes, and her testimony was partially contradicted by another witness. She recalled one such note having been written about 45 minutes before the "I want Scoralick" note and thought perhaps another such note was written later. She also testified that Ms. Brawley had written a series of messages for friends of hers on the same sheets of paper that the phrase "I want him dead" was written. The sheets of paper were given to a schoolmate who was to pass along the messages. The schoolmate testified that she received the sheets of paper, passed on the messages and threw away the sheets of paper on which they were written, but she said the words "I want him dead" or "I want Scoralick" were not on the pieces of paper.

Thus, it is not clear if any "I want him dead" notes were written, and, if they were, the Grand Jury cannot find a connection in the testimony to the "I want Scoralick" note.

Sheriff Scoralick testified under a waiver of immunity that he had never met Ms. Brawley and only learned of the note when contacted by reporters for a local newspaper.

Other Allegations

The Grand Jury heard testimony that persons other than Tawana Brawley and members of her family have made public accusations that Assistant Dutchess County District Attorney Steven Pagones, a deceased part-time police officer named Harry Crist, and a state trooper perpetrated an attack upon Tawana Brawley. Those making the accusations did not respond to invitations to testify before the Grand Jury.

Summary

The allegations as to what may have happened to Tawana Brawley were never made in detail. Her own statements were sketchy and at times contradictory. For example, although she indicated to the black police officer at the hospital that she had been raped, she appeared to indicate to the emergency room physician that she had not. She did clearly tell the emergency room physician that she was forced to have oral sex, but she subsequently told a friend that a published report to that effect was untrue.

The core of Tawana Brawley's allegation is that she was abducted on Tuesday, November 24, taken to a wooded area, and repeatedly sexually assaulted by at least three men, at least one of whom was a "white cop." To the knowledge of the Grand Jury, she has never named her alleged attackers.